Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.



View Active Topics       View Your Posts       Latest 100 Topics       FAQ Topics       Switch to Mobile


Women Are Innately More Valuable Than Men

Discuss and talk about any general topic.

Moderators: fschmidt, jamesbond

Postby Jester » November 3rd, 2012, 5:42 am

I'll be starring in the new edition of "Survivor: Mindanao"
"Well actually, she's not REALLY my daughter. But she does like to call me Daddy... at certain moments..."
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7874
Joined: January 20th, 2009, 10:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand




Check out our Dating Sites and HA International Romance Tours!



Postby Cornfed » November 4th, 2012, 5:35 am

The other thing to realize about the differences in male and female reproduction is that it explains why women tend to be treacherous cowards and selfish parasites. Not only are breeding aged women more valuable in reproductive terms, but they would have tended to be either pregnant or caring for young children or both almost all their lives in natural settings. Therefore it would have been strongly selected against for females to take part in intertribal fighting, since a bunch of pregnant females with their toddlers in tow would not add much to the tribe's fighting ability and if a lot of them were killed then any victory would be pyrrhic anyway. Hence they nag their men into fighting. If their men lose the females will instantly forget about them and spread their legs for men on the winning side, ensuring that they not only survive but breed with the stronger men, improving the viability of their genetic line. Similarly it would not be a good idea for them to hunt woolly mammoths and such. The female strategy is simply to ingratiate themselves with the men in charge in order to sponge off them while doing as little as possible. Since they avoid activities like hunting and warfare, they never had to develop the mental capacity or strategic thinking abilities that go with those activities. All this is well and good. It is only when people start pretending that women are capable of having the same virtues of men, or basing systems of government on their parasitical tendencies, that problems arise.
User avatar
Cornfed
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 5682
Joined: August 17th, 2012, 5:22 am

Postby Jester » November 4th, 2012, 6:02 am

Cornfed wrote:The other thing to realize about the differences in male and female reproduction is that it explains why women tend to be treacherous cowards and selfish parasites. Not only are breeding aged women more valuable in reproductive terms, but they would have tended to be either pregnant or caring for young children or both almost all their lives in natural settings. Therefore it would have been strongly selected against for females to take part in intertribal fighting, since a bunch of pregnant females with their toddlers in tow would not add much to the tribe's fighting ability and if a lot of them were killed then any victory would be pyrrhic anyway. Hence they nag their men into fighting. If their men lose the females will instantly forget about them and spread their legs for men on the winning side, ensuring that they not only survive but breed with the stronger men, improving the viability of their genetic line. Similarly it would not be a good idea for them to hunt woolly mammoths and such. The female strategy is simply to ingratiate themselves with the men in charge in order to sponge off them while doing as little as possible. Since they avoid activities like hunting and warfare, they never had to develop the mental capacity or strategic thinking abilities that go with those activities. All this is well and good. It is only when people start pretending that women are capable of having the same virtues of men, or basing systems of government on their parasitical tendencies, that problems arise.


Well said.

OK - so now we know the female strategy. What should the male strategy be, for maximum quantity and quality of offspring?
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7874
Joined: January 20th, 2009, 10:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Postby Teal Lantern » November 4th, 2012, 3:32 pm

Jester wrote:OK - so now we know the female strategy. What should the male strategy be, for maximum quantity and quality of offspring?


Setting aside pesky legalities (and possibly morality). :wink:

maximum quantity = being a giant d-bag. :razz:

maximum quality = killing off the d-bags and their offspring, too. :shock: :D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
не поглеждай назад. 8)

"Even an American judge is unlikely to award child support for imputed children." - FredOnEverything
User avatar
Teal Lantern
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2766
Joined: August 14th, 2012, 12:48 am
Location: Briar Patch, Universe 25

Postby Ginger » November 4th, 2012, 3:39 pm

:)
Last edited by Ginger on July 3rd, 2013, 4:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I do not promise to be gingerly :P
Ginger
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 391
Joined: November 1st, 2012, 9:39 pm
Location: somewhere out there

Postby Jester » November 4th, 2012, 9:17 pm

Teal Lantern wrote:
Jester wrote:OK - so now we know the female strategy. What should the male strategy be, for maximum quantity and quality of offspring?


Setting aside pesky legalities (and possibly morality). :wink:

maximum quantity = being a giant d-bag. :razz:

maximum quality = killing off the d-bags and their offspring, too. :shock: :D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory


Great article.



"In areas of major ecological disruption or sterilisation (such as after a major volcanic eruption, as at Krakatoa or Mount Saint Helens)... Because of their higher reproductive rates and ecological opportunism, primary colonisers typically are r-strategists..."

"In unstable or unpredictable environments, r-selection predominates as the ability to reproduce quickly is crucial. There is little advantage in adaptations that permit successful competition with other organisms, because the environment is likely to change again. Traits that are thought to be characteristic of r-selection include: high fecundity, small body size, early maturity onset, short generation time, and the ability to disperse offspring widely."


Fecundity seems to be correlated with fundamentalist religion and also dark skin, don't ask me why.
Early maturity onset is correlated also with dark skin, I believe.
Smal body size - well, you have Asians.

That little dark Pinay looks better and better.
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7874
Joined: January 20th, 2009, 10:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Postby Jester » November 4th, 2012, 9:45 pm

Teal Lantern wrote:
Jester wrote:OK - so now we know the female strategy. What should the male strategy be, for maximum quantity and quality of offspring?


[color=darkblue]Setting aside pesky legalities (and possibly morality). :wink:

...maximum quality = killing off the d-bags and their offspring, too. :shock: :D


To me, what the article calls the "K" strategy, i.e. the low-fertility, high survival model, only works if you have compatriots. Being a Lone Elephant is pretty tough. I guess a few Jews pulled this off during settlement of the U.S. frontier, being the only Jew in town, but it couldn't have been easy.

This COULD work if you controlled some terrain and executed all NWO interlopers, NGO spies, etc. Kind of like Tokugawa Japan, or a German Christian colony in South America, or the old Boer republics. I think Bhutan was like this till recently - no TV etc. There's a Catholic-roots fundamentalist colony in Mexico, called New Jerusalem. There are Mennonites in U.S., Canada, and Belize. And of course polygamous Mormons in the U.S. and Mexico.

I guess you could say that Thailand as a whole works this way - nice people but just don't insult them or be a troublemaker in any way, or else...? Other Asian countries as well? Some countries in Middle East?

And there are less-conscious groups that persist simply due to extreme isolation. Faroe Islanders, etc. But you know, there are no uninhabited islands these days, except ones that are uninhabitable (no water).

I guess one would have to call the Mormons and very-orthodox Jews the real modern examples of the K or high-survival strategy, because they are competitive enough to prosper among other "species", gradually growing more powerful. I would have to put the Mormns first, because unlike orthodox Jews they are found in all professions, and could push all other groups out and still do just fine.

But we are back to the quandary that FSchmidt found himself in. For this strategy to work, you have to either join someone elses' already-successful-and-resilient cult - or start your own.
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7874
Joined: January 20th, 2009, 10:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Postby Jester » November 4th, 2012, 9:52 pm

Ginger wrote:

Jester wrote:OK - so now we know the female strategy. What should the male strategy be, for maximum quantity and quality of offspring?



Just suck it up and live with it :P It works :)

You guys don't have the most coveted thingy in the world. It's called The Uterus. Orson Scott Card says so :P (or some other dude)


Haha don't think so hon. p***y rules, eh? You wish.

The times they are a'changin'. I don't want Child Support Services on my ass anymore, don't want cops entering my house, I don't want my kids messed up by rotten culture. No, just getting laid isn't what men need to focus on. It can be a trap, and even if it's not, your time still gets spent, and you get nothing for it. You get no posterity, no purpose, no reason to be on earth.

I am not a means to your end. You are a means to mine.
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7874
Joined: January 20th, 2009, 10:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Postby Jester » November 4th, 2012, 11:37 pm

Falcon wrote:
Jester wrote:Let's say that Olaf the Viking is going on a raid, and wants to steal a woman or three.

Let's say that he can sail to Amazonia, which is heavily defended. Because of their defenses, he is pretty sure that he can steal one and only one (1) woman who will bear him three (3) warrior sons.

OR...

He can sail to Tranquillia, where the pickings are easy, and he can steal three (3) women, who will EACH give him three (3) sons - though they may not be such great warriors. Maybe each of these sons will be only half-effective at war-making and conquering. According to evolutionary biology, which strategy should he choose? Where should he sail to?


Both of them work. They're different evolutionary strategies.

Genghis Khan did the Tranquilia option, and he's been greatly successful. Some others did the Amazonia option, which has worked well too.

Did Amazonia first time around, f***ing hard, great results, an uphill battle, all uphill, f***ing hard.

Tranquillia beckons.
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7874
Joined: January 20th, 2009, 10:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Postby Andrewww » November 29th, 2012, 9:19 pm

Allow me to ignore that pseudo-history BS, who comes up with this crap ?

Hypergamy was a given because women were always second class citizens. I don't mean to insult anyone, it's well known fact that men ruled society for thousands of years. You can't marry down when you have nothing on your name.

Also, we are not in 50,000 BC anymore. Stop comparing modern woman mentality with cave-woman mentality. I've seen this kind of diarrhea on PUA forums and I think that's where it originates. Looking for a provider is a rational behavior and AW aren't rational, they have nothing to gain by hooking up with losers. It's not instinct, it's brainwashing.

The sexual revolution didn't happen only in America, many societies managed to keep their traditional values while providing more freedom for women.
Andrewww
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 432
Joined: June 12th, 2012, 5:51 am

Previous

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests