Isn't hypersexualization of women Eugenically beneficial to society?

Since the bottom 80% of the men are impeded from passing their weak genes on to the next generation?

Attached: n0jqtij3ec131.jpg (1080x1350, 424.55K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=JJ0XfsSQ3jw
youtube.com/watch?v=KdbefoOAAoE
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck
vastabrupt.com/2018/10/31/gender-acceleration/
instagram.com/p/B9626ucIFcI/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Holy fuck is she built for BBC. Imagine her legs quivering as a bull pleasures her

Look around you it’s going down the shitter

>Look around you it’s going down the shitter
Society? Or women? Or both?

Seems to be working, user

Attached: 1575205228804.jpg (938x603, 145.36K)

that depends, who is in control of defining who the best 20% are?
as of now, it is the kikels who control media, academia, and the globalized economy

Yeah you aren’t wrong OP

I just got a woman pregnant but I think I am going to make her abort.

Why are women all hooking up with niggers then? Race mixing is not just a meme, I actually see white girls with other races all the time

Nature defines who the 20% is. You don’t need the kike media to recognize objective male and female beauty.

When's that start?

>Holy fuck is she built for BBC. Imagine her legs quivering as a bull pleasures her
Honest question. Do you imagine yourself to be the bull fucking that woman, or do you imagine yourself as the spectator enjoying the sight of a fragile beauty being ravaged by a beast?
>Seems to be working, user
Women will have fewer children since only a few of them will snag the top 20%. But the kids of the next generation will be only chads and staceys - prototypical Gods when you think about it. The rest of us are merely the dwarfs who build the stage on which Gods play out their game. Not bad when you think about it - as long as we get paid well to do it.

Both

Corona must be over, I’m seeing these threads again.

>Why are women all hooking up with niggers then?
Where do you live? Where I live women don't go for niggers. In fact, the only mixed couple I find are the ones where the chick is pretty ugly or has deep psychological scars - not good mommy material anyway.

Those feet

Attached: 227810B6-4E9A-42E9-89FB-77795D438E07.png (500x500, 242.06K)

>>Since the bottom 80% of the men are impeded from passing their weak genes
>Nature defines who the 20% is

if by "nature" you mean "women following whatever social conditioning tells them is attractive"

you really, seriously trust women to actually know what the weakest 80% and objective best 20% of genes are based on their feefees and vagina tingles?

>When's that start?
I think it's already begun with Instagram and SnapChat. Most women display their bodies for Chads to view and choose from. They all have casual sex - and if both the Chad and Stacey like each other enough - they have kids. Already begun, don't you think?
>Both
Society is not crumbling user. We're at the cusp of becoming Gods. By we I mean Americans.

Everything is meaningless if the majority of them are having abortions and at best having kids after 30, because "YoU gO gAl, HaVe A CaReEr". At the end many of who will have kids are racemixers or landwhales desperate for dick

>if by "nature" you mean "women following whatever social conditioning tells them is attractive"
Women like good looking men, ripped men, or rich men. Period. It's as evolutionary as it gets. Good guys don't have a place in the modern reproductive system. You have to be ruthless and well built to be an attractive mate.
>you really, seriously trust women to actually know what the weakest 80% and objective best 20% of genes are based on their feefees and vagina tingles?
If you're in the top 20%, then wooing a girl shouldn't be hard at all. Making her cum with your fingers should be second nature to you. But if you find it an arduous task, then perhaps you're not in the top 20%.

I saw a pretty good white chick with an ugly Ahmed that looked like this.

Attached: 3743AA3B-C52C-48B5-B1EF-FB5EFD9C193C.png (1402x1080, 762.92K)

I think she grew up poor, that’s probably why

>Corona must be over, I’m seeing these threads again.
Relax user. Corona is part of the planned recession the U.S. government triggers every 7-14 years to cull out weak businesses and take control of big businesses. The 2000 dot com bubble enabled the CIA to control the silicon valley. The 2008 housing crisis enabled the government to control the real estate market. The 2020 coronavirus outbreak will enable the government to control healthcare.

Relax. It's all planned.
This is not true. Career women either already have boyfriends or are usually on the lookout for partners. It's difficult to have kids before 30 because the economy sucks.

>Since the bottom 80% of the men are impeded from passing their weak genes on to the next generation?

You assume that the society is deeming the best men to be the top 20%. In a society that rewards dishonesty, cowardice, vanity and greed this is hardly the case. That's hardly survival of the fittest.

Attached: J.S. Mill quote-a-man-who-has-nothing-which-he-cares-about-more-than-he-does-about-his-personal-safety-is-a-john-stuart-mill-347888.jpg (850x400, 80.72K)

Imagine thinking that having at best 1 child after in your thirties (child defects odds rise up every year after the mother Is over 30) Is not retarded if you want your society to persist, also feminist influence Is a thing.

Just creates stupid whores and retarded men.

>We're at the cusp of becoming Gods
lmfao, no we're not. We're moving further away from that daily.

What is "top 20%" and "bottom 80%"? What is the hypersexualized instinct of women selecting for?

The answer is that, because women have no need to depend on a man to take care of her due to the simp problem, hypersexualization purely selects for animal attraction. Society is not built on animal instincts. Animals make primitive shelters with sticks. A society predicated on animal instincts is a society of niggers. African countries have a great birth rate, due to animalistic sex as well as no contraceptives, but look at what it has wrought. Ostensibly they must have selected the top 20% but it has resulted in trash.

Hypersexualization also has dysgenic effects due to only the least intelligent choosing to ignore contraceptives and being unable to afford abortions. Intelligent whites will use condoms and birth control, niggers will lack the prescience to buy contraceptives in advance and risk the pull out method. Imagine how effective that would be.

So hypersexualization, something you should have recognized as a nigger trait in the first place, does not have eugenic effects for a society.

The government is also paying out free gibs, that’s hardly a natural order.

You post this shit and then you wonder why you are sad all the time.

That's pretty fucking stupid.

>In a society that rewards dishonesty, cowardice, vanity and greed this is hardly the case. That's hardly survival of the fittest.
But isn't it EXACTLY the survival of the fittest? And the explanation is simply people with our values don't fit the environment anymore?
>Imagine thinking that having at best 1 child after in your thirties
It's 20% of the top people reproducing user. Those people are having kids in their 20s. WE are not.
>We're moving further away from that daily.
From the Biblical God? Yes. But the technological God? No. We're almost there.
>The government is also paying out free gibs, that’s hardly a natural order.
We're not living in the jungle user. We are living in a society where those at the top decide how the rest of us lead our lives.

>If you're in the top 20%, then wooing a girl shouldn't be hard at all. Making her cum with your fingers should be second nature to you. But if you find it an arduous task, then perhaps you're not in the top 20%.

...this is transparently circular logic

>women are accurately attracted to the top 20% of genes
>what evidence is there for this
>the fact that guys with the top 20% of genes can easily woo women
>how do you know they have the top 20% of genes
>because they're so good at wooing women who, as established, are accurately attracted to the top 20% of genes

I'm not denying that there's overlap - obviously healthy genetics gives you a leg up on the competition and if you have deformities due to genetics you're unlikely to be attractive

but trusting women to not be easily swayed in arbitrary or even negative directions (ex: mistaking brainless aggression for confidence) by social influence is just dumb

>hypersexualization purely selects for animal attraction.
Correct.
> Intelligent whites will use condoms and birth control
Correct. In the future, the intelligent children will lord over the 20% of the Chads and Staceys. Why is this bad? Isn't it a good thing that few intelligent people will rule over beautiful men and women?

The problem is also our school system which is a modern construct. Men and women of similar ages weren’t use to being close together like that. Men between the ages of 25-35 would use to get the first pick of women, now teenage boys get the first pick of women. Put a 20yo in a high school class and I bet all the high school girls would flock to him.

>..this is transparently circular logic
It's not circular logic simply because you say so.
>but trusting women to not be easily swayed in arbitrary or even negative directions (ex: mistaking brainless aggression for confidence) by social influence is just dumb
But why? If women want to mate with Chads who are dumb, then why is that wrong?

Are we saying it's wrong only because we're being left out of the reproductive game? If so, it's pretty disingenuous of us not to admit it.

>few intellgient people will rule over beautiful men and women
*stupid* men and women. Have fun living in South Africa where they'll genocide you for being better than them.

Nope turns out Monogamy is actually the system that produces the best offspring and the society to facilitate the best in humanity. Women being promiscuous is the opposite of being eugenically beneficial.

youtube.com/watch?v=JJ0XfsSQ3jw

That's not how women work they aren't eugenicists by design

While I'm at it I should add youtube.com/watch?v=KdbefoOAAoE
Both vids provide the most concise and fully articulated elaborations on the topic I've seen.

Quoted for truth, prophet. Keep spreading the word.

>Have fun living in South Africa where they'll genocide you for being better than them.
If you can't prevent the population from genociding you, then perhaps you're not smart enough to rule over them?
Do you have any peer-reviewed research articles to back this up? Or just the Youtube video?

>That's not how women work they aren't eugenicists by design
Evolution follows the principle of eugenics. We're merely tools of evolution.

>evolution
But this isn’t the jungle user. We live in a society

yes. if you close borders and have sexualization within the civilized countries, it's good

hmmm i dunno but maybe there's a reason why polygamous countries are complete shitholes compared to monogamous ones
retard

Do YOU have any peer reviewed articles?

First of all, stop with this "us" shit. You're not "us." Also, women aren't actually behaving the way you're describing them as behaving. Most women don't marry Chads, they marry beta providers that they settle for after their looks deteriorate to the point that that is all they can get after spending their sexual primes on the cock carousel and getting abortions. By the time they are ready to breed with these beta providers and pass on his inferior genes that she never would've had anything to do with when she was attractive enough to attract better, she undertakes a high risk pregnancy because of her age, and is more likely to have fucked up/autistic kids. Even she even has kids, plural, at her age.

You couldn't possible have come up with a more easily refuted theory.

>But this isn’t the jungle user. We live in a society
Do you for some reason believe that the principles of evolution no longer apply simply because we live in a society?
>I can't even with you user.

Personally, I do not empathize with the bull. He is effectively an object in this scenario. The woman, one that would have rejected me, being defiled in this humiliating act by a an animal brings me joy. Like watching justice desu

It also reminds me that money is the god of this world

believe it or not but fingering isnt a reliable indicator of how many sex partners a guys has had

>Bible crap

You can literally just mention loss of genetic diversity and population bottlenecking and do the same thing. 20% of men passing on their genes means gradual tendency towards inbreeding problems.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck

tl;dr women are stupid and cannot be trusted with determining the future.

no, the agenda is lots of sex without children. this mostly nukes white city-dwellers. see "Agenda 21" or "New Order of Barbarians" or pretty much any NWO theories.

> tfw work with a literal genius iq physicist who is thin, hot, and relatively sane but who picked "career" instead of "children"
> tfw know several other genius iq women who picked "career + 1 kid"
> tfw not hot enough for them
> can't stop eating carbs

>Do YOU have any peer reviewed articles?
Touche. It appears we're at an impasse.
>You're not "us."
That hits me right where I live.
>Most women don't marry Chads, they marry beta providers
Yes, the bottom 80% of women will marry the bottom 80% of the beta providers after they try to snag one of the top 20% and fail.
>she undertakes a high risk pregnancy because of her age, and is more likely to have fucked up/autistic kids. Even she even has kids, plural, at her age.
If the issue here is that women are taking high risks, then your point is moot. All creatures in nature risk everything to pass their genes on. It's now being formalized in human society. If women take risks in trying to snag a man well above their league, then they ARE following their evolutionary directive.
>You couldn't possible have come up with a more easily refuted theory.
But you haven't refuted it yet.

Many men just aren't as hypergamous as they ought to be. People should only reproduce in a planned way attentive to the needs of their descendants.

In any case, it's ludicrously primitive to fixate on "passing on genes". We're overpopulated. I treasure everyone alive... but we don't need more, and we shouldn't have a culture that pressures people to consider themselves merely viruses with no worth but replication. That's dehumanizing and hateful.

Attached: wtffoot.png (538x469, 413.79K)

Yes the video draws from several studies and bases its conclusions from them, listen and you'll see. Really I should be asking you though if you have any peer-reviewed research articles to back up your claim in the OP but yes the assertion in my post is true and well supported the video is just the most concise summary I've found.

>If you can't prevent the population from genociding you, then perhaps you're not smart enough to rule over them?
Yeah I guess. You're basically dependent on a *smart enough* race prevailing. Whereas in an intelligent society you have the basis of literally everyone being intelligent so it doesn't matter who fails.

This isn't about nature. Get rid of rape laws and then talk to me about nature. This is an artificially constructed sexual market and we already have a tried and true formula to produce the very results you're looking for: It's called patriarchy. It worked fine for thousands of years across hundreds of cultures. The Marxist shitshow you're defending hasn't produced any of the things you're championing. None of them. The population is getting stupider, women are having fewer children, and the society that results from all of this is in steady decline. Nothing about our reality matches the fantasyland things you're saying.

The risks inherent in sexuality are risks men should manage through the states they created. Has nothing to do with women. They don't need to be involved in that process in order to achieve the results you're looking.

Are you a feminist?

See, this is interesting. Because I imagine myself to be the bull. Yet, your imagination is valid since there are many others who share the same thing. In simple terms, you're as Darwinian as they come with respect to reproduction. Either you snag the female, or you want to make sure no one else snags the female.

So you have the right evolutionary mindset, but based on your post, it appears your ancestors didn't choose beautiful mates.
>It also reminds me that money is the god of this world
Don't beat yourself up user. We've merely inherited this world. We didn't make it.
>believe it or not but fingering isnt a reliable indicator of how many sex partners a guys has had
Oh common now. How many women have you fingered to orgasm? Fingering is a difficult art. Each woman's G-spot is located at a different distance from the clitoris. Figuring out where it is, is an art - one you can only master with multiple partners - not by watching all of PornHub.

I have to admit, monogamy has been partly brainwashed into me because of Christianity. But there are also practical reasons for monogamy, like STDs, child support and what not. So it’s difficult to separate out what my true instincts are from societal indoctrination.

>We're overpopulated
NO!!
There are too many low iq people and too few high iq people.

Attached: 1547191047484.png (798x782, 487.23K)

>I imagine myself to be the bull
Okay, spotted the nigger, the only reason why you like this system is because it encourages race mixing and that’s the only way you’ll get white pussy.

the real reason for monogamy is that without it something like 80% of both genders are leftover. currently the leftover women can still become single mothers or SJWs, and the leftover men can cooom their pain away, but someday someone will figure out how to match up the leftover men and leftover women. not to date (for both are too damaged and old at that point to marry and dating is animalistic and evil) but for political activism.

The point can be made without comparing it to biblical scripture yeah, its just to show the implicit knowledge that is arrived at naturally in a darwinian fashion, resulting in tradition.

Get Yas Forums fren, Don't just take the constant humiliation.

>Isn't hypersexualization of women Eugenically beneficial to society?
>bottom 80% of the men are impeded from passing their weak genes on to the next generation?
the fact that these women arent getting pregnant says otherwise
always found it weird when fags would say casual sex is for people with good genes when they aren't actually passing their genes on
but hey keep using birth control :^)

Attached: 1582946664487.jpg (400x371, 23.57K)

>Yes the video draws from several studies and bases its conclusions from them, listen and you'll see.
Oh common user. Don't push that shit on me. The other user cited a video - which is an appeal to authority fallacy. Hence, I asked for a peer reviewed study. Not because I'm here to argue and publish my findings in a journal.

If you've watched the videos and understood them, then present your arguments. This is like me asking you to go read Biology 101 and come back when you're done. Let's be a little more sophisticated than that.
>Whereas in an intelligent society you have the basis of literally everyone being intelligent so it doesn't matter who fails.
If everyone is intelligent, then everyone is dumb. How can such a society function? There would be an impasse everytime an argument comes up because everyone will think they're right.

So no. That's not right. Hierarchies form even in nature. But in nature, it's based on strength. In human societies, it's based on intelligence. You can't have an entire population of 7 billion people being equally intelligent since none of them started with the same level of intelligence.

The point

Monogamy also restricts the Coolidge effect, thus directing sexual energies toward productive matters. Useful for building societies.

The top 20% dont have strong genes, they have deep pockets. Thats why were devolving as a species. Darwin was wrong.