Without arranged marriages and with birth control, women run much less risk of incurring the costs of getting pregnant and are much freer to act accordingly. So what do they do with this opportunity?
Well I hear it’s been tested that women rate only the top 20% of men as above average, and since a man runs much less risk and incurs much less cost to their bodies when it comes to the possibility of getting someone pregnant, there’s never been much reason to hold back in trying with as many women as possible, so even just the top 20% have plenty to go around all the women who are actually going after them. And if a woman does get pregnant and give birth from such an interaction, at least they’re passing down a mix of their genes with those of someone in the top 20%. The other approach is to stably pair-bond with a male of similar to better socio-economic status, to better bring up any children who won’t necessarily have the genes of someone in the top 20%. But even if the second approach is being taken, an encounter of the first kind may still end up with the lower status male bringing up the child as their own and getting the best of both worlds - either without the male’s knowledge or more likely with a new male in a new relationship hoping to give the female a subsequent child of their own in exchange for their fathering of both their children and children who are not theirs. Seeing as 80% of the male population are not deemed above average, this is more often than not their best strategy to pass down their own genetic material. I think there’s an unequal proportion of genetic material passed down as it is, with children having more genes in common with their mother than their father. More men are actually born to richer families and more women to poorer families (not always, but on average there is apparently a difference) because being a male is more risky, passing down less of their genes, and only really if they have better resources to offer their mate. There’s also more variation in males, on the off chance that the risk pays off and makes them able to climb high enough in status to attract a good mate even if they didn’t start out with much of an advantage.
For all these reasons and more, there are going to be fewer outstanding females and they’ll still be successful, and moreso with the top 20% of men than the rest. It makes sense for them to risk pregnancy with higher status males, at least while they’re young as what they have to offer diminishes with age. It also makes more sense for them to lower their standards and get maximum potential to pass on their genes in their later years when they have less to offer, lower status males are more desperate to get anything at all, and they’re even likely to assist bringing up previous offspring they had with higher status males.
Basically, it all makes perfect sense, simply considering what works best in practice whether intentionally or much more likely unintentionally, and unless you happened to be someone who benefits from the whole thing, it’s gonna suck for you - sorry.
Inheritance can be financial, and genetic, it both works pretty much the same way.
If a father leaves $1000000 for his son and daughter, that could be the equivalent of another father, with no money, leaving good genes for his children. So inheritance works both ways, materially and genetically.
I’ve noticed that many people use money to compensate for what they are genetically lacking. So if somebody is stupid, ugly, short, etc. then they depend on money much more to compensate for their flaws. Somebody who is beautiful, smart, tall, they can easily “trade-in” genetic material for money. People are willing to pay big bucks for people with superior genes.
Motherly qualities, wants to have children, marriage, family, and is willing to sacrifice (not be promiscuous) in order to get what she wants. My ideal woman, learns from her parents. She has pride in herself. She wants to repeat the inheritance that she was born into. She wants to re-create her own family.
I put some credence in the common theory that women “seek-out” their biological fathers, in mates. However, with all the single-mother families out there, all the unwanted children, a lot of women are fatherless. This causes problems throughout society. Women, without fathers, are females without role-models. These are the ones who tend to slut-around or fall repeatedly for “bad boys”.
I believe fundamentally that if people are born from good parents, good families, then they will want to repeat that, and reproduce it for their own children. So that’s the type of woman I’m looking for.
A Matriarch, strong-minded, smart, proud of herself. She doesn’t take kindly to desperate males, weak-minded, pettiness. She’s a challenge, and worth it.
The pre-Columbian Old World syphilis theory is still controversial because there are other triponema diseases with similar effects that existed in the Ancient world. Although I do think it’s possible that syphilis causing treponema had mutated once in Europe - which does not paint a pretty picture for the new infectious diseases that might be coming up in our globalized world.
STDs are spread through prostitutes and promiscuous women more than anybody else. The general public, above-average women, are more selective and would not dare sleeping with males they suspected of illness.
Young women usually do not have a good filtering mechanism because they lack experiences with the world, and men. Most men do not have a filtering mechanism no matter their age because to them one vagina is as good as another. As long as they get one (their “own”), they’re happy.
. My observations show that most men do not have a problem with this. Just look at Trump.
Well, I guess that makes Melania one smart woman. What’s a best man anyway?
Every man may think he’s best at something and want a woman to see him the same way.
I think it’s more of a matter of compatibility, and you’re idealizing this too much. For instance, you emphasize “purity” and “innocence” of a woman, but isn’t it also the thing that drives pedophiles, and pedophile marriages? It’s a possessive kind of thinking. You’re like a Pygmalion who wants perfection in a woman, your way.
I think you love a thing, or an idea, not a living woman.
I suppose this is also the reason men used to buy child virgin brides from parents. (and still do in some countries). But this is not about the woman - it’s about the man himself and his own idealistic notions.
. Like married men do not cheat on their wives! I remember when I was on a tour of the Amsterdam red light district, which was led by an ex-prostitute, she said that most of their clientele are married men who come there in the early morning on their way to work. So how is this not relevant?
. Well, it’s easier to knock up a young girl because of her lack of life experiences. Unfortunately, many young girls will have to pay the price for being so deceived. If that girl knew what price she would end up paying for engaging in sex with a stud player, who I’m pretty sure was the instigator and pursuer of the whole affair, I would think she would have resisted the advances even of the most talented and handsome guy. From a male perspective, a young girl is a weak and easy prey.
Are you saying there’s a direct correlation between what a man is worth and the order in which he gets fucked by a woman? Like she systematically goes from best to worst throughout her entire sex life?
Women with good filtering mechanisms tend to come from united families, especially ones with a dominant father-figure to scare away young males that want to poach virginity, without marrying. It’s a ‘victory’ for men to poach and take virginity without marrying. However, obviously, a dominant male/father would never allow it. A daughter’s promiscuity reflects on her poor/absent parenting.
Trump is obsessed with beauty, and doesn’t seem to care about “sloppy tenths”. If women are attractive-enough, then like I said, most men will overlook their past, just to “score” on them. Trump seems like the guy who cares about score/scoring. Trumps wives are trophy-wives. Trump is actually liberal, morally. He doesn’t have a conservative approach to his family affairs, hence the scandals and cheating. Most men, average, admire this and want to mimic it. Most men will settle quickly for a trophy-wife, looks is enough. Beauty is enough. Inner-character, intelligence, don’t matter, to them.
The “best man” is the one who took your virginity, the one who “scored” on you and then dumped you, moved on to the next woman. He was your first choice. He was your best choice. After he took your sex, then there was no reason for him to stay with you.
Possession represents nature. Once a guy takes a girl’s virginity, then he owns that forever. She/You can never get it back. You will never have as much to offer another man, afterwards. You will always offer less than your full potential. With all subsequent mates, you essentially communicate to them “you were not worth saving myself for”, “you are lesser”. You are “last pick”. Last place.
Most men suppress and repress this fact. It hurts a common man’s pride that he ignores it, and pretends like it doesn’t exist. Again, how can anybody be proud of last place, last pick?
You remember athletic games in elementary and middle school? Who were the last picks? The ones nobody wanted on their teams? Now apply that to dating, relationships, and mating. How many women and men are each-other’s last place? Having first pick, and being first pick, is ego-boosting. It builds confidence.
Despite all this idealism, I’m obliged to reality and realism. I understand that very few men can pick first, and be first picked. I accept its rarity.
When is it ever “about the woman”? Why would men care what women want, when women don’t know what you want? When you have to be told, and instructed, what to want and why? Females have a different embodiment of Privilege, than males. Women have life handed to you on a silver-platter. You have the sex. You have the supply. You have the power. But you lose that power, over time. Age, experience, decreases the sexual value of women. Women must eventually “settle-down” for last-place, the same way most men do too. So it applies to both.
It is rare that a man and woman could be each other’s first pick. It is most often that each other is Last. How many couples, relationships, humans, look at each other with disappointment? “I could have had better.” “If only I had held out a little longer?” I see these thoughts all over. It’s not me. It’s not my problem, being single. But I do see it in couples. I see it in the rate of failed marriages. I see it throughout society that nobody is happy or content. Everybody becomes each other’s last pick.
“I’m with you because I couldn’t do any better. I’m not with you because I want you.” Does this apply to you? Or your significant other?
Because it’s more forgivable for a man to cheat on his wife, or have a mistress, than it is for a woman to cheat or divorce.
Men and women are held to different standards. I’ll prove this in my next post.
As mentioned, young girls and women, who are highly selectively, almost always have a protective mother, father, or both watching over her. Her ignorance and innocence, is compensated for by the parents. This is why family-structures coincide with high-selectivity. A high-status family would be disgraced, humiliated, and worse if their daughters were revealed as town-bicycles, as easy to get, sexually. Traditionally, if a daughter has sex outside marriage, then the family will be forced down in status. Families had to be very strict to maintain their integrity. A rebellious daughter would cause disaster. This is still the case throughout the rest of the world, outside liberal-leftist USA.
Liberal-Left USA is not reality. It is the inversion of reality. Liberal-left USA attempts to convince the world, that being a whore, a slut, promiscuous women, is morally good and righteous. It is the direct opposite of reality. They push this agenda for very specific reasons and causes, ultimately, undermining and destroying the foundation and fabric of greater society. It is a degeneration, a social decay.
Women are very connected, from puberty, to watch each-other and who is having sex with whom. Young girls know, intuitively, which males are dominant and highest status. Young girls want to fuck with the dominant males, and reject the lesser. This is very much the reason/cause some young males “get away” with sexual indiscretions. This is the same reason/cause some young men cheat, cheat, and cheat, yet the young girls still go back to him. Because they would rather be cheated on, than fuck around with a lesser male.
So yes, it is about worth, choice, and filtering. Young women naturally filter out the lesser males, reject them, sexually. If young men are rejected, then it feels painful, because it means they are low status and shut-out of the gene pool. In nature, this is symbolic of a death sentence. This is how some young males become desperate, nihilistic, hateful, resentful, and homicidal/suicidal. They know, intuitively, that there is no hope for them throughout life. They will always be marked as genetic-losers. Ousted from the gene pool.
So they act out, in many ways. Criminals are formed this way too.
If a man would have done it, then he would have been fired.
So you can’t accuse me of double-standards when they are this obvious. If you don’t know the “double-standard” by now then you’re just out of touch with reality.
Why is it socially forgivable for an adult woman to have sex with a young male, but not an adult man to have sex with a young female?
What does this trend represent, biologically? Why are young women “off-limits” to older men? What kind of danger or threat to greater society does it represent, that young women are ‘taken’ by older men? And why is this danger one-sided? Why is it forgivable that an older woman seduces a young man?
Actually, I think it’s some kind of sick fetish for men, which may even incentivize men to “deflower” women at a younger age, in other words, it may actually encourage pedophilia.