Sign into an existing account

It's a long lost reason for why men inherently prefer virginal women to sexually experienced ones.

It fills in the gap for evolutionary psychologists, one they had observed for some time, as merely knowing that the baby was theirs isn't enough of a reason by itself to prefer virgins to used goods.

From an Evo-Psych perspective, its nothing but beneficial for the woman's genes to have every one of the men who jizzed in her cum-receptacle to contribute some part of their genes to the baby.

No matter how much of the father's 50% are displaced, her genetic contribution to the child remains the same, and the health of the child is more adaptable to different environments,

If the woman was fucked by multiple men in a primitive environment, it must mean she's travelled a fair bit, as women would essentially be the property of men, resources that they kept in their homes or by their sides, and which they were possessive over, sexual needs belong at the bottom of the Maslow's hierarchy, after all, they are a primal need.

However, for a man, Microchimerism is a big problem, as that means less of his genes are going to be in the child, and he's going to be wasting his time on a child that's carrying the genes of other men, who are not unlikely to be his evolutionary competition, even if it's only in the field of gene propagation, and they are friends of even family outside of that, they are still rivals from a genocentric POV.

Even if it's an identical twin brother who sleeps with his wife, Hamilton's laws aren't violated by this, they do have some genetic differences, and while Hamilton does mean that you'd prefer that your brother mate and reproduce than not, it's only because he shares some part of your genes with you, which means that under Hamilton's laws, it's preferable for you, who has a guaranteed 100% of your own genes in you, to be the sole man to mate with your wife, than it is to tolerate your identical twin to do so and possibly taint your future child with any genes he has which are different to your own.

Yes, your identical brother will have some genes that are different, even if it's only the result of epigenetic factors influencing the way they are expressed, it also impacts heritability, so yes, even with him, you don't want him to poke his prick inside your chick, under Hamilton, you want him in other chicks, which aren't yours.
Of course, the opposite applies for you going after the women of other men, it's good for your genes to cuck other guys on the sly and get away with it, only in modern times under cultural marxism can you find a man who'd be willing to tolerate some other guy sleeping with his girl.

Anyways, back to Microchimerism, it's very similar in many ways to the male preference for recessive genes (men have a very unique fascination with the more easily overridden physical traits like blonde or redhead hair, blue or green eyes, etc.), and how that's a lesser preference in women partners.

Women know who their child's father is with much more certainty than the degree to which men know whether the child is theirs, and women benefit more from mating with men whose genes displace hers, while men lose out more genetically from such a thing on the part of their female partner.

If fact, more than these two facts, there's a lot of ways how women's genes are benefitted on the genetic level when it comes to how human inheritance works.

So how do males compete? The answer's obvious in many ways, I'm sure you know them intuitively, we just weren't able to say them out loud for a while, now thanks to the tranny athletes we can acknowledge some of them with female permission (lime we needed it), and we can also cover the rest with a bit more ease now that we are looking at wars breaking out across the world and it's no longer cool to have the GI Jane type "strong woman/warrior waif" fantasy (civil wars of discontent people vs government, international wars of bric vs nato, isreal being a country run by supervillains again, etc.).

It brings us to the advantages men have in the primitive conditions during which our blueprint for sexual behavior was written.

Men are bigger, tougher, stronger, faster, smarter, wiser, and more perceptive than women are, we are just all around better, and that is something we took advantage of for the sake of our genes.

We don't carry the child, we impregnate women, and support them while they incubate the child inside them, during this time, we can poke multiple other women, and indeed, whether you do tourney mating or pair bonding, men would pursue having a harem of multiple women, ideally from various genetic backgrounds, or very similar genetic backgrounds, as both could be used for comparison sake (looking at the genetic similarities and differences in the children from each mother to gauge his own contribution to the child), having sex with multiple women at once means that the children would be conceived by him at the same time, making such comparisons easier.

- Men can control and dominate women, we can make them property, keep them as slaves, or like we do livestock, in the most primitive world where men became what we are now, females are a useful resource in a game played by men against one another, rather than being players themselves, so we would just grab them and take them home, then lock them up like we did with our gold or goods of value before the banks existed, they are a commodity, especially if you are a father looking to arrange a marriage for his daughter in exchange for the other things which he desires (goods, services, status, etc.).

Yes, the old "caveman just bonk cavewomen on their heads and drag them back to the cave for a good struggle snuggle" assault, kidnapping, and (implied) rape joke is in fact rooted in some fact, and our genes are a testament to that, especially the ones which produce psychological traits that seem universal to each sex, and which differ between sexes.

- Men are depended upon by women, if women can win by withholding their sex, we can win by withholding our services and the goods that primitive women were generally unfit to acquire themselves, women would pitch in on the tasks men would do, yes, but in a supporting role, as they'd not be as blessed as men were where it came to slaying the mammoths. This means that Wherever men went, women need to have regular access to them, such as a home to which he'd be counted on to return, without a man, women are screwed. Women are evolutionarily programmed to crave commitment above all else, she'll die without it, and so would her kids, so women are willing to tolerate the shittiest of partners in exchange for the one thing they still give them, commitment, that they can be expected to return to the cave and protect/provide for them.

- Women are more capable of being sexually active with a wider arrangement of partners than men are, psychologically speaking, they can be attracted to more things, willing to try more, and become aroused by a wider array of stimuli, such as partners and activities. Women have less fetishes than men, because rather than hyperfocusing and fixating, women tend to be more broad and shallow with their desires.
The reason for this is also natural when you think of our origins; where men are needed to reproduce, as well as to protect and provide at optimal levels, men are only needed for the last two items on the list at OPTIMAL levels, almost anyone (or anyTHING) can offer some level of protection and provision for a woman and her children.
Yes, it might be much less than what a man could do, but it's certainly more than what she could get on her own.

The list of potential partners includes men of lesser quality (women settling, and even getting aroused by having an inferior partner who makes up for it with a far greater level of commitment), other women (hence why all women are naturally bisexual, and a woman claiming to be bi has little to no meaning beyond "I'm a woman" compared to the greater significance of a man who says he swings both ways), and even animals (like dogs, which happens to be women's number 1 animal where it comes to female zoophilia, and horses, another domesticated animal that early humans made great use of, though at a significantly later time than dogs). I bet even the sexual activity with plants or inanimate objects could even have some attachment to this origin, it's not like the process of adaptation is all that well targeted, it might be a byproduct of evolution being lazy and just going with whatever works, easier to say "women are able to cum from anything" than to say "women are able to cum from this long list of things that might offer some level of utility to her as compensation". I might also be another accident of evolution or human design that so many naturally occurring inanimate lifeforms and objects are able to be used as masturbatory tools by lonely women, and that there's a demand from women for phallic-shaped plants and objects, to which the free market naturally would supply for.

- Furthermore, if some other man comes along and kills her husband and male relatives, it's better for her genes is she would cut her losses and go with her conqueror than to resist him, and so in the sexual sense, women are natural traitors who would prefer to fuck the invaders than to fight them.

Invaders; like, say, the shitskins pouring in from africa and the middle east (west, central, and south asia)? remember, she might consciously think that we invited them in or whatever, but what matters here is not what her conscious mind thinks, but what her unconscious mind does, and that mind is motivated by her genes, which still perceive everything in the terms of our primitive origins, our primitive ancestors would never tolerate cohabitation with another tribe like this except in extreme or temporary circumstances.

Anyways, just thinking about sex, from a broader evolutionary perspective.

Or maybe God just made women whores, I remember some 4chan post about how God made women horny for the man energy, and that not getting bitches is because you give off bitch energy, which women weren't made to respond to, except in other bitches, especially as a mans of getting attention from a man whose male energy is great enough for more than one bitch to handle.