Blackpill "Centuries of enforced monogamy is to blame for the 80/20 rule"

[IsaaqYare]

This actually makes sense and supports the blackpill. A lot of guys who were ugly, short, and low iq passed on their genes because due to of enforced monogamy.

Therefore, don't women have a point in saying that them being able to chose who to have kids with is the best for everyone? The resulting generations will have all the features that women typically find attractive and therefore inceldom and male loneliness will gradually fade away.


View: https://www.reddit.com/r/AllPillDebate/comments/14zks4b/centuries_of_enforced_monogamy_is_to_be_blamed/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

 

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

A lot of guys who were ugly, short, and low iq passed on their genes because due to of enforced monogamy.

There's also women like that spreading their genes to the future generations, and I've always found it bizarre that defenders of hypergamy never even acknowledge that women can be low value as well.

Therefore, don't women have a point in saying that them being able to chose who to have kids with is the best for everyone? The resulting generations will have all the features that women typically find attractive and therefore inceldom and male loneliness will gradually fade away.

Except that will never happen. When the average moves, what is considered low value will just move as well. There will always be guys who, compared to the average, are low-IQ, short and ugly.

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

If women will always go for the top, then even in highly sexually selected societies the Chads of those Chads will win out.

 

[IsaaqYare]

There's also women like that spreading their genes to the future generations, and I've always found it bizarre that defenders of hypergamy never even acknowledge that women can be low value as well.

But then the ugly and low value sons of those mothers will be the bottleneck. They won't pass on their genes.

Except that will never happen. When the average moves, what is considered low value will just move as well. There will always be guys who, compared to the average, are low-IQ, short and ugly.

This makes sense. Women will then just go for the 7'5 supermodel gigachads.

But then couldn't one say that the relation between the number of suitable chads and the woman's physical standards will reach an equilibrium? Like over time there will just be enough super tall and handsome guys that incels are a rare anomaly?

 

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

But then couldn't one say that the relation between the number of suitable chads and the woman's physical standards will reach an equilibrium? Like over time there will just be enough super tall and handsome guys that incels are a rare anomaly?

Even if somehow some of the traits women find attractive become something all men have, which honestly is extremely unlikely and I don't think something like that had ever happened in any species where men compete for mates like this, either the other traits will just become more important, or some other stuff will appear and become the new thing separating the elite from the normies and so on.

There's simply always going to be a hierarchy.

If women will always go for the top, then even in highly sexually selected societies the Chads of those Chads will win out.

 

[IsaaqYare]

Even if somehow some of the traits women find attractive become something all men have, which honestly is extremely unlikely and I don't think something like that had ever happened in any species where men compete for mates like this, either the other traits will just become more important, or some other stuff will appear and become the new thing separating the elite from the normies and so on.

There's simply always going to be a hierarchy.

This is what I'm leaning towards. The blackpill is so brutal.

 

[mmm]

This actually makes sense and supports the blackpill. A lot of guys who were ugly, short, and low iq passed on their genes because due to of enforced monogamy.

Therefore, don't women have a point in saying that them being able to chose who to have kids with is the best for everyone? The resulting generations will have all the features that women typically find attractive and therefore inceldom and male loneliness will gradually fade away.

That's bullshit. The dutch got tall, but that didn't make most of the men attractive, it just made women's standards even higher. In the Netherlands 6'0" is considered "short".

Also, people wouldn't become better looking if ugly/short women were allowed to breed. They must not be allowed to breed either for proper eugenics.

 

[Lv99_BixNood]

herefore, don't women have a point in saying that them being able to chose who to have kids with is the best for everyone? The resulting generations will have all the features that women typically find attractive and therefore inceldom and male loneliness will gradually fade away.

No it won't, what is Chad now will simply become the new incel

 

[prajeet88]

There's also women like that spreading their genes to the future generations, and I've always found it bizarre that defenders of hypergamy never even acknowledge that women can be low value as well.

That's not how evolution works. For the species to survive you want a high percentage of females to reproduce but a low percentage of males (but not too low to prevent inbreeding) in order to improve genetic quality. You often see this in birds, where female birds are extremely plain looking and the males have crazy good looks.

^ This is how human males are meant to look relative to human females.

 

[Mecoja]

There's also women like that spreading their genes to the future generations, and I've always found it bizarre that defenders of hypergamy never even acknowledge that women can be low value as well.

This, the ugliest, poorest, most mentally ill foids have the most kids, by different fathers. Those kids are genetic trash growing up in inhuman conditions.

 

[Mecoja]

No it won't, what is Chad now will simply become the new incel

This also. What was considered an attractive male in the 50s and 60s now would be regular normies.

 

[mmm]

This also. What was considered an attractive male in the 50s and 60s now would be regular normies.

Even Elvis??

 

[sic]

If women will always go for the top, then even in highly sexually selected societies the Chads of those Chads will win out.

 

[Lord Beric]

It was inevitable that female hypergamy was going to reach this point. It will only get worse from here.

 

[Mecoja]

Even Elvis??

Yeah imo, except the blue eyes and dark hair, he was a normie.

 

[fastnbulbous]

: "Women are perfect eugenicists, don't you dare criticize or oppose them, women are so based for leaving empathetic short men to die sweaty"

 

[Epedaphic]

Regression to the mean. Even Chad’s kids will on average be less attractive. Part of the 80/20 rule is that you have 3/10 and up reproducing with Chad which will tend towards the middle. There are also still 1/10 and 2/10 women reproducing.

Hypergamy also is not just a single generation event, where women magically agree not to do it anymore after one generation. Suppose the next generation’s men are in the range of 3/10 to 10/10 and there are no more 1’s and 2’s. The range 3-10 will just become 1-10 of the new scale.

So, no change to male loneliness.

Also, how is “everything to do with his ability to provide for his family” an undesirable trait lol

 

[SerbBurekConsoomer]

There's a chance even eugenics won't save people from suffering and isolation. Genetic recombination and impact of polluted environment might fuck up at least 10-20% of men. But that won't affect whores who will get away with everything.