RULES
The Hub is moderated for decorum. Please follow these rules while participating in The Hub:
- Be courteous and friendly to new members.
- Do not attempt to scare off new users from using the platform.
- Do advertise your Tribes and invite users to join conversations in them.
- Always Follow Our Content Policy
These rules only apply to The Hub with the exception of the content policy which is site-wide. Please observe individual tribe rules when visiting other tribes.
Sick of Rules? Want to Shit-talk?
Join The Beer Hall
Want a FLAIR next to your name? Send a message to redpillschool. Reasonable requests will be granted.
Have questions? Ask away here!
Join our chatroom for live entertainment.
Second, and my specific point, is that what the female attraction circuits perceive as "good" might have nothing to do with adaptive quality, and be just a superstimulus. That's how psychopathy holds a niche in societies. It's not women's business to contain it: that's left to the wider society. Women have notoriously narrow social scope, and their limiting switches are external.
Well it's essentially novelty within a scope, right. So traits that are novel or stand out from the rest of her social bubble are going to stand out and be attractive.
But those attractive traits still generally follow the same playbook. Good looks, tall, strong, social proof, status, provisioning etc.
My point is that today there is really nothing inherently "good" about the female sexual strategy boosting "good" male genes. Whether a "superstimulus gene" proves adaptive, neutral or maladaptive takes several generations, and has no straightforward relation to the person's wellbeing.
Evoluiton is inherently about trying random shit and seeing what sticks. But the idea of passing on better genes to your offspring is pretty hardwired.
But it's also selfish. If she can mate with a "good genes" guy, there's at least a chance she can get some benefit from said guy.
Read MoreBeen a big fan of Carl for a number of years, and I'm a regular listener to his podcast The Lotus Eaters. He always has some pretty red pill and based takes.
Like this video, talking about the Left's answer to "bringing back young men". He summarises the political and inter gender dynamics really well.
But whenever it comes to dating, he always has really blue pilled takes.
"A woman is not going to have sex with a man who splits the bill with her" - which he agrees with.
Of course that couldn't be further from the truth. Think Carl needs to read Skittles Man.
I was reading Rollo's takedown of the Mate Switching Hypothesis in favor of the Dual Mating Strategy and I want to raise an issue that is monumental, but doesn't receive the proper attention.
It has to do with the "good genes" part of the DMS. First thing, "good genes" means "good in the context of the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA)". That much is acknowledged.
Second, and my specific point, is that what the female attraction circuits perceive as "good" might have nothing to do with adaptive quality, and be just a superstimulus. That's how psychopathy holds a niche in societies. It's not women's business to contain it: that's left to the wider society. Women have notoriously narrow social scope, and their limiting switches are external.
Evolution famously proceeds in random directions.
My point is that today there is really nothing inherently "good" about the female sexual strategy boosting "good" male genes. Whether a "superstimulus gene" proves adaptive, neutral or maladaptive takes several generations, and has no straightforward relation to the person's wellbeing.
Read More@SwarmShawarma Not a bad idea. The TV rights alone would pay for a lot of deportations.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxP20ZA0Ed0
She supposedly has a 143 IQ, but after 10 minutes I'm not really sure what IQ means anymore, only that it doesn't apply to her.
HAPPILY MARRIED WOMEN WHEN THEY HIT 40: LETS BLOW THIS SHIT UP!
