Is America breeding Super-Men?

[Someone]

As we know, America is a difficult place to date if you're a man. Unless you're tall and very good-looking, your pickings are extremely slim and there's a shortage of single women.

This got me thinking about the long-term repercussions of this reality:

1) Men face strong selection pressures in America for looks/height, i.e., only the best-looking ones get to reproduce. Does that mean that over time, American men will become much better-looking and more "reproductively fit" than in other countries, such as Russia, where all men (even short/ugly ones) get to reproduce, due to a much easier sex ratio? If that's the case, America is breeding "supermen" in the sense that in each generation, tough selection pressures weed out the less desirable men, but that's not the case in other, "easier" places. Could this actually be the reason why the US is a superpower, and why it is so successful, unlike other countries? In Russia, even a short or unsuccessful man can reproduce, since men are at a premium. But that spells trouble for the quality of genes being passed down each generation in Russia.

2) If American men are having such a tough time dating, then it's better to "bet" on daughters, because the daughters will probably be more successful reproductively than sons. I know I would certainly prefer a daughter over a son. I know that any daughters I have probably won't struggle in this market which is very favorable to women, since there are so many single bachelors around, and the sheer sex ratio is in women's favor, at least until 50 y.o. Is it reasonable to expect nature to tip the sex ratio from 105 M :100 F, which is the "natural" ratio at birth, to something like 95 M : 100 F or even 90 M : 100, in the current circumstances? Maybe it will.

Keep in mind that the natural ratio of men/women at birth is 105:100, but in the past, wars and accidents used to decrease the number of men and keep it more even at marriage age (around 25). But now, everyone survives to at least 50 years old, male childhood mortality has been reduced, and many other factors are causing a surplus of single men. It doesn't make sense for nature to keep producing a 105:100 at-birth ratio.

[nicho12]

As we know, America is a difficult place to date if you're a man. Unless you're tall and very good-looking, your pickings are extremely slim and there's a shortage of single women.

This got me thinking about the long-term repercussions of this reality:

1) Men face strong selection pressures in America for looks/height, i.e., only the best-looking ones get to reproduce. Does that mean that over time, American men will become much better-looking and more "reproductively fit" than in other countries, such as Russia, where all men (even short/ugly ones) get to reproduce, due to a much easier sex ratio? If that's the case, America is breeding "supermen" in the sense that in each generation, tough selection pressures weed out the less desirable men, but that's not the case in other, "easier" places. Could this actually be the reason why the US is a superpower, and why it is so successful, unlike other countries? In Russia, even a short or unsuccessful man can reproduce, since men are at a premium. But that spells trouble for the quality of genes being passed down each generation in Russia.

2) If American men are having such a tough time dating, then it's better to "bet" on daughters, because the daughters will probably be more successful reproductively than sons. I know I would certainly prefer a daughter over a son. I know that any daughters I have probably won't struggle in this market which is very favorable to women, since there are so many single bachelors around, and the sheer sex ratio is in women's favor, at least until 50 y.o. Is it reasonable to expect nature to tip the sex ratio from 105 M :100 F, which is the "natural" ratio at birth, to something like 95 M : 100 F or even 90 M : 100, in the current circumstances? Maybe it will.

Keep in mind that the natural ratio of men/women at birth is 105:100, but in the past, wars and accidents used to decrease the number of men and keep it more even at marriage age (around 25). But now, everyone survives to at least 50 years old, male childhood mortality has been reduced, and many other factors are causing a surplus of single men. It doesn't make sense for nature to keep producing a 105:100 at-birth ratio.

There's some truth in your analysis of America producing stronger men, but I don't completely agree with it. Producing tall good looking men is one thing but raising those good looking boys into strong productive men is another, we all know that America has one of the highest if not the highest divorce rates in the world, which means that at-least 60 percent or more of those boys will be raised by single mothers and that doesn't help a man become strong and productive even if he has very good genes, of course they're exceptions to the rule. Boys raised by women will have a 90% chance of become failures in their adult lives even if they have the best genes. In order for a man to turn out strong and productive like men of 100 or 200 hundred years ago, then he must be raised by a strong man with excellent parenting skills, and we all know that is lacking in America today, in fact such men have been weeded out of the system for the past 50 or 60 years ago.

The reason why America is still a superpower is because the foundation that made America strong were laid 200 years ago, but if the current comforts were to be taken away from America, I don't think the current generation of men in America would be able to rebuild it because they have been completely emasculated by the system. Kids who have been raised on a steady diet of MTV and Kim Kardashian can not build a civilization.

And since women have become hostile to men, very few men would be willing to sacrifice for society even if they had good genes because in the first place, these are the same men that get called nerds or creeps by women because of their high intelligence, on the other hand, they know they would never find a desirable woman to make them happy. Why would I invent a rocket to take us to other planets when women don't find me attractive or call me a nerd or something along that line. To make things worse, the American education system is completely f***ed up

[Someone]

Single motherhood doesn't necessarily doom a child to a bad life, provided the child has good genes. I'd like to remind you that both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama -- two American men -- grew up without fathers, and yet both became the most powerful men in the world.

With respect to what you wrote about intelligence, it is true that America is breeding better-looking men over more intelligent men, based on AW's mating preferences. But is this really a disadvantage? China and India are really good at producing high-IQ, intelligent men, but these societies are less successful than America. Maybe, in today's world, it's not as important to be intelligent as it is to be good-looking. For example, in modern times, everyone has access to nutrition, medicine, education, and jobs; everyone survives based on the high level of social development (at least in developed Western countries). In this context, other variables come to the forefront, like physical attractiveness.

[drealm]

My guess would be no.

Men only reproduce when they commit or when they're too incompetent to use a condom.

Attractive men have no reason to commit. So this leaves us with handsome incompetents. Handsome incompetents will have a higher reproductive rate, but handsome people are a minority group and handsome incompetent people are a further subset.

It's more likely that average incompetent people will outbreed everyone since they're the largest group.



0 Children

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_O'Pry



30 Children

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1081531

[Someone]

^ No, you're mixing up attractive men with commitment-phobic men. That's not the same group. There are plenty of attractive/tall men who are family-oriented and prefer to get married and have kids.

For example, Mitt Romney is a handsome man who is family-oriented; he's got 5 kids. Of course, his wife is very attractive -- he didn't marry an ugly woman, naturally -- but he definitely got married, and believes in the institution of marriage. Barack Obama is a 6'2 athlete with stellar looks, and yet dotes on his daughters and worships his wife. Not everyone is a 'player'. But the point is, these attractive men are reproducing (in the regular marriage context), and the less-attractive ones are not.

[drealm]

If you agree that there are incel men in America, then this needs to be caused by some imbalance. I don't know if "105:100" ratio is correct, but I don't think that's big enough account for the imbalance.

This would force me to conclude most women are completely abstinent or attractive men are dating multiple women without commitment.

I think aside from religious communities most westerners are "players", though certainly not "winners".

[nicho12]

Single motherhood doesn't necessarily doom a child to a bad life, provided the child has good genes. I'd like to remind you that both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama -- two American men -- grew up without fathers, and yet both became the most powerful men in the world.

With respect to what you wrote about intelligence, it is true that America is breeding better-looking men over more intelligent men, based on AW's mating preferences. But is this really a disadvantage? China and India are really good at producing high-IQ, intelligent men, but these societies are less successful than America. Maybe, in today's world, it's not as important to be intelligent as it is to be good-looking. For example, in modern times, everyone has access to nutrition, medicine, education, and jobs; everyone survives based on the high level of social development (at least in developed Western countries). In this context, other variables come to the forefront, like physical attractiveness.

I don't think you completely understood my post, I never said all men raised by single mothers turn out to be failures in life, of course they're exceptions to every rule. The lottery is almost impossible to win, but they're people who win it. If you want to see what single motherhood does to a society, just look at the black community in America, most of those house holds in the ghetto are run by women. India just got its independence from Britain 50 years ago, America got it's independence from Britain 250 years ago. And by the way, Indians are actually taking over the I.T industry in America. Most developers that I see in America are Indians. India also has a problem of over population, so it's very hard to compare. America's present prosperity was built 200 years ago, it's like Bill Gates' son inheriting his father's wealth and then start bragging that he's the one who built that wealth and not Bill Gates, if that wealth is to run out, can Bill Gates' son recreate it like his father did. that's how America is right now, in fact the whole west

[nicho12]

^ No, you're mixing up attractive men with commitment-phobic men. That's not the same group. There are plenty of attractive/tall men who are family-oriented and prefer to get married and have kids.

For example, Mitt Romney is a handsome man who is family-oriented; he's got 5 kids. Of course, his wife is very attractive -- he didn't marry an ugly woman, naturally -- but he definitely got married, and believes in the institution of marriage. Barack Obama is a 6'2 athlete with stellar looks, and yet dotes on his daughters and worships his wife. Not everyone is a 'player'. But the point is, these attractive men are reproducing (in the regular marriage context), and the less-attractive ones are not.

so why is America getting f***ed up with all these intelligent men around

[Banano]

Russia has more males than females (1000 F : 950 F) at birth and it only changes after the age of 30 when for whatever reason guys start disappearing.
In fact every country is the same when it comes to sex ratio at birth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... _sex_ratio


In anglosphere even if there was 50:50 ratio I dont think it would help us much, anglas are just way too hypergamous and independent to be settling for low value men


Back to OPs question, it think its true, at least looks wise, lets take a look at and compare Filipino, Russian, Tahi, Ukranian men( place where p***y is easiest in the world) VS American/Australian men ( place where it is hard to bang unless you have looks, skills, connection,status.. )

Conclusion is that countries with easy p***y tend to have the ugliest men and vice versa

competition breeds excellence:)

[Ghost]

.

[fschmidt]

Go watch the intro to Idiocracy. That's what is going on in America today.

It's here: http://www.videobash.com/video_show/idi ... tro-245281

[Someone]

Would someone like to address the 2nd part of my post, where I claim that it's more profitable to have daughters than sons in the West, because they're more likely to do better in the current conditions?

There is no "womanosphere" where Western women would be plotting how to get men. They're assured of getting hit on 24/7 in their youth, but surprisingly, even older women over 35 are very much in demand in the West, especially if they're cute. In other words, there are too many single men in the West, and not enough single women, for reasons having to do with good medicine which prevents male mortality, and the lack of wars or unhealthy lifestyles (e.g. alcoholism), allowing the natural 105:100 ratio to persist into adulthood where previously it would not have.

Thus, is it better to give birth to daughters, and skew the natural at-birth ratio toward daughters? Should the West be the opposite of China, which values sons, and start valuing daughters a lot more and trying to conceive daughters?

[fschmidt]

Would someone like to address the 2nd part of my post, where I claim that it's more profitable to have daughters than sons in the West, because they're more likely to do better in the current conditions?

I'll address this. In the West, women are slightly worse than men. But the difference isn't significant because both are basically scum. Outside the West, there are more good women than good men. Overall, it is easier for a man to find a good wife than for a woman to find a good husband. Of course any man with brains will look for a wife outside the West, so the nature of Western women is irrelevant.

I have a son and a daughter, so I have given this question thought.

[TopSpruce]

This is silly.

I know a lot of really dumb motherfuckers (guys with like a 75 IQ) who bang old/fat/ugly women and get them pregnant.

Its the dumb people that reproduce more.

Hell, if I wanted lots and lots of kids, I could got to sub-saharan africa and bang dozens of the ugliest girls they had available there. I'd have 50 kids in no time.

Most Americans are pretty dumb....they just got lucky with defensible borders and natural resources. We can already see other countries overtaking the US such as China with its higher average IQ and large number of surplus males willing to work hard.

[drealm]

A woman's marketing value declines quickly. High school and college also cut into the time where a woman has peak marketing value. Since men are valued as providers their value increases inversely to women's.

I think only desperate men would try chasing 35 year old women.

Here's a western woman's perspective on growing older: why it's hell to be 48, alone and desperate