>Pure >Gentle demeanor >Empathetic to a fault, can sense when others are sad >Compassionate to others >Doesn't use foul language >Doesn't openly talk about sex
Why do girls like Aerith not exist anymore? It seems like every girl these days just wants to be an inferior version of a man: drugs, booze, tattoos, filthy mouth, filthier mind, no filter for what is acceptable and what is vulgar, no feminine kindness or compassion.
The last two sting the most. Why are women so devoid of compassion? Are they really as husk-like as men these days?
but to be fair not many clouds i assumem, but arieth is this super beautiful feminine type that feels the planet and has a good heart
Jason Price
>why isnt my cloud strife husbando real
You realize how retarded you sound right?
Isaac Peterson
In essence. Women are playing as men and men are playing as exaggerated men because human urges are very crude like that. We as a society are past being prudes just for show. Prudishness still exists, even in the wild in non religious people.
Justin Ramirez
>Doesn't use foul language >Doesn't openly talk about sex
Why do women assume men like this? Even if we signal that we do, it's just a duplicitous tactic to get you into bed and use you as a pump and dump. Why are women so dense and short sighted that you can't see this? I guarantee you that your grandmothers would see straight through the "yeah, I like girls who are open about sex :)))" tactic instantly.
William Flores
Those continue to exist, although the location of women of such qualities are not in the main hub of society. Those you have described would fall under what the common visage of the 1st world western society considers the average women, and thereby by extension, what the women of those places are primarily composed of. In a 2nd or 3rd world, or even religious communities, you would be less likely to find women of the caliber you detest and would find more satisfying your vision of the ideal women.
Isaac Russell
Most guys here are white and want to marry white women though.
Colton Cook
Religious white women would be in the direction you seek. And/Or white women of 3rd world or 2nd world origin.
Julian Wright
> ...not exist anymore?
Pro tip: they have never existed
Females just werent open about being whores, and males didnt went screaming how they got cucked by Chad (at worst there was the classic "dude kills wife and himself for no reason").
Thomas Howard
>Females just werent open about being whores This is a classic degen cope. We have good evidence that a majority of the population were virgins upon marriage as little as 60-70 years ago. Let alone two centuries ago, which was comparatively hyper-conservative compared to the 1950s.
>More recently, millennials have less sex than literally boomers:
Male millennials.
Cameron Foster
>8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced for Every One Man >There was never a golden age of pure wifus 4 everyne user, not unless you were a noble or someone in a position of power to begin with.
Your source does not support your claim.
Blake Sanchez
> Chads fucked every female, betas had none > golden age of pure wifus for everyone
Yes, being at the top was awesome. And still is
Jaxon Wood
That's prehistory m8, ancient generally means antiquity. Monogamy became a thing with agricultural civilization.
We're going back to a time when a handful of men (not even elites, but literal violent criminals) monopolize 80% of all women.
Xavier Brown
>Once upon a time, 4,000 to 8,000 years after humanity invented agriculture, something very strange happened to human reproduction. Across the globe, for every 17 women who were reproducing, passing on genes that are still around today only one man did the same.
>Another member of the research team, a biological anthropologist, hypothesizes that somehow, only a few men accumulated lots of wealth and power, leaving nothing for others. These men could then pass their wealth on to their sons, perpetuating this pattern of elitist reproductive success. Then, as more thousands of years passed, the numbers of men reproducing, compared to women, rose again. "Maybe more and more people started being successful," Wilson Sayres says. In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man.
>Physically driven natural selection shaped many human traits. Ethnic Africans and Europeans had to evolve to digest milk, for example, while most ethnic Tibetans have adaptations to deal with the lower oxygen levels at high altitudes. But if Wilson Sayres' team's hypothesis is correct, it would be one of the first instances that scientists have found of culture affecting human evolution.
The hypothesis was not confirmed according to this report.
Zachary Anderson
You get my point: if we go by how we reproduce in most of our history, we werent having a fair sexual distribution at almost any point.
Being a guy like us sucked, almost always in history, because females tend to reproduce with Chad.
Justin Wilson
>The team uncovered this dip-and-rise in the male-to-female reproductive ratio by looking at DNA from more than 450 volunteers from seven world regions. Geneticists analyzed two parts of the DNA, Y-chromosome DNA and mitochondrial DNA. These don't make up a large portion of a person's genetics, but they're special because people inherit Y-chromosome DNA exclusively from their male ancestors and mitochondrial DNA exclusively from their female ancestors. By analyzing diversity in these parts, scientists are able to deduce the numbers of female and male ancestors a population has. It's always more female.
This was a statistical estimation based on a pool of subjects.
Funny, given the only things that femanons can converse about are memes and their sexual fetishes.
Daniel Jackson
>One explanation given for this discrepancy in the time depths of patrilineal vs. matrilineal lineages was that females have a better chance of reproducing than males due to the practice of polygyny. When a male individual has several wives, he has effectively prevented other males in the community from reproducing and passing on their Y chromosomes to subsequent generations."
>So Baumeister is not stating anything about generational levels. It is not in any way trying to state that the total number of female ancestors someone will have will be twice as many as the number of male ancestors they have. It is only referring to humanity's set of most recent common ancestors, and it is only "one explanation" for a discrepancy in the MRCA depths.
>Polygyny was common in primitive and biblical times, but became rarely practised after that. And even if you had some polygyny, the practise is no longer widespread enough to prevent the other males from finding a partner. So that practise will not be a cause of misbalance in the number of your male versus female ancestors in your genealogical research.
Just because it was common at one point in history does not mean it was common throughout all of history. From the sources you shared, it even says that the number of females to males has decreased from 17:1 to 4:1. Not to mention you're neglecting a multitude of factors that may contribute to the circumstances, some of which being that men historically did not live as long as women, and therefore has less time to reproduce than women.
Julian Diaz
unironically my ex looked and acted exactly like aerith
Caleb Johnson
user, we are talking about 17 to 1 here, this of course its not common anymore.
But reality is that today, if you look back, on average, few dudes reproduced with a bunch of woman.
I havent said why, because there are multiple reasons, but you can deny that was the majority of humanity reproductive history.
Jayden Anderson
You're right about it being a majority of humanity's reproductive history, but today a few dudes reproducing with a bunch of women is not a common occurrence. On tinder or dating websites probably, or in Utah with the legalization of polygamy sure, but monogamy is the prevailing structure for majority of the world today.
Andrew Hill
I would never deny that. This all started with a statement that I still back up:
Females never were the image of commitment and purity. There never was a golden age for getting females as a beta. I always sucked.
Brody Parker
> * it always sucked
But the OC is also true...
Isaac Lee
Do you mean females as a whole, or that no female has ever been the image of commitment and purity? And one could argue that the golden age for getting females as a beta could be now, or an even better age could come in the future.
If you were referring to the I always sucked comment, why do you say that?
Jaxon Martin
>WHY DOESN'T A FICTIONAL CHARACTER EXIST janny delete this bait thread
Evan Myers
Female as a whole, theres always the exception to the rule user. Im not saying that every female is a whore hungry for cock.
> And one could argue that the golden age for getting females as a beta could be now Please try
> or an even better age could come in the future Like anything in the future, totally possible
> If you were referring to the I always sucked comment, why do you say that? Where do you think we are user?
