196
197
198

Red Pill TheorySexual strategy is based in Biological Evolution; Understand Natural Selection and you will better understand the SMP (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime

Consider these questions: Why do you like someone? Why do they like you?

The BP multiverse will spit out shit like: because of their charming personality, or they felt a connection. Some anecdote about love will inevitably creep in there. For the most part, the reasons they'll tell you they like each other are generally the the ones that best fit their BP fantasy.

The RP man will tell you it's because you've got game, you hold frame, you're immune to oneitis, you have abundance, the list goes on and on. Essentially you appear to be an Alpha Chad with hair all the way up his shaft.

All of which is correct, but why does that work as opposed to our blue pill fantasy huggers. To understand that one needs to understand how biological evolution takes place. They will need to understand why nature selects for certain traits and why it pisses on others.

Once they've done that they can better understand the SMP and therefore navigate it a whole lot better as they they've gone beyond the how and understood the why.

Human Nature

The world we live in today is filled with wonder. Concepts such as virtual reality, AI. Complex road networks, a multitude of industries such as science and accounting. Despite our many advancements, the principles that govern the forces that drive our desires towards one another hasn't quite morphed at such a rate. Biological Evolution happens very slowly and changes take many generations to take effect. In fact our desire drivers have changed very little since early man, who before all our agriculture, industrial and digital revolutions were far closer to our nature in it's purest, most untainted, must un-cultured form. Before it was governed by things such as religion, politics, nations and all it's prescribed dogma that follows.

Think how an early group of homo-sapiens may have operated and how the principles of natural selection would affect the group as a whole. For the most part these very principles still govern us today.

Natural Selection

There would be a small tribe of men and women:

As natural selection would have it both the male and the female are looking for the finest possible opposite to pass on genetic material to their offspring. They need to give their little critter the best genetic material to give it the best chance of surviving and keeping the species going. Therefore they need to consider their options, and then select the peak of the opposite gender. Relating this back to TRP, you will see that it's clear to see why certain behaviors/attributes leave lasses dripping or us tucking a rager under the belt and why other behaviors leave her dusty and us playing with a floppy.

For a female it's all about the Alpha. The biggest strongest bad ass in the tribe. One who can impose himself on all the other men in the tribe. She selects for him because if he is the strongest male he could protect her best from sources of danger, like other thirsty men in the tribe or other tribe's coming to ravage theirs. If she is to have a child with him he could best protect her while waddling around during pregnancy and her son/daughter throughout post natal care. His genetic material would give their offspring the best chance of surviving too. Essentially, he increases the chances of all of them(and the species) surviving.

Why does she have to be so much more selective than him? Well the consequences of mating lead to vastly different paths for the male and female. The male ejaculates in his pre-historic princess and life goes on. He can then ejaculate in more fine cave booty shortly after. He can impregnate multiple women along his cave sexcapades. The women however is destined to give birth to only one mans little fella. And she is going to have to go through massive bodily changes along the way and then push an apple through a keyhole to give birth to a child that she needs to care for and breast feed for a long time to come. This is why men are far less selective and why females are far more selective for whom they spread wide for. The amount of offspring they can produce in a lifetime is vastly different, therefore different strategies are required.

For this reason men compete to choose their women, the strongest falls at the top of the hierarchy(Alpha), the weakest sink to the bottom of the pile. Men at the top=best genes and most desirable for female to select. Men at the bottom = worst genes and least desirable genes for her offspring. With the man at the top being the most desirable, he gets first draft pick on all the females. Competition is what keeps the best genes at the top of the pile.

Men spread their seed as far and wide as possible to ensure genetic material passes on, promiscuity is in our nature, therefore men who achieve this are deemed high value (abundance, pre-selection). Selectivity is in a females nature, which is why a Thot with sky rocket n-count is deemed low value. If every man with a salami stick could climb inside her, she clearly couldn't be all that high value after all.

There were no contraceptives, the consequences of being a sloot and fornicating with anything but the best jeopardize her little bundle of joys chances at continuing the long line of proud tribe genetics.

If cave beta suddenly develops a severe case of oneitis for a girl. Starts supplicating, cuts off all contact with the other females of the tribe. A couple problems will arise for this seemingly honorable lad. Firstly by laying all his eggs in unicorn cave princess, he's drastically reducing the odds of his genetic material making it through the harsh battleground of natural selection. If anything happens to her or if the child doesn't make it (premium private medical care wasn't too available back then) there goes his bloodline. Perished.

Secondly cave unicorn will start to see that if this man is willing to sacrifice his and the best odds of his future offspring's place in the gene pool then he can't be all that high value after all.

As discussed earlier the women of cave land are carefully assessing who's seed gets to swim to her womb. If Originally tribe alpha who crushed his opponents and was the best chance of keeping her and her future genes safe comes under threat from another male, she will be watching very closely. If new, younger tribe Chad proves himself to be stronger and more cunning than old cave chad, then the women of the tribe will remain loyal and continue to have Old cave chads babies because they love him so very dearly right? Wrong.

The words love hadn't been invented yet, there was simply tingles. Tingles that arose and dictated for which males the moisture drips. As natural selection would have it, strapping young Chad would now be the best protector of the tribe and give the females and offspring the best chance of survival. Their Hypergamous nature would kick in and suddenly they'll find this desire welling up inside of them for young Chad. They just won't feel the same way for old Chad. Not because they're being mean little ladies, but simply because the future of their species depends on it.

Physical Attraction

If cave chad suddenly developed an overzealous appetite and put on fair few pounds, or alternatively he cut down his calorie intake and became an ironing board, the other in shape members of the tribe will start to take note. This may be their window of opportunity, if he's big and slow they will be able to use speed to out maneuver him, if he's skinny and weak they could overpower him. Either way he's vulnerable and will probably be overthrown, the females attraction too will shift towards the new powers that be.

Larger members are also vulnerable to predators. Without cars or bikes to speed away in, foot speed, athleticism is essential. In defending against other opportunistic tribes. Male or female, leaning towards the porky side and having the genes that show a propensity for enlargement are not at the forefront of Natural selections pile of options. No amount of fat positivity is going to get your dick harder for a baby humpback over a slender feline. Her weight would endanger your offspring, especially when needing to escape predators or face enemy tribes, she would also be an anchor on the tribe in terms of food consumption, causing everyone to work harder.

In males the skinny counterparts too can be overpowered by other tribes or have a slimmer chance against predators. Today we have the luxury of lifting in a gymnasium on every street corner to get ourselves into this prime mate selecting shape. Height plays a role too simply because a tall strong man is generally a stronger safer bet than a short strong man. I'm not even going to go down the consequences of being short and skinny and what that does for a women's attraction levels.

Facial hair and depth of voice are a factor too. Men with thick facial hair and a deep voice would have been considered more dominant, masculine, aggressive and socially mature. This is a far better brute to climb behind for a damsel in distress.

Men when licking their lips at their prospects will always be drawn to the younger, more slender females, ones who could escape danger swiftly. Wide hips show fertility and a small waist shows high estrogen levels(good for production). When estrogen levels are high weight tends to gravitate towards the ass and tits. Which is why most men find themselves feigning after a thick ass and solid pair of knockers. As a women ages and estrogen numbers drop, weight moves to the gut(therefore get larger) and shows less fertility, and a worse option for natural selection. With diminished fertility, the men lean more toward the young chicklings, who have a better chance of continuing the life cycle.

  • So no you're not being a misogynistic pig for not desiring heffalump or that post wall spinster, you're simply being a man in tune with his biology.
  • Alternatively she's not being a vain whore for wanting a well built, strong masculine man, she too is a victim of her biology.

Behavioral Attraction

Underneath the physical attributes lies behavioral attributes. If Mr. Flintstone get's timid and does the chicken dance every time he engages with a female, then he can't be the big strong entitled alpha that's taking what is rightfully his. If the threat of another male sends shivers down his spine and he retreats to safety, he certainly isn't the head honcho of tribe Bedrock because his frame is shattered by tension, danger, women. Alternatively if his counterpart holds firm when challenged by another man, he remains calm in the face of danger, he knows he's the best option for the women of his tribe and has no qualms about taking what's his, then who would be the best candidate to protect the blossoming life of the tribe?. Who would be the better candidate to secure the females while vulnerable or pregnant? I think not Mr. Flinstone.

A strong decisive leader, one who makes decisions and takes charge when need be gets the vaginal water works flowing because quite literally, lives depended on it. Intelligence too, as you would need to navigate the lands and outsmart predators to keep your people safe. A rockhead would put everyones life in danger.

For the man his first option would always be drawn towards a women who shows good maternal instincts. Thus caring, nurturing, empathetic. This will show her ability to keep the life cycle spinning and take care of the genetic material you shoot inside of her. A women acting like a man, with brash, aggressive, confrontational attributes would be repulsive. The men would either take her out for wanting to compete with them or simply put her last on the fucking schedule as she has shown a poor store of attributes needed to raise young.

Submissiveness too, a pre historic women knew full well a man was stronger than her and was not worth competing in that realm, she needed his protection (child birth, that strength to protect tribe) so her best logical bet is to submit and rather focus on putting herself in the best possible position to select the most suitable male.

  • Once again you're not a women hating patriarch for not desiring a masculine, blue haired brute of a human being, you're just a man driven by his biology,
  • Alternatively she's not being a mean, ugly man hater for desiring a strong frame, driven, confident leader over a timid, weak, sensitive gentleman.

Biological Evolution

Ultimately biological evolution is all about the continuation of life. And life chooses for the genes that would give the next life the best possibility to continue life. Attraction and desire are simply by products of this. It is the guiding hand that directs us towards the best options. Learning how the jungle of the the SMP works enables one to manipulate it in their favor. By knowing why nature selects for what it does, we can obtain the attributes that puts us in pole position. Attraction is the unconscious, understanding it is what makes it conscious. As a great saying goes:

"Until you make the ‘Unconscious’ Conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it Fate."


[–]confused998 58 points59 points  (93 children)

I assure you a "weak" soft-spoken slim guy with a model face would pull more than aggressive chad

[–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime[S] 41 points42 points  (71 children)

Sure, he can, aggressive Chad could also pull more, depends on a whole host of factors.

Elaborate on why you think so to give your statement validity.

[–]3LiveAFTSOV 21 points22 points  (35 children)

Bro your post is about embracing our nature and they completely missed it.

Nature doesn't give a fuck about beauty if its compared against power.

Tribal women didn't fuck the most good looking men. They fucked the strongest. Most powerful .

Looks were a form of power, but like any one individual source of power, gets out shone by others put together.

Put any soft effeminate man with a model face into a fight with an ugly strong guy, and women will be attracted to the ugly strong guy.

I always say, gorillas don't get mates by looking good. They get them by being tough.

Anyways. Good post

[–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime[S] 5 points6 points  (11 children)

On the money.

There's a large cultural drive to deny our human nature and the influence it has on our behavior. We would rather believe some blue pill fantasy that we have zero biological desires and that we 100% choose everything we do.

The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker goes pretty in depth on it.

[–]3LiveAFTSOV 1 point2 points  (10 children)

Who's benefiting from that drive? Who's pushing the anti-natural agenda and why?

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 3 points4 points  (4 children)

The corporations and the government.

Yeah yeah before you consider me a 'conspiracy theory' guy (as if conspiracies don't happen irl, but i digress) you must understand.

Corporations are merchants. Merchants want to sell as much of their product as they can. Who is it easier to sell to - Ghenghis Khan and his merry aggressive band of mongols who drink alot of kumis and will likely kill you and rape your woman if you cheat them (or may even just take your wares for the fun of it); or a bunch of complacent, bohemian eunuchs who are more interested in posturing and playing the perfect courtier?

Same with the government. Who would make for a more easily controlled, safe population? A bunch of rowdy vikings quick to grab an axe (gun) if you piss them off or a bunch of docile eunuchs who are too afraid to fight back?

[–]VolatileEnemy 2 points3 points  (3 children)

  1. Nature isn't what you think it is. First of all, throughout human history, there was an anti-natural agenda at play: men controlling women through sheer force.
  2. The Strong tribal chieftain and his warriors got all the women, but not always because the women liked them, but because they had no other choice. Imagine a weak beta male trying to take a beautiful woman in the tribe. The warriors would have a say in that and fight him for it. But the woman's natural evolutionary thinking might be that she thinks the smart weak beta male is a better person. So again, that's 200,000 years of tribal anti-natural agenda.
  3. Genghis Khan and his descendants conquered Russia and China and parts of the Middle East. They adopted the Chinese bureaucracy and merchant behavior culminating after conquering China as "The Ying Dynasty". They adopted the Islamic ways with Badu Khan's horde and their merchant ways. So history is much more complicated than a bunch of fearless warriors roaming the natural world and pillaging. Same thing happened to ruthless Vikings, they adopted smarter ways and became what you now consider non-wild, non-alpha, non-aggressive civilizations. They became the tea-drinking English, the God-fearing Spaniards, and various areas of Germanic north. History mixed a damn lot.

[–]ExternalKing 0 points1 point  (2 children)

You fucking retard, might makes right, that's the law of the jungle, the law of nature.

Nice cope fag.

[–]VolatileEnemy 0 points1 point  (1 child)

If might makes right, then wtf are you doing on here... Just go break shit, pussy. Why are you a loser on an internet website? You should be living like tarzan fuckin' pussy.

[–]ExternalKing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because im not that powerful? You fucking retard.

[–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Who's benefiting from that drive?

Fat feminists pushing fat positivity, Blue Pills thinking just be yourself, they think they're benefiting from it.

Those putting in the effort are the ones who actually benefit due to reduced competition.

Who's pushing the anti-natural agenda and why?

Feminists, SJW's, Liberalists etc

Because it's easier, rather expect the world to change instead of changing myself. Less personal responsibility.

[–]3LiveAFTSOV 0 points1 point  (3 children)

There's no way a group of fat lazy feminist and other limp wristed in titled social Justice Warriors would have been able to shift culture as much as they did on their own

Someone else is behind them backing them up my guess is that they're backing up this movement for profit it's easier to sell and control a lazy entitled population

So yeah profit but why are they could sir and with generating profit people don't make money just for the sake of making it they were gonna spend it on something

[–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I don't think it's so much a group of conspirators trying to direct the course of civilization.

I think it's more a case of follow the breadcrumbs and you'll find money.

Media supports these groups because they sell stories/get shared.

Media in turn makes more money.

Media then also influences the masses who then live their life in a certain way that other companies profit off.

What these companies sell then re-enforce what media sold. A sort of loop, but the driving force intentionally or un-intentionally is money.

Companies who oppose popular culture don't make money.

However if there is opportunity to make money from opposition then that will grow too.

Essentially we are the little sheep that vote with our money.

Money is not necessarily to spend it, money is simply power. The more of it you have the more control you have.

[–]arythmetic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't subscribe to the puppeteer pulling strings theory either. This is a matter of advancing technology expanding our worst self-destructive desire to remain static and not adapt to the competitive landscape. Media and Consumers alike would rather put fingers in their ears than to hear the simple universal truth, "Nature selects."

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

social Justice Warriors would have been able to shift culture as much as they did on their own

Social justice culture as well as feminism where financed by the CIA through women such as Gloria Steinman (she was a child prostitute at one point).

[–]celincelin -2 points-1 points  (22 children)

attracted to the ugly strong guy

Who will die the next year because of the infection he’ll get after trying to chew on meat with his crooked teeth; the pretty boy will live, thanks to his perfect bite that made him so pretty in the first place.

Why is it so hard to understand that the concept of beauty evolved in humans, and in many other animals, for an objective reason?

The gorilla example is just surreal. It’s honestly not obvious for you that good looking gorillas are supposed to look good to other gorillas, not humans?

[–]Ta11no 5 points6 points  (3 children)

Buddy are you autistic? Let me put it in terms for you to understand ok? Men are success (read survival) objects and women are sex (read in this case, beauty) objects. Alpha has no look to it that’s why ugly ass men fuck the prettiest women. That’s a poor ego investment on your part bro. Don’t take it out on us because you can’t pull your balls out of your stomach, instead do what everyone else does and learn to master yourself and become your own mental point of origin.

[–]celincelin 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Very self-ironic, bra. Intended?

[–]Ta11no 0 points1 point  (1 child)

If you’re referring to the ego investment part I guess I can’t blame you for missing the /s. Regardless the facts are there and you can either ignore them to your own peril or learn to compensate where you fall short

[–]celincelin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your comment read like a very obvious mocking of a standard TRP post.

[–]3LiveAFTSOV 0 points1 point  (10 children)

  • >implying gorillas aren't related to humans

How bout an unattractive guy with normal teeth. Maybe he has negative canthal tilt. Maybe he's 2 inches shorter than average, average bodied. No remarkable features. Ugly. But functional. Also can destroy the pretty one.

Violence is king.

I'll admit, looking ugly never helps, looking better always helps*- however, violence is king in SMV world. No woman can be sexually attracted to a man she witnessed get his ass beat.

This happens to professional boxers, and they get cheated on during losing streaks. Imagine what happens to the average person, they don't always have the opportunity to redeem themselves.

*scientifically proven

[–]blacklightsleaze 3 points4 points  (8 children)

Tribal man used to live in small tribes and the priority of the tribe was survival so fighting with each other to get laid is not a productive survival strategy. Considering that most man died before they reach adulthood probably the most adaptable to the surrounding environment individuals used to procreate. You get born with shitty immune system back than, you get infected, you die. You are born with myopia, you can't hunt, you die. Your are born weak, you get crushed by wild pig wile you hunt, you die. Being dumb and eating this plant, you get poisoned and die. So back than what it mattered post was how fucking adaptive to the surround you were. Also imagine some guys is the strongest alpha in the tribe dominates everyone else and stuff, it would be easy for me to gather with some other guys and crush his head with a rock. With the development of agriculture and bigger societies the rules changed, and the most powerful individuals started to get a lead. You get the idea the meta is changing trough the time.

Nowdays the rules changed again and does it really matter if you are the strongest? Looks like not so much. You don't have to fight with no one to get girls. And its true the feminine or not the pretty guys get girls, easly. What the ugly guy gonna do? Before 3k years he would go and raid his village and get the women. But nowdays this can't happen. So violence is not the king in the mating strategy. Yea, beauty is not the only thing, social status is the only thing that out weights looks. And social status depends on how adaptable you are and its sum of bunch of things.

[–]3LiveAFTSOV 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Violence is king because it doesn't matter how much status you have, or how strong a frame you have, If someone else can make you into their bitch.

They wouldn't fight amongst themselves to mate, they would fight other tribes.

[–]blacklightsleaze 0 points1 point  (5 children)

For which period of history you are talking about? Now days violence don't fucking matter. What matter is social status and looks mostly.

Trough stone age world population was so small that there was no point of fighting between each other. There was no agriculture, so no food storages, so nothing to steal and fight for. All the fighting and wars started after the development of agriculture and probably this is the only time when violence mattered. And what matter was not the power of the individual, but the power of the group.

[–]3LiveAFTSOV 0 points1 point  (3 children)

It's not that violence doesn't matter but rather violence hasn't happened enough in front of you for it to matter.

plenty of inner city youths would agree that those having the most sex are also the ones beating the most ass

If and when violence happens around you or in front of you take note of how the females react to the situation in my experience they Gauck and in a way almost sheer on the fight and they stand on the side of the aggressor

[–]DisciplineOverDrive 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't disagree, but do wonder if that's more to do with simply "besting in physical encounters" vs. actual violence. I was at a party where some girl was giving me shit about not being able to beat some guy in arm wrestling, and when I did with ease, she was all over my lap the rest of the night - complete stranger beforehand. This was actually in front of my then girlfriend at the time, too - no fucks given, women are wild haha.

It's an anecdote, but more of one to hypothetically brainstorm if biological wiring sees it as "beat guy up = attractive" vs. "show signs of capable of beating guy up = attractive," the latter suggesting there's lots of ways to trick the female brain (and there are.)

[–]blacklightsleaze 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I fought a lot as a kid and teenager. Also witnessed a lot of violence since I am from the Balkans and here is how things get resolver usually. Bunch of dudes gather a kick someone else ass. This is how it goes when you are teen.

And yea if you can't defend yourself from aggression you are an ez victim. hm... but I am not sure that the most aggressive guys fucked most girls, because iirc most of them were dumb af autistic kids. Some of them to this day suck with women. Sure they had bunch of lay, but not much.

The guys who fucked most girls were the ones who were cool and were able to defend and fight back.

Now when we are grown ups does it matter? Yea if you fuck or try to pick up the gf of some local criminal you gonna have bad time.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

no point of fighting between each other

yes there was preciesly because the population was small. small tribes discovered in remote areas of the world have shown that they will fight to the last man if need be if that means they can secure women to mate with from other tribes or food or water access.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it would be easy for me to gather with some other guys and crush his head with a rock

nah. because the big man would always have other big guys who are loyal to him helping him out because he gives them women and 'money'. these big guys have their own lieutenants that follow orders and suck up to them to try and win their favors so if they smell an inkling of you even plotting to kill the big bad dude in charge (throgg), they'll go tattle to throgg's friends and throgg's friends will come and bash your face in and bring your head to throgg for their earned reward.

i suggest you go read about how tribal societies have been and are organized.

Jack London did an interesting thought experiment on this very topic. It's called 'The strength of the strong'.

[–]celincelin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe he has negative canthal tilt.

Poor eye area in men almost always means that eyes aren't deep set, which means they're more exposed and are easier to target. He won't destroy the pretty one, because the pretty one's eyes are better protected, the big sharp jaw is harder to break, and he's also taller but not too lanky, so he has a big overall advantage in a fight. And don't start about MMA, I know all that; MMA requires intelligence which is so new it's not in the lizard, or monkey even brain yet, and it's mostly those deep parts of the brain that judge the beauty.

I'll admit, looking ugly never helps, looking better always helps

Why is this so? I've given my explanation that you don't agree with, so what's yours?

Violence is king.

Bullshit.

[–]perdipp 0 points1 point  (1 child)

your pretty boy will get smashed to death before he can take that sweet sexy bite of his strawberry

[–]celincelin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By a short bald Asian with Game of course?

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Who will die the next year because of the infection he’ll get after trying to chew on meat with his crooked teeth; the pretty boy will live, thanks to his perfect bite that made him so pretty in the first place.

if he's weak, he'd be dead. big ugly throgg will come, bash in pretty boy's teeth and take his food and woman because he can. if pretty boy survives, he won't be eating much of anything without teeth.

[–]celincelin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe that you masturbate to that imagery all the time, but the truth is that humans have the notion of male beauty for a reason.

[–]punchyson 0 points1 point  (1 child)

There is scientific research that suggests that during a woman's peak sexual phase of ovulation that they prefer overt masculinity.

I think this greatly depends on culture too. French women for example like 'Faux Ugly' which is very masculine men with somewhat asymmetrical but very masculine qualities that are dressed very well.

If you aren't a pretty boy, I'd recommend really working on your masculine game. Do a martial art, lift heavy weights, grow and properly groom some facial hair, dress better, cultivate some manly hobbies.

There are a lot of feminine women out there hungry for a masculine man. Jeremiah Johnson would clean house if he were a real Red Pill man in '18

[–]celincelin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They might prefer overt masculinity demonstrated by men already attractive by other factors.

If you aren't a pretty boy, I'd recommend

So by your own words pretty boys are attractive--what are you arguing, then?

There are a lot of feminine women out there hungry for a masculine man.

I'm aware of this manosphere fantasy.

[–]hb8only 1 point2 points  (30 children)

Elaborate on why you think so to give your statement validity.

I can answer for confised998 - one of the best looking girl I know (slim, young, hot) is dating a boy who is like 45kg (70lbs) and about 175cm.. his biceps and arm together is smaller than pipe on road bike..

but he has a fucking face and hairs...

[–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime[S] 23 points24 points  (29 children)

That's a start, it's an example, now go a step further and give the rationale behind the statement.

[–]flowerhaf 8 points9 points  (13 children)

It's simple, because in today's world, there is law, 99% of the time u don't have to use muscle wolverine size to feel safe , a skinny titanic Leonardo face with brain beats a muscular man in terms of attraction

[–][deleted]  (7 children)

[deleted]

    [–]flowerhaf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    True but the benefits of muscle diminish more when law kicks in , though it's still good to be muscular , just in today's world , a handsome skinny guy wins a muscular average looking guy with the same every other aspect

    [–]celincelin -2 points-1 points  (5 children)

    You’re overthinking. Too much muscle reduces mobility. That’s it.

    [–]blacklightsleaze 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    wtf? Muscle is for sure increasing your mobility.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]blacklightsleaze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Stallone is on roids and one is talking about roided meatballs.

      Naturally you can be mobile and muscular in the same time. It's bullshit that muscles are limiting yours speed.

      [–]celincelin 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      It increases your weight as well. At some point the mobility is reduced.

      [–]Sumsar01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Idiots try to rationalize not lifting. Look up some studies about what females find attractive. The biggest correlation is total lean mass.

      [–]59Aisires59 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      I don‘t think so, women want to feel small and have a strong man im the long run. Small and skinny boys won‘t always be prefered. Trust me, gain some muscel and See for yourself.

      [–]flowerhaf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      That's why u didn't read properly what I'm trying to say, muscle help..if u read carefully again. I said muscle average looking guy like triple H wearing CEO coat with well groom hair and Armani perfume lose to skinny Leonardo DiCaprio oily messy hair , smelly loose clothing , of course if he is fitter. Its even better.

      [–]flowerhaf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      in the long run, i agree and trust u. just that we are talking about good looking vs average looking muscular guy particularly in todays world , other than that i agree with u, good looking fit > "good looking skinny > average looking muscular"> average looking skinny, yes u still need to lift.

      [–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      What about a Leonardo with a ripped body and a great face?

      Will he get selected ahead of skinny Leonardo with the same face?

      [–]flowerhaf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Yes But somehow it works if your looks is 7/10, muscular wins, however when the looks gets 10/10 ultra handsome, my feeling is still girls choose the skinnier one, when I say skinny I don't mean scrawny skeleton or skinny fat, it's lean

      [–]confused998 0 points1 point  (13 children)

      Because I've seen it with my eyes, plenty of times. Probably because actually good looking males (pause) and not just your gym bro clothes travel type have very rare genes, which outshine "alpha" type ones. Also one would assume said males were not totally BP and had very basic social skills. We have surely inherited basic traits from our ancestors but media and fashion mass influence play a huge role in defining us as modern people.

      [–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime[S] 18 points19 points  (11 children)

      “I’ve seen it” is always a poor unsubstantiated argument.

      Why can’t a gym bro be good looking? They are not mutually exclusive.

      Alpha by definition is the most desirable for the opposite sex. It doesn’t get outshone, it does the shining.

      Sure media plays a role, but biology plays a bigger role, which is why you can still fuck a feminist.(easier than most women in fact)

      [–]Mylominderbinder -1 points0 points  (2 children)

      I think what he's trying to say is in today's world, the necessity for muscles/physical strength has greatly reduced due to the fact that we live in a civilized society with law and order. That's why the skinny kid with a pretty face and hair can pull regularly. But muscles and physical strength are still at the top of the list. The only difference is women can afford to select a guy without it and still be able to raise an offspring in a safe environment.

      [–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Sure, but why not have both?

      [–]blacklightsleaze 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Social status and looks is top of the list in these days. Muscles yes... because they are part of the looks. But strength doesn't really matter unless you are an athlete.

      [–]anabolic92 -4 points-3 points  (5 children)

      Alpha by definition is the most desirable for the opposite sex. It doesn’t get outshone, it does the shining.

      Where did you get that definition from?

      [–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime[S] 9 points10 points  (4 children)

      Do I really need to spell out to you that the Alpha is the most desirable mating option for a female?

      [–]Proto_Sigma 0 points1 point  (3 children)

      So, for the sake of argument, if the aforementioned hypothesis that pretty boys pulled more tail than gym bros were in fact true, would that make them the Alphas, definitionally?

      [–]blacklightsleaze 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      What I though so... that means Bieber or Timberlake are alphas, because they are highly desirable.

      [–]confused998 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

      I never said they can't. Growing muscle or/and knowing how to fight is very good for a man; but he would be pulling girls and women even without because of his face and some really basic game. As someone pointed out, nowadays you don't literally have to fight for your life, unless you are in prison or working a really shitty job.

      Edit: gym bro is not necessarily a pejorative term. You can lift weights and be in great shape without being a gym bro.

      [–][deleted]  (3 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime[S] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

        Because his statement says certain traits give an advantage over other traits

        Which is very different from the shit you just cooked up.

        [–][deleted]  (1 child)

        [removed]

          [–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          I'm not confused as to what he is saying. I'm confused as to why he thinks so.

          I fail to see why asking him to elaborate on it so that I can understand why he thinks so and have a discussion around it is not making an effort.

          Unless by effort you mean I should blindly agree with an unsubstantiated statement?

          [–]xddm2653 4 points5 points  (0 children)

          Gtfo with that black pill shit lol

          [–]3LiveAFTSOV 9 points10 points  (6 children)

          Lmfaoo. Lookism trolls infiltrating.

          Let's gather a crowd of girls and put the model faced wimp in a Gii then let him roll around with an athletic mixed martial artist - observe who the women are attracted to.

          Guaranteed it's the fighter.

          [–][deleted]  (5 children)

          [deleted]

            [–]3LiveAFTSOV 6 points7 points  (4 children)

            They were bullied young and turned into vicious killing machines that could lay down most men.

            Yeah I'm sure most women see through him and don't desire him- what women would desire a strong warrior?

            Don't be mad you can fight and beat your way to the top. Never forget that gorrillas beat up their rivals. There's no fucking amused mastery.

            [–][deleted]  (3 children)

            [deleted]

              [–]3LiveAFTSOV 0 points1 point  (2 children)

              YOUR in person findings sound accurate, and your last paragraph is pretty accurate.

              but, being muscular and fit never hurts when it comes to life, nor does it hurt knowing you can woop ass.

              [–][deleted]  (1 child)

              [removed]

                [–]3LiveAFTSOV 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                my point is that women can not be sexually attracted to a a man if they witnessed that man getting his ass beat.

                yeah we evolved, but we still operate on cave man thinking - it's a subconcious thing. Women fucked the winners of war, not losers

                [–]Akmb499 2 points3 points  (2 children)

                That's why Goliath mocked David when he saw him because he was a pretty boy, then he David sliced his head off and half of the women in Israel fell in love with him.

                [–]TopOccasion29 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                He used the great equalizer (a weapon) to slay Goliath. Goliath would have brutally crushed him with his bare hands if they went toe to toe.

                [–]Akmb499 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                http://charlessledge.com/prey-predators-alpha-predators/

                Look at Alpha Predators, this is David and Goliath is a predator.

                [–]Devils_Duke 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                As far as I can figure out, it's Blue Pill to think that aesthetic facial features are important for a man. Why? 1) That's the narrative we are sold by society at large (and we know that most of the popular narratives in "dating" culture are bullshit). 2) It makes no evolutionary sense. 3) I don't see the pretty men getting the hottest girls.

                Guys get confused because they’re listening to women’s words. When a woman finds a man attractive, she does not know why and will (most of the time) come to the conclusion that “he’s handsome”. It will usually, in fact, be subtle, subconscious indicators of value that she finds attractive. Essentially, his masculinity.

                Get on YouTube and have a look at the number of women who call Craig Ferguson “handsome” when he interviews them. Then pay attention to what Craig actually looks like… The truth is he knows how to talk to women in the right way (flirt).

                [–]Kyson5 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                He might pull the less attractive looking women, but the thicc/phat assed women go for males that display higher levels of aggression, prowess and intelligence.

                [–]TopOccasion29 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Truth. I don't think I've ever seen a 9 or 10/10 woman with a man who isn't masculine.

                [–]uwey 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                Aggressive chad also multi millionaire work for his own company.

                You got to know your ponds and all the biosphere in the pond, know the fish, and how to get them. Don’t change yourself base on what fish you like because that is why most man fail.

                You see, your situation dictate what fish you can afford. Improve the way to obtain those situations, then you can get top fish. Got to learn to let go because most fish was never to worth it to begin with, get best fish at your pond....

                Get as much fish at your small pond, because you got to start somewhere.

                More fish will enter your pond, when you get big pond.

                Get bigger pond, upgrades your income, look, body, mind, knowledge and sociability, network other pond, and pull their fish.

                Goal? Women was never that much of importance, for fuck sakes you live one life for 80 years if you were lucky, and you have only 40 yr work life, 80000 hrs. What’s more important will be your legacy and your life work, fuck enough hot chicks and you will understand why most man end up with multi wife, because a wise and loyal women worth your life, for her to raise your legacy, and it can change base on man’s stage of life.

                Keep fucking and learn, one day you will zen it out and focus on your life mission instead horny like a dumb barbaric cunt that can’t elevate your own worth and have no appetite for politics. That is the saddest state of life, no appetite for political power game, and unable to wield your god-given power of internal conflicts and command others to accomplish great work of god.

                [–]look_good 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                You gotta shoot to kill. Having a pretty face but no game is fuck all in the SMP.

                [–]SuperCrazy07 14 points15 points  (4 children)

                I disagree that for most of human existence people were carefully selecting mates based on which woman was the most fertile or which man should I select to pass on the best genetics.

                I think every cave man/woman fucked all the time. But, over a couple million years, the offspring with the highest probability of survival were the ones w strong competent fathers and young healthy mothers.

                The genes of men that selected young women got passed on. The women that selected strong men passed their genes on. Give it 100,000 generations and its hardwired in us.

                [–]Ramp_Up_Then_Dump 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                Evolution happen that way, ramdomness is big factor. Machine learning is like this too.

                Mammal that have petite fethishes survived at post-meteor times in underground holes. Being small is better sometines for survival.

                If 50 shades of grey will be primary school book, we may have diffrent features after several mileniums too!

                [–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                I disagree that for most of human existence people were carefully selecting mates based on which woman was the most fertile or which man should I select to pass on the best genetics.

                It's anything but careful. It's sub consciously driven. This post is simply explaining why.

                I think every cave man/woman fucked all the time.

                So how did they get there?

                But, over a couple million years,

                Homo Sapiens haven't been around that long.

                the offspring with the highest probability of survival were the ones w strong competent fathers and young healthy mothers. The genes of men that selected young women got passed on. The women that selected strong men passed their genes on. Give it 100,000 generations and its hardwired in us.

                So basically Natural Selection.

                [–]blacklightsleaze 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                Can you explain what do you mean by "strong men", because most people mistake it with physical strength and aggression, which is not the case I think.

                [–]SuperCrazy07 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                Its a combination of things. Physically strong. Mentally strong. Emotionally strong. Able to assess and handle situations calmly and resolve them to your benefit. Etc.

                [–]Endorsed ContributorMentORPHEUS 11 points12 points  (18 children)

                Men when licking their lips at their prospects will always be drawn to the younger, more slender females (snip)

                • So no you're not being a misogynistic pig for not desiring heffalump or that post wall spinster, you're simply being a man in tune with his biology.

                Good writing overall, but this part sounds to me like bro-science meets TRP fanfic. Your analysis completely ignores that food surplus has been a "first world problem" for less than 100 years. The Victorian era famously elevated plump women and men; to carry extra pounds was a status symbol. For most of human history, unreliable food supply and famines were the norm. This gave women able to readily store excess calories a huge evolutionary hand through most of our history.

                Ancient cultures were sometimes matriarchal in their very structure, or at least included some very high status positions for certain women. Many ancient cultures literally worshipped obese women as goddess-like. .

                https://wisesass.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/fertility-goddess-1.jpeg

                https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1c/b7/dd/1cb7ddbdb6d1ed8e89a372a73fa1853f.jpg

                http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0244/1435/products/VENUS_Aphrodite_Statue_1_grande.jpg?v=1460588280

                http://coffeehousewriters.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Goddess_fertility_Ankara-512x400.jpg

                Edit:Format

                [–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime[S] 7 points8 points  (15 children)

                Your analysis completely ignores that food surplus has been a "first world problem" for less than 100 years

                Precisely my point, therefore we do not have the ingrained biological inclination towards obesity, it never even existed.

                The Victorian era famously elevated plump women and men; to carry extra pounds was a status symbol.

                Many ancient cultures literally worshipped obese women as goddess-like.

                My analysis is stripping away the cultural factors that influence mating behaviors and instead looks only at the biological factors that drive desire/attraction.

                I do agree on your statements however.

                [–][deleted]  (11 children)

                [removed]

                  [–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime[S] 9 points10 points  (10 children)

                  In a hunter gatherer tribe who moved a lot being fat would be a disadvantage.

                  Fleeing predators would be a disadvantage.

                  Fleeing other tribes would be a disadvantage.

                  Fat/obesity is a sign off poor health.(thyroid dysfunction)

                  Fat girls storing fat on the gut would show lower estrogen levels and therefore less fertility and desirability.

                  So no, they would not have had an advantage.

                  [–]3whatsthisgarg 2 points3 points  (6 children)

                  In a hunter gatherer tribe who moved a lot being fat would be a disadvantage. Fleeing predators would be a disadvantage. Fleeing other tribes would be a disadvantage. Fat/obesity is a sign off poor health.(thyroid dysfunction) Fat girls storing fat on the gut would show lower estrogen levels and therefore less fertility and desirability.

                  You would have done your argument better if you had simply said there weren't any truly fat people back then, so there could not have been a genetically-based sexual preference for them.

                  But, in fact, a bit of fat (this is so generally known I'm sure most 12 year olds know it) ensures survival in lean times. Therefore, the little bit fatter ones survived, and the males who had a genetically-based preference for that (because they were the ones fucking them) were the ones who passed on both the genes for the little-bit-fat AND the little-bit-fat-preference.

                  Furthermore, fatter is better for fertility. Too skinny, ovulation might not even occur, and given pregnancy, fat is definitely a benefit.

                  You put a lot of time into the post, but not a lot of critical thinking.

                  [–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

                  But, in fact, a bit of fat

                  We're talking past eachother, I never critiqued a bit of fat infact I endorsed it.

                  When estrogen levels are high weight tends to gravitate towards the ass and tits. Which is why most men find themselves feigning after a thick ass and solid pair of knockers. As a women ages and estrogen numbers drop, weight moves to the gut(therefore get larger) and shows less fertility

                  If you actually read the post it's heffalump or baby humpback as I described it. Not "a little" bit.

                  Furthermore, fatter is better for fertility. Too skinny, ovulation might not even occur, and given pregnancy, fat is definitely a benefit.

                  Fat in the right places. Ass, tits. Which is why a thick women will be chosen over an obese women.

                  Just because I critiqued obesity you make the mistake of thinking I'm endorsing anorexia.

                  I also endorsed being a thick strong male.

                  [–][deleted]  (4 children)

                  [removed]

                    [–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

                    Ah yes, insults. The true mark of an intelligent man.

                    [–]3whatsthisgarg 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                    Ah yes, insults. The true mark of an intelligent man.

                    LOL WTF you think intelligent people don't use insults. Intelligent people are the best at using insults.

                    Everything you write just cements my opinion of you. Here we are on a post dedicated to convincing men that they are justified in not being attracted to heffalumps or baby humpback whales.

                    [–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                    When you resort to only that instead of civilized dialogue then no it’s not being used intelligently.

                    You’re a man on the Internet not too bothered what your opinion is.

                    For the second time you’ve written a response completely mis representing my point and have in fact done it a third time with your most recent reply yet you seem to get offended and throw insults when I clarify?

                    I’m not sure what you’re expecting?

                    [–]Ta11no 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                    Allow me, it is proven scientifically that men are physically attracted to buxom (read baby making hipped) women. That’s why the pear or hourglass shape is more attractive in leu of the women who have an excess of stomach fat. Instinctually you, as a man, are repulsed by the the round women that grace publications like cosmo. Why do you think that is? Because instinctually you know that this would be a poor candidate for your seed. I have a theory that men have on some baser level have a primitive vetting process akin to hypergamy. Albeit not as dominant as our urge to spread our seed across the cosmos but it’s there. Any attempts to diverge leads to natural selection hence the existence of hypergamy. Choosing to ignore biology is what leftists and feminists do at their own peril. And that’s why birth rates are down. Ultimately females are aroused by men on the alpha side of the spectrum but will also be attracted to the beta men as well thanks to the beta bux side of hypergamy. People tend to forget we are animals on a base level and as such we have behaviors dictated to us by biological urges. Ignoring it is futile. Making the point that some women like beautiful soyboys is futile. My advice for those reading this is to accept biology and learn to compensate where you fall short (in this case literally). Tall dark and handsome isn’t set in stone so long as SHE believes that you can ensure that she and her kids will survive

                    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                    [removed]

                      [–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      My post is specifically focused on pre-cultural times.

                      [–]Endorsed ContributorMentORPHEUS 4 points5 points  (2 children)

                      Precisely my point, therefore we do not have the ingrained biological inclination towards obesity, it never even existed.

                      What basis do you have for your claim, first of all? Archaeology, paleo social studies, cave paintings?

                      Whoever carved those fat rolls into stone using crude hand tools obviously had real living examples to depict.

                      My analysis is stripping away the cultural factors that influence mating behaviors

                      Except, thin didn't become a worldwide standard of beauty status until somewhat after WWII.

                      Have you ever looked at Renaissance era nudes?

                      https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/hb/hb_36.29.jpg

                      http://artintheblood.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a570a392970b014e88dcf6e1970d-pi

                      Hell, even Venus DeMilo has a big ol' belly.

                      You're trying to make a claim that modern cultural standards of beauty are based on evolutionary imperatives, but there are thousands of years of artwork and artifacts that contradict this position. If we'd like to see "evolutionary biology" advance beyond a laughingstock outside of TRP, it will require more rigorous backing up of its claims than has been offered in this essay.

                      [–]3whatsthisgarg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      Except, thin didn't become a worldwide standard of beauty status until somewhat after WWII.

                      Thin didn't become a standard of beauty until 20 years after WWII. Look at Marilyn Monroe. I would consider her little bit on the fat and sloppy side completely naked. Personally, I haven't fucked a woman with that body type since I was 19 years old, literally, and I couldn't do it sober even then.

                      You're trying to make a claim that modern cultural standards of beauty are based on evolutionary imperatives

                      Not only that, I'm pretty sure there weren't any sweet perky tits the way we know them now in hunter-gatherer times (because nutrition), so it seems highly unlikely that there could be any genetically-based sexual preference for them. In fact, just based on art, I'm not coming up with any examples of those kind of sweet tits. There's a lot of saggy tits and a lot of small tits, but no real good perky tits, and I definitely have a deep-seated preference for them.

                      [–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      It's a pretty established science that hunter gatherers had low body fat levels. A simple google search, or multiple biological evolution books will tell you that.

                      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3405064/

                      Except, thin didn't become a worldwide standard of beauty status until somewhat after WWII.

                      You're making the mistake of playing the opposites game. Because I'm saying fat is undesirable that I must be saying "thin" is desirable. Which is why I specifically included this.

                      When estrogen levels are high weight tends to gravitate towards the ass and tits. Which is why most men find themselves feigning after a thick ass and solid pair of knockers

                      My critique is aimed at fat(obese). Not thick or meaty. hence my description Baby humpback/heffalump.

                      You're trying to make a claim that modern cultural standards of beauty are based on evolutionary imperatives,

                      Not my point. I'm saying in spite of modern cultural standards, we still have our biological drivers.

                      However If you log onto instagram and see which women have the biggest following its not those suffering from obesity.

                      It's generally slim waists, thick asses, big tits. So i think a strong case could be made for that too.

                      artwork and artifacts that contradict this position

                      Artwork and artifacts are cultural productions, they do not necessarily explain biology.

                      The bible for instance doesn't exactly explain human nature.

                      it will require more rigorous backing up of its claims than has been offered in this essay.

                      Agreed, I would need to write a thesis on this, however this is not the forum. This is simply an introduction.

                      [–]SasquatchMcKraken 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                      Yeah in Africa my dad was a king because being a large man meant food, and food meant wealth. Having a six pack isn't the fetish over there that it is over here. Everyone's body fat % is low; so who gives a shit? Transfer him to an American nightclub full of 17-23 year olds, on the other hand, and he wouldn't do so hot. A lot of what we think is natural is situational. But most individuals have a tendency to think the world began roughly when they were born, and that it largely consists of what they themselves experience. Not true.

                      [–]Hoodwink 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                      Many ancient cultures literally worshipped obese women as goddess-like.

                      Do you know what an archetype is? When you think of a 'mother', what kind of woman do you think of? Do you know what pregnancy does to the hormonal balance of a woman (especially after 10 straight years of knocking out kids)? They weren't seen as sexual - they were probably seen as motherly.

                      We don't socialize young boys to only have their penises stand up to hourglass (or pear-shaped) shaped young women with some tits. A fertility goddess was not a goddess of lust.

                      Fertility goddesses were the goddesses of farmers. They were given sacrifices (not exactly 'worshiped' in the modern sense) to be favored. 'Worship' is probably not the right term to use for some religions of old and pantheistic religions.

                      [–]redsporo 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                      One thing worth mentioning is the dynamic nature of sexual selection.

                      There are two forces that bind a female to a male: her lust for him, and his (non-sexual) control over her. These are separate but can coincide (many women legitimately get off on power, and power also physically controls women even if they choose to resist). As male control goes up, a species' raw ability goes up. The female's lust drive will also go down in tandem.

                      Many birds, particularly passerines, have sharp divisions between male and female appearance. Just look at house sparrows; the vibrantly colored male looks almost like a different species from the drab, beige female. They are also almost the same size. You can see these birds literally anywhere btw especially if you live on a campus.

                      In contrast, human genders have a uniform appearance, and are very different in size. Why is this? Well birds can fly, and are at risk of predation. Humans can't fly, and have little risk of predation.

                      A colorful male signifies that he has stood the test of predation. This is especially useful because color isn't passed down to females; so her female kids will have these "predation avoidance" genes while also being as drab and beige as her (even more camouflage). In addition, female birds can easily refuse males; this is because they can fly and have very small social groups.

                      Onto humans: A big male signifies that he had plenty of resources available. You'll notice that historically, resource scarcity is probably the most important thing for human health. We also can't fly, we can barely run, and we have huge social groups. This means that it's very easy for men to dominate (aka rape) women, further advantaging size.

                      Predation, not a huge factor; even as far back as 20k years ago, humans were extinctifying big animals. Thus there is much less inherent preference for vibrantly colored, contrastive males; just ask the Indoeuropeans and their spread among their much brighter colored indigenes.

                      Right now, the world has changed radically even from 100 years ago, nevermind the last 100,000. Evolutionary pressures are definitely different right now, in ways that we probably can't even understand. As long as the world continues as it is, humans will evolve. And the bigger the population, the faster that evolution happens.

                      [–]Nergaal 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                      It is in the interest of the species that 80% of the females mates with the top 20% of the males. It's called artificial selections, and it's the main reason why some ethnic group AS A WHOLE/ON AVERAGE have specific traits over other ethnic groups. Some societies as a whole developed more and invented more because their females artificially selected more for top males than other societies.

                      If you are ignoring evolutionary aspects of homo sapiens you are living in a blue pill.

                      [–]jonpe87 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                      TL;DR: Lift, go for the short ones, make money.

                      [–]Ramp_Up_Then_Dump 4 points5 points  (3 children)

                      These evolution theories always focus on more "lion like" tribes. Male lion/silverback alpha dominates the tribe seems like only possible choice.

                      But there is a "wolf like" tribe tactic that empowers every member (not %100 equaly) so they can work as team to survive together.

                      There is a bird colony tactic that each pair is a family (cheating is hidden but there). Every pair looks after their offspring.

                      Females will want best seed, obviously, but "1 alpha and his harem" tactic is not the only one and it is not the most practicle one at times of scaricity, it if effective when resources are abundant. I dont know when the last evolutionary updates are done but OPs who put posts like this should research it on internet and consider other options too.

                      After all, humans hunt as groups like wolfs(team work), their offspring needs as much help as birds(family) and they can live like lions/silverbacks(harem) if there is big abundance(foraging).

                      [–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

                      This is not based on lion or any other animal tribe.

                      This is based on homo sapien hunter gatherer groups.

                      Which generally involved multiple men and women.

                      [–]Ramp_Up_Then_Dump 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                      I gave example because only way to find four is not two plus two. Animals in the examples have working tactics and these tactics can work for other animals and humans.

                      I am opposing the canon theory of "1 alpha bredds them all". Giving other males a shot will increase group survival.

                      [–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      I never said 1 alpha breeds them all, I said he has first option.

                      [–]SasquatchMcKraken 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                      "Based on" and "totally/almost totally determined by" are two very different things. It's good to hammer in the importance of biology in a world that utterly denies its importance, but it's a mistake to think that humans don't have other considerations. Being the biggest gorilla in the room will get you a woman, but that doesn't mean it'll get you all or even necessarily a majority of the women. Humanity has been away from its basic "troupe of monkeys" situation a lot longer than a lot of people care to realize, and these millenia have baked in a wider range of priorities. And preferences.

                      [–]aplodan 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                      A lot of confusion in this community . Women fuck both alphas and betas .

                      I can imagine it in my mind right now , a wife of a tribe leader would possibly cheat and fuck a good looking average joe in the tribe .

                      Its more complex than that , women cheat on their alpha controlling men all the time .

                      [–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      That's not the point.

                      The alpha has first choice. What he does with it from there on is his responsibility.

                      [–]themangu6 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                      Well what if i am physically small how do i compete against the bigger alpha.

                      [–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      Put on as much muscle as you can(for your size) and focus on the essential behavioral attributes. (game,frame) etc

                      [–]ElegantCyclist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                      Evolutionary biology underpins game. Guys who want to understand the game and their place in it will learn the evo bio.

                      [–]downvotesanimals 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                      I strongly suggest everyone read 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins. Few books have the kind of zeitgeist-shifting brilliance as that one, which happens to also be as well written and entertaining as it is informative.

                      [–]diogov9 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      This should be teached on sex ed

                      [–]jewishsupremacist88 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      you're either born a winner or a loser. if you're a beta bitch boy who has an engineering degree YOU LOSE

                      [–]_A_L_3_X_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      i really like the style of writing and your metaphores. good job.

                      [–]Master_Elrond 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                      Good post, and you're on the right track but it was cringey in certain areas. For example, out running predators. If any 4 legged predatory animal is chasing you, you're fucked. Being lean wouldn't make one iota of difference, you're not outrunning shit. A human with a spear however is a different story. The ability to track, ambush, work in groups, injuire and then outrun an animal over distance is how it was done. We also have rediculous dexterity (tools, weapons etc) and of course our intelligence. A hunting party of half a dozen prehistoric men with throwing spears was a scary sight to most animals and they're still afraid of us to this day. There's footage of a tribe in Africa that literally walk up to a dozen feeding lions and steal their food. The Lions scatter because the 3 guys walk with confidence, they know not to fuck with us. Google Olympic javilin distances... World record is 105m/344'. That's a long fucking way and I doubt any other "stronger" primate would even come close. It's related to how our muscles attach to the bone. If a reasonably trained long distance runner started chasing a horse around a track he'd eventually catch it... (Then jump on it and ride it the rest of the way.)

                      [–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      It's not so much about out running the predator directly. It's about out running the other member's of the tribe. The fitness test is against their own flock.

                      [–]cheetotickos -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

                      Were in the 21st century bro. Shit doesn't work like this anymore. We're more evolved. Life can't be quantified how you see it. It's more diverse and intricate by design. You see things too black and white.

                      [–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

                      Our biological drivers and therefore the way it dictates male and female behaviours are very similar to what it was.

                      We evolved from this to where we are now however our actual genetic make up has changed very little.

                      The changes you’re talking about have mostly been cultural.

                      Both dictate behavior and sexual strategy.

                      [–]Ezaar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                      We’re getting better at quantifying the observations of things as they exist, as it is.

                      Altering the perceptions from what you want to what it is, might aid in your understanding.

                      The veil is powerful.

                      [–]Fulltilt_Ronny -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

                      ok...so you are telling me men throughout the centuries went for the slim female.

                      But in a lot of cultures, fat women are what men are after, even until today.

                      even in western civilization, there were times when having more fat, being as pale and unsporty as possible was the female body ideal that men went for.

                      how do you explain that?

                      [–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                      Exactly, cultures.

                      This post is pre-culture.

                      Discussing only biological influence. Not Cultural.

                      [–]Fulltilt_Ronny 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                      Ronny

                      can you explain when exactly "pre-culture" happened?

                      fertility statues reach back tens of thousends of years. they are all about fat ass women with massive saggy boobs.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_figurines

                      [–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      Basically hunter gatherer. Post neanderthal. Early Homo-Sapien.

                      [–]TopOccasion29 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                      You mean voluptuous and thick not fat