>its just natural selection chud

>its just natural selection chud
>males arent needed after mating and having a bunch of males hanging around doing nothing uses up resources that the offspring need
>Females can always reproduce again and only a very small number of males are needed to fertilise a large number of females

>Evolution selects that which works and dosent care about your feelings, chud

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    arent needed after mating and having a bunch of males hanging around doing nothing uses up resources that the offspring need
    Males aren't needed after mating, until a bigger, meaner male comes along and kills the offspring so that the female can focus her time and resources onto HIS offspring instead. At that point, perhaps the female would wish that the first male had stuck around to protect her and the child.
    >only a very small number of males are needed to fertilise a large number of females
    See above. All of those vulnerable women and children need to be protected and provided for.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >until a bigger, meaner male comes along
      >At that point, perhaps the female would wish that the first male had stuck
      IQfy is the lowest IQ board.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Women will happily let their children die when a "bigger meaner male comes along". Obviously bigger and meaner means more alpha and hence better genetics. Why raise the offspring of a weak beta?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Women will happily let their children die when a "bigger meaner male comes along".
        Then whence cometh civilization?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Civilization is a beta male invention. Women may be profiting from it but they don't contribute to it. Their mating preferences are stuck in stone age, i.e. a male has to be tall and dominant, not smart.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're holding up the example of sociopathic narcissistic women as if all women behaved that way. You sound like the feminists who say that all men are rapists and that all PIV sex is oppressive rape.
            Most women don't want to be part of a harem. They might have unrealistic standards, but how is that any different from mid-tier men who want a 18yo supermodel virgin tradwife?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I have yet to see evidence of a woman who isn't a psychopath and who doesn't lust for a tall handsome guy regardless of how many other women he has.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I have yet to see evidence of a sociopathic misogynist who hasn't simply reaped what he has sown. Your negative perception of women is a reflection of your own poisoned personality. You are the psychopath, evidenced by your demonstrably wrong beliefs.

            No mother truly loves her child. They only see a child as an object to raise their own social status. When it's a beta male's offspring it doesn't fulfill this purpose and consequently gets treated with the same disregard the beta male father receives.

            It's a good thing you will never reproduce.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >your own poisoned personality
            But who poisoned it? I was an innocent boy. My mother was a psychopath and all women I ever met treated me with utmost contempt. How did I deserve such a treatment? Apparently my crime consisted in "not being a tall and dominant man".

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >mommy was mean to me so all women are irredeemable worthless prostitutes
            Now do the same thing but with an abusive father. Do you see how stupid such broad generalisations of half the species are?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nice reading comprehension, dipshit. My mother was only the first psychopathic woman in my life, but unfortunately not the last. ALL women I had to deal with over the last 3 decades turned out to despise me.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > ALL women I had to deal with over the last 3 decades turned out to despise me.
            Sounds like the problem might be you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The "problem" is me being a submissive manlet. I wouldn't call that my problem though. After all it's genetic and can't be changed. It's the women's problem that they treat me with contempt because of it. This is the same pattern as in racism: Treating someone with contempt because of genetic traits he can't change.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So you respond by treating all women with contempt, even abstract theoretical women you have never met or interacted with. Solid plan. Keep us posted on how that works out for you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This is still a science board. I made empirical observations and formed a predictive hypothesis. The only logical conclusion a smart person naturally draws given the data.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How many fat, ugly girls have you made romantic overtures towards?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Many. They aren't aware though that they are my looks and status match. They still feel entitled to a dominant tall Chad. In fact, ugly girls seem to have an exaggerated need to compensate for their ugliness by violently denying to be in the same league with unattractive men (see pic rel).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Are my views repelling women?
            >No, it's the women who are wrong!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Which views? No woman has ever heard my views because I already get rejected based on my height.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I already get rejected based on my height
            Or so you assume. Fact is they can probably smell the desperate bitter incelry on you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Women have absolutely no skill in assessing a man's personality. They go with the most boring, stupid, immature or outright dangerous men - as long as those are tall and dominant.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If they're not going with you they seem to be doing all right

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >women reject you bc ur an incel, have sex
            like clockwork

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Incel is a mindset

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >My personality is genetic and unchangeable

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >your own poisoned personality
            But who poisoned it? I was an innocent boy. My mother was a psychopath and all women I ever met treated me with utmost contempt. How did I deserve such a treatment? Apparently my crime consisted in "not being a tall and dominant man".

            I'm not "tall and dominant", I'm average height and humble. Still slept with a few dozen in my life and have a wife who loves me.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm so humble, I brag on IQfy about having sex with a dozen bawds

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Imagine thinking that posting anonymously about a very low bodycount in a discussion about sex relations is bragging.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >"a few dozen"
            >a very low bodycount
            Right, you're basically still a virgin.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Apparently my crime consisted in "not being a tall and dominant man"
            You again? Look, man, you neeed to break the cycle and stop going for women who remind you of your mother.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I have yet to see evidence of a woman who isn't like this.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's confirmation bias

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          swaaws

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Flawless logic, no need to check this against reality

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Do we really need to post a huge collection of twitter screenshots of news articles about women being indicted for letting their ex partner's child die from neglect or allowing their new violent partner to beat the child dead? It does happen way too often.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            For every example of what you described, there are 100 more of women who have suffered and sacrificed for their child's wellbeing, or left an abusive relationship for the sake of the child's welfare.
            The existence of wolves doesn't mean dogs cease to exist.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No mother truly loves her child. They only see a child as an object to raise their own social status. When it's a beta male's offspring it doesn't fulfill this purpose and consequently gets treated with the same disregard the beta male father receives.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Do we really need to post a huge collection of twitter screenshots
            No need, I can just start laughing at you now

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, this is why monogamous pair-bonding isn't seen in virtually every human society that ever existed. Instead, a small minority of men have harems of women producing children for them.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It doesn’t take a very big and mean male to kill a child and rape a woman anon. That argument only stands if the original male stuck around and even then it reads like a cuckold fantasy rather than nature

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >males arent needed after mating
    Then why does the male population not look like fast maturing short-lived hypercompetitive more-brawn-than-brain brawlers? In b4:
    >muh social constructs
    because that's a few thousand years against a hundred thousand years.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Then why does the male population not look like fast maturing short-lived hypercompetitive more-brawn-than-brain brawlers?
      Most men do look like this. Only in recent years soiciety allowed soibois to exist because they can be used as wagie slaves.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >men were literal chimps and women built society

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >males arent needed after mating
    that explains the rise of single moms looking for a "man" to take responsibility of her and her children's lmao

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    evolution selects for which works which is why has it selected for men to stay around. stupid 'jak

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    can always reproduce again and only a very small number of males are needed to fertilise a large number of females
    While this is true, there's a small problem. If you have one male, he can create a baby with 1000 different women. But the problem is, those babies would all be half brothers and half sisters. If they tried mating together there's a good chance they'd have defective offspring. Having lots of males increases the variety in the gene pool and lowers the chance of you hooking up with your half sister or something and creating moron babies

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Applying the rules of natural selection to a civilization building species
    Oh no it’s moronic.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Thinks that natural selection works so directly
    >Doesn’t realize the difference between R type and K type reproduction and how it changes parenting incentives
    >”use up the resources” like the whole point of a civilization is just to have kids and nothing else
    The OP has no community

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Go back to the sharty

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *