TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

3

I actually think you guys were really harsh/not reasonable on the “mating success = number of partners” critique (self.BlackPillScience)

submitted by MozzarellaUnleashed

This guy made a critique of the conflation “mating success = number of partners” that is done here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPillScience/comments/b2kg36/the_reason_why_many_of_the_studies_posted_on_here/

I don’t see what is so wrong with his criticism, or why it’s so bad that there needs to be such vitriol. Understandably if you’re someone who can’t get a relationship or laid then the difference isn’t something concerning to you. But I feel like there is a sense where the conflation ignores different mating strategies as well as different psychological profiles that would lead to one (attractive) person to pursue more sex than another attractive one.

For example, is it possible that the psychological profile that causes one to become a criminal or treat others like shit also predisposes a person to pursuing casual sex over long term relationships? If Chris Hemsworth had two different personalities, one confident, loving, and loyal (not a beta), while the other was sociopathic, a criminal, and not loyal, would the first or second have a larger potential mating pool?


[–]eduardkoopman5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

mating success = number of partners

It's hard to measure/quantify it in other ways.
the number of dating offers, sexual invitations, etc. would probably be a better number to decide a man his smv; but it's immeasurable since people don't remembers the amount of times or might have bias (wrong interpretation, or don't notice/see it)

​

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

let all the romantic success people get together and have 2 children at 35 years old, and all the dating success people have 4 children at 20 years old, and we'll see in 50 years, who wins.

[–]eduardkoopman1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

and we'll see in 50 years, who wins.

No one wins, overall really.

Usually:
- MGTOW men whom don't date win financially, but won't have a sex or intimacy life. Often men with children struggle more money wise;
- dating succesfull men win with number of sexual partners and experiences, but if they have children they will likely pay alot of child-support;
- romantic succesfull men win with having a close relationship and intimacy (if it's a good relationship), but if they have children they will often pay alot to support the children and make their wife/girlfriend happy and buy her all kinds of things/housing/holidays/etc.

​

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

then the mgtow dies, his money goes to the government, and the government ultimately gives it to the bitches

[–]eduardkoopman2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

then the mgtow dies, his money goes to the government,

Where there is a will, there is a way.Putting charities into your will, often does the trick. Mine would, as it stands today, go towards Buddhist monastery/monks; and some animal organisations.

P.S. I don't think it's right/correct to bash the MGTOW ideology. Out of all copes, it's the most smart and best one for the individual as well as for men as a group. Men living MGTOW lifestyle (aka opting out), bring the dating/relationship/etc. value of women as a whole down.

​

[–]Digedag5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If Chris Hemsworth had two different personalities

It's not about different personalities.

A confident and courageous man is not necessarily a criminal, but in order to be a criminal you have to be confident and courageous.

Loyality is something women don't know about until he proves to be disloyal. Same with loving and sociopathic. A women won't know until she finds out the hard way.

[–]incelicious5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The bottom line is, nature doesn't give a shit about the quality of your relationships. Nature only cares about how many offspring you produce.

Honest question: Do you think Genghis Khan had quality relationships with his hundreds and hundreds of wives and concubines?

The fact is, he is responsible for over 10% of the entire present male population in Mongolia. Talk about a legacy.

​

How about these guys mentioned in this article? How would you describe their relationships with women if you had to hazard a guess?

https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/handful-bronze-age-men-could-have-fathered-two-thirds-europeans/

​

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8152

​

Secondly, I don't buy that bullshit about better educated women having less sexual partner due to conscientiousness. For men, yes. For women? Nah. They look for conscientious men because they need a sucker to exploit once they are "ready to settle down"; someone they can bully and cuck with Tyrone and Chad on the side and he likely won't walk away.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter