TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

47

So I watch way too many nature shows. Some of the more entertaining ones focus on the absurd things males of a species do in order to get a chance to mate. For example, mountain goat rams will slam heads together until a dominant male is established, and only that one gets to mate. Peacocks will grow beautiful tail feathers that showcase their genetic fitness and ability to thrive even while carrying around big-ass tail feathers. The term for all this is sexual selection.

Sexual selection is not only an important aspect of biology: it’s a useful mental model for thinking about inter-sex interactions. In most species that reproduce sexually, a majority of females mate with a minority of males. Females select males on the basis of some traits that are hard-to-fake indicators of genetic quality and robust health (peacock tails, for example). This is true for almost all species, including our closest cousins (Chimpanzees and Bonobos).

If you accept that humans are a normal species in this regard, a lot of human sexual behavior starts to make more sense. A lot of redpill concepts can be reframed as the simple observation that humans experience sexual selection, just like most other species (80/20 rule, alphas and betas, etc). The patriarchal institution of monogomous lifelong marriage constrained this behavior, but as it recedes into the dustbin of history our true natural behavior comes out into the open. And our culture simply hasn’t caught up with that fact yet.

The thing about thinking about sex this way is that it provides some dignity for everybody. An incel isn’t a bad person any more than a ram with average-sized horns and aggression is a bad sheep. He’s just normal. Most males should expect to lose out in sexual competition, and go form bachelor herds or whatever if they can’t break into the minority of males that are “good enough” to reproduce. A woman isn’t a bitch for rejecting a “nice guy”: she’s fulfilling her biological imperative to filter on dominance, just like a Chimpanzee or Bonobo female would. A high school football player is just like an alpha chimp with a harem. That same football player in a dead bedroom 10 years later is a deposed former alpha chimp. None of it is fair, but it’s all very natural. Being sexually attractive as a male is usually an exception, not a norm.

If we acknowledged this reality, maybe we could treat each other a little better? I know I have found this way of thinking to be surprisingly calming. What do others think?


[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

> like a Chimpanzee or Bonobo female would

Both of these are wrong. Chimpanzee females reproduce with Alpha and Beta males indiscriminately. The Alpha scares off Beta males to prevent this.

https://sciencing.com/chimpanzee-mating-habits-6703991.html

Bonobo females live in a matriarchal society where it is the duty of higher females to mate with most males and females in the tribe. This occurs for purposes such as bonding, social status acquisition and reconciliation to name a few.

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/bonobo/behav

It's human females that are selective, it's a biological imperative to simply not reproduce if the available males are not good enough (i.e. conditions aren't suitable for human babies - which require more care than any other animal offspring).

[–]mindsanitizer 1 points [recovered]  (5 children) | Copy Link

Well actually...

only dominant Bonobo males reproduce. Bonobo females are surprisingly picky.

https://www.popsci.com/bonobo-ladies-get-to-choose-their-mate-and-they-do-not-choose-you

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)30575-4

It was a surprise to me as well!

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

First is a shitty article. Second is a dead link.

[–]mindsanitizer 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

Looks like the link went dead. We thrashed it out extensively a couple of weeks ago.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/9gfu93/bisexual_beta_male_bonobos_and_sexual_selection/

The gist is that basically only dominant Bonobos reproduce. The effect is even more severe then what you see in Chimpanzees.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I looked at that paper and it seems that there's not enough data to make a conclusive statement.

There are only two groups of bonobos observed and only one of the two shows conclusively that ranking determines number of offspring sired. The other group is similar to the chimpanzee group's percentages.

Male ranking in bonobo societies does have to do with the value of the female he mates with however bonobos still mate far more frequently and with a variety of partners for social reasons.

This was an interesting idea but still needs evidence.

[–]mindsanitizer 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

Actually i just checked both links and they still work.

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

Yep it seems that if I click the link on the post it works. But the message notification I saw doesn't have the full link displayed.

[–]YetAnotherCommenterPurple Pill Man, Sexual Economics Theory39 points40 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

I certainly agree that if we see sexuality as more driven by biological instincts than about exalted appreciation of one's mate's good virtues or the like, we'll be much less likely to moralize a lack of sexual success.

But there are vested interests at play. If most men stop even attempting to impress women, knowing they have little chance, this will mean a lot of female privilege will be lost, and women wouldn't want that.

Not to mention, some would argue there are substantial social costs to having large quantities of men feel like they're "genetically worthless" and have no hope of reproducing. I don't entirely agree with this reasoning, but large numbers of men with little future hope or little reason to invest in society's future beyond their own lifespans may be detrimental, may cause social instability etc. The old quote about young men who aren't initiated into the tribe being willing to burn down the village to feel its warmth has some truth to it.

There's also another problem - it could be argued that the traits which are most economically productive in a modern economy are not the traits that are sexually selected for. To the extent these traits are heritable... and evidence shows that intelligence in particular is between 40% and 80% inheritable... unrestrained sexual selection disfavors the most economically productive traits. Of course, there's a difference between fucking and breeding in today's world, but would many men be willing to breed with a woman who doesn't really desire or love them?

Modern sexual politics may be impossible to fully "fix". But I do think the first step is honesty and transparency about them. The "80/20" rule may be an overstatement, although the basic argument (that the majority of women are attracted to a minority of men) is pretty hard to contest. The idea that women are attracted to "nice guys" is obviously stupid and works to sustain a silly Just Sexual World delusion.

The ancient world had ways to help men on the "lower end" of the scale... religious prostitution. They went to the temple of the goddess of love and hired a lady of the evening. That seemed to help.

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse18 points19 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

But there are vested interests at play. If most men stop even attempting to impress women, knowing they have little chance, this will mean a lot of female privilege will be lost, and women wouldn't want that.

And that, folks, sums up womankind for all time and space and universes.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.7 points8 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

If you are defining “womankind” as simply getting privileges due to male desire you are the type of person I’ve seen you yourself rail against.

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse6 points7 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Okay well you do have a point - it is true that men's behavior helped foster women to be like this.

But it is also absolutely undeniable that women would hate to lose their privilege of getting things from men who want to impress them. I don't rail against the truth.

Are facts now sexist?

[–]ayywumao 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

Okay well you do have a point - it is true that men's behavior helped foster women to be like this.

That's some "original sin" type bullshit.

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well if we don't tolerate women like that and pushed them over to the Friendzone / neverfuckzone, the problem would sort itself out in only a few generations.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

That is not my point at all. Think a little bit.

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse4 points5 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Okay, if you can't make your point then the failure to think is not my problem - it's yours.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Do you even try? Reflexively coming up with some lame packaged comeback isn’t exactly convincing.

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

It's obvious you have nothing. I have no patience for your antics. Spit it out or I'm moving on. You're not all that. Bluff called. Cards. Now.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

That isn’t even better you’re just trying to one up me. Your AMOG isn’t working.

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't care. See ya.

[–]theambivalentroosterLiteral Chad-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

MOGGED

[–]mistercheeez-o____O-1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think accountability is important. We also know how detrimental a "law of the jungle" mating strategy is for the psychological health of the child. It's a detriment to them towards achieving good standing within the social echelons of the world, which are ruled by cognitive ability, and intellectual labour. There must be a "just milieu" somewhere.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree.

[–]yaseedog will hunt16 points17 points  (137 children) | Copy Link

most modern men do successfully reproduce, though

[–]mindsanitizer 1 points [recovered]  (44 children) | Copy Link

Sure, because marriage still exists, even if it's clearly less important than it used to be. So beta bucks game still works (from a biological sense) for now. But marriage is clearly on the way out. People are marrying later and later, and more and more of their sex lives are happening before marriage. The point is, a beta buck shouldn't be surprised if his wife is not sexually attracted to him, because females of any species don't naturally mate with average males of that species.

[–]yaseedog will hunt13 points14 points  (42 children) | Copy Link

females of any species don't naturally mate with average males of that species

I think you're mostly describing tournament species#Tournament_species). other species with other sexual strategies like pair bonding also exist, and a lot of animals (likely including humans according to neuroscience bigwigs like robert sapolsky) fall somewhere in between the two extremes

so why assume that successful "beta" behaviour and marriage are more unnatural than, say, hooking up with chad at the club?

[–]mindsanitizer 1 points [recovered]  (41 children) | Copy Link

I mean if I had to guess, I'd say our behavior is more likely to be similar to a)Chimps and Bonobos, and b)most other mammals than it is to Penguins or whatever particular pair-bonding species your thinking of. Do humans look to you like they are naturally monogomous? Because they sure don't to me. #disclaimer #not_a_biologist

[–]yaseedog will hunt13 points14 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I'm not a biologist either :) but I do study biology-adjacent topics and I can tell you that the same neurobiological processes that underlie monogamous pair bonding behaviour in animals like prairie voles also appear to be implicated in human social and romantic behaviour. Our infants also require a high degree of care over a long period of time, and I think that often characterizes species where long-term investment from both parents is needed to ensure reproductive success

but to be honest, on some level I don't really like saying that humans are "naturally" one way or another. Human sexual and romantic behaviour is crazy complex to a degree that doesn't apply to other animals, and while making analogies to different species can sometimes be useful it should never be applied prescriptively like you're trying to do here

[–]mindsanitizer 1 points [recovered]  (6 children) | Copy Link

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. If I find a mental model that has explanatory power, I'll add it to my collection. All models are wrong, but some are useful. For me, the model of a marketplace plus the model of sexual selection explains a lot of human sexual behavior.

[–]yaseedog will hunt2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

lol fair enough. you should absolutely use whatever's useful to you

[–]qwertyuiop111222Purple Pill Masticator2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

If I find a mental model that has explanatory power, I'll add it to my collection. All models are wrong, but some are useful. For me, the model of a marketplace plus the model of sexual selection explains a lot of human sexual behavior.

Dear god, how did you learn to think like this!?! I know this is totally off-topic, but which top 3 books have most influenced your thinking skills and patterns?

[–]mindsanitizer 1 points [recovered]  (3 children) | Copy Link

Charlie Munger (#2 at Berkshire Hathaway) has a famous collection of mental models that I read a while back. I think it was this book.

https://www.amazon.com/Seeking-Wisdom-Darwin-Munger-3rd/dp/1578644283/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1539230387&sr=8-3&keywords=mental+models+munger

If you google "Charlie Munger Mental Models" you'll start going down the rabbit hole.

Any list of mental models will have several "Cognitive biases", which was my original path into the material.

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hey that’s a big influence for me as well

[–]qwertyuiop111222Purple Pill Masticator0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Your name checks out - thanks so much for the advice here!

[–]beachredwhineCongratulations!4 points5 points  (32 children) | Copy Link

I dunno sure looks like monogamy is the rule not the exception to me

[–]mindsanitizer 1 points [recovered]  (31 children) | Copy Link

The genetic evidence says otherwise. 40% of homo sapien males reproduced historically, vs 80% of females.

[–]toronto87 1 points [recovered]  (7 children) | Copy Link

Because they died of disease, starvation, in warfare, hunting etc, or because proto Schwarzenegger smscked them in the dick to stop them from mating?

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Disease and starvation also killed off women. Warfare, hunting and being a surplus guy on the other hand...

[–]reluctantly_red-1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

or because proto Schwarzenegger smscked them in the dick to stop them from mating?

Which is exactly what will happen again if guys once more compete with each other in an unfettered manner.

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

That probably won’t be required with plenty of food and entertainment

[–]reluctantly_red-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah -- just let them take themselves out.

[–]beachredwhineCongratulations!2 points3 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

What are you talking about? Look around. Most people are paired up only having sex with one other person.

[–]mindsanitizer 1 points [recovered]  (15 children) | Copy Link

Sure, because we live in a society where socially-enforced monogomy is still a thing.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

we live in a society where socially-enforced monogomy is still a thing.

Really? Then why is Tinder and hookup culture in general a mainstream phenomenon? Why do terps even believe casual sex is a realistic goal in the first place?

Perhaps cuz there's no one actually enforcing monogamy. It's a social norm sure but it's a very loose one. And casual sex is just as much of a competing norm at this point.

[–]Gravel_RoadsJust a Pill2 points3 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

No one's enforcing monogamy or I'd be in hot water.

[–]mindsanitizer 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

The question was why most males currently reproduce. It's the institution of monogomous marriage that enables this. Women don't really want to fuck these men, but will reproduce with them in exchange for resources and "good dad" qualities.

[–]ffbtaw 1 points [recovered]  (7 children) | Copy Link

So you don't think there is any stigma against, for instance, single mothers? Stigmatizing certain behaviors is a form of social enforcement.

[–]EsauTheRed 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

What do you mean by "socially enforced"

[–]darudeboysandstormSoup on the stove, bread rising, apple pie-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

we live in a society

There it is.

[–]ifelsedowhilelocal cop - cherry top0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Genetists concluded that 8000 years ago (with the spread of agriculture and with few men accumulating resources and reaching alpha status), only 1 man for every 17 women reproduced. I remember opening a discussion about it and the hamstering from BPers reached high heavens.

[–]mindsanitizer 1 points [recovered]  (4 children) | Copy Link

Yes but that era was probably too recent (only 8k years ago) to have had much impact on us as a species. Evolution takes time. It's the 100k years before that, when we were Hunter Gatherers, that probably shaped our inate sexual preferences. #not_a_biologist

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFMs1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Stone age people were helluva violent though. An absurdly high amount seem to have died a violent death by the hands of his fellow man.

[–]EsauTheRed 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah you are definitely not a biologist dude, haven't you heard of punctuated equilibrium? You were JUST talking about a bottleneck event in the same fucking post

[–]Reed_49830 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The point is, a beta buck shouldn't be surprised if his wife is not sexually attracted to him, because females of any species don't naturally mate with average males of that species.

What always gives me some serenity in this regard is knowing that in studies, most men in the West report having had casual sex in their lives. Sure, a lot of young men probably wish they had more sex than they have, and you could claim these men are lying in studies (but I don't really buy that they are lying collectively)...but overall I'm just not convinced at all that all casual sex happens between women and the upper 20% of men. From what I've read, more men than women tend to be nerdy, antisocial and autistic (although that is debated as well) and thus more likely to be alone...but a lot of sex happens in places like college or the hook-up scene where alcohol is involved...between average men and average women.

[–]reluctantly_red25 points26 points  (89 children) | Copy Link

Only because of societal restrictions on female hypergamy (and male aggression also).

Interestingly most women are fine with the removal of restrictions on their behavior (i.e. hypergamy) but vehemently against the removal of restrictions on male behavior. This begs the question -- who is going to enforce restrictions on male aggression in a society where men who play by the rules are not rewarded?

[–]JezebeltheQueen5656Crushing males' ego since 19932 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

other men who see women as people with bodily integrity will punish you.all men fear law and abide by it, especially if the law is draconic. given that too many men think women owe them sex i think draconic anti-men laws will be set in place.

if you cant get laid and wont accept sexless life with grace you will be ostracized or worse.

sex isnt a reward you get when you do something right because it implies women must give it to you. they dont.

[–]yaseedog will hunt8 points9 points  (87 children) | Copy Link

when you say "removal of restrictions on male behaviour", what does that mean in a practical sense? like rape laws?

[–]reluctantly_red9 points10 points  (39 children) | Copy Link

I was actually thinking about laws and social norms that protect weaker men. Without such laws and norms it is quite easy for dominant guys to permanently sideline or even remove their competition.

[–]yaseedog will hunt8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

which of the laws and social norms protecting weak men are women vehemently against removing?

[–]__Some_person__4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I was actually thinking about laws and social norms that protect weaker men.

What are weaker men in 2018? Guys less accurate with an AR-15?

[–]reluctantly_red6 points7 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Americans -- always thinking about guns.

[–]__Some_person__6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Guns are currently the most used tool in combat and I'm not American, in fact they bombed my country in '99

[–]Purple50910 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

and guys are almost the most cause/war mongers in combats so???

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Guns are cool

[–]toronto87 1 points [recovered]  (31 children) | Copy Link

In a world of weaponized combat, even three omega males with spears could probably kill Arnold Schwarzenegger. Probably out hunt him to. To actually be a dominant male in a human group requires substantially more then strength - it requires alliances with large numbers of lower status men, and the only way to sustain those alliances is by not hogging reproductive access.

[–]JezebeltheQueen5656Crushing males' ego since 19934 points5 points  (30 children) | Copy Link

we need more draconic anti-men laws then. men , weaker or not, arent owed sex.

cant get laid? tough shit, that's life. we need women carrying guns and shooting the loser on the spot.

men arent owed shit.

[–]mwait3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I agree.

We also need stricter laws regarding women's aging. Once they become useless for reproductive purposes we should ship them off to an island by themselves. That way the best of us can interact free from the losers.

[–]JezebeltheQueen5656Crushing males' ego since 19932 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

they arent hurting anyone unlike those males who cant accept the fact they arent owed shit.

but thanks for playing along.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

They're absorbing tax money. Anyone over 40 who can't work is executed.

[–]JezebeltheQueen5656Crushing males' ego since 19931 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

we shouldnt work when we are older than 40, pff. let the younglings work.

[–]TheLongerCon0 points1 point  (14 children) | Copy Link

we need more draconic anti-men laws then. men , weaker or not, arent owed sex.

Nobodies owed anything. Men aren't owed sex by society, but society isn't owed a productive citizen from men.

This is why monogamous societies tended to be so much more successful, because all of its men are invested in it.

If men aren't invested, they tend to lean towards extremism which is destabilizing, especially in a democracy when a demagogue can easily take advantage of their frustrations.

[–]JezebeltheQueen5656Crushing males' ego since 19932 points3 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

we dont need to force the other half of the population to copulate with men.

men should look for rewards elsewhere, not at the expense of unwilling women.

men who think women owe them sex should off to a gay island, sex will be 24/7.

[–]TheLongerCon1 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

we dont need to force the other half of the population to copulate with men.

Who suggested this?

[–]JezebeltheQueen5656Crushing males' ego since 19932 points3 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

you did by implying men who get no sex wont be productive members of muh society.

[–]EsauTheRed 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

No ones forcing women to sleep with those men, but they have all the goodies that women want so it ends up happening even if she isn't particularly attracted

It is a choice that women make

[–]JezebeltheQueen5656Crushing males' ego since 19930 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

no, it doesnt happen.

males must accept they arent owed shit.

[–]darudeboysandstormSoup on the stove, bread rising, apple pie0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

We should just mandate all reproduction. Women and men are so simple why not let some organized department control who we breed with.

[–]JezebeltheQueen5656Crushing males' ego since 19931 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

why? it's against basic human rights. no good can come out of it. i know eugenics can be tempting but let's not play god.

what we need is education, mainly sex ed.

[–]darudeboysandstormSoup on the stove, bread rising, apple pie1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Sorry when you said draconic anti-men laws I assumed human rights were not the imperative.

[–]JezebeltheQueen5656Crushing males' ego since 19930 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

they are the imperative til you break the law. the punishments will be draconic.

[–]SkookumTreeRomantic relationships aren't necessary for happiness!0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

You’re a scary Bitch!

[–]Reed_49830 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I just love your flair.

[–]SkookumTreeRomantic relationships aren't necessary for happiness!0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks.

[–]jackandjill22Red Pill misanthropic, contrarian1 point2 points  (46 children) | Copy Link

Why is every discussion of gender relations in the west reduced to rape!?

How about removal on restrictions against harems?

[–]storffish8 points9 points  (40 children) | Copy Link

what restrictions against harems? a guy can keep as many women as he wants he just can't legally marry them or claim benefits on their behalf. good luck finding chicks down for that without getting paid, though

[–]ayywumao 1 points [recovered]  (37 children) | Copy Link

what restrictions against harems?

he just can't legally marry them

[–]storffish8 points9 points  (36 children) | Copy Link

There's literally nothing keeping a guy from having a group of kept women, side chicks, girlfriends, fiance's, spirit wives, whatever he wants to call them except for the fact that women have no interest in it. If he can find a group of chicks who are game to be in his harem he can have at it, he just can't confer state-sanctioned benefits on them as he could a wife.

[–]ayywumao 1 points [recovered]  (33 children) | Copy Link

The fact that there are laws against having multiple wives, and in countries where these laws don't exist, men have multiple wives, shows you are full of shit.

[–]storffish7 points8 points  (32 children) | Copy Link

You are arguing in bad faith because you are construing two different concepts: having a harem and having multiple wives. if you want to debate the legal issues around bigamy by all means please do but you sound woefully ill-informed when you try to conflate it with a harem. In this thread I am discussing harems.

The countries with plural marriage don't bestow the same legal and financial benefits as western countries. One man claiming multiple adult legal partners or dependents creates a sludge of legal issues in a country like the US or, say, England. being married confers many tax and inheritance benefits in western countries.

Bigamy happens in cultures that condone bigamy, and bigamy is different than a harem. A man with multiple wives is expected to provide for them and their children as they grow old. Their children take his name and inherit his wealth. A man with a harem is just having sex with multiple women at a time who are exclusive to him but who he is otherwise unattached to and has no obligations toward. They're concubines, often times just kept prostitutes who were paid to stay and live with him. In Arab and Asian and African cultures harems were filled with sex slaves captured from enemy groups. They were not wives, their children (if they were allowed to survive) were not legitimate. They did not inherit their father's name or wealth.

In my part of the US we have a lot of fundamentalist Mormons with multiple-wife families. Typically the first wife is the legal one, but everything is theoretically spread equitably among the others. They live together. Those women aren't around just to have sex with the man and in fact from what I've heard the sex in those families dries up quickly. they are his wives and he is beholden to provide for them and their children, according to their faith, forever. Aside from preventing abuse and welfare fraud and child marriage (all of which are huge problems in the FLDS) the state can't stop those guys from having the kinds of multi-wife covenant marriages that their faith compels. On the opposite end of that spectrum Hugh Hefner had a harem of live-in girlfriends until he died. All consenting adults, all perfectly legal.

Look if I wanted to I could go out and try to find a group of women who would all be willing to fuck me and only me while I fucked all of them. I'd be told roundedly to go fuck myself, but nobody is stopping me from trying. There's a reason women in sultans' harems were quite literally captured or imported from conquered tribes. Men like the idea of a harem but women don't want to be in one. The only way you get them to agree to be multiple wives is by compelling them either with the state or religion. When people are free to do as they please and given equal economic agency harems generally will not form. Lots of guys will have multiple fuck buddies, sure, but he can't compel those girls to be exclusive to him... in all likelihood they don't know about each other and he's creeping around their backs.

[–]ayywumao 1 points [recovered]  (31 children) | Copy Link

harem

TLDR you don't know what harem means.

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFMs1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Two Canadian guys were just convicted polygamy, even though they weren't actually formally married to their women. They were deemed to be in "a kind of conjugal union" anyway.

[–]storffish0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

lol Canada

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

How about removal on restrictions against harems?

There's no legal restriction on this, if you are capable of it do it.

[–]Gravel_RoadsJust a Pill4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

There are no laws against harems. If you can find a woman that wants to be in a harem, help yourself.

[–]yaseedog will hunt5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

because we're explicitly discussing sexual behaviour and male aggression. I don't think it was that much of a leap lol

you have my permission to build a harem though, if it helps

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That would almost certainly worsen the problem.

[–]apube1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

What?

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFMs1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Around 25% of men do not reproduce. So there is a substantial (although minority) of men who never get to father children.

[–]yaseedog will hunt2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

by age 45+, men and women have reproduced at nearly equal rates (84% for men, 86% for women) according to NHIS data from 2000; see here if you're interested

you can still reasonably call that a substantial minority, but then you'd have to say the same for women

[–]darksoldierkPurple Pill10 points11 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

My only question for you is this, if we are going by nature and biology, then would you agree that there shouldn't be any limitations or repercussions for rape? Would you say that males who feel obliged to rape should do so, and women should not feel violated because men are simply fulfilling their biological imperative to mate. Should women be told "it's not fair, but it's very natural", after all, rape has been observed in the animal kingdom among a wide range of animals.

Personally, I don't agree with either your statement or the statement I made above. I feel like once we started implemented regulation to circumvent mother nature, we no longer had the ability use mother nature as an excuse for behavior. Do I feel as though that women should be forced to sleep with men they don't find attractive? no, I don't. But I do think that, in similar ways that men were brainwashed into changing their definition of attractive, similar actions should be done to women. I mean, I remember being 10 and sitting in a school assembly that was only for boys (the girls got a recess), and a bunch of women stood in front of us and told us that we are not good people for finding thin women attractive. That we needed to look past all the fat and be attracted to what's on the inside. The "games" they played to make it interactive were designed to make us (the boys) feel guilty for being selective. They did this assembly every year for years. It seems like we are okay with brainwashing boys, so maybe it's time we apply that logic to girls so that the normal state of the male body can be considered attractive by women. What do you think?

[–]mindsanitizer 1 points [recovered]  (3 children) | Copy Link

LOL at the idea of the brainwashing working in either direction.

[–]darksoldierkPurple Pill1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Maybe I shouldn't have called it brainwashing, I mean that is what it is, but people tend to not equate brainwashing with "conditioning". You can call it whatever you want, but what I'm saying is that should we not be taking steps to educate women on what a real man looks like, and what is normal in much the same way that we have already taken steps to educate men on what a real woman looks like. Society has attempted to creating a distinction between real women and "fake" women (ie. women in porn) in order to ensure that the majority of women don't end up along and has more or less succeeded. So shouldn't society also try to create a distinction between men for women?

Also,I was curious about your thoughts on the first paragraph of my comment.

[–]mindsanitizer 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

Parents already try to program their girls to go for betas. If schools did it it would not be any more effective. Regarding point 1, we don't have to act like animals because we understand our animal nature. But understanding our animal nature can cause us to be less surprised when it manifests.

[–]darksoldierkPurple Pill1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

OKay, so you're saying that we don't have to act like animals but we need to understand it, but then you are saying that women shouldn't feel bad for behaving like animals in order to fulfill their biological imperative. So I'm a bit confused.

[–]Freethetreees1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

In nature, rapists get their genitals bitten off by the female and the female’s tribe.

Also, men are easier to “brainwash” because they’re naturally less sexually selective. It wouldn’t work on women.

[–]darksoldierkPurple Pill2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In nature, rapists get their genitals bitten off by the female and the female’s tribe.

Oh? Is that a common reaction of females in nature? Because I've read and seen plenty of articles and documentaries saying that rape in the animal world exists, but have never heard of this.

Also, men are easier to “brainwash” because they’re naturally less sexually selective. It wouldn’t work on women.

Again, interesting theory, but I doubt there's any merit to it. Anyone can be conditioned if it's done at a young age.

[–]Reed_49831 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Where and when did this happen? Seems insane and perhaps you should report it to some school report or at least get the information out there. It's heinous it this were indeed done to children.

[–]darksoldierkPurple Pill1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

it was a program introduced by the government after being pushed by MADD. The idea was to teach kids about drugs, sex and alcohol early in a "comfortable environment" (ie. Gender segregated). I guess after the government introduced it, they didnt review or approve the details of the program. So, while MADD did talk to the girls about sex, drugs and alcohol, there was a at least one separate assembly for boys where MADD talked to boys about how it was oppressive for boys to have preferences in the physical qualities of a mate. This was in Canada in the mid early to mid '00s.

[–]ifeelfuckingterrible0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Wow your story about the assembly is insane. I've never experienced anything like that and I don't think it should be acceptable.

[–]rhyth70 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Maybe they were trying to say don't bully fat ppl cuz I know they prolly try to discourage that, but haveing an assembly just for boys sounds insane. Like what weird school did you go to?

[–]Reed_49830 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Seems fake...

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

People don't like acknowledging they're just extremely complex biological machines acting as vectors for ancient genes and their whole existence is just for that very purpose. Everything else we just made up to make life a bit more interesting.

[–]yaseedog will hunt7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think a lot of people actually do like viewing things from that perspective (like op saying he finds it "soothing" to accept what he views as inescapable biology). It takes the onus off you as a person with agency a little, and that can be a relief sometimes

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (26 children) | Copy Link

The problem is that traits that are advantageous in a sedentary society are different from the ones in a migratory tribe.

It's fine for women to simply go with natural selection in a more primitive environment, but when it comes to society, you cannot maintain it with prettyboys or purely dominant males. You also can't maintain it if a large percentage of men simply stop participating in it since they have no real motivation to do so.

[–]mindsanitizer 1 points [recovered]  (23 children) | Copy Link

As others have pointed out up-thread, in our society right now the betas reproduce. They aren't desired but they do have kids. So this isn't *really* a society-wide problem, yet.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (22 children) | Copy Link

And what does this have to do with my comment?

You seemed to have replied to a parallel point or something.

[–]mindsanitizer 1 points [recovered]  (21 children) | Copy Link

Your point is that following our nature (females mating with alphas) will lead to humans that aren't adapted to the state we live in (modern economy). My point is that's not a danger yet, since betas still mate, they just don't get a lot of premarital sex.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

But your proposal is that betas completely give up and we revert back to our natural state.

I'm saying that this will lead to a societal breakdown.

[–]ffbtaw 1 points [recovered]  (16 children) | Copy Link

I'd argue something else; a lot of people in the future who'd be considered betas today may be incapable of attracting a mate as income inequality increases. The effect of income inequality is especially going to be felt by men due to greater male variability.

The point is that it won't be betas giving up but being unable to match the productive output of their ancestors due to the changing economy. Add in women out-earning men and it is a recipe for lots of hardship and a shift to a more r-selected culture, at least until evolution catches up.

There are obviously lots of unknowns that will impact this process but it is something to think about and it's already happening to a limited extent.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (15 children) | Copy Link

Alright, but so what? How is this you "arguing something else"?

[–]ffbtaw 1 points [recovered]  (14 children) | Copy Link

But your proposal is that betas completely give up and we revert back to our natural state.

My point is betas aren't going to voluntarily leave, many will be pushed out at the rate things are going.

when it comes to society, you cannot maintain it with prettyboys or purely dominant males. You also can't maintain it if a large percentage of men simply stop participating in it since they have no real motivation to do so.

It isn't that men will want to stop participating it's that they won't having any meaningful way of participating. Automation will be incredibly disruptive and massively reduce the value of labor and further elevate the value of capital. We can't just train everybody to be programmers most people just can't do it at a good enough level to contribute. At least in the interim there will be a boom in the healthcare sector with most of the jobs going to women.

It won't happen overnight but we do need to start preparing for it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (13 children) | Copy Link

My point is betas aren't going to voluntarily leave, many will be pushed out at the rate things are going.

Pushed out where and by whom?

It isn't that men will want to stop participating it's that they won't having any meaningful way of participating.

So automation won't greatly increase jobs in mechanical industries and engineering departments, most of which will go to men?

What's more likely to happen, most men in society being kicked out by a small amount of men and women, or most men beating the shit out of the majority?

Plus, isn't it more likely that artificial wombs will come about with that level of technology, making women have a much lower value and being less useful?

[–]ffbtaw 1 points [recovered]  (12 children) | Copy Link

By pushed out I mean pushed out of opportunities to contribute to the economy and start a family, not physically pushed out of society. Basically NEETs on a much larger scale.

So automation won't greatly increase jobs in mechanical industries and engineering departments, most of which will go to men?

No industrial job opportunities are being outsourced or automated, plus most people simply won't be able to do engineering jobs.

What's more likely to happen, most men in society being kicked out by a small amount of men and women, or most men beating the shit out of the majority?

Right, and we want to avoid this but right now we're aren't doing much to address it.

Plus, isn't it more likely that artificial wombs will come about with that level of technology, making women have a much lower value and being less useful?

This is one of the unknowns, others include genetic engineering, AI, global warming and other existential risks.

[–]mindsanitizer 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm not proposing anything greater than that people understand basic biology, and that it applies to our species the same as it does to other species. 100 years from now we'll be reproducing with artificial wombs and genetically-engineered sperm and eggs anyway, so I don't think acknowledging sexual selection exists is going to lead to the downfall of western civilization. Even today betas hardly fuck but they reproduce just fine, why would that change?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is a quote from your own post:

Most males should expect to lose out in sexual competition, and go form bachelor herds or whatever if they can’t break into the minority of males that are “good enough” to reproduce.

So your proposal as that more than 50% of the men should simply abandon any hopes of sexual competition and exile themselves away from society.

[–]EsauTheRed 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

If it can't be maintained in its current state, it will be transformed into something else

What it is being transformed into with runaway sexual selection may or may not be desirable to the women pushing it in that direction but that is too far outside their horizon for them to care about

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

That's true, but it's somewhat of a platitude.

[–]machimusMahogany Pill3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Okay, but even as a red, the alpha/beta wolf study was debunked, the original guy that studied it doesn't even believe it anymore. The 80/20 Pareto's principle isn't a hard rule of 80==0, 20==100, it's a distribution and a rule of thumb. This USED to get clarified, constantly on TRP, but seems like it went way off into the weeds at some point.

I agree that we should be cool to each other, but people don't dislike incels because they're incels, they dislike incels because there are tons of insufferable individuals in that group that pissed everyone off and ruined it for them.

[–]mindsanitizer 1 points [recovered]  (5 children) | Copy Link

Sexual selection isn't about wolves. Wolves are monogamous so if anything they're a good counter-example for team blue. In MOST species a majority of females reproduce with a minority of males. This is a bedrock biological principal, right next to natural selection in importance.

[–]Purple50912 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

link the proof that what you say happens in most species

[–]mindsanitizer 1 points [recovered]  (3 children) | Copy Link

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/2/e1500983

"We demonstrate that, across the animal kingdom, sexual selection, as captured by standard Bateman metrics, is indeed stronger in males than in females and that it is evolutionarily tied to sex biases in parental care and sexual dimorphism. Our findings provide the first comprehensive evidence that Darwin’s concept of conventional sex roles is accurate and refute recent criticism of sexual selection theory."

[–]Purple50912 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

In MOST species a majority of females reproduce with a minority of males.

^^^ this above is the proof i need,not what you posted.that a majority (>50%) of females produce with a minority(<50%) in most species.that's the proof i want

[–]mindsanitizer 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

That's what that quote says. With the caveat that it's only for the species in that meta study (66 species)

[–]Purple50912 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

that's not what you quoted.you didn't quote anything with percentages that shows that a majority (>50%) of females produce with a minority(<50%) in most species. .all you quoted what about sexual selection and dimorphism.no percentages/quantifiable statistics that you quoted.so no,you didn't give any proof...

[–]jkonrad-Pill2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I've never seen a nature show mention the % of males that mate, you're just inserting 80/20 arbitrarily.

[–]mindsanitizer 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

I agree, it's never explicit. But it's simple fractions. 5 rams fight, the winner gets to mate= 20% male success rate. 20 phat elephant seal bitches hanging on the beach with daddy alpha = 5% male success rate.

[–]Purple50911 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

lol what poor 'logic'

[–]Here4thebeer3232No Pill5 points6 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

I'm confused. You combine evo-psych with dignity. But dignity doesn't have anything to do with the natural world. It is a man made invention. It is something used to sooth the ego, stating that you acted with dignity.

Can you elaborate on how dignity from an evolutionary standpoint?

[–]mindsanitizer 1 points [recovered]  (15 children) | Copy Link

Sure. Male humans shouldn't feel bad if Female humans don't want to fuck them, because that's pretty normal for any male animal. Right now we have a society where men who can't get laid are made to feel like they are abnormal freaks, where "virgin" is the first insult women use on a man whenever he steps out of line. Embracing sexual selection as a natural thing that happens in our species normalizes male sexual failure and gives it a quiet dignity.

[–]messiahslave2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Right now we have a society where men who can't get laid are made to feel like they are abnormal freaks, where "virgin" is the first insult women use on a man whenever he steps out of line

Disagree, you will only feel bad as a virgin if you put your worth in your sexuality which is mainly linked to your attractiveness which is something that you never have to work for but was given out solely by luck/genetic/God.

In other word, if you put the worth of people based on a lottery ticket then yeah maybe you will feel abnormal.

I put worth on hard work and the morality of people. As a result, I never felt bad nor inferior for being a virgin nore that I have ever tolerated to be talk down by anyone because I'm a "beta" in the look department.

You think this way because you extend the notion of "beta/alpha" in a certain area, the sexual "market", to every other aspect of your life while in reality you can be a beta in some area and an alpha in other.

Chest out, head high brother, whatever the odds whatever happens and you will have your dignity whether you fuck half the existing world or are alone in the middle of nowhere.

God bless

[–]Here4thebeer3232No Pill6 points7 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Okay. I understand you a little better now.

I would disagree slightly that virgins are made to feel as abnormal freaks. Instead I would say that modern male culture prioritizes sex so much that a lack of sex is seen as a failure. Most of the shame virgins feel is from within for feeling like they aren't performing as well as they should. It's an internal affront to their dignity/selfworth/ego, less an external one.

[–]mindsanitizer 1 points [recovered]  (11 children) | Copy Link

You don't think women virgin-shame men? I see it pretty much any time some dude says something non-feminist online.

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Clearly s/he does not know many feminists AT ALL.

[–]TrumpCardStrategy9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Feminists won’t admit it, but male virginity is a turn-off for the majority of women. Pre-selection bias is a real thing. If you weren’t good enough for other women, why would you be good enough for them. All you get is pat on the head and platitudes like it’s okay, but none of those women are sleeping with the guy either...

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly.

[–]mindsanitizer 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm an educated coastal person. So every human being I interact with at least pretends to be a feminist, or they'll be taken to the town square for a struggle session.

Also my pronoun is xe.

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

LOLOLOL

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I don’t think they are shamed for being a virgin per se. They are shamed for theorizing about something they have little or no experience in (women). It’s less to do with being a virgin and more to do with being a pseudo-intellectual.

[–]mindsanitizer 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

When we say $insult, of course we don't mean that $insult is bad, we mean $complicated_rationalization #hampster_olympics

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I’m open to being totally wrong on this. To be fair, I just haven’t seen this type of thing on PPD, which is what I thought of when you said “online”.

What are the exact quotes that someone would use to shame a virgin man? “You’re a virgin”? I imagined it to be “you know nothing about women”, which is where my first comment came from.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I don’t think they are shamed for being a virgin per se.

You have no idea.

[–]TrumpCardStrategy0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Why do you think that? Sounds like self serving rationalizatiin because you know virgin shaming isn’t PC even though it’s widespread.

[–]LeJacquelopeHaving a son is child abuse2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Found someone trying to paint me as involuntarily celibate... and you say they don't exist? You can spit in any direction in a gender debate and hit an example like this.

[–]statsfoddernot blue, not red.6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Then females shouldn't feel bad when a male slaps the shit out of her because she stepped out of line, males in nature do this all the time and with the bonds of marriage not keeping breeding pairs together another must be found and our society jist hasn't caught up yet....

Aka dribble trying to justify women doing what they want because nature.... it is just as sad when the terps do it

[–]Freethetreees0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

In nature women have male family members and comrades to kill any male that “slaps the shit out of her”.

[–]statsfoddernot blue, not red.1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Sorry there are no "male feminists" in nature, the beta and omega males won't jump in against the alpha, they run away because after her ass whoppin' she will be looking for them so she can whoop their ass... less fem.tv and more nat geo for you ;)

[–]Freethetreees2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You don't think fathers and brothers and cousins would care if their female family member gets hurt? The "alpha" would be run out of the tribe if he made enough enemies.

I doubt you've ever watched a nat geo documentary if you think males just get away with doing whatever they want, and family bonds and numbers don't matter.

[–]toronto87 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

Most males should expect to lose out in sexual competition, and go form bachelor herds or whatever if they can’t break into the minority of males that are “good enough” to reproduce.

A 'bachelor herd' consisting of 60% of the human male population is liable to organize into a group, kill all of the supposed alpha males and resume mating.

[–]mindsanitizer 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

Jesus this is so true. A human bachelor herd is basically an army.

[–]------__------------3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Men are just following their biological imperative when they rape. Funny how biology works.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

yeah i remember reading a study that rape is objectively the correct sexual strategy for males that have 1/10 the chance of passing on their genes of normal males in the population

[–]darudeboysandstormSoup on the stove, bread rising, apple pie3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

" Most males should expect to lose out in sexual competition, and go form bachelor herds or whatever if they can’t break into the minority of males that are “good enough” to reproduce."

No cognitive being would accept this, rather I imagine this incels will continue to be local terrorists, or as you like to call them bachelor herds.

None of it is fair, but it’s all very natural.

Humans no longer live in the natural paradigm, nor can they go back considering the immense damage we have done to the planet.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Sexual Selection and Male Dignity

Are mutually exclusive.

If we acknowledged this reality, maybe we could treat each other a little better?

No. Acknowledging this reality is what unleashed women's sexuality and unregulated it. Acknowledging this reality is what formed the manosphere and TRP. Acknowledging this reality is what has caused women to disrespect men and men to hate women. Western Civ is the pretty lie that covers up this reality and has helped people get along. So, no, acknowledging this reality hasn't helped anyone treat each other better. IF anything, it's caused women to treat men much much worse and turned them into third class citizens. Man is the n***er of Western Civ now.

EDIT: Nice downvoting. Proof positive that people like their pretty lies. Stay classy, PPD.

[–]mindsanitizer 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

Pretty lies make the world go 'round, no doubt. But in here, we can at least try to seek for the truth.

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

Eh. Money makes the world go 'round. Pretty lies keep us from killing each other, keep wives with husbands, and husbands with wives.

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

I upvoted because what you wrote is accurate.

[–]swishman1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Its all genetic fitness, including all the mental traits like drive and ambition

[–]RoyalAugur922 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

None of it is fair, but it’s all very natural.

You know what isn't natural though? Civilization. Men built it - I think they're entitled to demand something from women in return.

PS. You can take your dignity and put it somewhere I can't mention since Purge week is now over. I don't want your "dignity" or your respect.

[–]Purple50910 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

so what if men supposedly built it??men are the most war mongers,killers,rapists,molestors and pedophiles.so no,you made no point

[–]AutoModeratorMarried to MRS_DRgree[M] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

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

[–]rainbowdeath6660 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hmmmm.... When you watch shows on other species, you have to take into account us being human and our inability to communicate with those animals create bias. Like we assume they're doing this stuff, because of our idea of how the world is, but that doesn't mean that's actually why the animal is doing that, and since we can't communicate we will never know the actual reason for things. When talking about things like this there never 100% accurate,its alot of assumptions, and alot of the time they're wrong. Like the whole beta, alpha wolf thing..... So basing what humans are meant to do, on the ideas humans have for why other species do stuff, is just relaying on alot of assumptions and information that is corrupted by the era that person lived and there own world views.

[–]nihilistic_spaghetti-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

We should just nuke testosterone with drugs and get rid of sexuality once and for all. Fuck nature.

[–]celincelinNeeds to be taught not to rape0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Can’t fuck anything without that sex drive brah.

[–]nihilistic_spaghetti0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

you won't be fucked either.

[–]DXBrigade-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

People should stop using biology to explain human behavior. A human =/= bonobo..

[–]mindsanitizer 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah we're totally not animals, or if we are, our mating behavior has nothing to do with our animal nature /s

[–]DXBrigade0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

We are animals but aren't bonobos or chimps.

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

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