In pre-agricultural era prior to the formation of civilisation, in other words during cavemen times, women had sexual preferences towards men who were tall and had trauma resistant skull structure (hunter eyes, square jaw, prominent chin) as these were physical indicators of strength and the ability of a man to win a fight against other men in order to be able to protect his woman and the offspring that they produce. Over time, these preferences became part of women’s biological programming through evolution, hence women still pursue these traits in the modern era.
but there is no need for women to still select men based on indicators of physical strength and ability to win a fight, because we are living in a civilisation in which protection is already provided to women by the state through law enforcement and military, the laws in place punish violence against women (and also against men), so the laws act as a deterrence from causing harm to women, Hence there is no need for women to have a physically strong man by her side to protect her when vast majority of men will avoid harming women to begin with, due to fear of punishment for doing so.
also, In caveman times, physical strength was the greatest factor in likelihood of winning a fight because there existed no weapons, so men engaged in hand to hand combat. But nowadays because of the existence of guns, physical strength doesn’t matter at all. Having a 6’4 gym-maxed chad boyfriend by your side doesn’t mean shit, his physical advantages doesn’t mean that he will be able to protect you when he can easily get gunned down by a skinny 5’4 turbo manlet incel.
furthermore, living a life of safety and security is dependant more on money than looks. Even if as a woman, you have a tall and strong boyfriend, there is nothing stopping weaker men from teaming up in a gang, beating your boyfriend to death, and then raping you afterwards. But if you are with a rich man who is short and physically weak, despite his physical weakness, that man can use his money to hire a security detail to follow you both around while you’re in public, he can hire armed bodyguards to protect you while you’re at home etc. True safety and security is provided by money, not looks, yet women still would pursue a broke chad over a rich incel.
I have come to the conclusion that female sexual selection is heavily flawed because of the reasons I have outlined. Here is a quote by Elliot rodger, who also came to the same conclusion as me with regards to the flawed nature of female sexual selection
but there is no need for women to still select men based on indicators of physical strength and ability to win a fight, because we are living in a civilisation in which protection is already provided to women by the state through law enforcement and military, the laws in place punish violence against women (and also against men), so the laws act as a deterrence from causing harm to women, Hence there is no need for women to have a physically strong man by her side to protect her when vast majority of men will avoid harming women to begin with, due to fear of punishment for doing so.
also, In caveman times, physical strength was the greatest factor in likelihood of winning a fight because there existed no weapons, so men engaged in hand to hand combat. But nowadays because of the existence of guns, physical strength doesn’t matter at all. Having a 6’4 gym-maxed chad boyfriend by your side doesn’t mean shit, his physical advantages doesn’t mean that he will be able to protect you when he can easily get gunned down by a skinny 5’4 turbo manlet incel.
furthermore, living a life of safety and security is dependant more on money than looks. Even if as a woman, you have a tall and strong boyfriend, there is nothing stopping weaker men from teaming up in a gang, beating your boyfriend to death, and then raping you afterwards. But if you are with a rich man who is short and physically weak, despite his physical weakness, that man can use his money to hire a security detail to follow you both around while you’re in public, he can hire armed bodyguards to protect you while you’re at home etc. True safety and security is provided by money, not looks, yet women still would pursue a broke chad over a rich incel.
I have come to the conclusion that female sexual selection is heavily flawed because of the reasons I have outlined. Here is a quote by Elliot rodger, who also came to the same conclusion as me with regards to the flawed nature of female sexual selection
“All I ever wanted was to love women, but their behaviour has only earned my hatred. I want to have sex with them and make them feel good, but they would be disgusted at the prospect. They have no sexual attraction towards me.
Why do women behave like vicious, stupid, cruel animals who take delight in my suffering and starvation? Why do they have a perverted sexual attraction towards the most brutish of men instead of gentlemen of intelligence?
I concluded that women are flawed, there is something mentally wrong with the way their brains are wired, as if they haven’t evolved from animal-like thinking. They are incapable of reason or thinking rationally. They are like animals, completely controlled by their primal, depraved emotions and impulses. That is why they are attracted to barbaric, wild, beast-like men. They are beasts themselves.
Beasts should not be able to have rights in a civilised society. If their wickedness is not contained, the whole of humanity will be held back from advancement to a more civilised state. Women should not have the right to choose who to mate with. That decision should be made for them by civilised men of intelligence.
If women had the freedom to choose which men to mate with, like they do today, they would mate with stupid degenerate men which would only produce stupid degenerate offspring. This in turn would hinder the advancement of humanity. Not only hinder it, but devolve it completely. Women are like a plague that must be quarantined.”
Last edited:
