People who have promiscuous sex are mentally impaired. Even if their brain lacks the intimacy instinct, they also put their life in danger from STD. I mean, even if they don't care about intimacy, nobody mentally sane would risk their life by having promiscuous sex. They just don't care about dying. Maybe they are all nihilists with suicidal tendencies.
Low IQ males like niggers are highly promiscuous because in Africa, females provided a majority of the (plant) food, so, being less economically critical, males spent their energy trying to impregnate more women (and kill off competing males) in order to succeed reproductively.
In colder climates, males were critical for providing (meat ) food to the family and could not afford to support multiple mates and their children. So monogamy was heavily favored among cold climate hunter gatherers.
After the advent of agriculture, some eurasian males could afford to be promiscuous because they had enslaved other male agrarians through warlording. These were usually pastoralist tribes who tended to steal females from each other and neighboring agrarians. Eventually these warlords became royalty/nobility. They are not stupid.
Many whites have inherited these “slutty” genes from this sort of ancestor.
The key is to understand why promiscuous behavior exists and under what conditions it thrives.
Male promiscuity is specifically the cause (secret evolutionary motivation) behind all war and most crime and societal corruption. When male populations are highly monogamous, the incentive to screw over your fellow male goes way down and the “good guys” (i.e. good dads, husbands, industrious workers) thrive.
Predisposition to promiscuity is genetic and varies separately from IQ. Sluts are generally less likely to care about any particular mate or child (quantity over quality strategy). Their lack of caring and lack of self preservation is predictable since they pursue a more risk taking ‘r’ strategy in the context of an r/K reproductive continuum.
So many people are math-illiterate that being able to meaningfully answer a question like "50% risk of death after 'x' exposures" is valuable.
The statistical risk of getting pregnant is not irrelevant, and it can be answer mostly by things like what part of the menstrual cycle a female was on at the time of the event. That's why the rhythm method is a thing.
It depends on whom you are sleeping with, how frequently, and the condition of your own health/resistance to successful transmission. Having a single interaction with someone with a confirmed STD does not guarantee transmission.
There are all kinds of viruses and bacteria that will shorten your lifespan . Its a matter of the definition of fatal.
Because the NIH and the CDC are kiked, they dont want people to know that promiscuity is a major determiner of longevity. Alot of cancers and neurodegenrative diseases are caused by STDs.
We were just talking about Farrah Fawcett on a post yesterday and I found out she died of butt cancer. She was ~62. That is highly likely to be caused by HPV. She was a slut.
Same with the Wakanda guy. Everybody knows about cervical cancer. But some breast cancers, leukemias, lymphomas, pancreatic cancers can be linked to STD. So can ALS, Alzheimers, Parkinson’s. Shit like herpes continue to do damage at the cellular level in its latent form.
This is one of the reasons why the amish have long lifesspans. Just because you dont die right away from it, doesnt mean you dont die of it.
Viruses/bacteria are a major driver of cancer and dementia. Autoimmune diseases too. The government doesnt calculate that into its stats.
But it will only work on some cancers in some instances. Carcinogenic viruses damage DNA which impairs your body’s ability to heal itself.
Heres a list of 10 viruses that cause cancer. Its by no means exhaustive. They want people to catch these viruses so they can later sell them “cancer vaccines” Oncoviral Infections or Their Cancer-Associated Hallmarks
Virus Cancer Intervention or Drug Target Hallmark or Process
Pharmacological Approaches: HBV/HCV HCC Sorafenib VEGFR-2, PDGFR, Raf Angiogenesis, cell proliferation HBV Viral CLD leading to HCC Nucleoside analogs, IFN Viral polymerase, protein translation Chronic infection HCV Viral CLD leading to HCC Ribavirin, IFN, protease inhibitors Viral replication, protein translation Chronic infection KSHV Transplant KS, AIDS-KS Rapamycin mTORC1 Angiogenesis, cell proliferation AIDS-KS Imatinib PDGFR, c-kit Cell proliferation HTLV-1 ATL AZT + αIFN NF-κB Survival EBV NHL Butyrate + GCV HDAC, vTK, DNA pol Cell proliferation, survival
Probably more. And we havent even touched neurodegenrative disease. Prion like domains on viruses can cause proteins in your brain to misfold, leading to plaques which lead to cognitive impairment and death. This could account for millions of deaths from dementia a year.
Science has known about this for decades yet no one has done a 60 minutes exposition on it. Why not? They don’t want you to know.
People in Africa die on average 10 years prematurely because of AIDS.
Well obviously we don’t agree. Hope you got lucky in that you didnt contract anything oncogenic. I encourage you to read up on the subject and adopt an anti-cancer lifestyle.
Most sickness is caused by parasites and intentional poisoning of the food supply.
No and no.
Everything that you buy in a store is poisoned.
There are dangerous chemicals in many foods. Its difficult to ascertain if they exist in “poisonous” levels. Alot of things are poisonous if you get too much but harmless in smaller amounts.
Baby food is loaded with arsenic,
I don’t know how much arsenic is in baby food. But arsenic is an essential element in trace amounts. Especially in young animals. Without it animals are sickly and cant reproduce.
In sub-lethal levels it promotes growth, including cancer growth. Most arsenic related cancers are in people who smoked and received high amounts of arsenic simulatneously.
The proof is in the pudding, you can't get cancer from fucking, that's just stupid.
Well its not. Some viruses cause cancer and youcan catch some of them from fucking. Many who get “out of the blue” cancers in midlife have fuck related cancer.
Michael Douglas got throat cancer from cunnilingus. I suspect Patrick Swayze had one of these as he died of pancreatic cancer which can be fuck related. Lymphomas and leukemias are also potentially fuck related. Joey Ramone is another one.
Then it's, "our population is falling off a cliff". Great observation genius. Have you tried fucking women without a plastic cover on your dick? lol
You can fuck, you just should fuck recklessly. Monogamy. Fuck someone you are prepared to be financially partnered with for 20 years. No disease.
A society of polygamists cannot reproduce faster than a mongamist one, unless it goes outside of that society to steal and fuck women from other societies. Because sex ratio at birth is 1:1.
The reproductive potential of women is the same in monogamy and polygamy. Female reproduction is the bottle neck. Where are you going to get your “extra” women from? Mexico? Laos? Youve defeated the purpose of improving white reproduction. Muslims kidnap women from other societies, steal from and enslave ther men. Many of them die in their incessant wars. That. Is how they compensate for the inherent social instability of male promiscuity. They dont focus on productivity, they focus on war and stealing from each other. Eliminating “excess males” through violence, increasing reproduction with foreign women. That is the price.
[ - ] Goatbear 1 point 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 17:58:29 ago (+1/-0)
Socially impaired. There is a lot of social pressure to engage in that behaviour and a lot of social pressure to not stick with a partner. Its not abnormal to want to participate in the mainstream culture, it is abnormal to oppose it, it takes critical thinking and guts, most people lack either one of those two, either they know its fucked but participate out of fear or they lack critical thinking and think they are in the right.
Microchimerism means that if a woman has sex with another man, he permanently changes the genetic material she passes down when her "husband" has a child with her. So everyone who married a woman with >0 sexual partners is genetically a cuckold and they don't even know it. You'll never hear the covidcrazies be concerned over "science" when it comes to microchimerism, that's for certain.
Lets say your kid has microchimerism from your wifes previous lover (A condition thats never been detected). What percentage of your kid’s DNA is from this other dude? 0.0001%? 0.0000001%? Its not enough to have a measureable effect on gene transcription.
There are 100 conservative men for every traditional woman. These woman get a husband or enganged in their early twenties. 99% of us are screwed. The stronger will stay alone for lack of a suitable partner, the weaker will settle for the less crazy woman they can get but avoid having children or really committing because she isn't really wife material.
Pure dysgenics like we've never seen. Jews are producing the population of sheeple they always wanted.
No woman is White these days. They just happen to look White, but always fail to act like they're White. Promiscuity, bolshevik beliefs, narcissistic personality, materialists, cheaters...
That's not to say that we shouldn't rebuke bad behaviour, but even Christ gave the adulteress a second chance, stating "sin no more"
fail to act like they're White.
There are Western values that are being eroded away by Talmudic influences. It's sad to see. But I think it is in the nature of some ethncities to reach out and reconnect with those Western roots. I think at the end of the day, enough people will wake up to make a difference.
Don't forgot God literally annihilated two cities because they were filled with sluts and faggots.
Christ fashioned a whip and was flipping tables.
There was literally a war in Heaven against Satan.
I'll hate the sin and the evil which the sinner willingly gave him/herself over to. Their time is done. Now is the time for purging the filth from among us superiors.
I think at the end of the day, enough people will wake up to make a difference.
It's the philosophy of clemency and mercy. The idea that good people can do bad things and that reformation is possible. It's foundational in Western society and especially in our penal codes. Why do we send people to jail? In theory to let them repay their debt to society and change their ways. Why do we release prisoners back into society? Theoretically because they have had a course correction that demonstrates rehabilitation based on controls and further risk mitigation we place on their behaviour when they are out.
Don't forgot God literally annihilated two cities because they were filled with sluts and faggots.
I mean, yes, the Bible tells us that there are Tares in the world that are incapable of producing good fruits. With the knowledge that some people just can't change their ways, what should society do?
God makes it rain and shine on good and bad alike, and sharing God's love even to those that are wicked may be part of that. That doesn't mean handing over the keys of your house over to children of hell, but certainly because we are not able to readily identify for ourselves which people are Wheat vs Tares, we should walk forward with kindness and compassion as our guide. We can mitigate the risks of bad things happening without needing to be cruel or harsh in every circumstance. But even the NT addresses the ongoing presence and execution of God's wrath. There is a point that it comes into play.
"Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:" - James 1:19
"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." - Romans 13:3-5
Eh, you think message board shut-ins that blame women maniacally are mentally stable?
At least promiscuous men are social, adaptable. Anyone that can look at the assholes that populates this place and think they are in position to cast aspersions is out of touch with reality.
I'll assume you are including serial monogamy in this.
It's important to note that these kinds of impairments can be temporary. And sometimes for men especially, there is an expectation to have a specific kill-count. A relationship is more likely to be stable if the number of partners a male has had is about x4 that of the female. And when you factor in the tendencies for females to downplay and males to up-play the number of partners they have had, the spoken ratio might look more like 10:1. These exaggerations tend to be flat number shifts rather than percentages.
For a dude trying to find a woman, for the purposes of stability in long term relationships, it's actually recommended to sleep around up to the target ratio. They've witnessed this female behaviour in animals too, where females will flock to a sexually successful male.
The downside with the number of sexual partners is that the higher the number for both people, eventually it statistically reduces the stability of the relationship anyway. A dude with 400 encounters might be the best fit for a chick with 100 encounters, but that will just be an optimization within an already poor overall potential for stability.
Exposure to STDs is a consideration, but if you've ever been in a "monogamous" relationship with someone that turned out to be hooking up with new people behind your back on a regular basis, you will realize that protection is an illusion. You were exposed the whole time. And this kind of scenario will be more likely with women that have fertility issues, including artificial fertility issues like birth control. It will also be more likely with women that claim to have experienced a traumatic event like rape or sexual abuse.
There are basically two partners that a woman is biologically looking for, one to get her pregnant and the other to help raise her children. If you are lucky enough, you will fit both roles at the same time. But the male sleeping around bit is basically a signal to the female that you have a capability to produce offspring, and therefore would fit well into the first partner role to get her pregnant.
Call it temporary impairment, but I went from 3 to 10 in three weeks with the realization that the perception of my number was that I had too few (and let's be real here, about 2 a week while working full time is not hard to do). For a male, demonstrating that previous partners were impersonal is important. For a female, it's basically the opposite, it is usually to her advantage to have mostly just meaningful attempts at long-term relationships. For a female, stated ratio of long-term relationships to one night stands is important too. The one night stand encounters usually serve as a narrative for denying random males from certain experiences (e.g. when she says "I got with him and he wanted to go the whole way but I just gave him a blowjob instead"). At face value, it can seem odd about why a female would focus on that, but it has everything to do with setting the illusion of rules she follows so that she can "break" those rules with you to show you that you are better value than her previous partners (which is also to say that if she went further and faster with someone else, she doesn't consider you the highest value, and she will not likely talk about that because she will still want to make you feel special so that you reciprocate that affect).
All this said, I think monogamy is the way to go (if you've seen my other comments, you'll know why). But I don't think your approach in criticizing promiscuity is fully fleshed out. The STD argument doesn't work because the intention to be in a monogamous relationship does not gaurantee reduced exposure (we need to look at this from an actuarial perspective with the specifics and risk mitigation techniques). The other part is that not all STDs are terminal or permanent so the consequence for exposure is not necessarily high. Your argument is also just an attempt to appeal to an individual's physical self-preservation, and does not address ego driven individuals, or those driven by a societal greater good (hemlock drinkers, etc). It would not be an argument that would work with masochistic individuals (e.g. "bug seekers"). It might work with germophobic types.
The topic of monogamous vs promiscuous behavious is complex, but I agree that if someone that would normally be monogamous is acting promiscuously, that is a sign of impairment (but just not necessarily for the reason you proposed).
Hahahah You actually think a study made by some programmed academic donk who can't see anything but what he expects to eee is a good way to live your life?
For a dude trying to find a woman, for the purposes of stability in long term relationships, it's actually recommended to sleep around up to the target ratio
While obviously disagree with this statement and a couple of other things, I think it was a good comment that considers that sexual dynamics within polygamy, the trade offs. However, you seem to be omitting the fact that you cannot achieve a society in which males have 4x the partners as females because the ratio of females to males is not 4 to 1.
You will actually get a body count distribution like this. https://files.catbox.moe/1aunsb.jpeg Some men will have ~0 body count. Few women will have a 0 body count but many will have low to medium body counts. Most men will have medium to higher body counts and a minority of women will have very high body counts (prostitutes and others who have commoditized sex heavily) . Its a bimodal distribution in both sexes.
The biggest problem of polygamy is that the most sexually and economically aggressive males will out reproduce the more monogamous types. Aggressive males will begin to win out through genetic drift which changes the nature of the society. If people could understand how dysgenic promiscuity it most would not do it.
Some of those not-so-terminal STDs shorten lifespan by the way. I think its a useful selling point of monogamy. Neurodegenrative disease, cancer, etc is often triggered by viruses and bacteria including STDs like herpes, epstein-barr, hpv, hepatitis viruses.
achieve a society in which males have 4x the partners as females because the ratio of females to males is not 4 to 1.
I think he's talking more about a good ratio for individual relationships, rather than a system for a stable society.
Without other factors I think he's right, when you are significantly more experienced than a woman it seems to work way better.
The math you mention is a problem, and a stable society gets around this by placing external pressure on relationships. Things like slut shaming and severe stigma for divorce and adultry, etc to help people put rational guardrails on their instincts and structure relationships that balance both animal drives and societal duties.
I think he's talking more about a good ratio for individual relationships,
But thats just the problem. No one thinks of what it does to group dynamics. Its inherently unstable. I mean maybe it seems to work better for me if Ive live off tax dollars and get my PhD in navel gazing while I sell dope on the side. Better for whom?
Without other factors I think he's right, when you are significantly more experienced than a woman it seems to work way better.
Or is it just the particular phenotype of men that tends to have more partners in a polygamous regime? Ie., aggressive males? Will fucking more women actually help less aggressive males? Are these aggressive males going after particularly compliant women?
What you describe is more of a middle eastern dynamic. They think it “works better” too. They never for a minute relate it to the chronic corruption and violence and general shitholiness of their countries. But it is directly related.
a stable society gets around this by placing external pressure on relationships. Things like slut shaming and severe stigma for divorce and adultry, etc to help people put rational guardrails on their instincts
Your sentence indicates that you still dont grasp the math. You have to have unmarriageable prostitutes and sluts if you want men to have more partners than the women they have “relationships” with. Half the people in the world are born female.
Wealthy men fuck as many high value females as they want middle class men will get to fuck a couple of prostitutes while the save enough cash to “buy” a mediocre female to reproduce with. Low class males never marry, are incels or only fuck pros.
Prostitutes are critical for elite males to maintain ascendency.
Islam has an alternative. They (usuallly) manage to supress prostitutes. They encourage their lower class males to fight in jihad, preferably against non muslim countries, where they either successfully loot and rape other countries’ women (both improve their reproductive prospects) or they die, in which case the new male to female ratio improves female availability. Men have to die in war or fuck prostitiutes for polygyny to work.
Aggressive males outbreed nice guys in this scenario. Culture is the result of the populations’ genetic tendencies. You can’t fix middle easterners with rational guardrails, because theyve been polygynists for 1400+years. The same will happen to us.
Cold climates killed off the progeny of polygamists for a long time in europe. That isnt happening anymore. Whites will degenerate unless you stop the dysgenic behavior Ive described.
But thats just the problem. No one thinks of what it does to group dynamics
You don't get to decide or engineer what triggers your instincts. I think we're talking about two different things here - you're very focused on how a good societal system should work which I agree with. But that doesn't change the fact that a women doesn't love you the same way if she sees you as inexperienced relative to her. Think about seriously dating a much younger man for example - does that excite you or would you feel like you'd just be playing mama in a gross way?
Men get this for the most part, and women act it out, even if they're less self aware about it. The last woman who was trying to lock me down before the one I'm seeing now leaned HARD on playing up her lack of experience compared to me. Who knows if that was conscious or not but it's a dynamic that works great for both sides.
That doesn't mean that it's something we should fully indulge. Obviously White societies put lots of things in place to civilize our animal instincts and I'm all for bringing them back. But as a guy trying to navigate the current dating climate you have to at least be aware of and honest about our more animal nature because otherwise you're fucked and not in the good way.
Wealthy men fuck as many high value females as they want
This is something poor people think. It helps some, and it's one requirement (of many) for some girls. I wish just being wealthy made it that easy.
But that doesn't change the fact that a women doesn't love you the same way if she sees you as inexperienced relative to her.
This is jewish conditioning which you are “acting out” even if you are less self aware about it. Whites were highly monogamous for thousands of years. White women didnt love men very much when 90% of the population was a virgin at marriage?
You are stuck in a vicious circle, and arms race of male sluttiness that has no end in sight.
Lets say Im an average young woman with 2 sexual partners in my past. You say I wont respect any husband that has fucked less than 8 women.
Suddenly, for no reason whatsoever, no marriageable women with a body count less than 8 can be found! (Those dirty whores! Why is this happeneing?)
So now every male must have 32 notches on his headboard for his wife to respect him. Right?
Miraculously a few years later there are no women with less than a 32 body count. Much wailing and gnashing of teeth on MGTOW sites because “muh inherently whorish wahman”
Math!
That doesn't mean that it's something we should fully indulge
A little bit of math is not really math. 2 + 2 doesnt equal 5 but maybe it equals 4.5. Being a little bit more like shitskins and a little less like whites might work out for us. Cope.
The belief that no woman could respect you or love you if you havent banged lots of sluts is bullshit. Its pure vanity. If you are banging sluts, you are a whore maker squandering a valuable limited resource of the white race. You are shitting in the pool. The victims of your slutiness is other white men looking for marriageable women. Once you have done this you can have no expectation of getting a female les slutty than you. Its exactly what you deserve! Why does some other male deserve your castoffs? Consequences.
Find someone with the same body count as you. That is what you deserve.
Women are playing similar games. They are expected to be “good time” girls. Its what men expect from them. If I tell a young 18 year old girl, “be a virgin until marriage” she will give me a whole long story like yours about how it works better for her to have experience. Round and around. Get off the merry-go-round. Monogamy is rational. Have the courage of your convictions. If a woman cant love you for being a virgin, better to know in advance and not waste time on her.
This is something poor people think.
It is an endless struggle in which aggressive upper class males exploit middle and lower class males for wealth while stealing their females. It is the cause of all corruption and all war and all race mixing. It is THE ONLY MOTIVATION for becoming wealthy. It is the secret evolutionary incentive behind one male exploiting another, even if males lack self-awareness of it. Its the reason why we have billionaires and massive wealth disparity.
The amish solved it. The puritans solved it. Enforced monogamy == high egalitarianism and high trust societies. Polygamy favors “bad” men through genetic drift. All you are saying is screwing around “works better” for bad men, who you wish you were more like.
I get it, you hate polygamy, which I'm not even advocating for.
If you are saying that men having a 4x higher body count than women “works out”, then you sort of are.
You don't know what it's like dating women as a man and you never will
Likewise. You have no notion of what dating men is like as a woman. You feel that women lack self awareness of their behaviors and I often hear here that women lack logic and make emotion based, selfish decisions. This is an example of the same. Men lack self awareness and logic on the import of their behviors as much as women.
Men are willing to ruin a society so that they can have some sort of sexual advantage or authority (?) over younger, less experienced women? What is the motive behind that impulse? Do you stop to consider why (many) men have this need? Is this about what women like or just about competition with other men?
I have provided a reductio ad absurdum argument for why this sex ratio is untenable, inherently unstable. Is that argumentative. I guess, in a good way. Why do you guys have to be so emotional?
I usually appreciate how rational you are but you're kind of arguing like an incel today.
Yes, human nature is untenable, unstable, and creates winners and losers. That's not a particularly hot take, it's just how it is. If you're a man you have to be aware of how things work or you get fucked. When you're a young man, you learn some of these lessons the hard way.
White social conventions gave us a way to deal with these unfortunate facts but those have been ripped down so here we are.
Fuck off with your typical woman shit about men needing authority over inexperienced women. That's some post wall made up bullshit and it's insulting and you're better than that.
The only reason I or any man holds this view is trial and error and often it's a hard lesson to learn. And that's a fact.
I think it's important to note that two virgins would fit the definition of the 1:4 ratio. Zero times four is zero. It would be great to have sex saved until marriage. But for the reality of the situation, many people have previous sexual partners and there are studies that point toward elements that contribute to or work against mate retention and relationship stability.
I think you and SecretHitler had a great back and forth. Just to add to the dialogue, I think SecretHitler and I are seeing it from the same perspective. The question is more about mate retention from an individual scale, with the foreknowledge that there is going to be a distribution of different kinds of people with varying numbers of partners, and from an individual scale it's up to the individual to map out the balance of probabilities to find what they are looking for. The ratio is only one factor in stability but it isn't a garuantee of anything. You might have the same number of sexual partners as your partner and due to the balance of all of the factors still end up in a more stable relationship than another that has the 1:4 but other factors working against stability. Height differences is an example of something else that can contribute to relationship stability.
The goal isn't to ensure that a society would have that average, it is a commentary on mate retention strategies that tend to lead to more stable relationships. And from stable relationships comes the benefit of more stable childrearing, discipline, structure, etc. which leads into a better society altogether.
However, you seem to be omitting the fact that you cannot achieve a society in which males have 4x the partners as females because the ratio of females to males is not 4 to 1.
You don't need 4:1 f:m in order to have the ratio of partnering to be 4:1. And your bimodal example is a good example of where that can be the case. If you have a population of 50 men, and 53 women, if each has at least one sexual partner but the 3 extra women sleep with each of the 50 men, the median and mode values would show that the men have a 4:1 ratio for sexual partners. Using the mean is going to throw off your numbers and not give you a proper representation of individual circumstances. The mean for the total population of females in that data set would be approximately 4 partners but it does not represent the vast majority of females in that set. That example is an extreme, but the point is that you don't need 4x the females in order to have a population with a 4:1 ratio with past partners.
The takeaway is that we shouldn't get confused with the misconception that an average would necessarily be representative of anyone in the sampled group.
The biggest problem of polygamy is that the most sexually and economically aggressive males will out reproduce the more monogamous types
I'm not sure that would necessarily be the case. If you look at the Amish, they have many children per couple where some promiscuous men don't end up having any. Promiscuous behaviour, particularly in women, is a red flag for possible fertility issues. And it makes sense from a biological perspective, if a partnered woman is having difficulty conceiving with a current partner, their biological urges can draw them to 'sample' from other men until something works. The use of contraceptives can drive this behaviour in some cases. Financial stability and genetic health of offspring are two factors that weigh into the equation for partnering. Some men are lucky enough to fulfil both roles. Some men just think they do.
Some of those not-so-terminal STDs shorten lifespan by the way.
It's a risk factor, but in the big picture it often isn't the most significant risk factor (depending on which kinds of people are being slept with, etc.). Becoming a stunt-double can be more dangerous and statistically life-shortening than an STD. Daily commutes on some highways might be more dangerous than unbound sexual activity. You would need more context to pin down those ranges, and even then it will vary.
STDs like herpes, epstein-barr, hpv, hepatitis viruses.
You can also get those diseases outside of a sexual context. I agree that consideration is worthwhile but I think everyone is going to weigh their own circumstances for themselves and the level of different kinds of risks they want to take on.
And because of differences in the way people weigh risk, certain kinds of warnings won't mean very much to some people. If someone cares more about their ego than their physical wellbeing (which can be the case in some types of suicides), an argument that "this is physically dangerous" will be disregarded if that individual weighs the reward to be greater than the risk or ensured damage.
OP's argument only really works against a specific kind of demographic. And that in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing but it's probably already the case that people worried about their physical wellbeing aren't the ones that are sleeping around.
Excuse me in advance for my frustration, but I’ve had this discussion over and over again and you guys just don’t get it! It’s a deep cope — you cannot have promiscuity without ruining civilization. In a nutshell, whites are better because of monogamy, and other caucasoids like middle easterners and afghans are useless BECAUSE of the behavior that you think “works better for individuals”. Whites work better because of group selection.
But for the reality of the situation, many people have previous sexual partners
Are you telling me it’s just too hard for men to change their ways? It’s not, we’ve been doing this for thousands of years. It starts with US. We rebuild western civilization again and we start now.
and there are studies that point toward elements that contribute to or work against mate retention and relationship stability
What studies? Where?
The question is more about mate retention from an individual scale,
Afghans have great mate retention because they murder the woman that leaves them. Is this a success? What kind of males are they? How did they get like that? This is the type of male you will be selecting for.
The ratio is only one factor in stability but it due to the balance of all of the factors still end up in a more stable relationship than another that has the 1:4 but other factors working against stability. Height differences is an example of something else that can contribute to relationship stability.
Exactly how do you propose this 4:1 factor works? How do you think height works? In “stabilizing” relationships? You think Afghanistan is more stable. It is in some ways. But you cant pick and choose without understanding the selection pressures on the entire population.
The goal isn't to ensure that a society would have that average, it is a commentary on mate retention strategies that tend to lead to more stable relationships.
It’s inherently unstable, as Ive explained. Its nigger logic and I’ll explain why. The most aggressive female hoarding males will out-reproduce more monogamous “egalitarian” males through genetic drift.
Cold climate killed the offspring of the most promiscuous males in Europe. That’s not happening anymore. The white strategy is in entropy. Evolution is happening now. There’s no point in being white if we continue down this path. We are degenerating.
Whites (historically) enforce conservative morality because it it is the most economically efficient group strategy and it’s an egalitarian one. It has maintained our genetic signal for successful societies with low in-group competition.
Shitskins have negotiable “liberal” morality which puts the individual’s benefit first. It favors individuals who screw over and exploit others within the society. It’s inherently unstable and it disincentivizes cooperativity and productivity. This mostly plays out through female hoarding and wealth hoarding (to get more females) and war (to get more wealth to get more females), by more aggressive males . It’s all about hoarding females from other males. Promiscuous, greedy males outbreed more industrious, monogamous good dads.
If you have a population of 50 men, and 53 women, if each has at least one sexual partner but the 3 extra women sleep with each of the 50 men, the median and mode values would show that the men have a 4:1 ratio for sexual partners. Using the mean is going to throw off your numbers and not give you a proper representation of individual circumstances.
You are just kicking the can down the road. First of all we’ve just guaranteed that 3 men will not have wives. In a country of 100 million, thats going to be ~ 3 million pissed off incels. You’ve ruined 3 million potential baby makers and disincentivized 3 million men from working to contribute to society (muslims and niggers are not industrious for this reason). How much inefficiency is worth dudes having all the moves on their wedding night?! Come on! If I were the king, I could concoct a war to get rid of these pesky extra males— that’s how its been done historically.
So you want to breed women to be virgins at marriage and breed men to fuck whores and have 4x the sexual appetite than their wives and somehow you are going to force 6% of your virginal women to be whores and no man is going to fuck anyone else’s wife? Why not just breed a population of monogamous men? It works! It will work again. Whats the purpose of fucking anyway? The personality traits of aggressive males are a package: high libido, high violence, high resource hoarding— these behaviors are controlled by androgens. You are holding on sentimentally to an inefficient behavior that males need to supress in order to live in stable efficient countries. One per customer!
If you look at the Amish, they have many children per couple
Because they live a conservative morality where individual males are highly accountable economically, with no “aristocracy” of billionaires living off poorer males by plying them with “sins” like booze and drugs, usury, porn, insurance, socialism, TV, luxuries, etc: pleasure-seeking, status-seeking and convenience blandishments which disrupt monogamous culture. They were started by a highly monogamous ethnic group who understood that all these things are bad for society. They are in a different society, a different economic system and the pressures on them aren’t comparable to the pressures on the average white monogamous american or european family, who is failing reproductively.
in women, is a red flag for possible fertility issues.
Because of STDs ! That a promiscuous male gave them.
It's a risk factor, but in the big picture it often isn't the most significant risk factor.....Becoming a stunt-double ...Daily commutes on some highways might be more dangerous than unbound sexual activity.
These are all part of the high risk strategy of the polygamous male. Why do some males perform a 1.5 hour commute? Shekels.
You can also get those diseases outside of a sexual context.
Because we live amongst other promiscuous people! Cope.
And because of differences in the way people weigh risk, certain kinds of warnings won't mean very much to some people.
Yeah like niggers. Do you think the white race can’t become more like niggers? Our personality traits are immutable over time?
OP's argument only really works against a specific kind of demographic.
OP is a christian. Trad christians like him have the right idea but they dont know why its right. They think its because god said it’s right. Thats not why. The reason is evolution.
Male promiscuity is a hyper-male strategy. Because of the cheapness of male reproduction, the males of many species pursue a fuck more/kill more strategy in which they focus on quantity over quality of fatherhood. It’s an inherently wasteful strategy which works if offspring can survive with little or no help from males. These behaviors are genetic and implemented through androgens and melanocortin genes. It’s why nearly all murderers and thieves are men.
Polygyny is a variant on this strategy in which warlords/nobles enslave other males to support their harems. Its not sustainable because the genetics for productivity are only favored in monogamous regimes (monogamy is a quality over quantity strategy for males)
Southern Europe is shittier than Northern Europe and I’ll tell you why: marriage age disparity. I call it polygyny-light, because it results in the same problems that full-on polygyny does, to a lesser extent. Elite males hoard wealth, delay marriage, screw around with peasant women, keep concubines, etc. A lack of marriageable women available to middle and lower class men causes them to delay marriage until theyve earned enough wealth to “buy” one that isn’t a slut. 30 year olds marry 18 year olds. The longer these men wait to marry, the more likely they are to engae prostitutes. The more they use prostitutes the greater the scarcity of marriageable (non-prostitute) women becomes and the more expensive the cost of a bride becomes. The worse the scarcity, the older the grooms will be and the younger the brides will be. The arms race of the hyper-males will result in younger and younger brides and older “hyper” males. 18 to 30 year old men have no one to fuck except whores. They cant get married because they are being ripped off by the rich guys!
When you suggest a 4:1 sex ratio is optimal, its this pattern that you are implementing.
Solution: men and women get married around the same age ~ 22-24. To only one woman! Egalitarian distribution of females leads to egalitarian distribution of wealth.
TLDR Total monogamy is sustainable. All other alternatives are less efficient. The inefficiency comes in the form of destructive male competition: murder, war, theft, slavery, exploitation, deception. Polygamy is a package: high libido, theft, wealth disparity, violence, corruption. Bad countries. Its genetic: a “hyper-male” strategy as seen in other promiscuous species—bad dads, homocidal males.
r/K strategy theory. Stop choosing ‘r’. Don’t be a gorilla. Im trying to explain how everything in this problem is controlled by evolution. Everyone cannot be a “kang”.
you cannot have promiscuity without ruining civilization.
The potential will be inherent in any society. The question is how that behaviour is mitigated. My comments aren't intended as an endorsement of "you should sleep up to a number in order to gain stability" although that can be a tactic used. It works. And I suppose even just saying that can be seen as a kind of endorsement. The intention of my point was basically to temper expectations that if you are a male with 16 previous partners that it may be time to stop looking for a virgin.
Are you telling me it’s just too hard for men to change their ways?
What is this "way of men" that you are speaking of? Both men and women sleep around. But it is not a universal statement to say that all women sleep around nor that all men sleep around.
The podcast summarizes different studies. I encourage you to find the studies referenced and assess the methodology for yourself.
Afghans have great mate retention because they murder the woman that leaves them. Is this a success?
Do married Moslem women stay in relationships because of the fear of death? Or because of religious structure/culture? If you do some digging, I'm sure you will find it is more readily attributable to religious social structure.
In the cases of the murdered individuals (legally executed under that law?), because they left they were clearly not retained. So no, those instances are not successful.
Let's park commonsense for a moment and assume that all Moslem women stay in relationships solely due to fear of death: If the question is about the morality of using coercive image of "you will be killed if you leave", it comes back to the question of mitigation techniques and what works better for the overall stability of the society. Bad behaviour is inevitable, but how we deal with things speaks more to our Western values and Christian sensibilities. It is repugnant to most of us to hear about people being executed for adultery or other infidelity and partly because it is so woven into our culture by its Christian roots. Christ said to the adulteress "go and sin no more" where the Islamic perspective is that the penance for infidelity is death.
Exactly how do you propose this 4:1 factor works? How do you think height works? In “stabilizing” relationships?
You can observe things like "water goes downhill" without really needing to immediately have the whole picture about why it works that way. And that is often the case for social sciences. You can speculate on different reasons for observed trends, but even if the speculated reason is wrong the observation is still valid.
Certain ratios of partners are more likely to tend toward stability and certain height ratios are also more likely to tend toward stability. Like SecretHitler pointed out, the partner ratio ties in heavily with the fact that women typically want men with more experience than themselves.
It’s inherently unstable, as Ive explained.
No. The 1:4 ratio does not lead to instability (it creates the opposite effect), but a higher partner count itself is a different factor that can contribute to instability. Someone with a thousand partners is not going to have an easy time having a stable relationship compared to a virgin, even if they meet that ratio.
The most aggressive female hoarding males will out-reproduce more monogamous “egalitarian” males through genetic drift.
No.
Cold climate killed the offspring of the most promiscuous males in Europe. That’s not happening anymore. The white strategy is in entropy. Evolution is happening now. There’s no point in being white if we continue down this path. We are degenerating.
"We"?
The cold climates favoured cooperation, trust, and fidelity. The absence of environmental pressure does not suddenly reverse the presence of a trait, and that trait (a nature of empathy) is typically correlated to brain/skull structure. If you want to see who would really fit that definition of "White" based on that characteristic, you are better to look at head shape than the colour of skin. And even with the morphology, it isn't a guarantee for those behaviours, it provides a predisposition to those behaviours. Just like the 1:4 ratio or height ratio provides a predisposition for better success and not a guarantee of anything.
Whites (historically) enforce conservative morality because it it is the most economically efficient group strategy and it’s an egalitarian one.
Was this strategy done because it was collectively a logically thought out optimization? Or because it was in their nature to do so? I'd wager it has more to do with nature rather than a logical assessment performed by each participating individual. I don't buy your argument here.
I think if we are talking about historical politics, the illusion of egaltarianism has benefited rulers from the plotting and scheming of potential usurpers. There has generally always been stratification in society. Even agreements like the Magna Carta were fairly recent in the grand scheme of things.
Shitskins have negotiable “liberal” morality which puts the individual’s benefit first.
Well... you'll have to narrow down the group you are talking about. Moslems for instance have a fairly group-oriented morality, etc. Most religious societies are fairly group-oriented. But if we look at atheistic Chinese morality, that's where we start to see alleged sayings like "if you can cheat and get away with it, do so"
This mostly plays out through female hoarding and wealth hoarding (to get more females) and war (to get more wealth to get more females), by more aggressive males
You're on this angle like a dog on a bone. I'm assuming that I'm just missing something here. I don't see your argument on this point having much runway for takeoff. First, I think your point is talking more to the subject of polygynous marriage and the disparity it creates that leads to things like zealous suicide bombers that have nothing to live for because they never had the opportunity to have a spouse or start a family (a solid point in itself, I just don't think it has much bearing on the topic of promiscuity for this context). Things like serial monogamy or even just adulterous behaviour are a different topic. Our topic is really on the post-birthcontrol Western world, where birthcontrol is a self-induced physiological impairment that leads to degenerate behaviour. Things like prostitution has been around from the dawn of civilization, but modern medicine has done a number on the way that we function in terms of sexual reproduction.
If we are talking about the types of men that go around sleeping with married women, it's not the men that are the issue, it's that the women don't have proper fidelity in the relationships that they are in. And even single women will jump on the band wagon with these type of men. This behaviour has been seen in fish too. Women are attracted to men they perceive to be successful with women, and that goes back to the entire point with the 4:1 ratio. It's not really "women hoarding" in many cases, it honestly has more to do with female behaviour than male behaviour.
The worse the scarcity, the older the grooms will be and the younger the brides will be.
Maybe? I don't see that necessarily being the case. Certainly, less available women on the market can lead to men not starting a family at a younger age, but that type of dynamic usual comes from a man optimizing their earning potential and other holdings in order to then start looking for a wife. Arranged marriages usually follow this kind of thing. Women tend to have that biological clock that drives them to start having a family at a younger age, and the tendency may be to look for older more established men in order to maximize the number of offspring they can bear under that marriage. And from the perspective of an established man, a younger wife usually represents fewer health issues for offspring that he sires.
You are just kicking the can down the road.
First of all we’ve just guaranteed that 3 men will not have wives.
No. You have that backwards. 3 women would not be guaranteed a monogamous marriage in that scenario.
So you want to breed women to be virgins at marriage and breed men to fuck whores and have 4x the sexual appetite than their wives
Sexual appetite is the wrong term there. A monogamous married couple might have stronger sexual appetites than a promiscuous player. In fact, studies show that heterosexual married people tend to have more sex than heterosexual unmarried people. I think you are missing the point of this. A man with 16 previous sexual partners is more likely (within that dynamic alone) to have a stable relationship with a partner that has approximately 4 previous partners rather than with a virgin. A man that has 4 previous partners might still do well going for a virgin because it still approximates that ratio. If a man with 4 previous partners ends up with a women with 2 previous partners, that still isn't terrible in terms of stability. If a man with 4 previous partners ends up with a woman with 8 previous partners, that is a red flag that the relationship will encounter some degree of instability as a result of that dynamic.
somehow you are going to force 6% of your virginal women to be whores and no man is going to fuck anyone else’s wife? Why not just breed a population of monogamous men? It works! It will work again.
You are looking at this from a policy-making perspective. You are looking at this from a "what should we force people to do in order to have a better society?". I'm looking from the perspective of an individual that has to deal with the society that already exists around them. I'm not suggesting that you force anyone to do anything, but there are certain measurable things that will exist in perspective partners that are known to lead to better or worse stability in long-term relationships. And those factors will vary depending on who you are. It won't even be the case that everyone would necessarily be looking for a long-term stable relationship, hence we have the men and women that sleep around without a care. And as I said before, a virgin with a virgin still meets that 4:1 ratio, you could issue an edict that everyone must be monogamous virgins at marriage and it would still meet that 4:1 ratio optimization.
The personality traits of aggressive males are a package: high libido, high violence, high resource hoarding— these behaviors are controlled by androgens.
Risk taking behaviour, sure. And again, if OP's argument was to try to appeal to risk taking individuals to stop taking risks, it isn't a very effective argument.
Promiscuous, greedy males outbreed more industrious, monogamous good dads.
Do they though? You seemed to agree with the Amish point which goes against this quoted section.
average white monogamous american or european family, who is failing reproductively
A lesson that should have been learned from the entire SARS-2 jab is that the medical industry is willing to give specific ethnicities injections that will knowingly reduce fertility and cause other reproductive issues. If that is the case for the SARS-2 jab where it was mandated in many cases that specific people get it, how long has this game really been going on for? How many of the mandatory injections given to children over the years have actually contributed to deleterious health conditions?
Think about the HPV shot that they pushed on young women decades ago. It caused cysts and cancer and destroyed many young women's chances at ever having children. What happens with a reproductive system impairment in a women that is strongly driven to have children? Promiscuous behaviour which may result in the desired child.
These are all part of the high risk strategy of the polygamous male. Why do some males perform a 1.5 hour commute? Shekels.
Let's explore this entire risk-taking bit and how it relates to sexual dimorphism. If a female were to imagine a male version of herself (her matching mirror in sexual dimorphism), and the increased level of risk taking that this person would have, those are probably going to be part of the makeup of the traits that she is looking for. And that might be a reason for the 4:1 partner ratio, and the height ratio. An equivalent person of the opposite sex is going to have different levels of risk taking and different physical attributes based on the changes they experience due to development as that sex. It's also the case that blood-type is another factor that affects attractiveness and mate retention, and the speculation is that females can smell and subconsciously register whether someone is a compatible bloodtype or not.
Because we live amongst other promiscuous people! Cope.
No, that's not the full picture.
OP is a christian. Trad christians like him have the right idea but they dont know why its right. They think its because god said it’s right.
There are arguments from ethos, pathos, and logos. Authority, feeling, and logical thought. Is it really necessary to have a logical justification for every belief that you hold? A gut feeling is in essence a pathos argument.
Logos arguments are what we generally use in Western society as a focal point for trying to convince each other of things. We throw a little dash of ethos and pathos in for flavour at times, but our argument styles usually revolve around logos, and it can be very dissatisfying to have a conversation detour into other modes of arguments. That said, a logical fallacy isn't inherently 'wrong' it just isn't founded in logos. But a logically fallacious argument fails to meet our Western needs to convince us logically of something.
In my mind, virginic monogamy is ideal, but I may not have a study that can show and firmly establish that. I can point to trends, but ultimately it is a 'gut feeling' to make any statement on that beyond those trends. From a Christian perspective, many of those 'gut feelings' can resonate with what is written in scripture (or that scripture resonates with our gut feelings). So to point to scripture to say "this is right" is simply to say that your gut feeling or nature is stating it to be the case. And that is an important point in the New Covenant, that a correctly tuned nature will always lead you in the right way. There is a bit of a chicken and egg aspect to whether one's nature will lead them to a correct understanding of scripture, or whether a correct understanding of scripture would lead to a correctly aligned nature. It's the Euthyphro dilemma in a nutshell.
The reason is evolution.
The condition of chimeric changes over eons of time doesn't really speak to whether something is 'right' or 'wrong'. And considering that theistic evolution is a perspective, evolution by itself definitely doesn't address anything in isolation.
If you mean to say "it is right because my nature leads me to believe it is right", that's not inherently a bad argument, it just isn't a logos argument. And without logos it can be difficult to convince others.
It’s an inherently wasteful strategy which works if offspring can survive with little or no help from males.
They would represent the role of genetic father but not the role of a father raising a child. In cuckoldry scenarios, the survival is determined by the support of the cuckold.
(monogamy is a quality over quantity strategy for males)
Well, I'm not sure I agree with that since monogamous relationships can still end up with more guaranteed children than a promiscuous gambit. I believe that faithful relationship end up producing more children and better quality childhoods for those children. It may be the case that there is some health defect from the woman that is present in all of the children from that relationship, and that can lead to a heightened risk of the man finding extra-marital partners to produce children that don't have that defect or disease. Ironically, it can also lead to a heightened risk of the woman clandestinely seeking other partners as part of her subconscious is going to attribute those defects to the husband (or at least that the husband's genes were not sufficient to overcome those defects). Having unhealthy offspring is a risk factor for relationship instability.
I think we need to fan out this topic a bit more too. You seem really focused on polygynous relationships that Moslems and the like would have. But if a virgin man had four virgin wives and they were married faithfully, that completely dismantles the relevance it would have to OPs point about promiscuous sex and transmission of diseases through promiscuous sex. We aren't really talking about polygamy in the sense of a man with multiple wives (though I agree it has its own issues), OP's point was about promiscuity and I broadened the topic to consider serial monogamy (especially rapid serial monogamy) as a form of promiscuity.
When you suggest a 4:1 sex ratio is optimal, its this pattern that you are implementing.
No. I think everyone should aim to have faithful monogamous relationships. That said, some relationships crash and burn. Some people might wake up one day a wiser person than the day before and realize that they have facts of life that apply to them, including the number of sexual partners that they've had. You can't rewind time, the only thing you can do is look at your circumstances, look at where you want to be, and then make the best steps forward that you can. This can be in the form of basically doing actuary-esque checks to see which precursors give the best chance for a good outcome. The trick is awareness. I'm not saying to find four wives, I'm saying that a man should be more experienced than a woman if they want to reduce the probability of certain kinds of rocky roads. And even if both a virgins, they can be other measures of experience that should lopsidedly be weightier from the man.
Kill-count is such a small part of the overall picture too. Other things like cultural preference, racial preference, wealth, etc. play a bigger role in stability.
Solution: men and women get married around the same age ~ 22-24. To only one woman! Egalitarian distribution of females leads to egalitarian distribution of wealth.
Why not younger?
Total monogamy is sustainable. All other alternatives are less efficient.
In an inefficient system, we can still look for efficiency gains, even if it does not accomplish perfect efficiency of the overall system.
r/K strategy theory. Stop choosing ‘r’. Don’t be a gorilla. Im trying to explain how everything in this problem is controlled by evolution. Everyone cannot be a “kang”.
I had to do a quick websearch for r/k strategy. I don't know enough about this to make any meaningful comment on the theory itself, but based on the brief search it seems to be that the r/K strategy is a commentary on reproduction rather than just merely the act of sex itself. We would need to look at how this fits in with the post-birthcontrol world and distinguish between pregnancy-free sex (which has basically become a form of courtship) and the production of mixed families.
If people are lightning-round serial monogamists but stop looking for new partners the moment an encounter resulted in pregnancy, I'm not sure if that would fall into the r or K category here. Thoughts on that?
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 4 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 14:14:09 ago (+4/-0)
Correlation is not causation.
Low IQ males like niggers are highly promiscuous because in Africa, females provided a majority of the (plant) food, so, being less economically critical, males spent their energy trying to impregnate more women (and kill off competing males) in order to succeed reproductively.
In colder climates, males were critical for providing (meat ) food to the family and could not afford to support multiple mates and their children. So monogamy was heavily favored among cold climate hunter gatherers.
After the advent of agriculture, some eurasian males could afford to be promiscuous because they had enslaved other male agrarians through warlording. These were usually pastoralist tribes who tended to steal females from each other and neighboring agrarians. Eventually these warlords became royalty/nobility. They are not stupid.
Many whites have inherited these “slutty” genes from this sort of ancestor.
The key is to understand why promiscuous behavior exists and under what conditions it thrives.
Male promiscuity is specifically the cause (secret evolutionary motivation) behind all war and most crime and societal corruption. When male populations are highly monogamous, the incentive to screw over your fellow male goes way down and the “good guys” (i.e. good dads, husbands, industrious workers) thrive.
Predisposition to promiscuity is genetic and varies separately from IQ. Sluts are generally less likely to care about any particular mate or child (quantity over quality strategy). Their lack of caring and lack of self preservation is predictable since they pursue a more risk taking ‘r’ strategy in the context of an r/K reproductive continuum.
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 4 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 08:14:50 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 2 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 16:10:51 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 2 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 17:06:35 ago (+2/-0)
That's to catch an STD though right? Not to die from one?
Just so we're clear on exactly how stupid incel OP is
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 2 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 17:10:48 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] yesiknow
[ - ] yesiknow 1 point 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 09:17:46 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] The_Reunto
[ - ] The_Reunto 1 point 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 10:17:48 ago (+1/-0)
The statistical risk of getting pregnant is not irrelevant, and it can be answer mostly by things like what part of the menstrual cycle a female was on at the time of the event. That's why the rhythm method is a thing.
[ + ] yesiknow
[ - ] yesiknow 1 point 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 23:36:05 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] The_Reunto
[ - ] The_Reunto -2 points 1.1 yearsApr 7, 2023 23:07:09 ago (+0/-2)
[ + ] Inward
[ - ] Inward 1 point 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 09:35:06 ago (+1/-0)
Sorry, you said "people."
[ + ] The_Reunto
[ - ] The_Reunto 1 point 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 10:04:21 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Conspirologist
[ - ] Conspirologist [op] -6 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 08:20:07 ago (+1/-7)
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 7 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 08:40:22 ago (+8/-1)
[ + ] Conspirologist
[ - ] Conspirologist [op] -7 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 08:45:49 ago (+1/-8)
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 6 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 09:11:59 ago (+6/-0)
[ + ] Ex_hack
[ - ] Ex_hack 6 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 09:51:46 ago (+6/-0)
[ + ] ruck_feddit
[ - ] ruck_feddit 2 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 13:24:44 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] carnold03
[ - ] carnold03 4 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 08:09:17 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ]deleted
[ - ] deleted 2 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 14:05:12 ago (+2/-0)*
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 3 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 14:27:32 ago (+4/-1)
Because the NIH and the CDC are kiked, they dont want people to know that promiscuity is a major determiner of longevity. Alot of cancers and neurodegenrative diseases are caused by STDs.
We were just talking about Farrah Fawcett on a post yesterday and I found out she died of butt cancer. She was ~62. That is highly likely to be caused by HPV. She was a slut.
Same with the Wakanda guy. Everybody knows about cervical cancer. But some breast cancers, leukemias, lymphomas, pancreatic cancers can be linked to STD. So can ALS, Alzheimers, Parkinson’s. Shit like herpes continue to do damage at the cellular level in its latent form.
This is one of the reasons why the amish have long lifesspans. Just because you dont die right away from it, doesnt mean you dont die of it.
Viruses/bacteria are a major driver of cancer and dementia. Autoimmune diseases too. The government doesnt calculate that into its stats.
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 14:30:59 ago (+1/-0)*
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 15:43:46 ago (+2/-1)
But it will only work on some cancers in some instances. Carcinogenic viruses damage DNA which impairs your body’s ability to heal itself.
Heres a list of 10 viruses that cause cancer. Its by no means exhaustive. They want people to catch these viruses so they can later sell them “cancer vaccines”
Oncoviral Infections or Their Cancer-Associated Hallmarks
Virus Cancer Intervention or Drug Target Hallmark or Process
Pharmacological Approaches:
HBV/HCV HCC Sorafenib VEGFR-2, PDGFR, Raf Angiogenesis, cell proliferation
HBV Viral CLD leading to HCC Nucleoside analogs, IFN Viral polymerase, protein translation Chronic infection
HCV Viral CLD leading to HCC Ribavirin, IFN, protease inhibitors Viral replication, protein translation Chronic infection
KSHV Transplant KS, AIDS-KS Rapamycin mTORC1 Angiogenesis, cell proliferation
AIDS-KS Imatinib PDGFR, c-kit Cell proliferation
HTLV-1 ATL AZT + αIFN NF-κB Survival
EBV NHL Butyrate + GCV HDAC, vTK, DNA pol Cell proliferation, survival
Immunoprophylaxis and Immunotherapy:
EBV PTLD EBV-specific CTL Lat III-infected cells Survival, immune evasion
HPV CxCa, HNCC L1 VLP vaccine Infection Infection
HBV HCC HBsAg VLP vaccine Infection Infection
https://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/fulltext/S1931-3128(14)00069-9
Probably more. And we havent even touched neurodegenrative disease. Prion like domains on viruses can cause proteins in your brain to misfold, leading to plaques which lead to cognitive impairment and death. This could account for millions of deaths from dementia a year.
Science has known about this for decades yet no one has done a 60 minutes exposition on it. Why not? They don’t want you to know.
People in Africa die on average 10 years prematurely because of AIDS.
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 15:53:19 ago (+1/-0)*
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 16:17:06 ago (+1/-0)
I don’t know how much arsenic is in baby food. But arsenic is an essential element in trace amounts. Especially in young animals. Without it animals are sickly and cant reproduce.
In sub-lethal levels it promotes growth, including cancer growth. Most arsenic related cancers are in people who smoked and received high amounts of arsenic simulatneously.
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 16:22:06 ago (+1/-0)*
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 16:58:43 ago (+1/-0)
Well its not. Some viruses cause cancer and youcan catch some of them from fucking. Many who get “out of the blue” cancers in midlife have fuck related cancer.
Michael Douglas got throat cancer from cunnilingus. I suspect Patrick Swayze had one of these as he died of pancreatic cancer which can be fuck related. Lymphomas and leukemias are also potentially fuck related. Joey Ramone is another one.
You can fuck, you just should fuck recklessly. Monogamy. Fuck someone you are prepared to be financially partnered with for 20 years. No disease.
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 17:04:48 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 19:17:16 ago (+1/-0)
A society of polygamists cannot reproduce faster than a mongamist one, unless it goes outside of that society to steal and fuck women from other societies. Because sex ratio at birth is 1:1.
The reproductive potential of women is the same in monogamy and polygamy. Female reproduction is the bottle neck. Where are you going to get your “extra” women from? Mexico? Laos? Youve defeated the purpose of improving white reproduction. Muslims kidnap women from other societies, steal from and enslave ther men. Many of them die in their incessant wars. That. Is how they compensate for the inherent social instability of male promiscuity. They dont focus on productivity, they focus on war and stealing from each other. Eliminating “excess males” through violence, increasing reproduction with foreign women. That is the price.
Promiscuity breeds bad males.
[ + ] Goatbear
[ - ] Goatbear 1 point 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 17:58:29 ago (+1/-0)
There is a lot of social pressure to engage in that behaviour and a lot of social pressure to not stick with a partner.
Its not abnormal to want to participate in the mainstream culture, it is abnormal to oppose it, it takes critical thinking and guts, most people lack either one of those two, either they know its fucked but participate out of fear or they lack critical thinking and think they are in the right.
[ + ] PotatoWhisperer2
[ - ] PotatoWhisperer2 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 15:12:34 ago (+0/-0)
It gets fucked out of them at an early age. Part of why men used to only accept virgins for wives, as it ensure that they pair-bond with the man.
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 13:55:40 ago (+0/-0)
It's easy to avoid that situation.
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 14:15:15 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 1 point 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 14:21:34 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 14:24:54 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 14:33:59 ago (+0/-0)
What's killing all those faggots?
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 14:35:44 ago (+0/-0)*
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 20:10:10 ago (+0/-0)
She never took meds, tested positive though.
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 6, 2023 13:09:11 ago (+0/-0)*
[ + ] Her0n
[ - ] Her0n 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 6, 2023 22:54:38 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] andasyoucansee
[ - ] andasyoucansee 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 09:56:49 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 15:52:19 ago (+0/-0)
Fake and Gay!
[ + ] Doglegwarrior
[ - ] Doglegwarrior 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 09:28:47 ago (+3/-3)
[ + ] herbert_west
[ - ] herbert_west 1 point 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 10:42:24 ago (+2/-1)
Pure dysgenics like we've never seen. Jews are producing the population of sheeple they always wanted.
[ + ] PhantomXLII
[ - ] PhantomXLII -1 points 1.1 yearsApr 8, 2023 01:12:31 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] PhantomXLII
[ - ] PhantomXLII -1 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 09:34:59 ago (+1/-2)
Traitors to God and Man.
[ + ] The_Reunto
[ - ] The_Reunto 2 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 10:27:46 ago (+2/-0)
That's not to say that we shouldn't rebuke bad behaviour, but even Christ gave the adulteress a second chance, stating "sin no more"
There are Western values that are being eroded away by Talmudic influences. It's sad to see. But I think it is in the nature of some ethncities to reach out and reconnect with those Western roots. I think at the end of the day, enough people will wake up to make a difference.
[ + ] PhantomXLII
[ - ] PhantomXLII -1 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 17:54:43 ago (+0/-1)
Do-nothing judeocuck bullshit.
Don't forgot God literally annihilated two cities because they were filled with sluts and faggots.
Christ fashioned a whip and was flipping tables.
There was literally a war in Heaven against Satan.
I'll hate the sin and the evil which the sinner willingly gave him/herself over to. Their time is done. Now is the time for purging the filth from among us superiors.
And if they don't?
[ + ] The_Reunto
[ - ] The_Reunto 1 point 1.1 yearsApr 7, 2023 23:31:51 ago (+1/-0)
It's the philosophy of clemency and mercy. The idea that good people can do bad things and that reformation is possible. It's foundational in Western society and especially in our penal codes. Why do we send people to jail? In theory to let them repay their debt to society and change their ways. Why do we release prisoners back into society? Theoretically because they have had a course correction that demonstrates rehabilitation based on controls and further risk mitigation we place on their behaviour when they are out.
I mean, yes, the Bible tells us that there are Tares in the world that are incapable of producing good fruits. With the knowledge that some people just can't change their ways, what should society do?
God makes it rain and shine on good and bad alike, and sharing God's love even to those that are wicked may be part of that. That doesn't mean handing over the keys of your house over to children of hell, but certainly because we are not able to readily identify for ourselves which people are Wheat vs Tares, we should walk forward with kindness and compassion as our guide. We can mitigate the risks of bad things happening without needing to be cruel or harsh in every circumstance. But even the NT addresses the ongoing presence and execution of God's wrath. There is a point that it comes into play.
"Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:" - James 1:19
"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." - Romans 13:3-5
[ + ] PhantomXLII
[ - ] PhantomXLII -1 points 1.1 yearsApr 8, 2023 01:11:58 ago (+0/-1)
We were slow to wrath. Decades, centuries, fucking MILLENIA too slow.
We will seize what is ours by birthright, plus interest, since the filth love their usury so much.
And may God damn anyone who stands in our way.
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy -2 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 11:42:43 ago (+1/-3)
At least promiscuous men are social, adaptable. Anyone that can look at the assholes that populates this place and think they are in position to cast aspersions is out of touch with reality.
[ + ] NukeAmerica
[ - ] NukeAmerica 1 point 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 14:27:11 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy -1 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 15:52:13 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Conspirologist
[ - ] Conspirologist [op] -1 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 12:51:12 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] ruck_feddit
[ - ] ruck_feddit 1 point 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 13:26:22 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] The_Reunto
[ - ] The_Reunto -3 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 09:05:18 ago (+1/-4)
It's important to note that these kinds of impairments can be temporary. And sometimes for men especially, there is an expectation to have a specific kill-count. A relationship is more likely to be stable if the number of partners a male has had is about x4 that of the female. And when you factor in the tendencies for females to downplay and males to up-play the number of partners they have had, the spoken ratio might look more like 10:1. These exaggerations tend to be flat number shifts rather than percentages.
For a dude trying to find a woman, for the purposes of stability in long term relationships, it's actually recommended to sleep around up to the target ratio. They've witnessed this female behaviour in animals too, where females will flock to a sexually successful male.
The downside with the number of sexual partners is that the higher the number for both people, eventually it statistically reduces the stability of the relationship anyway. A dude with 400 encounters might be the best fit for a chick with 100 encounters, but that will just be an optimization within an already poor overall potential for stability.
Exposure to STDs is a consideration, but if you've ever been in a "monogamous" relationship with someone that turned out to be hooking up with new people behind your back on a regular basis, you will realize that protection is an illusion. You were exposed the whole time. And this kind of scenario will be more likely with women that have fertility issues, including artificial fertility issues like birth control. It will also be more likely with women that claim to have experienced a traumatic event like rape or sexual abuse.
There are basically two partners that a woman is biologically looking for, one to get her pregnant and the other to help raise her children. If you are lucky enough, you will fit both roles at the same time. But the male sleeping around bit is basically a signal to the female that you have a capability to produce offspring, and therefore would fit well into the first partner role to get her pregnant.
Call it temporary impairment, but I went from 3 to 10 in three weeks with the realization that the perception of my number was that I had too few (and let's be real here, about 2 a week while working full time is not hard to do). For a male, demonstrating that previous partners were impersonal is important. For a female, it's basically the opposite, it is usually to her advantage to have mostly just meaningful attempts at long-term relationships. For a female, stated ratio of long-term relationships to one night stands is important too. The one night stand encounters usually serve as a narrative for denying random males from certain experiences (e.g. when she says "I got with him and he wanted to go the whole way but I just gave him a blowjob instead"). At face value, it can seem odd about why a female would focus on that, but it has everything to do with setting the illusion of rules she follows so that she can "break" those rules with you to show you that you are better value than her previous partners (which is also to say that if she went further and faster with someone else, she doesn't consider you the highest value, and she will not likely talk about that because she will still want to make you feel special so that you reciprocate that affect).
All this said, I think monogamy is the way to go (if you've seen my other comments, you'll know why). But I don't think your approach in criticizing promiscuity is fully fleshed out. The STD argument doesn't work because the intention to be in a monogamous relationship does not gaurantee reduced exposure (we need to look at this from an actuarial perspective with the specifics and risk mitigation techniques). The other part is that not all STDs are terminal or permanent so the consequence for exposure is not necessarily high. Your argument is also just an attempt to appeal to an individual's physical self-preservation, and does not address ego driven individuals, or those driven by a societal greater good (hemlock drinkers, etc). It would not be an argument that would work with masochistic individuals (e.g. "bug seekers"). It might work with germophobic types.
The topic of monogamous vs promiscuous behavious is complex, but I agree that if someone that would normally be monogamous is acting promiscuously, that is a sign of impairment (but just not necessarily for the reason you proposed).
[ + ] yesiknow
[ - ] yesiknow 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 09:14:55 ago (+2/-2)
You have to be kidding.
[ + ] The_Reunto
[ - ] The_Reunto 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 09:46:22 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] yesiknow
[ - ] yesiknow 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 23:38:04 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] The_Reunto
[ - ] The_Reunto 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 6, 2023 06:23:16 ago (+0/-0)
In your last two comments you have made ethos arguments rather than logos arguments. And you never addressed any specifics.
[ + ] yesiknow
[ - ] yesiknow 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 6, 2023 09:47:12 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] The_Reunto
[ - ] The_Reunto 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 6, 2023 10:59:35 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 13:46:36 ago (+0/-0)*
While obviously disagree with this statement and a couple of other things, I think it was a good comment that considers that sexual dynamics within polygamy, the trade offs. However, you seem to be omitting the fact that you cannot achieve a society in which males have 4x the partners as females because the ratio of females to males is not 4 to 1.
You will actually get a body count distribution like this.
https://files.catbox.moe/1aunsb.jpeg
Some men will have ~0 body count. Few women will have a 0 body count but many will have low to medium body counts. Most men will have medium to higher body counts and a minority of women will have very high body counts (prostitutes and others who have commoditized sex heavily) . Its a bimodal distribution in both sexes.
The biggest problem of polygamy is that the most sexually and economically aggressive males will out reproduce the more monogamous types. Aggressive males will begin to win out through genetic drift which changes the nature of the society. If people could understand how dysgenic promiscuity it most would not do it.
Some of those not-so-terminal STDs shorten lifespan by the way. I think its a useful selling point of monogamy. Neurodegenrative disease, cancer, etc is often triggered by viruses and bacteria including STDs like herpes, epstein-barr, hpv, hepatitis viruses.
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 17:32:11 ago (+0/-0)
I think he's talking more about a good ratio for individual relationships, rather than a system for a stable society.
Without other factors I think he's right, when you are significantly more experienced than a woman it seems to work way better.
The math you mention is a problem, and a stable society gets around this by placing external pressure on relationships. Things like slut shaming and severe stigma for divorce and adultry, etc to help people put rational guardrails on their instincts and structure relationships that balance both animal drives and societal duties.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 19:00:03 ago (+0/-0)
Or is it just the particular phenotype of men that tends to have more partners in a polygamous regime? Ie., aggressive males? Will fucking more women actually help less aggressive males? Are these aggressive males going after particularly compliant women?
What you describe is more of a middle eastern dynamic. They think it “works better” too. They never for a minute relate it to the chronic corruption and violence and general shitholiness of their countries. But it is directly related.
Your sentence indicates that you still dont grasp the math. You have to have unmarriageable prostitutes and sluts if you want men to have more partners than the women they have “relationships” with. Half the people in the world are born female.
Wealthy men fuck as many high value females as they want middle class men will get to fuck a couple of prostitutes while the save enough cash to “buy” a mediocre female to reproduce with. Low class males never marry, are incels or only fuck pros.
Prostitutes are critical for elite males to maintain ascendency.
Islam has an alternative. They (usuallly) manage to supress prostitutes. They encourage their lower class males to fight in jihad, preferably against non muslim countries, where they either successfully loot and rape other countries’ women (both improve their reproductive prospects) or they die, in which case the new male to female ratio improves female availability. Men have to die in war or fuck prostitiutes for polygyny to work.
Aggressive males outbreed nice guys in this scenario. Culture is the result of the populations’ genetic tendencies. You can’t fix middle easterners with rational guardrails, because theyve been polygynists for 1400+years. The same will happen to us.
Cold climates killed off the progeny of polygamists for a long time in europe. That isnt happening anymore. Whites will degenerate unless you stop the dysgenic behavior Ive described.
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 20:56:56 ago (+0/-0)
You don't get to decide or engineer what triggers your instincts. I think we're talking about two different things here - you're very focused on how a good societal system should work which I agree with. But that doesn't change the fact that a women doesn't love you the same way if she sees you as inexperienced relative to her. Think about seriously dating a much younger man for example - does that excite you or would you feel like you'd just be playing mama in a gross way?
Men get this for the most part, and women act it out, even if they're less self aware about it. The last woman who was trying to lock me down before the one I'm seeing now leaned HARD on playing up her lack of experience compared to me. Who knows if that was conscious or not but it's a dynamic that works great for both sides.
That doesn't mean that it's something we should fully indulge. Obviously White societies put lots of things in place to civilize our animal instincts and I'm all for bringing them back. But as a guy trying to navigate the current dating climate you have to at least be aware of and honest about our more animal nature because otherwise you're fucked and not in the good way.
This is something poor people think. It helps some, and it's one requirement (of many) for some girls. I wish just being wealthy made it that easy.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 7, 2023 09:16:36 ago (+0/-0)*
This is jewish conditioning which you are “acting out” even if you are less self aware about it. Whites were highly monogamous for thousands of years. White women didnt love men very much when 90% of the population was a virgin at marriage?
You are stuck in a vicious circle, and arms race of male sluttiness that has no end in sight.
Lets say Im an average young woman with 2 sexual partners in my past. You say I wont respect any husband that has fucked less than 8 women.
Suddenly, for no reason whatsoever, no marriageable women with a body count less than 8 can be found! (Those dirty whores! Why is this happeneing?)
So now every male must have 32 notches on his headboard for his wife to respect him. Right?
Miraculously a few years later there are no women with less than a 32 body count. Much wailing and gnashing of teeth on MGTOW sites because “muh inherently whorish wahman”
Math!
A little bit of math is not really math. 2 + 2 doesnt equal 5 but maybe it equals 4.5. Being a little bit more like shitskins and a little less like whites might work out for us. Cope.
The belief that no woman could respect you or love you if you havent banged lots of sluts is bullshit. Its pure vanity. If you are banging sluts, you are a whore maker squandering a valuable limited resource of the white race. You are shitting in the pool. The victims of your slutiness is other white men looking for marriageable women. Once you have done this you can have no expectation of getting a female les slutty than you. Its exactly what you deserve! Why does some other male deserve your castoffs? Consequences.
Find someone with the same body count as you. That is what you deserve.
Women are playing similar games. They are expected to be “good time” girls. Its what men expect from them. If I tell a young 18 year old girl, “be a virgin until marriage” she will give me a whole long story like yours about how it works better for her to have experience. Round and around. Get off the merry-go-round. Monogamy is rational. Have the courage of your convictions. If a woman cant love you for being a virgin, better to know in advance and not waste time on her.
It is an endless struggle in which aggressive upper class males exploit middle and lower class males for wealth while stealing their females. It is the cause of all corruption and all war and all race mixing. It is THE ONLY MOTIVATION for becoming wealthy. It is the secret evolutionary incentive behind one male exploiting another, even if males lack self-awareness of it. Its the reason why we have billionaires and massive wealth disparity.
The amish solved it. The puritans solved it. Enforced monogamy == high egalitarianism and high trust societies. Polygamy favors “bad” men through genetic drift. All you are saying is screwing around “works better” for bad men, who you wish you were more like.
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 7, 2023 16:41:10 ago (+0/-0)
I reached for middle ground a few times but you're being too argumentative.
You don't know what it's like dating women as a man and you never will. You should temper your strong opinions with this awareness.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 7, 2023 17:28:24 ago (+0/-0)
If you are saying that men having a 4x higher body count than women “works out”, then you sort of are.
Likewise. You have no notion of what dating men is like as a woman. You feel that women lack self awareness of their behaviors and I often hear here that women lack logic and make emotion based, selfish decisions. This is an example of the same. Men lack self awareness and logic on the import of their behviors as much as women.
Men are willing to ruin a society so that they can have some sort of sexual advantage or authority (?) over younger, less experienced women? What is the motive behind that impulse? Do you stop to consider why (many) men have this need? Is this about what women like or just about competition with other men?
I have provided a reductio ad absurdum argument for why this sex ratio is untenable, inherently unstable. Is that argumentative. I guess, in a good way. Why do you guys have to be so emotional?
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 8, 2023 02:56:38 ago (+0/-0)
Yes, human nature is untenable, unstable, and creates winners and losers. That's not a particularly hot take, it's just how it is. If you're a man you have to be aware of how things work or you get fucked. When you're a young man, you learn some of these lessons the hard way.
White social conventions gave us a way to deal with these unfortunate facts but those have been ripped down so here we are.
Fuck off with your typical woman shit about men needing authority over inexperienced women. That's some post wall made up bullshit and it's insulting and you're better than that.
The only reason I or any man holds this view is trial and error and often it's a hard lesson to learn. And that's a fact.
[ + ] The_Reunto
[ - ] The_Reunto 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 6, 2023 18:15:32 ago (+0/-0)
I think you and SecretHitler had a great back and forth. Just to add to the dialogue, I think SecretHitler and I are seeing it from the same perspective. The question is more about mate retention from an individual scale, with the foreknowledge that there is going to be a distribution of different kinds of people with varying numbers of partners, and from an individual scale it's up to the individual to map out the balance of probabilities to find what they are looking for. The ratio is only one factor in stability but it isn't a garuantee of anything. You might have the same number of sexual partners as your partner and due to the balance of all of the factors still end up in a more stable relationship than another that has the 1:4 but other factors working against stability. Height differences is an example of something else that can contribute to relationship stability.
The goal isn't to ensure that a society would have that average, it is a commentary on mate retention strategies that tend to lead to more stable relationships. And from stable relationships comes the benefit of more stable childrearing, discipline, structure, etc. which leads into a better society altogether.
You don't need 4:1 f:m in order to have the ratio of partnering to be 4:1. And your bimodal example is a good example of where that can be the case. If you have a population of 50 men, and 53 women, if each has at least one sexual partner but the 3 extra women sleep with each of the 50 men, the median and mode values would show that the men have a 4:1 ratio for sexual partners. Using the mean is going to throw off your numbers and not give you a proper representation of individual circumstances. The mean for the total population of females in that data set would be approximately 4 partners but it does not represent the vast majority of females in that set. That example is an extreme, but the point is that you don't need 4x the females in order to have a population with a 4:1 ratio with past partners.
The takeaway is that we shouldn't get confused with the misconception that an average would necessarily be representative of anyone in the sampled group.
I'm not sure that would necessarily be the case. If you look at the Amish, they have many children per couple where some promiscuous men don't end up having any. Promiscuous behaviour, particularly in women, is a red flag for possible fertility issues. And it makes sense from a biological perspective, if a partnered woman is having difficulty conceiving with a current partner, their biological urges can draw them to 'sample' from other men until something works. The use of contraceptives can drive this behaviour in some cases. Financial stability and genetic health of offspring are two factors that weigh into the equation for partnering. Some men are lucky enough to fulfil both roles. Some men just think they do.
It's a risk factor, but in the big picture it often isn't the most significant risk factor (depending on which kinds of people are being slept with, etc.). Becoming a stunt-double can be more dangerous and statistically life-shortening than an STD. Daily commutes on some highways might be more dangerous than unbound sexual activity. You would need more context to pin down those ranges, and even then it will vary.
You can also get those diseases outside of a sexual context. I agree that consideration is worthwhile but I think everyone is going to weigh their own circumstances for themselves and the level of different kinds of risks they want to take on.
And because of differences in the way people weigh risk, certain kinds of warnings won't mean very much to some people. If someone cares more about their ego than their physical wellbeing (which can be the case in some types of suicides), an argument that "this is physically dangerous" will be disregarded if that individual weighs the reward to be greater than the risk or ensured damage.
OP's argument only really works against a specific kind of demographic. And that in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing but it's probably already the case that people worried about their physical wellbeing aren't the ones that are sleeping around.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 7, 2023 12:09:45 ago (+0/-0)
Are you telling me it’s just too hard for men to change their ways? It’s not, we’ve been doing this for thousands of years. It starts with US. We rebuild western civilization again and we start now.
What studies? Where?
Afghans have great mate retention because they murder the woman that leaves them. Is this a success? What kind of males are they? How did they get like that? This is the type of male you will be selecting for.
Exactly how do you propose this 4:1 factor works? How do you think height works? In “stabilizing” relationships? You think Afghanistan is more stable. It is in some ways. But you cant pick and choose without understanding the selection pressures on the entire population.
It’s inherently unstable, as Ive explained. Its nigger logic and I’ll explain why. The most aggressive female hoarding males will out-reproduce more monogamous “egalitarian” males through genetic drift.
Cold climate killed the offspring of the most promiscuous males in Europe. That’s not happening anymore. The white strategy is in entropy. Evolution is happening now. There’s no point in being white if we continue down this path. We are degenerating.
Whites (historically) enforce conservative morality because it it is the most economically efficient group strategy and it’s an egalitarian one. It has maintained our genetic signal for successful societies with low in-group competition.
Shitskins have negotiable “liberal” morality which puts the individual’s benefit first. It favors individuals who screw over and exploit others within the society. It’s inherently unstable and it disincentivizes cooperativity and productivity. This mostly plays out through female hoarding and wealth hoarding (to get more females) and war (to get more wealth to get more females), by more aggressive males . It’s all about hoarding females from other males. Promiscuous, greedy males outbreed more industrious, monogamous good dads.
You are just kicking the can down the road.
First of all we’ve just guaranteed that 3 men will not have wives. In a country of 100 million, thats going to be ~ 3 million pissed off incels. You’ve ruined 3 million potential baby makers and disincentivized 3 million men from working to contribute to society (muslims and niggers are not industrious for this reason). How much inefficiency is worth dudes having all the moves on their wedding night?! Come on! If I were the king, I could concoct a war to get rid of these pesky extra males— that’s how its been done historically.
So you want to breed women to be virgins at marriage and breed men to fuck whores and have 4x the sexual appetite than their wives and somehow you are going to force 6% of your virginal women to be whores and no man is going to fuck anyone else’s wife? Why not just breed a population of monogamous men? It works! It will work again. Whats the purpose of fucking anyway? The personality traits of aggressive males are a package: high libido, high violence, high resource hoarding— these behaviors are controlled by androgens. You are holding on sentimentally to an inefficient behavior that males need to supress in order to live in stable efficient countries. One per customer!
Because they live a conservative morality where individual males are highly accountable economically, with no “aristocracy” of billionaires living off poorer males by plying them with “sins” like booze and drugs, usury, porn, insurance, socialism, TV, luxuries, etc: pleasure-seeking, status-seeking and convenience blandishments which disrupt monogamous culture. They were started by a highly monogamous ethnic group who understood that all these things are bad for society. They are in a different society, a different economic system and the pressures on them aren’t comparable to the pressures on the average white monogamous american or european family, who is failing reproductively.
Because of STDs ! That a promiscuous male gave them.
These are all part of the high risk strategy of the polygamous male. Why do some males perform a 1.5 hour commute? Shekels.
Because we live amongst other promiscuous people! Cope.
Yeah like niggers. Do you think the white race can’t become more like niggers? Our personality traits are immutable over time?
OP is a christian. Trad christians like him have the right idea but they dont know why its right. They think its because god said it’s right. Thats not why. The reason is evolution.
Male promiscuity is a hyper-male strategy. Because of the cheapness of male reproduction, the males of many species pursue a fuck more/kill more strategy in which they focus on quantity over quality of fatherhood. It’s an inherently wasteful strategy which works if offspring can survive with little or no help from males. These behaviors are genetic and implemented through androgens and melanocortin genes. It’s why nearly all murderers and thieves are men.
Polygyny is a variant on this strategy in which warlords/nobles enslave other males to support their harems. Its not sustainable because the genetics for productivity are only favored in monogamous regimes (monogamy is a quality over quantity strategy for males)
Southern Europe is shittier than Northern Europe and I’ll tell you why: marriage age disparity. I call it polygyny-light, because it results in the same problems that full-on polygyny does, to a lesser extent. Elite males hoard wealth, delay marriage, screw around with peasant women, keep concubines, etc. A lack of marriageable women available to middle and lower class men causes them to delay marriage until theyve earned enough wealth to “buy” one that isn’t a slut. 30 year olds marry 18 year olds. The longer these men wait to marry, the more likely they are to engae prostitutes. The more they use prostitutes the greater the scarcity of marriageable (non-prostitute) women becomes and the more expensive the cost of a bride becomes. The worse the scarcity, the older the grooms will be and the younger the brides will be. The arms race of the hyper-males will result in younger and younger brides and older “hyper” males. 18 to 30 year old men have no one to fuck except whores. They cant get married because they are being ripped off by the rich guys!
When you suggest a 4:1 sex ratio is optimal, its this pattern that you are implementing.
Solution: men and women get married around the same age ~ 22-24. To only one woman! Egalitarian distribution of females leads to egalitarian distribution of wealth.
TLDR
Total monogamy is sustainable. All other alternatives are less efficient. The inefficiency comes in the form of destructive male competition: murder, war, theft, slavery, exploitation, deception. Polygamy is a package: high libido, theft, wealth disparity, violence, corruption. Bad countries. Its genetic: a “hyper-male” strategy as seen in other promiscuous species—bad dads, homocidal males.
r/K strategy theory. Stop choosing ‘r’. Don’t be a gorilla. Im trying to explain how everything in this problem is controlled by evolution. Everyone cannot be a “kang”.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/monogamous-societies-superior-to-polygamous-societies
[ + ] The_Reunto
[ - ] The_Reunto 0 points 1.1 yearsApr 7, 2023 23:01:26 ago (+0/-0)
The potential will be inherent in any society. The question is how that behaviour is mitigated. My comments aren't intended as an endorsement of "you should sleep up to a number in order to gain stability" although that can be a tactic used. It works. And I suppose even just saying that can be seen as a kind of endorsement. The intention of my point was basically to temper expectations that if you are a male with 16 previous partners that it may be time to stop looking for a virgin.
What is this "way of men" that you are speaking of? Both men and women sleep around. But it is not a universal statement to say that all women sleep around nor that all men sleep around.
No idea if you are actually interested in the topic or not, but here is a good podcast that covers the topic of mate retention: https://psychologyofattractivenesspodcast.blogspot.com/
The podcast summarizes different studies. I encourage you to find the studies referenced and assess the methodology for yourself.
Do married Moslem women stay in relationships because of the fear of death? Or because of religious structure/culture? If you do some digging, I'm sure you will find it is more readily attributable to religious social structure.
In the cases of the murdered individuals (legally executed under that law?), because they left they were clearly not retained. So no, those instances are not successful.
Let's park commonsense for a moment and assume that all Moslem women stay in relationships solely due to fear of death: If the question is about the morality of using coercive image of "you will be killed if you leave", it comes back to the question of mitigation techniques and what works better for the overall stability of the society. Bad behaviour is inevitable, but how we deal with things speaks more to our Western values and Christian sensibilities. It is repugnant to most of us to hear about people being executed for adultery or other infidelity and partly because it is so woven into our culture by its Christian roots. Christ said to the adulteress "go and sin no more" where the Islamic perspective is that the penance for infidelity is death.
You can observe things like "water goes downhill" without really needing to immediately have the whole picture about why it works that way. And that is often the case for social sciences. You can speculate on different reasons for observed trends, but even if the speculated reason is wrong the observation is still valid.
Certain ratios of partners are more likely to tend toward stability and certain height ratios are also more likely to tend toward stability. Like SecretHitler pointed out, the partner ratio ties in heavily with the fact that women typically want men with more experience than themselves.
No. The 1:4 ratio does not lead to instability (it creates the opposite effect), but a higher partner count itself is a different factor that can contribute to instability. Someone with a thousand partners is not going to have an easy time having a stable relationship compared to a virgin, even if they meet that ratio.
No.
"We"?
The cold climates favoured cooperation, trust, and fidelity. The absence of environmental pressure does not suddenly reverse the presence of a trait, and that trait (a nature of empathy) is typically correlated to brain/skull structure. If you want to see who would really fit that definition of "White" based on that characteristic, you are better to look at head shape than the colour of skin. And even with the morphology, it isn't a guarantee for those behaviours, it provides a predisposition to those behaviours. Just like the 1:4 ratio or height ratio provides a predisposition for better success and not a guarantee of anything.
Was this strategy done because it was collectively a logically thought out optimization? Or because it was in their nature to do so? I'd wager it has more to do with nature rather than a logical assessment performed by each participating individual. I don't buy your argument here.
I think if we are talking about historical politics, the illusion of egaltarianism has benefited rulers from the plotting and scheming of potential usurpers. There has generally always been stratification in society. Even agreements like the Magna Carta were fairly recent in the grand scheme of things.
Well... you'll have to narrow down the group you are talking about. Moslems for instance have a fairly group-oriented morality, etc. Most religious societies are fairly group-oriented. But if we look at atheistic Chinese morality, that's where we start to see alleged sayings like "if you can cheat and get away with it, do so"
You're on this angle like a dog on a bone. I'm assuming that I'm just missing something here. I don't see your argument on this point having much runway for takeoff. First, I think your point is talking more to the subject of polygynous marriage and the disparity it creates that leads to things like zealous suicide bombers that have nothing to live for because they never had the opportunity to have a spouse or start a family (a solid point in itself, I just don't think it has much bearing on the topic of promiscuity for this context). Things like serial monogamy or even just adulterous behaviour are a different topic. Our topic is really on the post-birthcontrol Western world, where birthcontrol is a self-induced physiological impairment that leads to degenerate behaviour. Things like prostitution has been around from the dawn of civilization, but modern medicine has done a number on the way that we function in terms of sexual reproduction.
If we are talking about the types of men that go around sleeping with married women, it's not the men that are the issue, it's that the women don't have proper fidelity in the relationships that they are in. And even single women will jump on the band wagon with these type of men. This behaviour has been seen in fish too. Women are attracted to men they perceive to be successful with women, and that goes back to the entire point with the 4:1 ratio. It's not really "women hoarding" in many cases, it honestly has more to do with female behaviour than male behaviour.
Maybe? I don't see that necessarily being the case. Certainly, less available women on the market can lead to men not starting a family at a younger age, but that type of dynamic usual comes from a man optimizing their earning potential and other holdings in order to then start looking for a wife. Arranged marriages usually follow this kind of thing. Women tend to have that biological clock that drives them to start having a family at a younger age, and the tendency may be to look for older more established men in order to maximize the number of offspring they can bear under that marriage. And from the perspective of an established man, a younger wife usually represents fewer health issues for offspring that he sires.
No. You have that backwards. 3 women would not be guaranteed a monogamous marriage in that scenario.
Sexual appetite is the wrong term there. A monogamous married couple might have stronger sexual appetites than a promiscuous player. In fact, studies show that heterosexual married people tend to have more sex than heterosexual unmarried people. I think you are missing the point of this. A man with 16 previous sexual partners is more likely (within that dynamic alone) to have a stable relationship with a partner that has approximately 4 previous partners rather than with a virgin. A man that has 4 previous partners might still do well going for a virgin because it still approximates that ratio. If a man with 4 previous partners ends up with a women with 2 previous partners, that still isn't terrible in terms of stability. If a man with 4 previous partners ends up with a woman with 8 previous partners, that is a red flag that the relationship will encounter some degree of instability as a result of that dynamic.
You are looking at this from a policy-making perspective. You are looking at this from a "what should we force people to do in order to have a better society?". I'm looking from the perspective of an individual that has to deal with the society that already exists around them. I'm not suggesting that you force anyone to do anything, but there are certain measurable things that will exist in perspective partners that are known to lead to better or worse stability in long-term relationships. And those factors will vary depending on who you are. It won't even be the case that everyone would necessarily be looking for a long-term stable relationship, hence we have the men and women that sleep around without a care. And as I said before, a virgin with a virgin still meets that 4:1 ratio, you could issue an edict that everyone must be monogamous virgins at marriage and it would still meet that 4:1 ratio optimization.
Risk taking behaviour, sure. And again, if OP's argument was to try to appeal to risk taking individuals to stop taking risks, it isn't a very effective argument.
Do they though? You seemed to agree with the Amish point which goes against this quoted section.
A lesson that should have been learned from the entire SARS-2 jab is that the medical industry is willing to give specific ethnicities injections that will knowingly reduce fertility and cause other reproductive issues. If that is the case for the SARS-2 jab where it was mandated in many cases that specific people get it, how long has this game really been going on for? How many of the mandatory injections given to children over the years have actually contributed to deleterious health conditions?
Think about the HPV shot that they pushed on young women decades ago. It caused cysts and cancer and destroyed many young women's chances at ever having children. What happens with a reproductive system impairment in a women that is strongly driven to have children? Promiscuous behaviour which may result in the desired child.
Let's explore this entire risk-taking bit and how it relates to sexual dimorphism. If a female were to imagine a male version of herself (her matching mirror in sexual dimorphism), and the increased level of risk taking that this person would have, those are probably going to be part of the makeup of the traits that she is looking for. And that might be a reason for the 4:1 partner ratio, and the height ratio. An equivalent person of the opposite sex is going to have different levels of risk taking and different physical attributes based on the changes they experience due to development as that sex. It's also the case that blood-type is another factor that affects attractiveness and mate retention, and the speculation is that females can smell and subconsciously register whether someone is a compatible bloodtype or not.
No, that's not the full picture.
There are arguments from ethos, pathos, and logos. Authority, feeling, and logical thought. Is it really necessary to have a logical justification for every belief that you hold? A gut feeling is in essence a pathos argument.
Logos arguments are what we generally use in Western society as a focal point for trying to convince each other of things. We throw a little dash of ethos and pathos in for flavour at times, but our argument styles usually revolve around logos, and it can be very dissatisfying to have a conversation detour into other modes of arguments. That said, a logical fallacy isn't inherently 'wrong' it just isn't founded in logos. But a logically fallacious argument fails to meet our Western needs to convince us logically of something.
In my mind, virginic monogamy is ideal, but I may not have a study that can show and firmly establish that. I can point to trends, but ultimately it is a 'gut feeling' to make any statement on that beyond those trends. From a Christian perspective, many of those 'gut feelings' can resonate with what is written in scripture (or that scripture resonates with our gut feelings). So to point to scripture to say "this is right" is simply to say that your gut feeling or nature is stating it to be the case. And that is an important point in the New Covenant, that a correctly tuned nature will always lead you in the right way. There is a bit of a chicken and egg aspect to whether one's nature will lead them to a correct understanding of scripture, or whether a correct understanding of scripture would lead to a correctly aligned nature. It's the Euthyphro dilemma in a nutshell.
The condition of chimeric changes over eons of time doesn't really speak to whether something is 'right' or 'wrong'. And considering that theistic evolution is a perspective, evolution by itself definitely doesn't address anything in isolation.
If you mean to say "it is right because my nature leads me to believe it is right", that's not inherently a bad argument, it just isn't a logos argument. And without logos it can be difficult to convince others.
They would represent the role of genetic father but not the role of a father raising a child. In cuckoldry scenarios, the survival is determined by the support of the cuckold.
Well, I'm not sure I agree with that since monogamous relationships can still end up with more guaranteed children than a promiscuous gambit. I believe that faithful relationship end up producing more children and better quality childhoods for those children. It may be the case that there is some health defect from the woman that is present in all of the children from that relationship, and that can lead to a heightened risk of the man finding extra-marital partners to produce children that don't have that defect or disease. Ironically, it can also lead to a heightened risk of the woman clandestinely seeking other partners as part of her subconscious is going to attribute those defects to the husband (or at least that the husband's genes were not sufficient to overcome those defects). Having unhealthy offspring is a risk factor for relationship instability.
I think we need to fan out this topic a bit more too. You seem really focused on polygynous relationships that Moslems and the like would have. But if a virgin man had four virgin wives and they were married faithfully, that completely dismantles the relevance it would have to OPs point about promiscuous sex and transmission of diseases through promiscuous sex. We aren't really talking about polygamy in the sense of a man with multiple wives (though I agree it has its own issues), OP's point was about promiscuity and I broadened the topic to consider serial monogamy (especially rapid serial monogamy) as a form of promiscuity.
No. I think everyone should aim to have faithful monogamous relationships. That said, some relationships crash and burn. Some people might wake up one day a wiser person than the day before and realize that they have facts of life that apply to them, including the number of sexual partners that they've had. You can't rewind time, the only thing you can do is look at your circumstances, look at where you want to be, and then make the best steps forward that you can. This can be in the form of basically doing actuary-esque checks to see which precursors give the best chance for a good outcome. The trick is awareness. I'm not saying to find four wives, I'm saying that a man should be more experienced than a woman if they want to reduce the probability of certain kinds of rocky roads. And even if both a virgins, they can be other measures of experience that should lopsidedly be weightier from the man.
Kill-count is such a small part of the overall picture too. Other things like cultural preference, racial preference, wealth, etc. play a bigger role in stability.
Why not younger?
In an inefficient system, we can still look for efficiency gains, even if it does not accomplish perfect efficiency of the overall system.
I had to do a quick websearch for r/k strategy. I don't know enough about this to make any meaningful comment on the theory itself, but based on the brief search it seems to be that the r/K strategy is a commentary on reproduction rather than just merely the act of sex itself. We would need to look at how this fits in with the post-birthcontrol world and distinguish between pregnancy-free sex (which has basically become a form of courtship) and the production of mixed families.
If people are lightning-round serial monogamists but stop looking for new partners the moment an encounter resulted in pregnancy, I'm not sure if that would fall into the r or K category here. Thoughts on that?
[ + ] WanderingToast
[ - ] WanderingToast -3 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 09:04:42 ago (+0/-3)
Plenty of ways to mitigate the risks
[ + ]deleted
[ - ] deleted -3 points 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 07:28:21 ago (+2/-5)
[ + ] MichaelStewart
[ - ] MichaelStewart 1 point 1.1 yearsApr 5, 2023 07:58:31 ago (+2/-1)