Evolutionary Scientist Have It Backwards

[Ever5Participant 1008]

I don’t know if they are called evolutionary science or not, probably another word for it.

The theory is that a man has lots of sperm so he can spread his seed far and wide. This is not the case. It’s because a man’s sperm has to compete with other men’s sperm. More sperm a man has, the better chances his sperm has of competing for the egg.

The scientist got it wrong, because the majority if not all are male, and are still blue pilled. They can’t see what is in front of them. They still want to believe that women are monogamous. They are not, never have been and never will be.

The whole theory is wrong.

Truth has no place to live in the mind of a woman.

[AwakenedParticipant 35215]

What does monogamy have to do with evolution ?

In a World of Justin Beibers Be a Johnny Cash

[Ever5Participant 1008]

well the theory was that a woman wanted the best man she could get and would be monogamous with him. And the theory goes on, that the best man would go about spreading his seed to as many women who found him to be the best. This is inaccurate, by a long shot. I’ve always wondered about this, because I’ve never had a desire to go on a sexual rampage.

But you are right in what it is that you are implying. Monogamy has nothing to do with evolution. Except when you see it as a construct created by man to better his chances of DNA survival.

This whole thing is pretty deep. I personally believe humans were bred. There biology bred for the creation of society, production, and technology. Without the illusion of monogamy, that a man was supporting his family, children, etc., he is less likely to work nearly as hard, he’d only work hard enough to feed his own mouth. Which in that case, I believe most men would have just grown their own food, or found good land that had food on it. There would be no society.

Also the higher the intelligence, the more likely people are to be monogamous. Perhaps this is bred as well, to keep intelligence down, to keep the society as a whole from getting too smart.

The more I look at the world we are living in, the more I’ve come to the conclusion that it was “designed” that way, as in an intervention took place, god or aliens. We were bred this way.

All the way down to the conflict of a man’s biology vs. a woman’s biology. I’m talking about emotions. Love does not mean the same thing to a man as it does a woman.

Truth has no place to live in the mind of a woman.

[ghostParticipant]

F~~~ women, period.

MGTOW.

[AwakenedParticipant 35215]

I believe monogamy is a man made societal invention/tool to keep the Man responsible/accountable for HIS Family.

In a World of Justin Beibers Be a Johnny Cash

[The SignalParticipant 61]

Awakened wrote:

What does monogamy have to do with evolution ?

Yeah, I’m not seeing that one either.

Evolutionary science never makes any claims about monogamy per se. What it does say about human sexual behavior is that males and females have partially-competing but partially-overlapping sexual strategies for maximizing their genetic expression in future generations. The “marital bliss” strategy of the female is one approach, but only one. Most females end up employing both of their major sexual strategies at varying times and in varying degrees. For some female (or some male) to switch strategies only requires the right sort of incentives/stimuli. This is the whole empirical basis for the AF/BB rhetoric the Red Pill guys use.

[Eric LauderParticipant 12043]

Ever5 wrote:

I don’t know if they are called evolutionary science or not, probably another word for it.

The theory is that a man has lots of sperm so he can spread his seed far and wide. This is not the case. It’s because a man’s sperm has to compete with other men’s sperm. More sperm a man has, the better chances his sperm has of competing for the egg.

The scientist got it wrong, because the majority if not all are male, and are still blue pilled. They can’t see what is in front of them. They still want to believe that women are monogamous. They are not, never have been and never will be.

The whole theory is wrong.

Women ARE monogamous.
For about 7 years.
This maximizes their chances to raise an healthy offspring: in the wild children became autonomous at about 7 years, it was an age that in the wild was similar to our 12-14 years, at such age children began to provide resources by being able to gather food and they were pretty autonomous: that was the time when the “wife” began to look for a better provider, especially if the “husband” had felt in hard times.

Women being total sluts would had been dead in the wild, and humanity would be extinct: men supporting them and their offspring for whole 7 years would had been almost unheard of.

That’s precisely why I warn about tradcon women: because it’s about 7 years, not “for life”, while alimony is for life…

SUPREME LEADER KIM JONG-UN'S FASHION STYLIST - if you want a new look or if you're a very beautiful trans you can call me, phone number +85079255312 / mobile 01921421211. The worth of a man isn't the usefulness that women get from him. Avoiding living with a woman, a man isn't rejecting a lot of sex: he's rejecting sexual starvation. MGTOW IS TACKLING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONVENTION OF ISTANBUL: http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168008482e --- Article 4, Section 4 "Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention". WHAT I LEARNT FROM A GENDER STUDIES CLASS IN LUND, SWEDEN: every time feminists accuses men of doing something, odds are likely either them or persons associated with them are doing the exact same thing but a lot worse. WHO I'M RIGHT NOW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1okpAj7Fhw Basically my former life have been a conflict between this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz_RQVkvke4 and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFIMeyTK-sU That's, more or less, all about me.

[Ever5Participant 1008]

Eric Lauder wrote:

That’s precisely why I warn about tradcon women: because it’s about 7 years, not “for life”, while alimony is for life…

It turns out it’s actually 4, that a woman will stick around and not cause to many problems. Just enough time to get pregnant, have the baby, and then can take the child to day care. So she can continue her sexual escapade.

But as far as being monogamous. I don’t think that’s the case, even for the 4 years. She’s still screwing around, at least the majority.

I heard some statistics, that in the US, like 30% of children, their biological father isn’t who they think he is. In the UK it’s even higher, like 48%. Now that’s just what I heard on a TFM podcast from one of the guys on there. I don’t have the stats on that. But I have read in books, maybe Sperm Wars, can’t remember which one, that over 10% of children worldwide, their biological father isn’t who they think he is.

Those statistics might be wrong. But it’s still common enough.

http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/583229/Father-s-Day-children-dads-affairs-survey-statistics

Truth has no place to live in the mind of a woman.

[Anonymous 12]

Are we talking about evolution in a society context or in a wilderness context?

In the wild a woman would want to hook up with the strongest biggest man she could find and keep him happy. He would feed her and reproduce with her. Of course they may live in a tribe, so sometimes a bigger man might come along and take her for a moment or two. In this scenario she has very little say in what happens to her. She does not have the strength or the position to stop it and she would not want her main man to find out.

In our modern times everything is reversed. A woman will want to find a Blue Pill Simp. One who can make some money or a loser who will impregnate her and then leave never to be seen again. She can siphon money off the Government to support the kid. In the event that he has some use she can stay with him a while then divorce him, take most of his cash and assets and spend time being f~~~ed by anyone she wants till she feels the urge to sucker another man in again.

So men have always competed with other men to try and spread their seed. But again that doesn’t work in modern times as any man with half a brain will use a condom to protect against pregnancy and disease. So I don’t buy this idea that men want sex because it is some primal urge to spread his seed. Because he isn’t doing that, at least if he is smart. I know a lot aren’t.

Society has also allowed the weak to not only survive but prosper as well. But that is another story.

Sorry, I ranted a little.

[sidecarParticipant 35860]

Ever5 wrote:

The theory is that a man has lots of sperm so he can spread his seed far and wide.

That’s not a theory. Men do, in fact, have an effectively unlimited supply of sperm, especially compared to the very limited supply of eggs women have.

What matters here is reproductive potential, not reproductive achievement.

At absolute maximum reproduction a human female can produce, at most, a couple dozen offspring before her biology shuts her down. And when you account for things like infant mortality, congenital defects, and death in childbirth, the actual breeding potential of a woman is significantly lower. Compare that to the trillions upon trillions of sperm a man produces throughout his life. Seriously, it’s a matter of twenty four or so copared to trillions upon trillions.

Or, looking at it another way, it’s a matter of lost opportunity cost. If a man blows his wad on the ground and wastes that load of sperm, it’s no great cost to him. There’s plenty more where that came from (pun only partially intended). But if a woman goes through a month’s ovulation without conception, she has permanently lost one of her twelve chances to have a child that year. And she only has a few years at optimum reproductive condition. A lot of the “pains” of PMS are literally her body punishing her for not using that egg to reproduce her genes.

That’s the reality of cheap sperm and expensive eggs.

The whole theory is wrong.

Incorrect.

What you’re missing here is that men and women evolved under a completely different reproductive environment than the artificial one we have allowed to be created around us. Do you really think a few hundred years of feminism can counter the effects of millions of years of natural selection?

Ever5 wrote:

well the theory was that a woman wanted the best man she could get

That’s also an incomplete understanding of the situation. In reality women want the man they think all the other women want as well. Whether he’s the “best” or not doesn’t even qualify. If she thinks other women want him, she’ll assume he’s the “best”, without any regard for himself. This is because her limited offspring have a much better chance if she insures they aren’t at any genetic disadvantage to other women’s offspring. Seeking out the “best” reproductive partner is genetically very risky for her.

[X11Spectator 4520]

Link to peer reviewed scientific journal article?

[ghostParticipant]

@sidecar for the win.

[Author]

Posts