Thoughts on polygamy? Religion is dying, moral decline, etc...

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

ITDG, good to see you! I wonder about the sample size that led you to see only two choices. What you speak of may primarily reflect your own personal experience to date and/or what you primarily see portrayed in the main stream media or on sites like this.

In my experience a COLD woman is not a healthy woman. A perpetually unstable woman is not a healthy woman. Those are the only two choices I see you offering. I suggest you open to the possibility of more options. Expand your perspective so you can start to find and meet and connect with another type of woman and experience her. That would be a healthy, grounded woman whose core nature is warm, loving and caring, as well as affectionate. I suggest you go for option three, ITDG. I think you will be glad you did and a happier man for it.

It’s not that I mean there’s only two types. It’s just that all the other types are just different combinations of the two. The times when they are sincere and genuine and sweet, it’s when they’re way below me in terms of SMV. And when that’s the case, one has to consider whether or not that's even sincerity, because it’s very likely that you’re just the highest quality man that she’s ever had and she doesn’t want to lose THAT, rather than YOU. If she saw me when I was ugly and still trying, would she have even given me a second look? Probably not. That’s my issue.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

You are entitled to your beliefs. I can’t afford beliefs. Women did not have the right to vote. That’s a historical fact. In fact it all is.
It’s the most successful reproductive strategy in the history of the planet.

But why was civilization able to be built in the first place, if that really was the case though?

It does not directly affect you. You just don't like it, which is fine, but know that they see you as the problem just as much as you see them as a problem. Who says your way is the right way?

You aren't getting what I am saying: they are setting up the scene for something to affect me. In order for a crisis to have a catastrophic impact on a society, the system needs to be set up a certain way to allow it to happen. History does have a tendency to repeat itself. If they see me as the problem, it's only because they're blind to the fact that they're making it possible for something bad to happen. If I try to prevent that from happening, then clearly that way is better.

How about this, how about that... You conveniently left out the examples of religion doing horrible things. I don't bother listing it, you know it's true.

People do horrible things, but the idea of a divine presence prevents them from being worse than they are. That's why atrocities committed by religions don't compare to any of the atrocities committed by secularists, as we've seen in the aforementioned examples.

If they need the threat of a deity watching them and judging them to act morally, then guess what, they're actually sh!tty people.

But evolution dictates that selfishness is better for the individual. It may be worse for society, but guess who's gonna have the greatest reproductive success anyway?

 

[Serenity]

You aren't getting what I am saying: they are setting up the scene for something to affect me. In order for a crisis to have a catastrophic impact on a society, the system needs to be set up a certain way to allow it to happen. History does have a tendency to repeat itself. If they see me as the problem, it's only because they're blind to the fact that they're making it possible for something bad to happen. If I try to prevent that from happening, then clearly that way is better.

What you're fearing is that these ideas you don't like grow to such an extent that they are empowered to force you to live by it? I genuinely don't think it will be that widespread ever...

People do horrible things, but the idea of a divine presence prevents them from being worse than they are. That's why atrocities committed by religions don't compare to any of the atrocities committed by secularists, as we've seen in the aforementioned examples.

Atrocities committed by seculars are at least more honest than those committed by religious followers, they don't hide behind bullsh!t.
If people need to believe in a divine presence to not be sh!tty people then they are fundamentally sh!tty people. They are nice out of fear of punishment, not because they want to do good because that's the right thing to do.

But evolution dictates that selfishness is better for the individual. It may be worse for society, but guess who's gonna have the greatest reproductive success anyway?

Is it? If evolution dictates that, then why has humanity evolved to become highly social creatures who are highly dependent on community for personal survival? See what society do with the most selfish, we lock them up so they won't harm the collective more than they have. Your idea works if nobody else follows it, but if everyone else thinks like that we can say goodbye to society.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

Here is an epic quote from Esther Vilar ( a woman). If a man really read this quote and then re-read it until it sank in, he would understand how women truly view men and you can see it in every day life.

"If women really felt oppressed by men, they would have developed hate and fear for them, as the oppressed always do, but women do not fear men, much less hate them. If they really felt humiliated by men's mental superiority, they would have used every means in their power to change the situation. If women felt unfree, surely, at such a favorable time in history, they would have broken free of their oppressors.
In Switzerland, one of the most highly developed countries in the world, where until recently women were not allowed to vote, in a certain canton, it is reported, the majority of women were against introducing the vote for women. The swiss men were shattered, for they saw in this unworthy attitude yet another proof of centuries of male oppression.
How wrong they were!!! Women feel anything but oppressed by men. On the contrary, one of the many depressing truths about the relationship between the sexes is simply that man hardly exists in a woman's world: Man is not even powerful enough to revolt against. Women's dependence on him is only material, of a 'physical' nature, something like a tourist's dependence on an airline, a cafe proprietor's on his expresso machine, a car's on gasoline, or a television set's on electric current. Such dependencies hardly involve agonizing."

Problem with Esthar is that she assumes that the only sense of masculinity a man could get is through sex with women. This is not true. It is one of, if not, the best way to exhibit masculinity, but it's not the only way.

Everything a woman says or does is in some way a reflection of her procreation imperative. Nothing else matters. She won’t be constrained. Even in countries where she can be executed, ten to 15 percent of the people walking around? Their father is not who they think it is. EVERYTHING a woman does is a reflection of their drive to procreate.

3 things here in particular: Firstly, she cannot afford to have sex with multiple men at a time because she risks having someone who is not the best. Second, if EVERYTHING women did was for reproductive success, then women would have been much more sexually aggressive, literally coming onto the best men and telling them to bang them (because what guy would pass up an opportunity like that?). I've known women from foreign countries who never remarried because they are still in love with their husbands, whom they got divorced from, even though they have had the opportunity to remarry. There's even been women who never had kids or anything, who's husbands were killed or went missing for years (some for over a decade) and they still did not remarry or have kids with another man during that time. That cannot be explained by your reasoning. Third, how do you know that 10-15% of people don't know their real father? Where'd you get this from?

You made the claim. I have never in my life heard or seen any evidence of genetic coding causing this. I would much more believe this effect is caused by nurture, the social environment a woman grows up in.

Biology 101 (literally— my professor for this course stated this lol). Men: quantity>quality. Women: quality>quantity. Why? Because if they have kids with a dude who has crappy genes, they gotta carry to term for 9 months. Almost a whole year of having potentially better mates is now gone. Their ability to reproduce diminishes much earlier than men too, which just adds to the pressure of needing to properly select a mate.

Not at all, evolution is a proven fact. This is outside the scope of our discussion though. We're discussing your claim about genes causing a very specific behavior in women.

No it is not. It is not a law, it is a theory. Evolution cannot properly explain why religion has existed since the dawn of mankind, exemplifying that perhaps there is a divine presence out there actually... It also cannot explain why there is less biodiversity now than way long ago. If evolution were a fact, then there would be MORE biodiversity. Why? Because we supposedly all share 1 single common ancestor. That ancestor was supposed to split into all the millions of species we see today. Yet while there are a lot of living organisms, there are WAY less than there were in previous times. Evolution cannot explain this, it is supposed to be the opposite.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

What you're fearing is that these ideas you don't like grow to such an extent that they are empowered to force you to live by it? I genuinely don't think it will be that widespread ever...

It already is that widespread, which is why I'm stressing.

Is it? If evolution dictates that, then why has humanity evolved to become highly social creatures who are highly dependent on community for personal survival? See what society do with the most selfish, we lock them up so they won't harm the collective more than they have. Your idea works if nobody else follows it, but if everyone else thinks like that we can say goodbye to society.

Because being social is better than being isolated. Therefore, we put a system in place to ensure what roles need to be filled. Yet, those who are now in charge of the system, are now corrupt, because it was better for them on an individual level to do so. These people have greater legal/social immunity than those who held their positions prior, just due to generations of conditioning to such a system.

 

[PeasantPlayer]

Sure. I had to really think and extrapolate in this one myself.

This is rather hard to confront but it’s important.
The largest jump, hands down, in civilization took place when the church went into agreement with the old testament and the Jewish doctrine about the nature of women. Now keep in mind that with the Jews it was only Jewish women being held to a standard. Not gentiles (non Jewish women). In fact is was the Jewish leadership that spread pornography throughout the world so don’t give them a pass if you think pornography is a degradation of society.

So the church and common beliefs throughout the world as they started to develop, learned that they had to put restrictions on women due to their sexual nature and of course their, hypergamous nature.
Men, if they thought they would have access to more women instead of just the frumpy ones left over after polygamy allowed the leadership and royalty to snap up the best women, they would be happier and more willing to work and build.
They also understood the nature of men as well. Men will work and go to the ends of the earth for access to pvssy and wives to bear children.

So in essence, men had access to women and they would work their a$$es off to keep them. This is how men were organized to build. They literally built civilization.

The problem was women still had primitive DNA and their X chromosomes combine from generation to generation so it won’t change. As long as women can live long enough to procreate, there is no need for evolution to change their nature. It’s important to understand this concept that their nature will not change as long as they can live long enough to give birth. What happens after that, the genome doesn’t care.

So civilization was built on top of a woman’s primitive DNA and X chromosome. In reality, civilization has been suppressing their free genome expression. Hypergamy or what we call “hypergamy”. She cannot will this away. No amount of religion or talking can change this. This is why she is emotional. Her emotions dictate her actions. This is called “survival strategy”.

Everything a woman says or does is in some way a reflection of her procreation imperative. Nothing else matters. She won’t be constrained. Even in countries where she can be executed, ten to 15 percent of the people walking around? Their father is not who they think it is. EVERYTHING a woman does is a reflection of their drive to procreate.

Feminism was initiated by the Bolsheviks. Communists. What group started communism is a different subject so I will leave it alone. The idea was to rip civilization apart so that individualism could be eliminated. To do that the family structure of civilization had to be destroyed. Feminism is the tool to do this and it is working quite well.

Present day. Women voted in the correct people to get laws enacted to support the primitive procreation strategy that exist in them. They fully understand the nature of themselves and all other women. Soon they got soy boys and other degenerates to ally up with them. They are not being evil, per say. They are removing barriers set by civilization to successfully execute their breeding strategy. So in effect, women are anti civilization because they are removing constraints to their sexual behavior and obtaining free reign over sex. Civilization will fall. If they were all about “Tall dark and handsome” as they claim, why are they with ridiculous versions of men? LOL
Game is nothing more than mimicking the markers recognized by her DNA that will release Chemicals and cause her to want to have sex with the man expressing those markers. It’s a trick to get her biology to give up the pvssy. She has absolutely no control over her feelings of sexual attraction. She does have the power to walk away but the present constraint free western civilization saddled with socialistic and communistic use of feminism, she has to believe that she has the most valuable man she can attract right now or she will jump ship. Zero emotion. Zero remorse. Men are completely mystified at it's callousness.

There is always uncertainty so she will spend years reducing her LTR or husband into a quivering cuck, then act. The man must be optimized. Only the optimized masculine man will counteract this.

Everything I just wrote is verifiable and scientifically substantiated. There is no debate. The cure is optimizing men even higher than they have ever been. Women will not change. But men can because we have fantastic minds and can see the value in rewriting our thought processes to be aware and immune to the most manipulative creature on the planet. Woman.

She is not being evil. She is surviving. This is also why I’ve said that women don’t have moral codes. If in any way, a moral code is an obstruction to her primitive breeding strategy, she will take it underground and execute clandestine sex. Those chemicals are so powerful that only being connected to an optimized, masculine, man will stop her.

Finally a well thought out post

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

a woman chooses to let a man provide for her and her children in return for carefully dispensed praise and sex.

Another problem, there is no companionship, which men desire in women (before jadedness). If this were the case, then prostitution and sex slavery would be the only means of reproduction, or at the very least, the predominant means of reproduction. We don't see this.

Men seem incapable of realizing that women entirely lack ambition, desire for knowledge and the need to prove themselves, all things which, to him, are a matter of course.

Men in previous generations understand this, and I find that men over the age of 50 tend to know these things as well. This is why women were never equal to men. It is much less efficient for the roles to be reversed (stay at home husband, breadwinner wife).

There is one great advantage which women have over men: they have a choice -a choice between the life of a man and the life of a dimwitted, parasitic luxury item. There are too few women who would not select the latter. Men do not have this choice.

Women don't choose to be men because it is much less efficient for them to be as such. They age faster, and produce lower quality eggs. Put women in the military for example, they get injured much more frequently than men despite easier entry requirements hahaha. Not to mention, women become infertile if they do manage to keep up with their male counterparts. Bad for reproduction. They will not survive.

Furthermore, the biggest issue I have with this is her usage of the word 'parasitic'. Parasites just use and kill their hosts in the process. Civilization cannot survive like this. The real truth is, they have a choice between the life of a man or the life of a dimwitted, symbiotic luxury item. You need to do something. Men are more single-task oriented. When we do that task, we do it better than if a woman were to focus on a single task. What is that task? Work. Resource-collection. How about women though? They are better at multitasking than men generally speaking. Hence why in previous times, they would child rear, cook, and clean, and focus on enhancing the social dynamic of the family.

I've already seen too much and been through too much to go back now.

Share with me your stories. I need to get better.

 

[PeasantPlayer]

Sorry, none of that is direct evidence for the specific claim you're making.

Stop thinking laboratory results will get you answers in social settings.

 

[Serenity]

No it is not. It is not a law, it is a theory.

A proven theory.

Evolution cannot properly explain why religion has existed since the dawn of mankind, exemplifying that perhaps there is a divine presence out there actually...

Oh come on!!! You're arguing that because evolution can't explain it then maybe it's true. Basically every God argument ever "I don't know, therefore it must be God". That is a very fallacious way to think.

It also cannot explain why there is less biodiversity now than way long ago. If evolution were a fact, then there would be MORE biodiversity. Why? Because we supposedly all share 1 single common ancestor. That ancestor was supposed to split into all the millions of species we see today. Yet while there are a lot of living organisms, there are WAY less than there were in previous times. Evolution cannot explain this, it is supposed to be the opposite.

I don't find it unreasonable that there's less diversity now. Technically speaking every single living creature is unique, you and me have very similar DNA but it's not the exact same. The differences doesn't have to be huge. Also the theory of evolution would explain to you that the weaker species die out. There's factors like the environment and the environment changing. There are tons of factors that can wipe out a species, especially if the environment changes faster than the species can evolve to survive in it.

It already is that widespread, which is why I'm stressing.

No it's not, it's just more exposed.

Stop thinking laboratory results will get you answers in social settings.

I'm not looking for answers in a social setting. I'm tired of guys making up bullsh!t arguments that idiots believe to be true when there's absolutely no truth to it. This fvcker is trying to pull that off, if it was true it would be a very simple matter to point to research. He has not, so his original argument is invalid regardless of the setting.

 

[Epic Days]

Another problem, there is no companionship, which men desire in women (before jadedness). If this were the case, then prostitution and sex slavery would be the only means of reproduction, or at the very least, the predominant means of reproduction. We don't see this.

Men in previous generations understand this, and I find that men over the age of 50 tend to know these things as well. This is why women were never equal to men. It is much less efficient for the roles to be reversed (stay at home husband, breadwinner wife).

Women don't choose to be men because it is much less efficient for them to be as such. They age faster, and produce lower quality eggs. Put women in the military for example, they get injured much more frequently than men despite easier entry requirements hahaha. Not to mention, women become infertile if they do manage to keep up with their male counterparts. Bad for reproduction. They will not survive.

Furthermore, the biggest issue I have with this is her usage of the word 'parasitic'. Parasites just use and kill their hosts in the process. Civilization cannot survive like this. The real truth is, they have a choice between the life of a man or the life of a dimwitted, symbiotic luxury item. You need to do something. Men are more single-task oriented. When we do that task, we do it better than if a woman were to focus on a single task. What is that task? Work. Resource-collection. How about women though? They are better at multitasking than men generally speaking. Hence why in previous times, they would child rear, cook, and clean, and focus on enhancing the social dynamic of the family.

Share with me your stories. I need to get better.

Vilar uses the word parasitic for a good reason. Women as a gender feed off the power and resources of a man. His influence. These things come natural to men when in a reasonably good state. They have no real desire to obtain it through the same means as men. This doesn’t make them back.
Parasite is not a bad word except in the context of let’s say, making you sick. Parasites are absolutely crucial to life.

A woman can make 200,000.00 a year and will most definitely be driven to have a man. They cannot help it. Except in maybe 3% of cases let’s say, you are expected to still utilize your resources. Make decisions. Lead. If you do not? You’re going to be dumped overboard and she will spend time in the beds of other men.

Now leftists believe that men and women are the same and it’s in how we raise them that dictates how they identify as a gender. This concept is not new. It’s completely false. Too many actual scientific studies to even talk about it.

Civilization grew because controls and restrictions on women’s sexual propensities. Had it stayed the way of hunter gatherers, we would not have civilization. We would have tribal bands. It’s a double edge sword for sure.

The benefits of civilization mostly go to women. So they want civilization and all it’s resources for her and her children’s survival BUT they want unrestricted access to their reproductive primitive procreation strategy. Those two things are diametrically apposed. Men will fall off and will not participate. Have you ever noticed how men with families are the most dependable in a work environment? He has to be really sick to miss work.

Ever wonder why the taxation of single men are higher? Why they are penalized for not being married? So just because a man doesn’t have a wife he gets penalized?

The ideal scene for women is to have ALL their survival taken care of. They can then drink latte frapichinos and have sex when they want while men are the plow horses.

I highly recommend reading the book. It’s actually a small, short book. It’s been revised to reflect the modern scene. Do not be fooled. Women operate as they did in the cave man days. It’s just that now, the clothes are different and there’s more resources to extract. Entitlement to those resources is a huge thrust. Before, they had to dig roots and plants out of the dirt. Pick berries and medicinal herbs while the men scouted and hunted.

Their brains were even bigger than ours so for one second don’t think they weren’t smart. They built civilization. Women are anti-civilization IF there are no restrictions on their sexual drives. Of course all the other men are just slaves to gather resources.

They want civilization and government being big daddy to extract the productivity of worker bees. Other than that? They are anti-civilization because it took constraints on their sexual propensities to build it. Men work harder and longer when he is pair bonded with a woman.

Polygamy is the natural order. But men won’t work unless they have access to pvssy and children. So men have to adopt a new way of thinking. We are evolutionary creators. Women are incapable of developing in that manner.

 

[Epic Days]

When men stop thinking that they have to have a woman...this will change. When they stop being slaves and stop participating in slavery and start being more masculine, women will have to change their strategy.
Women know that men are driven to have a woman. That’s the full extent of their power. Notice how their arguments are always “Even if you do get a woman, you won’t be able to hang onto her!”
What if men took away their arguments? Absolutely women must rely on men. They do not have the attributes to be “independent”.

Their definition of “independent” is unlimited access to resources and men. Created by men.

 

[Spaz]

Vilar uses the word parasitic for a good reason. Women as a gender feed off the power and resources of a man. His influence. These things come natural to men when in a reasonably good state. They have no real desire to obtain it through the same means as men. This doesn’t make them back.
Parasite is not a bad word except in the context of let’s say, making you sick. Parasites are absolutely crucial to life.

A woman can make 200,000.00 a year and will most definitely be driven to have a man. They cannot help it. Except in maybe 3% of cases let’s say, you are expected to still utilize your resources. Make decisions. Lead. If you do not? You’re going to be dumped overboard and she will spend time in the beds of other men.

Now leftists believe that men and women are the same and it’s in how we raise them that dictates how they identify as a gender. This concept is not new. It’s completely false. Too many actual scientific studies to even talk about it.

Civilization grew because controls and restrictions on women’s sexual propensities. Had it stayed the way of hunter gatherers, we would not have civilization. We would have tribal bands. It’s a double edge sword for sure.

The benefits of civilization mostly go to women. So they want civilization and all it’s resources for her and her children’s survival BUT they want unrestricted access to their reproductive primitive procreation strategy. Those two things are diametrically apposed. Men will fall off and will not participate. Have you ever noticed how men with families are the most dependable in a work environment? He has to be really sick to miss work.

Ever wonder why the taxation of single men are higher? Why they are penalized for not being married? So just because a man doesn’t have a wife he gets penalized?

The ideal scene for women is to have ALL their survival taken care of. They can then drink latte frapichinos and have sex when they want while men are the plow horses.

I highly recommend reading the book. It’s actually a small, short book. It’s been revised to reflect the modern scene. Do not be fooled. Women operate as they did in the cave man days. It’s just that now, the clothes are different and there’s more resources to extract. Entitlement to those resources is a huge thrust. Before, they had to dig roots and plants out of the dirt. Pick berries and medicinal herbs while the men scouted and hunted.

Their brains were even bigger than ours so for one second don’t think they weren’t smart. They built civilization. Women are anti-civilization IF there are no restrictions on their sexual drives. Of course all the other men are just slaves to gather resources.

They want civilization and government being big daddy to extract the productivity of worker bees. Other than that? They are anti-civilization because it took constraints on their sexual propensities to build it. Men work harder and longer when he is pair bonded with a woman.

Polygamy is the natural order. But men won’t work unless they have access to pvssy and children. So men have to adopt a new way of thinking. We are evolutionary creators. Women are incapable of developing in that manner.

Even if this is thought is school's and all men knows it, many will simply revert to the tendencies we see now, in the end they will submit.

The 4 personality quadrants that binds men to greatness on a particular path will also ensure the continued supply of men to fulfil the feminine imperative.

 

[PeasantPlayer]

Truth hurts but damn does it set you free

 

[Epic Days]

Even if this is thought is school's and all men knows it, many will simply revert to the tendencies we see now, in the end they will submit.

The 4 personality quadrants that binds men to greatness on a particular path will also ensure the continued supply of men to fulfil the feminine imperative.

I think about that a lot. None of this will matter for many men. You speak truth @Spaz

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

A proven theory.


Oh come on!!! You're arguing that because evolution can't explain it then maybe it's true. Basically every God argument ever "I don't know, therefore it must be God". That is a very fallacious way to think.


I don't find it unreasonable that there's less diversity now. Technically speaking every single living creature is unique, you and me have very similar DNA but it's not the exact same. The differences doesn't have to be huge. Also the theory of evolution would explain to you that the weaker species die out. There's factors like the environment and the environment changing. There are tons of factors that can wipe out a species, especially if the environment changes faster than the species can evolve to survive in it.


No it's not, it's just more exposed.


I'm not looking for answers in a social setting. I'm tired of guys making up bullsh!t arguments that idiots believe to be true when there's absolutely no truth to it. This fvcker is trying to pull that off, if it was true it would be a very simple matter to point to research. He has not, so his original argument is invalid regardless of the setting.

1. "You cannot really 'prove' anything in science" - literally every science teacher I've ever had. Here are other problems with evolution: why do humans have other cognitions that offer no benefit to our survival? e.g. music, art, anything 'fun', etc. Why should we ponder the creation or existence of the universe if it offers no benefit? These offer no survival benefit. How about this one: why do many people feel a divine presence after a near death experience? Or a full on death, because there have been some people who were completely brain dead who experienced cognitions that don't make any sense whatsoever. How could there possibly be any sort of survival aspect to something like that?

2. I'm not arguing for or against God, I'm in no way trying to preach anything of religion (I only mentioned it in the original post because a lack thereof has always been a hallmark moral & social decline). I'm just trying to point out that evolutionarily speaking, religion is only a detriment to societal advancements (e.g. one of the main reasons why the UK was the first to go through the Industrial Revolution was because of changes to the Christian belief: you don't have to be a good person per se, just believe in Jesus as your lord & savior and you will reach eternal salvation; this meant that instead of donating to the poor or to the church, money went into economic investments, or greed in other words lol).

3. Religion was the first explanation for these things, and existed before science and philosophy. One big question we all ask, where did we all come from? Religion has been saying God. Science says from nothing. Oh yeah it like just sorta happened for no reason. Yeah. But over time, science got better, and said from the Big Bang. Where did the Big Bang come from? Well, nothing. It just sorta happened. Yeah, totally. Just like before. Back to square one. Some will say it's because of quantum fluctuation, but there's just a stupid amount of problems with that concept (quantum fluctuation is when these particles that don't really exist pop into existence for no reason. They still don't really exist, but the longer they do exist for, the more likely they are to stay existing. However, they can still unexist at any point in time since they don't actually exist in the first place. I'm not even kidding.)

4. Evolution says that the weaker species die out, yes. But it doesn't explain the explosion of genetic diversity, and even when taking into account mass extinction events, it cannot explain genetic diversity fluctuations.

5. If self-sustaining organisms could just sort of happen by chance, why is it that we are self-sustaining without nuclear energy? That is the only form of self-sustainment that should be possible with the Big Bang and thus evolution. When we die though, we don't just explode into a supernova, nor do we just dissipate into energy. Not to mention the fact that, we still do die in the first place; we have RNA primer to blame for that mostly, why didn't we evolve DNA primer? RNA has a half life of ~15 minutes, which is not nearly enough time for life to develop from single-celled organisms. Unless of course, RNA wasn't used as a primer to begin with, say in bacteria and archaea. But then if it's evolutionarily advantageous to keep this attribute, why did we lose it in the first place? There would be no need for telomerase otherwise, and we would be able to live forever while being young forever. Unless of course, we never really did evolve from those unicellular organisms in the first place...

6. Why is there sexual deviance in the first place? LGBT should not be happening if it goes completely against the biological imperative.

7. We know because of John B. Calhoun's rodent experiments (specifically Mouse Universe) that at least part of it can be attributed to increased social pressure (when there aren't enough social roles to fill; essentially a lack of social dimorphism between the sexes). Why is the need for purpose so important as an expression of sexual dimorphism?

8. Let's get even more abstract. Why is nurturement so important if much of it is counterintuitive to nature? Why would we have developed that in the first place?

9. There is such a thing as not having any research done on a topic. Much of it has to do with the scientific paradigms of the era. For example, scientific literature shows that living in unclean environments may cause illnesses because of pathogens within those environments. However, after removing such pathogens and cleaning the environment, we find that now we have chronic & lifelong illnesses instead of just temporary ones. Scientific literature is showing that exposure to certain pathogens are important in regulating the immune system. It's called the hygiene hypothesis. Psychology used to state that the reason why we cannot remember anything before the age of 2 is because we are sexually attracted to our parents at that age, and that in order to prevent issues arising in us when we're older, that part of our memory needs to be forgotten. Research now shows that it's because the brain is going through massive neuronal development and that our neurons are constantly being overwritten by new ones that essentially don't have the same memories as the neurons beneath it. How about when we thought the sun orbited the Earth? We have a mathematical equation that will give you the exact location of the sun in its orbit relative to the Earth. We've had it for centuries. However, we later on developed an equation that said the Earth orbits the sun. Which one is right? This gave rise to Occam's Razor. Look at all of this. Look at it. Scientific literature changes based on the paradigm of the era it's written in. It's subject to the same biases as religion. There doesn't have to be research done on a subject ot know whether it's bullsh!t or not.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

Women as a gender feed off the power and resources of a man.

Not feed off of, they don't grow more powerful day by day, they just keep the same power and influence relative to their man.

they want unrestricted access to their reproductive primitive procreation strategy

What exactly is this strategy? You haven't talked about what it is other than hypergamous. The problem with hypergamy is that yes, a woman does want the best man she can get (men also want the best women they can get too lol) but it fails to consider instances of where a millionaire's trophy wife goes after the poolboy. Or say if she already has kids, and some new guy comes along that she takes an interest in. The guy isn't going to want her because A) having kids wreaked havoc on her body and B) he isn't going to want to raise kids that aren't his. Plus, they say that virgins are more clingy than sluts. Not to mention oxytocin & vasopressin and all that.

Have you ever noticed how men with families are the most dependable in a work environment? He has to be really sick to miss work.

I do notice this. But I also notice this outside of families too. It's a man attribute, not because he's whipped per se.

The ideal scene for women is to have ALL their survival taken care of. They can then drink latte frapichinos and have sex when they want while men are the plow horses.

This is a law of all living organisms. Everything that's alive strives to conserve energy. In essence, laziness. Historically speaking, men just banged the woman they were with, marital rape wasn't even a thing and even though many women didn't like it, they still loved their husbands too, which is ironic.

Their brains were even bigger than ours so for one second don’t think they weren’t smart.

This is completely false. It's been shown time and time again that men have 10% more brain volume than women. Even if you control for relative size and you were to look at the density of the male brain to the female brain, men have a physically more dense brain.

Polygamy is the natural order.

Polygamy for men, not women.

 

[Epic Days]

Not feed off of, they don't grow more powerful day by day, they just keep the same power and influence relative to their man.

What exactly is this strategy? You haven't talked about what it is other than hypergamous. The problem with hypergamy is that yes, a woman does want the best man she can get (men also want the best women they can get too lol) but it fails to consider instances of where a millionaire's trophy wife goes after the poolboy. Or say if she already has kids, and some new guy comes along that she takes an interest in. The guy isn't going to want her because A) having kids wreaked havoc on her body and B) he isn't going to want to raise kids that aren't his. Plus, they say that virgins are more clingy than sluts. Not to mention oxytocin & vasopressin and all that.

I do notice this. But I also notice this outside of families too. It's a man attribute, not because he's whipped per se.

This is a law of all living organisms. Everything that's alive strives to conserve energy. In essence, laziness. Historically speaking, men just banged the woman they were with, marital rape wasn't even a thing and even though many women didn't like it, they still loved their husbands too, which is ironic.

This is completely false. It's been shown time and time again that men have 10% more brain volume than women. Even if you control for relative size and you were to look at the density of the male brain to the female brain, men have a physically more dense brain.

Polygamy for men, not women.

Sounds like you already have the reality you want. The solutions you want. Power is always sought and yes women siphon it off. Just think of all the influential people she will meet. What you said was really naive. Your are looking at it like she’s an electrical capacitor. Lol

I have no response that I want to make. You will just nullify that too. Stick to your reality come hell or high water. You earned any and all rewards or penalties. Look. You already know it. Just ask yourself. You have it in the bag. Go forth and conquer the world man.

“You’ve been living in a dream world Neo.”

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

Sounds like you already have the reality you want. The solutions you want. Power is always sought and yes women siphon it off. Just think of all the influential people she will meet. What you said was really naive. Your are looking at it like she’s an electrical capacitor. Lol

I have no response that I want to make. You will just nullify that too. Stick to your reality come hell or high water. You earned any and all rewards or penalties. Look. You already know it. Just ask yourself. You have it in the bag. Go forth and conquer the world man.

“You’ve been living in a dream world Neo.”

"The ball is in your court, now it's up to you on what you want to do." Reverse psychology won't work on me, I'll just call you out for this too. It just means you might not have the answers.

Look, I'm not arguing against you or trying to tear you down. I'm trying to understand why you think the way you do. I believe that all women suck (yes mom, you too, I'm sorry), but not for the reasons you say because I don't think they are an accurate representation of how women are because it ignores so much history of women behaving better than they are now. Like actually affectionate and sweet, for example. I'm wondering why that's changed so drastically. Surely we lived a much more natural life then than we do now.

I'm asking you, why do you think the way you do? I get that The Manipulated Man might seem striking because it validates the emotions of some of your experiences, but it makes me wonder WHAT those (your) experiences are. Plus, there are much more informative reads out there too. Otto Weininger has given this much more thought than this woman ever could because he lived way before feminism and even before women had the right to vote, so his outlooks are completely unbiased by the crappy behavior we see in women today. But he is also MUCH darker than anything Esther Vilar could have ever thought of, although I don't agree with all of what he says too because he got too caught up mentally and was unable to see his own logical fallacies.

What are your stories that made you think this way?

 

[Epic Days]

"The ball is in your court, now it's up to you on what you want to do." Reverse psychology won't work on me, I'll just call you out for this too. It just means you might not have the answers.

Look, I'm not arguing against you or trying to tear you down. I'm trying to understand why you think the way you do. I believe that all women suck (yes mom, you too, I'm sorry), but not for the reasons you say because I don't think they are an accurate representation of how women are because it ignores so much history of women behaving better than they are now. Like actually affectionate and sweet, for example. I'm wondering why that's changed so drastically. Surely we lived a much more natural life then than we do now.

I'm asking you, why do you think the way you do? I get that The Manipulated Man might seem striking because it validates the emotions of some of your experiences, but it makes me wonder WHAT those (your) experiences are. Plus, there are much more informative reads out there too. Otto Weininger has given this much more thought than this woman ever could because he lived way before feminism and even before women had the right to vote, so his outlooks are completely unbiased by the crappy behavior we see in women today. But he is also MUCH darker than anything Esther Vilar could have ever thought of, although I don't agree with all of what he says too because he got too caught up mentally and was unable to see his own logical fallacies.

What are your stories that made you think this way?

I’m not interested. I don’t debate. It’s a very low end form of living. Im sure there’s some guys that are much more interesting targets for your passive antagonism.
There’s always prayer groups for you.

I’ve never once in my life ever been damaged by a woman.

 

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

I’m not interested. I don’t want to help you or contribute.
I have not suffered one single horrible fate at the hands of a woman. I’m not dark nor have a single thing against women. I’m merely speaking the observable truth. I don’t believe in psychology or psychiatry. They are unworkable sciences that have not cured a single human being.

I didn’t even read past the first paragraph of your post.

Then you are choosing to believe in your own reality, Neo. You don't believe in anyone that challenges your beliefs that could point out weak spots in your reasoning. "What are your experiences?" >>> "I've seen too much to go back now". "Why do you think the way you do?" >>> "I have no response that I want to make". "What exactly is the nature of women?" >>> Literally no response. You should try to learn more.

The behavioral sciences have cured hundreds of thousands by the way, the proof is in the pudding.