Hi Any Forums
Let's talk about evolutionary biology, women, and mating strategies.
I am as aware as anyone that things have been getting progressively worse, and depending on what lens you apply, you might able to identify political, social, financial, genetic, as well as cultural reasons behind the phenomenon.
What I will focus on, though, are the evolutionary reasons, and how they relate to our social contracts and socioeconomic systems.
Males and females employ asymmetrical mating strategies, since they suffer from disparate evolutionary selection pressures. I will take a moment to touch upon the pertinent pressures and hardwired evolutionary imperatives and strategies.
Females employ strategic pluralism. That describes the propensity to fulfill multiple needs regarding replication and propagation via a strategic application of mating behavior. Females look for specific signifiers, as do males. Females select for signifiers of fitness and testosterone/dihydrotestosterone, ie androgeny. But, they also seek protection, provision, and parental investment. Females have had millions of years of selection pressures, and hundreds of thousands of years as hominids, to seek out a male to exclusively protect them. We evolved alongside predators, constant stressors, aggressors, and altercations. Similarly, they have had selection pressures to seek out males that can provide them with resources. Females are incapable of bending the environment to their will, so they have to do it by proxy. They are incapable of hunting efficiently, they are incapable of building shelter, they are incapable of guarding resources. It's only sensible that the females that exhibited an outsized obsession over seeking out males with access to resources and ability to amass more resources, tended to survive and birth offspring that reached reproductive age at greater rates than the ones that did not. By the same notion, the females that attached to a male for undivided protection and safety tended to survive at greater rates than the ones that did not.
Their hardwired need for parental investment is a little more nuanced. Species that produce very few offspring as their replication strategy tend to invest a lot of attention, resources, and time on the development of said offspring, in order to maximize their chances at survival and subsequent replication. Female mammals, namely human females, are no different. A paternal figure that invests in the development and upbringing of the offsrping greatly increases its chances of surviving to reproductive age and developing prosocial behaviors that maximize its reproductive success. Females expend a lot of energy and time, as well as suffer bodily and risk mortality, in order to gestate and birth offspring, it's sensible that they are outwardly invested in its proper development and its ability to reproduce.
Males employ two different mating strategies, depending on their status in the hierarchy of the extended family unit or tribe, even though they can converge. Males high in the hierarchy, males that are genetically fit, masculine, and high on testosterone, enjoy high levels of 5-HT. They enjoy the proceptive and receptive behavior of numerous women, and they enjoy the submission, implicit or explicit, of other males. Their most sensible mating strategy is reproducing with as many females as possible, ie spreading their genetic material with little regard when it comes to parental investment that would potentiate the offsprings' reproductive success. They do not have to expend resources, energy, time, or even bodily harm through mate guarding, in order to replicate their genes. It's only natural that they navigate thusly, in a system of abundance, of limited scarcity.
Males that are lower in the social hierarchy, whose genetic fitness is not comparable, whose testosterone and dihydrotestosterone levels are midling, have to navigate a system of scarcity and competition. Their serotonin levels are lower, they are more risk-averse, and they are better able to defer gratification out of necessity. Their mating strategy involves provision, protection, and parental investment. They amass resources, and commit undivided attention to the female, they obsessively mate-guard in order to mitigate paternity fraud and paternity confusion, and expend time, resources, energy, and other potential mating partners, in order to bring up their offspring and ensure optimal development that will in turn translate in eventual reproductive success.
As you might have noticed, females seek out males of optimal genetic fitness, that will also protect them and their offspring, commit to them and their offspring, provide for them and their offspring, and will invest in the upbringing and development of their offspring. But that is generally a combination of two disparate mating strategies employed by two different classes of men. Cue strategic pluralism.
Females' evolutionarily hardwired imperative is to primarily mate with the male of the best genetic fitness if their sphere of infuence. Females' secondary evolutionarily hardwired imperative is to attach themselves to a male that will protect them, provide for them, and invest in their offspring. Ergo, in a vacuum, females will always seek to fulfill/satiate both imperatives with two different males.
I believe it's patently obvious that nature is at odds with structured society. In fact, structured society reins in nature and bends it. In order for structured societies to exist, a social contract has to be upheld. Men exchange their excess of labor for reproductive access. In effect, the evolutionarily hardwired imperatives of extremely fit men, and all women, are reined in for society to function.
What happens, then, if the social contract is broken?
Or you know, simply be Chad.
Women are free to exercise their imperatives. Single-motherhood sees a steep increase. Infidelity sees a steep increase. Utilitatian, opportunistic, and solipsistic bahavior sees a steep increase. Female in-group competition sees an increase, resulting in an arms race for women to present themselves progressively more proceptive and receptive to mates. Women will accentuate their secondary sexual characteristics, they will exhibit sexual behavior, they will incentivize male competition, and will shun/ostracize males that are low in the social hierarchy. That's how it goes in nature, especially during seasons of estrus.
Conversely, males will engage in two different behavioral patterns, that are seemingly axiomatically antithetical. Some males will enter into an arms race when it comes to provision. That means assets, resources, status. Other males will enter into an arms race when it comes to protection and the metastasization of that, obsessive mate-guarding, aggression, criminality, risk-seeking, antisocial behavior. Finally, a group of males will opt out and engage in hedonistic endeavors, maladaptive behavior, self-actualization.
Since the number of men that are genetically fit and able to reproduce, in a tournament mating paradigm, is minuscule, the end result is progressive degradation of the systems of structured society. Males are no longer incentivized to produce an excess of labor, thus the system tht relied in a specific volume of labor and participation can no longer be sustained. The system will run on its inertia for some time before finally collapsing.
Well, how did human females even evolve the means to be able to employ strategic pluralism?
Human females do not have an estrus mediated by melatonin. They are fertile year-round. They also do not have outward identifiers signalling ovulation. Human females are the only mammalian species with a concealed ovulation.
Human females retain a lot of their neoteny, and have had selection pressures for neoteny. Neoteny obviously allows them the ability to command compassion, attention, protection, and preferential treatment.
Human females, as hominids, developed "sex sounds", with the primary impetus to make other males in the vicinity aware they are receptive.
Human females, have developed predilection for duplicity, confrontation-aversion, and in-group prosocial behavior amongst other females.
All that was to facilitate paternity confusion. When the male in question is not positively sure the offspring is not theirs, they will be hesitant to commit infanticide, and they will be instinctively primed to expend resources and energy to protect it and provide for it.
Okay, so how did the males evolve in response?
Males employ mate-guarding, obsessive control, threat. Males also employ limited investment. Both strategies are instrumental in maximizing their chances at replication. When a male is mate-guarding and controls the female's environment and actions, he mitigates the risk of paternity fraud. Ie, he mitigates risk that he will invest resources and energy for another male's gene replication. When a male is employing limited investment, he is in turn not expending energy and resources. He is content he is replicating his genetic material, and is not particularly interested in the offspring's optimal development and reproductive success. The law of large numbers.
That's just touching the surface. The arms race is even present on a biological level, with antisperm antibodies, faux ovulation, faux gestation, menstrual synchrony, androstenol pheromones and androstenol olfactory receptors, telegony, and a host of other things.
those are some large breasts that woman has
Good thread and nice photos, too. I am definitely sad about lack of women in my life, but I just try to live my life the best I can.
Don't forget to discuss how chimp betas will occasionally gang up on and brutally murder the alphas.
They like to pull off their genitals and manually flay them alive
Finally you are back user.It's nice to see you again. I just need to remember what I wanted to ask you.
Yes, in all tournament-selection mating paradigms, the alpha males of the extended family unit are either killed or ostracized by groups of males lower in the hierarchy, oftentimes their own offspring.
Moreover, males lower in the hierarchy will cooperate in order to distract the alpha male engaging in mate-guarding, so they can proceed to inseminate the receptive females.
on your opinion, mhc, scent , pherormones and other hidden factors how much do they count on attraction between humans?
Men are naturally violent because beta cucks get zero pussy. The ONLY reason that some "men" get depression or anxiety is because they have female genetics.
Major histocompatibility complex plays a major role, but with all those artificial scents, phyto and xeno estrogens, and increase in obesity which translates to more adipose t7-estradiol cells, our system is out of whack.
The most obvious stressor being the oral contraceptive pill, which is ethylestradiol and progesterone.
Look, your copy & paste is all fine and dandy but nothing new. Every robot has these basic concepts down.
Bring us unprecedented blackpills like yesterday's thread (overlooked in favor of more simping threads as usual) and we could have an actually interesting discussion.
I noticed you subdivided males in hierarchies, which is evident to everyone, but what human females? do they have some type of hierarchy and different pattern behaviour, based on that?
Well, there are implicit hierarchies, but they do not translate into reproductive success ipso facto. Women have evolved to shirk overt competition, so you can think of female hierarchy as the in-group and the out-group in any one system.
Since they have evolved to be risk and confrontation-averse, conformism and prosocial behavior are potentiated. Simultaneously, duplicity and opportunistic relationships are potentiated.
With women, status in the hierarchy does not directly correlate with reproductive success, so it's not explicitly selected for. But, women that find themselves in the out-group of the unit suffer diminished survival and reproductive success. Other women will refuse to co-parent, they will refuse to share resources, they will refuse to assist in breastfeeding, they will sully their reputation, and they will attempt to monopolize the males' attention. Being a pariah is a woman's greatest fear, since it translated to death, evolutionarily.