The New Paternity

The truth is often avoided because it is ugly and unpleasant. Never appeal to truth and reality unless you are prepared for the anger that comes from disenchantment.

Law 32, The 48 Laws of Power, Robert Greene

I was reminded of this quote as I listened to a woman talk over me on the Pat Campbell show a couple weeks ago. I’ve written several essays regarding the uglier aspects of Paternity and by discussing them I’ve discovered that the evolved realities of how men and women regard paternity is always a touchy subject. I’ve given a lot of thought as to why this is recently.

Before I dig into why I want to throw out a quick caveat. I’m likely going to make people uncomfortable with this. A lot of ego investment is involved in our sexual strategies and the beliefs that underpin them. That means when someone is critical of them it’s hard not to take it as an attack. Robert Greene was right, anger does follow disenchantment when you strip the veneer off beliefs you built a lifestyle on. Just know my intent here is not to attack anyone with what follows. I only want to explore some sensitive material.

As of this writing I’m half way through reading the book, Promiscuity by Tim Birkhead. If you’re a Red Pill evo-psych wonk like me I highly recommend it, but be prepared. If you still cling to comforting Blue Pill idealism about monogamy this material will challenge your presumptions about the nature of men and women’s sexual strategies. It’s a clinical, evolutionary, exploration of the mechanics of promiscuity in animals, however, it explains a lot of unpleasant truths about men and women. What I’ve read thus far confirms a lot of what the Red Pill has been considering for almost two decades now, and this is the objectuve stuff critics like to paint as “negativity”.

If you lean towards the nihilism of the so-called Black Pill this book will give you all the fodder you need to sink deeper into your coma of hopelessness – so be warned. Personally, I’ve found it fascinating and it’s pulling threads for me that I didn’t even know needed unraveling. However, in doing so, just my voicing the mechanics of how promiscuity is intertwined with men’s existential fear of paternity is enough to get me into trouble with people who’d rather not think about such things. Both libertine hedonists and virtuous conservatives will have a problem with the questions the book asks.

Men and women’s sexual strategies are fundamentally antagonistic towards the other.

A long time ago I was asked to write a post about whether I believed Game was Adversarial. And while I don’t think Game necessarily needs to be adversarial (seduction requires a willing participant), the existential fears of men and women are at odds with the other.

Men’s biological, masculine, imperative is to spread the seed – unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. Men’s compulsion for pornography (over centuries actually) is the most obvious confirmation of this. I’ve made this observation a few times before; men’s sexual strategy, as a result of our biology, is inherently ‘r‘ selected. Because men can potentially reproduce thousands of times per ejaculation, and because men’s investment costs is far lower than women’s in reproduction, men’s most pragmatic, inherent strategy is an innate drive for unlimited access to unlimited sexuality.

Women’s sexual strategy is inherently ‘K‘ selection because women’s reproductive investment costs are so high. Gestation, nurturing, provisioning and protection of offspring are a few of the evolutionary imperatives driving women’s innate sexual strategy. Thus, Hypergamy becomes a woman’s prime directive in that strategy. For most of a woman’s life she is the sexual selector while the male is the performer. This selection priority changes as a woman’s sexual market value decays and a man’s value increases, or as defined by her circumstances, but the innate presumption that ‘men perform, women choose’ is the evolved framework in play.

But women’s sexual strategy is dualistic in nature. Women are far more promiscuous than most men would idealistically like to believe. Women evolved to consolidate reproductively on the best genetic potential in men and the best parental investment potential. In the Red Pill we euphemistically refer to this dynamic as Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks. This is the foundation of women’s sexual strategy; ideally pairing in the long term with a man who definitively satisfies both sides of the Hypergamous equation.

The main themes in Promiscuity are sperm competition, the prevalence (and concealment) of female promiscuity (men’s is pretty well expected) and the evolutionary expediency cuckoldry. All of these themes are considered in animals ranging from worms to human beings, but also in respect to general evolutionary function in these themes. My interest in this stems from how it relates to a Red Pill understanding of intersexual dynamics.

My first consideration: sperm competition is a highly contested theory and I’m not a microbiologist. People have a variety of ego invested beliefs riding on whether theories hold up on either side of the sperm war debate. This is a contentious arena of science that’s had social influences try to cover up inconvenient truths or redirect focuses to avoid unraveling those ego-investments. I’m laying this out here because I have no doubt critics will try to dismiss even the questions that point to ugly truths that don’t align with their ideals.

That said, there are many interesting evidences that imply an evolved function in sperm competition. For instance, there are studies showing that men who return to a pair bonded woman after a long separation tend to produce more ejaculate and higher sperm count when they copulate after that separation. This then dovetails into another theory; in the case of multiple male copulations with a female, the last male to copulate with her tends to be the one to successfully conceive with her. If you’re interested in the hard evidence for why human beings are not naturally monogamous, this is your book. Monogamy is a social adaptation that has the latent function of (ostensibly) ensuring male paternity.

Most of the concepts surrounding sperm competition point to one thing – sperm competition in men evolved as a contingency to women’s sexual selection process and their need for concealed promiscuity to pragmatically effect it. As I said, men and women’s sexual strategies are antagonistic towards the other. When one’s evolved interests gains the dominant position the other adapts a contingency. In a Red Pill perspective I see the advent of Game in the age of mass communication as one of those contingencies. There are many others older than Game though.

All of this points to the fundamentals I outlined in Sexual Selection & The Existential Fear: insuring paternity is men’s evolutionary prime directive, even at the biological level. Women’s cuckoldry of men (in its various forms) is an evolutionary adaptation to insure that women’s sexual strategy – ultimately unlimited access to the best genetics and the best provisioning – supersedes men’s strategy. Socially enforced monogamy is also a strategic positioning of men’s reproductive greater good; though, in today’s sexual marketplace, that old advantage has become a crippling liability for men. Legally enforced monogamy (i.e. marriage in its various forms) has been transitioned to an insurance of women’s provisioning needs.

This is the nuts & bolts of the antagonistic nature of out competing sexual strategies. However, in later stages it is in our evolutionary best interests to parentally invest in our offspring. For men this entails the risky prospects of investing in children they didn’t sire. The antagonism between intersexual strategies is more easily observed before pair bonding (in your single days) in a couple, but these strategy conflicts persist into the formation of a long term relationship. The Red Pill adage, “Marriage is no insulation from Hypergamy” has never been more accurate.

Ideally, a pair bond would be found in a long term union of a man and a woman where the compromising of either’s sexual strategy serves to ensure the survival of the offspring created by the two. As I’ve always said, men and women are better together than we are apart, but nature, it seems, prepares us for a less than mutually beneficial union. We have evolved reproductive failsafes that are influential in our belief sets.

The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies:
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other 
gender must compromise or abandon its own.

This is an important maxim to keep in mind here. Even when a loving couple consciously prioritizes their relationship, parenting and family above their visceral natures, that nature pragmatically adapted for a conflict between strategies. In The New Polyandry I proposed that in our present gynocentric social order. women’s sexual strategy is the socially preeminent one. That is to say, we are taught to consider the fulfillment and support of women’s sexual strategy to be the ‘correct’ one for both sexes to prioritize.

On the surface this seems like the most progressive, socially stabilizing strategy to follow. Who’s going to argue against family creation being the foundation of a functioning society? We’re conditioned to think that fulfilling women’s strategy should also be men’s priority because it serves this noble end – family creation – but there’s a lot more to it than what we’re expected to focus on.

In contrast, men’s sexual strategy and even the idea that men’s interests would be a consideration, is demonized in gynocentric society. As a result men’s adaptive strategies are manifested covertly in other ways.

Provider Dads

Prior to the Sexual Revolution a woman having a child out of wedlock was scandalous. The stigma of becoming a single mother was something of a deterrent against the worst effects of women’s Hypergamous nature. Social and religious mores were a check and balance against ‘illegitimate’ births and incomplete families.

Today 40% of children are born out of wedlock. All the stigma of the prior generations have been replaced with women embracing single motherhood as a badge of honor. On a social scale heroism replaced shame, and women laid claim to a right to motherhood irrespective of whether a father was present or even necessary in the formation of a family. Child rearing shifted from a marriage based model to a child support based model.

This Fathers Day the predictable denigration of negative biological father caricatures versus the noble step-father ‘manning up’ to save a single mother’s family were in full effect on Twitter. In a post-SexRev world, in a gynocentric society, the (Beta) male who consolidates and fulfills a woman’s sexual strategy by accepting the parental investment responsibilities of another man’s children is lauded as a hero.

And that’s the connection I’m making in reading Promiscuity; women’s sexual strategy is the socially preeminent one in an era that’s expanded a local sexual marketplace to a global one. Unfettered Hypergamy, Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks free from consequence, is what has defined our gender narrative since the late 60s, but in doing so it’s cunningly raised 2-3 generations of men to seeing their participation in women’s reproductive imperatives as a form of Game. In Beta Game and the Adaptations series I outlined how men will adapt social and behavioral contingencies to improve their chances of reproduction (getting laid). Men will readily adopt new methodologies to meet new reproductive challenges presented to them by women. However, there is also an adaptive, self-convinced, belief set that results from the conditioning presented to men in that adaption.

A prime illustration of this ‘programming’ just occurred last weekend. In this era Father’s Day has become an occasion to lift up single motherhood to reinforce the idea that a mother is the only parent necessary in the development of a well rounded child-to-adult. We no longer celebrate fathers. Instead we hold up single mothers and by association the heroic men who “stepped up and became a better father than any biological father was willing to be.” These heartwarming tales of the dutiful Beta who assumed the parental investment responsibilities of irresponsible or abusive ‘biological fathers’ abound on Fathers Day.

This narrative serves two purposes; first, it reinforces the blamelessness of the single mother’s complicity in bearing the children of the horrible biological father. At the same time it builds her up as a wise matron for choosing the dutiful Beta who was willing to fulfill the parental investment / provisioning role that the biological (Alpha) father would not.

Secondly, it reinforces the social convention that prompts Beta men to see fulfilling that role as a means to his own reproduction. The gynocentric social order loudly broadcast, across all forms of media, the idea that men who assume the parental investment responsibilities of other men – men who single mothers chose to breed with – are the highest form of hero. The provider “dad” to celebrate far above that of the male who only provided his sperm is the necessary element to maintaining Hypergamy as the socially correct sexual strategy.

I’ve proposed in the past that women no longer look for, nor expect to find, the man who best embodies the ideal aspects of Alpha Seed and Beta Need. There are only two types of men in the global sexual marketplace: the man women wish to reproduce with and the men women wish to be the provider of their security with. As social media and a feminine-primary social consciousness expands this distinction between Cad and Dad becomes more defined. In response to this reproductive reality men willingly settle into these roles as an adaptive sexual strategy.

Strategic Pluralism Theory

According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.

From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits. Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues. Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). The most straightforward prediction that follows is that women seeking short-term mates, when the man’s only contribution to offspring is genetic, should prefer muscularity more than women seeking long-term mates.

from Why Is Muscularity Sexy? Tests of the Fitness Indicator Hypothesis

Men today are adapting to the New Polyandry by adopting the role and the rewards inherent in accepting themselves as either breeder or provider male.

This is the new Beta Game then; forgive and absolve a single mother of her sexual strategy and the consequences of it if it means a higher likelihood of reproducing with her in the future. The price for potentially siring offspring with a single mother is assuming the parental investment responsibilities of a (Alpha) man who can exercise his own sexual strategy successfully. For some men this entails the risk of never passing on his genes to the next generation. It means the man we are supposed to hate on Fathers Day will have his genetic legacy ensured by the same Beta males who vilify him at the expense of their own reproduction.

When I’ve made these ugly facts apparent to men and women on Twitter I’m told how callous I am for viewing things so viscerally. “I think it’s noble for a guy to adopt a single mother’s children” is the basic idea. But why do we believe this is a noble, humane, act on the part of a man?

Just 60 years ago single mothers were to be avoided. Providing for ‘bastard’ children was a shame until the Brady Bunch made the idea a bit more popular. Now we hold up being a supportive step-dad above the status of an actual biological father. Why?

Because our social order has successfully convince 2-3 generations (in only 60 years) that fulfilling a woman’s sexual imperatives is the highest good a man can do in his life.

This is one example of how our feminine-primary social order effects women’s sexual strategy (and life strategies) in a societal scope. Mothers provide sexual access to the Beta Provider who completes her reproductive imperatives sometimes at the cost of his own reproductive interests.

In the next essay in this series I’ll be exploring another “new” social convention that effects women’s reproductive imperatives.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

236 comments on “The New Paternity

  1. Great as always Rollo. It is this same uncomfortable truth that unplugged me when I read your first book.

    Essentially as I now look at the world through a RP lens your continued lessons assist me to avoid dangers to not only my sexual strategy but also real dangers like std’s and cuckoldry. My present resources are largely due to you, Rich Cooper and that red cap wearing assh*le as that’s were I first came across your work.

    May each man in this space only focus on propagating his genetic material into the future.

  2. I have to admit I found nothing in this piece to be even mildly upsetting, though I have no doubt a few years ago it would have.

    It’s interesting that women, in their attempt to solidify their K-inclined strategy are inadvertently rewarding males with a predeliction for a rampant R-type behaviour. I hope I have that right. If only the bastards pass on their genes though, eventually we’ll run out of ‘heroes’ to be able to brainwash won’t we? Or are they already superfluous as the state steps in as big daddy? What next then, the Congo? Are women capable of collectively recognising this or must the idea of genetically rewarding men with a predeliction for K-behaviour always be imposed upon them so that civilisation may continue to exist? Does k-selected civilisation always have a competitive edge long term against r-selected (short-term genetically successful) cultural savagery?

  3. @Rollo: nice essay, timely.

    I agree with Dyonisus, this is not upsetting for those of us who already digested your previous work concerning this.

    I still remember very well getting upset when I read “Saving the best” a few years ago!

  4. Having stumbled upon The Rational Male website – either by providence or mere happenstance, I cannot say – only moments ago; if this article is any indication of the level of discourse commonly found on the site, then my stumble was a serendipitous one, to be sure.

    Having said that, I tend to agree with the sentiment expressed by an earlier comment in that, while I would describe the article as informative, I didn’t find it all that provocative. I should think the claim that men and women have competing sexual strategies is true enough on the face of it. Having no more than a cursory understanding of evolutionary biology in conjunction with even a tenuous commitment to truth should, one would think, be sufficient to persuade most anyone of the veracity of such a claim. And yet, on reflection, given the weak excess of sensibility currently vitiating our social enterprise, it’s possible I’ve been overly generous in my assumptions on the proliferation of latter prerequisites. Rarely, does a week go by that I don’t question if we’ve arrived at a state where “common” sense could legitimately be considered a misnomer.

    Semantic intuitions aside, I hope to find this article to be a representative sample; if so, I’ll be sure to bookmark The Rational Male.

  5. “Bleeding value”…I think I read that here somewhere.

    One critical thing to always recall when you’re talking to a woman…if at any point you’re getting the brush off disappear otherwise you’re bleeding value.

  6. If

    “For most of a woman’s life she is the sexual selector while the male is the performer.”

    is true, then how can Preselection also be true, because Preselection assumes that women are competing for top men? We can observe women competing for top men (so we have empirical evidence for that statement), but the assertion

    “For most of a woman’s life she is the sexual selector while the male is the performer.”

    is purely theoretical.

  7. If only the bastards pass on their genes though, eventually we’ll run out of ‘heroes’ to be able to brainwash won’t we? Or are they already superfluous as the state steps in as big daddy? What next then, the Congo? Are women capable of collectively recognising this or must the idea of genetically rewarding men with a predeliction for K-behaviour always be imposed upon them so that civilisation may continue to exist?

    This is often misunderstood.

    The beta males get laid. They also have kids. The wife, if she’s a baby momma, may come along effectively pre-cucking the beta, but she often has 1-2 kids with the beta as well. It’s as Rollo says — the betas are using their willingness to provide for the alpha spawn as currency to gain sexual and reproductive access, on a “seconds” basis, to the same women. The sex is transactional and not desire sex, to be sure, but it’s also happening. It’s not like the guys who marry baby mommas are completely frozen out of all sex and reproduction — they’re just enabling the dual strategy of women by using their willingness to provide money and parenting resources to the alpha’s child as currency to get the woman to provide sex and womb access to them.

    1. @Nova, “pre-cucking” begins early in a young man’s life, even his boyhood. I’ll be getting into this in part two. Socialized feminism want’s “good humans” not “boys will be boys”, this is the manifestation of the pre-cuckolding. It lays the groundwork early so a suitable Beta step-father will be primed to assume his role as parental investment / provider male when a woman has completed her biological imperatives with a breeding male.

  8. There has to be some dualism on the male side as well. I say this because while it’s easy to accept that male sexual strategies are more r-selected, individual men do not fare as well in a sexual marketplace that is r-selected, and in fact have a much better chance at guaranteeing paternity in a small village than in a 10-million-plus city or globally-connected-SMP. It seems on the male side of things we seek variety because our nature tells us so, but that variety can’t guarantee us paternity like enforced monogamy does.

    1. @Jeremy, Promiscuity actually addresses this. Men will mate guard more when they have more of their reproductive energies invested in one woman. This dovetails perfectly with Strategic Pluralism Theory. Men who can mate more frequently use this as their reproductive strategy while those who can’t have to look for insurances against the ones who can.

  9. Thanks again, Rollo.

    I’m dealing with my children’s mother alienating me and having to listen to my daughters tell me I’m unnecessary and unwanted and that they have other father figures. It hurts like hell.

    Your work never fails to broaden my perspective on these things and calm me.

    Game saves lives, and so does your writing.

  10. I would be interested in an exploration of how male aging impacts movements through the sexual marketplace. If you’re over 35, whichever sexual strategy you use, you’re going to have access to (a) young women who can be somewhat of a challenge to find interesting; or (b) older women who almost assuredly have another man’s child. It strikes me that whether you style your presentation as either AF or BB, past a certain age you might be zeroed out simply because of the available supply of women.

  11. Dear Rollo

    As a male psychotherapists and a marriage and family therapist I want to thank you for your immensely huge contribution to the wisdom and depth of my understanding of the alpha/beta dynamics. I am also married for 40 years and I wish I knew more about these issues 42 years ago. I was also a professional musician and blind at best but stupid for sure being a beta male. I can remember my learnings from reading all your books and talking to my Mens group. And my panic and anger.
    Thank you Sir from the bottom of my heart
    Janos

    [Thanks Janos, I’m glad you could benefit from what I do]

  12. OT, but interesting…
    If you know who Tim Pool is, you’ll appreciate this. For those that don’t, he’s a left-leaning moderate free lance journalist who is quite blue pill in his views (I’ve watched him a lot in the past two years).
    Watch this recent clip of him…
    https://youtu.be/8OsMdBfrmto?t=409

  13. “Providing for ‘bastard’ children was a shame until the Brady Bunch made the idea a bit more popular. Now we hold up being a supportive step-dad above the status of an actual biological father. Why?”

    Brady Bunch was about 2 people with 3 kids each already whose spouses died who got married and blended their families. It was possible to see it as an improvement for all the kids as they now had both a father and a mother again. It was not like Mrs Brady had 6 kids by 6 different men and Mr Brady was taking on the responsibility of paying for them all, like a chump.

    But nevertheless your underlying point is still moot, as it were. It is taken for granted that the Beta will take on the responsibility of paying for the bastard children of the so-called “Alpha’s,” whether directly by cohabitation or indirectly through paying taxes to fund welfare benefits.

    And the world wonders why some men go MGTOW, and a few go all the way Galt. Frankly the whole scene makes me violently ill.

  14. https://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4548-going-galt
    “”Going Galt” doesn’t simply mean getting angry. That would be “Going Postal.” It means having righteous indignation at the injustice of a political system that bails out individuals and institutions for irresponsible behavior and at the expense of those like you who prosper through hard work and personal responsibly.”

    Dumb here!

    “It is taken for granted that the Beta will take on the responsibility of paying for the bastard children of the so-called “Alpha’s,” whether directly by cohabitation or indirectly through paying taxes to fund welfare benefits.”

    How about both,not only does the beta bring home the bacon he brings home what is left of the bacon after he contributes to the SS. The harder he works the more he contributes and the better chance he has of getting cucked again.

  15. this has been going on for decades in the black community… where out of wedlock birth rates are over 70%.

    the women have all the kids they want by the men they believe are alpha… usually rude boys, thugs, idiots etc that only look alpha (to them).

    they have all their kids with no regrets… wait for their beta… complain when he doesn’t show up… then get bitter and angry. then to feel like women, go right back to the type of guy that made their kids.

    the beta prince never shows… they never finish their fairy tale: it’s a lot of alpha fucking. pause. then they look for beta providers. they NEVER look for this in one man! this is why they’re so angry & bitter and why (sane) men avoid them at all costs… except to get off.

    so they’re stuck with their kids and some loser “man” they can control… just to say they have a man. it’s fucking sad and exists heavy in my own family. IT’S THE SAME SHIT OVER & OVER!

    ugh.

  16. Max

    😐

    Not ” forever “, only the last 25 years plus.

    Not ” the black community “, but a subset.

    Unfortunately that subset gets an inordinate amount of attention, mostly for political reasons.

    The mechanisms are the thing underlying the behaviors. Big daddy gov’t stepping in as ” provider ” and ” protector “. Absolution of responsibility for all parties involved.

    Canary in the coal mine.

  17. sigh

    Jeremy

    I’m 58 this year. I know what I’m talking about in this subject from first hand, up close , lifetime experiences.

    There’s more than one red pill my friend.

    Study, schmudy.

    Subset of 42-43 million.

  18. @Blax

    Only a fool would try to keep someone from scoffing at data over the internet. But you should know that the plural of anecdote is never data.

  19. 😂

    Well. That went as expected.

    I read that article. Social scientists struggling to understand…. It’s not hard if you ” see ” it. The conclusions drawn from data are what’s misleading. Data can be I interpreted almost any way one chooses, depending on what they ” want ” to believe for whatever reasons they want to believe it.

    All.else is ” anecdote “.

    Nah, you gotta think.

    In the current gynocracy, ” men ” are the problem. We have more than ” anecdote ” pointing to the contrary. They have data as well, but it’s the interpretation.

    But whatever.

    Carry on.

  20. Lawdog

    Part of the issue is The false expectation ” find interesting”…

    If they are young and hot at all your sick will provide you with all the interest you need.

    You simply aren’t going to find a unicorn to discuss philosophy, history, science, art etc. With.

    Do that with male buddies or interest groups. Enjoy her for what she can bring – pleasantness, good nature, some humour (often unintentional), sandwiches, sex and Feminine Energy, which is very important to compliment your masculine energy.

    Then you can relax and enjoy her for what she can do and not get mad your cat won’t hunt with you.

  21. ” . . . it’s pulling threads for me that I didn’t even know needed unraveling.”

    In order to understand the Red Pill you must understand general biology and zoology.

    ” . . . enough to get me into trouble with people who’d rather not think about such things.”

    I think the maddest Scray ever got at me was when I showed that a behavior was general across the animal kingdom, particularly when i showed it in our most “primitive” primate relative, suggesting that the behavior was already established in our ancient common ancestor.

    “We’re talking about PEOPLE! Not lemurs.”

    For some (many atheists among them) people aren’t just a special creation, they’re a special special creation, distinct from everything else in the universe.

  22. Nature is cold and ruthless when it comes to reproduction, human reproduction is no exception. Rollo’s essay carries with it some pretty heavy implications. As has been pointed out before, monogamy is a male institution masquerading as a female institution, it ensures some level of paternity and stable bonds and expectations in order to arrive at a semblance of order among males in a community, it’s a tradeoff for order/security/reduced violance among males while at the same time providing sex at a limited scale to a majority of males, it’s a check/taming of nature invented by man that most likely allowed for the rise of civilization. This area yet again is not really about women but about a male structure to reduce intra/extra tribal violence.

    We are witnessing the wholesale destruction of monogamy and indirectly the family unit. You can see the beginnings of the violence with the mass shootings by kids without a dad among whites. We see the black community in certain sectors/areas of the U.S begin to disintegrate as a stable social unit now that the family unit is absent. This is not a race issue as the black community in certain areas of the U.S remains solid/stable(the american south is one example), so it is not a race question, it’s a question of pressure brought to bear on certain sectors/areas. Any race is vulnerable to this, the Hispanic community is beginning to face headwinds among the current 18-30 generation, the number of single moms in the community is pretty high, I suspect the numbers in time will exceed that of the black community. This however doesn’t negate that the current inner city black community is the canary in the coal mine, and a picture of a possible future.

  23. “If they get to 40, and don’t have kids, then my experience is they’re batshit crazy.”

    Even if they have a trophy child, they tend to be crazy. Two or more kids–more likely to be normal.

    Rollo’s cocksuckers who sit in the peanut gallery don’t know science from shinola. I’ve done science and I’ve done philosophy of science (which means that I’ve been published). Leading edge physics. Demarcation Theory.

    You don’t like me, fine, idgas. You don’t like my red pill truth, such a surprise! Funny how no one can answer my point which questions Rollo’s theory, isn’t it?

  24. “Then you can relax and enjoy her for what she can do and not get mad your cat won’t hunt with you.”

    Dogs will hunt cooperatively with me, even to the point of doing so on command.

    Cats will hunt independently, but in a way that is mutually beneficial if placed in the right environment.

  25. “Does k-selected civilisation always have a competitive edge long term against r-selected (short-term genetically successful) cultural savagery?”

    K- selected only has a advantage on ‘civilization building’……..however natural selection doesn’t give a rat’s ass about civilization since civilization is only maybe 5k-10k years old.

    Natural selection only cares about propagation of the genes. Nothing else. So, r selection is the winner by far…..not only in the past, but presently and in the future. As we speak, k selected societies are having demographic short falls.

  26. K-selection’s advantage is to predators. The more we live like prairie dogs the more we will become them.

    Until the industrial revolution even the most advanced civilizations had a rural population (more K-selected) of about 90%. In the US the urban population (more r-selected) exceeded the rural for the first time in the wake of WWI.

  27. “monogamy is a male institution masquerading as a female institution, it ensures some level of paternity and stable bonds”

    Hmm. Almost. Ancients figured out that to create and raise civilization u needed enforced mornogamy as a tool of eugenics…….to stabilize the alpha/beta ratio in favor of betas. Betas become the laborers, engineers, priests, bureacrats, farmers, taxpayers,.

    So men (betas) creates monogamy for everyone’s benefit. Everyone gets most of what they want…….most.

  28. “most advanced civilizations had a rural population (more K-selected) of about 90%. ….”

    As i said, natural selection doesn’t care about ‘civilization’…..only reproduction.

  29. foxguy, you are so full of bullshit, it’s hard to know where to begin…

    …whites are the canary in the coal mine when it comes to reproduction…been that way for 20 years…only showed up in the black community in the last 10 years…

    …we know why reproduction is down–women are putting off having kids because of higher education, abortion, pursuing a career, and to a small degree because of an increase in STDs…in a word, feminism…has nothing to do with the FI…

    …the FI tests men by pushing men to be committed to women while women are cheating on men…

    …both the FI and feminism push for providing for single mommies…

    …both the FI and feminism push for accusing men of violence against women…

    …the marriage rate is down, but so is the divorce rate…

    …divorce is highest among lower middle class/poor/wealthy and lowest among upper middle class…

    …we know who is pushing feminism–it’s liberals, both dems and rino’s…has zip to do with the FI…

  30. 😂

    As usual asd your lack of broader, long term life experiences is pretty astounding. It makes the uninformed conclusions you form ( along with the attending explanations) truly entertaining.

    Somewhat.

    But I still luvs ya.

    And in solidarity, maybe I’ll opine in depth about Polynesian society….once I read a few ” studies “.

  31. Re “natural selection”:

    Civilization/war selects entire people groups. The mongols and the Huns had superior tactics and destroyed many cities and people groups. Likewise the Romans. Likewise Alexander the Great. Likewise the Jews vs. the Amalekites. Likewise many tribes in Africa destroying other tribes (google “genocide in Africa”).

    There have been some interesting papers about how natural selection has more to do with luck than with biology. Excluding bacteria, which can survive massively toxic environments and destruction of 99% of their population. Vertebrates, not so much.

    Question about hunter-gatherers and mammoths:

    How did people dig pits without shovels? google “metallurgy native america” sometime

  32. “…we know who is pushing feminism–it’s liberals, both dems and rino’s…has zip to do with the FI…”

    And who are the “liberals”? See the combined effect of urbanization and universal suffrage.

    The evidence is that from the outset urbanization was driven by female preference. Women left hunter-gatherer men to take up with farming men, but did not do so the other way around. Men build civilization, but they do it for women.

    I’ll say it again, no man would even conceive of building a neo-Queen Anne mansion on his own. It’s a pure sexual attractor, the human peacock’s tail. Men want hunting camps.

  33. ” . . . natural selection has more to do with luck than with biology.”

    There is a certain bias toward some sort of Lamarkian “striving for a higher purpose” in that phraseology.

    Biology is reactive, forming to fit the mold of the environment. There is a game of odds in that. Sexual reproduction tends to increase the odds, although it can also temporarily increase survival rate by backing a species into an unsurvivable corner.

    See the Giant Panda.

  34. @SP – Contrary to some of the mythology you’ll be fed in the manosphere, family court is not all opposed and always hostile to male parental rights. In some cases yes, but in many other cases they advocate for a father’s rights. You daughters saying they have a father figure is prima facie evidence of “custodial interference”. As the custodial parent, she has the responsibility to not denigrate your parenting role. I don’t know what state you are in, but I’d record as many of these statements by your kids as possible and then get a lawyer. You may be able to get 50/50 custody, and she will be under legal penalty is she continues. It may or may not be successful but you do have recourse in at least some states when a custodial parent does this.

    What you don’t do is make a scene with her or the kids about it. Sorry to hear about this, I know how heartbraking being a non-custodial Dad can be, trust me. But you can get through this. Don’t let it shame you!!!

  35. “Women are far more promiscuous than most men would idealistically like to believe.”

    yes. the best is when they talk about the stuff they did with girls in jh. good stone age stuff as 2-3 girls want to be sharing the guy. nothing changes with them. they just hide it and “forget”.

    me: so you want boston to win?

    hawks fan: no way. i hate st. louis way way way more mf!!!

    me: so you despise st. louis and want them to win the cup?

    hawks fan: yeah. that way the cap will fuck up their lines and hawks will have better chance in division next year

    me: games are fun

    GAME is fun. women are perfect as they are because just be a man and it’s all yours. the fucked up thing about the strategy adjustment stuff is that ultimately men can run game that female brain cannot resist at certain level so while they have bodies and energy men cannot resist at a certain level our game has wider application, longer potential timespan, better potential for long term outcomes and is more fun. men game is stronger overall and top men are irresistible to women in a way women can never be to men

    while total cost of all human eggs on earth is more expensive than total cost of all human sperm, eggs cluster closer to average in terms of overall human potential of that egg while sperm is the big fun gamble

    best gamble sperm is far more rare than average eggs (80/20 moves to 90/10 in real time lol). and then exceptional eggs rarer than best sperm hence female in the end is chooser

    if you have the goods women give you help and pussy access everywhere you go. game helps so much especially to help you limit your stupid mistakes which allows for max attention on all fitness traits, subcomms and game you got. getting out of your own way make a huge difference and let them fill in so many more “blanks” lol

  36. @Novaseeker:


    “(…) betas are using their willingness to provide for the alpha spawn as currency to gain sexual and reproductive access, on a “seconds” basis, to the same women. The sex is transactional and not desire sex, to be sure, but it’s also happening. It’s not like the guys who marry baby mommas are completely frozen out of all sex and reproduction — they’re just enabling the dual strategy of women by using their willingness to provide money and parenting resources to the alpha’s child as currency to get the woman to provide sex and womb access to them.”

    Recently I saw (I think it was retweeted by Rollo) a couple of videos where one such beta was crying at the door of an abortion clinic because “his” baby momma (inside) was going to abort his kid, at the instigation of the alpha ex (with whom she had a kid or kids, prior to the beta).

    Quite chilling.

  37. “It lays the groundwork early so a suitable Beta step-father will be primed to assume his role as parental investment / provider male . . .”

    Next step: keeping the Beta providers orbiting around the house, not in it.

  38. @asd: “There have been some interesting papers about how natural selection has more to do with luck than with biology”

    Natural selection is survival via biology through luck. That’s the whole point. It’s shotgunning a whole bunch of different darts at a dartboard over and over and seeing which ones hit closest to the bullseye, even if the board moves over time.

  39. “best gamble sperm is far more rare than average eggs (80/20 moves to 90/10 in real time lol). and then exceptional eggs rarer than best sperm hence female in the end is chooser”

    IDK. I would say that once you get to into the 2 to 3 SD outlier males, their sperm becomes more valuable than even the very best eggs. Being in possession of high quality baby batter is a VERY valuable position since it can be used to inseminate MANY females at basically no cost. There is a reason that owners of mares pay a stud fee to the owners of top thoroughbred studs to inseminate their mares.

    Here is a human thoroughbred that makes the point:

    https://people.com/sports/usain-bolt-parties-with-10-women-in-london-after-rio-olympics/

    My guess is that Usain is the chooser in basically every relationship he has with women.

    His longtime GF Kasi Bennett aint goin’ nowhere no matter how much he cheats. Better to share the human Secretariat than have 100% of a future glue factory champion.

  40. Coming through load and clear on the issue of beta male white knight without kids bailing out single mom for her previous bad decisions. Its often the easiest way for beta male to date more attractive women than her normally could, I get that.

    But what about in the case of single dad wifing up single mom? Also what about the case of wifing up single mom with only one child from previous marriage, and then having one new child with her together?

    Questions are hypothetical. Never been married and don’t have kids. Not sure I have the paternalistic instinct. I don’t dislike children, but I don’t get all warm and fuzzy about them like I know other people do. Don’t personlize response and try to make it about me or my ego investment.

  41. @Rollo
    “Men who can mate more frequently use this as their reproductive strategy while those who can’t have to look for insurances against the ones who can.”

    So would I be left to conclude that the fact that modern women can get away with even attempting to satisfy their duality is proof of the gynocentrism that dominates the west? Clearly no one in the west would accept a man who sleeps with thousands of women and mate-guards all of them. Conversely, western cultures seem to take the notion of female promiscuity, even and perhaps especially while married, as “just another lifestyle choice for her that the men should support.”

  42. ” . . . what about the case of wifing up single mom with only one child from previous marriage . . .”

    Drive it into the wilderness and you’re good to go. Although if it manages to survive somehow it’s descendants could be a pain in the ass to your descendants.

  43. Natural selection is mostly a tautology, especially when applied to vertebrates. The wildebeest that was unlucky enough to be the deepest in sleep when the lions stampede the herd at night is the most confused and becomes lion dinner. Total luck and no genetic selection, except what biologists impose ex post facto.

    It’s extremely difficult to do biology without some kind of lamarckianism. And, surprisingly, lamarck wasn’t totally wrong. Species are impacted by their environment because the environment can impact a species’ genetic expression by causing the body to methylate its genes.

    Science is extremely difficult to do well…biology is harder than physics because you have less control over experimental parameters and more parameters to deal with, which is one reason that I went into physics. Otoh, biologists are capable of cooking up stories that sound every bit as plausible as the stories that any physicist ever cooked up.

    Science is all about reason, except when it’s about stubbornness, politics, dreams, envy, money, etc. Some wag said, “Science advances one funeral at a time.”

    Rollo, thanks. You know that I like your work even when I disagree. Right?

  44. Next step: keeping the Beta providers orbiting around the house, not in it.

    Or you could just promote “consensual non-monogamy” in marriages (the trial balloon articles on this have been floated the last few years in the mainstream media), and make accepting this part of the pre-cucking/socialization program for natural betas. Then you have the full-on FI institutionally locked in — marriages with full beta provider/parental investment coupled with full alpha sex access for the wife, all covered by the “theory of equality” which pretends that the beta pre-cuck actually has anything available to him outside his cuck marriage.

    Everytime you see this consensual non-monogamy meme come up in the MSM, remember that it is coming up because it favors the FI, plain and simple.

  45. Whoever has the greater number of options is the chooser. When it comes to betas, women have more choice than betas and women get to choose. However, when it comes to alphas, women have less choice than alphas and alphas get to choose.

    Since there is wide disparity in choice between alphas and betas, it makes no sense to lump them together as “men” and say that women get to choose and men do not.

  46. But what about in the case of single dad wifing up single mom? Also what about the case of wifing up single mom with only one child from previous marriage, and then having one new child with her together?

    Same as you said in the prior graph — access. The willingness to step in and play the role of father to the other man’s kids is currency, even if he is bringing his own kid or having his own kid with the baby momma. He’s still playing a provider role for the alpha kid, who probably has the better genes, so it’s still currency that gives him access in a transactional marriage decision.

  47. “Or you could just promote “consensual non-monogamy” . . .”

    That’s not an alternative, it’s the mechanism. Whatever moves things toward keeping men from living in the house, but keeps them coming around to mow the lawn and clean the gutters for free.

    Men will be allowed into the house for sex. Alphas because the women desire it, often; Betas just enough, pseudo-randomly, to keep them feeling like they can “get lucky” if they just keep hanging around and mowing the lawn.

    See “Walking Marriage.”

  48. All of this fits in well with the female centric churches where single men are urged to wife up the “wonderful, wonderful” single mother / babymommas, especially the girls over 30. It is indeed AF – BB, and it’s got a Jesus fish stuck to it by Pastor BoomerDad so it must be all good.

  49. This showed up in comments at Dalrocks. The two millennials hem and haw and back and fill a lot, but the tweet that they are talking about is right on topic.

    I don’t see this Tweet anywhere around here, but I have not looked at Rollo’s Twitter feed for a few days, apologies if this is redundant.

    Millennials talking about AF-BB as “best friend”.

    https://youtu.be/xzfUwu0OlZk

  50. “concubines for $500 . . .”

    Monthly, given that room and board are provided as well, that seems like a reasonable deal for both parties. Give me the number of the agency.

  51. “Natural selection is survival via biology through luck.”

    Luck has as much to do with statistics of NS as shit with shinola.

    Been reading up on Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia related to one of Daughter Gamer’s patients who almost lost his leg because he kept throwing clots. Lucky for him, DG suspected the cause and stopped the heparin. Heparin is supposed to prevent clots, but it ain’t necessarily so.

  52. “In the US the urban population (more r-selected) exceeded the rural for the first time in the wake of WWI.”

    Funny how the relatively r-selected civilization has been kicking the ass of K-selected civilizations. Somehow r-selection perhaps benefits technology and economics, but I fail to see how that happens.

    Maybe GMO foods made ag so efficient in land use that more people could migrate to urban locations. Maybe r-selection is a byproduct of technology rather than the other way around. Throws a kink in evo-psych theory, don’t it?

  53. “Monthly, given that room and board are provided as well, that seems like a reasonable deal for both parties. Give me the number of the agency.”

    I don’t know the number, but I think there are agencies in Hollywood.

  54. “Luck has as much to do with statistics of NS as shit with shinola.”

    It’s built into the system. The random mutations that result from sexual reproduction and the shuffling of the genes and base pairs is the luck aspect. There is no denying this unless you utterly deny evolution even exists, in which case you wouldn’t even believe anything Rollo is saying, since it’s all grounded in evopsych. Natural selection itself is the process of the natural environment weeding out those randomized configurations of genes which don’t work/aren’t suited for that environment.

    The “statistics of NS” are determined not only by the environment itself but by the genetic configurations that best fit that environment, and such configurations are determined by random chance; i.e. luck. Claiming otherwise demonstrates an ignorance of the subject, to put it as diplomatically as I can.

  55. “Funny how the relatively r-selected civilization has been kicking the ass of K-selected civilizations.”

    Scale; there is power in raw numbers and K-selection works at its best in small groups with large territories.

    Spectrum; more/less isn’t all/none. There are K-selection attributes to cities (wealth and education) and r-selection attributes to the country (high infant mortality).

    Too much of either in a city causes problems.

    Time; things play out over generations. While things can turn in a couple of decades it’s more usual that they do so over a couple of centuries. A society that looks strong now can be already shot through with fatal rot. Rome fell. Civilization had to be built over. The dots in the yin-yang symbol are symbolic of each force at its maximum producing the seed of the opposite force. The power of a city generates the forces of its own destruction, but the destruction of the city generates the forces that destroy the countryside that overwhelmed it.

    And around we go.

  56. There’s a lot of weak beta men who don’t even sleep with single mom’s yet will be roommates with them, pay most the rent, drive their kids to school in the morning, etc. All just to feel like they are “good men”… Trained by their non existent fathers and feminized by mom.

  57. Going one more step down Obvious Avenue, if “Dad” is defined as “the man who is caring for a child the bestest”, who gets to define what is “bestest”?

    Why Mom, of course. So the Man Card and the Dad Card are issued and revoked by whim. Sure, it’s been that way for a while, thanks to no men’s fault divorce, this is a step further out. Or down…

  58. Natural selection itself is the process of the natural environment weeding out those randomized configurations of genes which don’t work/aren’t suited for that environment.

    What about unnatural selection? How does that work?

    Are all dogs the same?

  59. ” . . . such configurations are determined by random chance . . .”

    There is a random element to it, but like a Tinkertoy set, over time, some configurations are forbidden and some are inevitable.

    Deal often enough and you will get a royal flush due to the inherent nature of the cards. Expecting a royal flush from a pair of dice is nonsensical.

    This is why the “it couldn’t happen just by chance” argument fails. It doesn’t happen just by chance. The random forces are acting on a fixed set of combinatory rules.

    Benzene is what carbon and hydrogen do.

  60. Rome, as civilizations typically do, die at the hands of r selected peoples………….

    “Civilization” is possible only by stabilizing the alpha/beta ratio in favor of the betas so they 1. Exist and arent killed 2. That they contribute their skills to civilization building 3. They pay their surplus (tax) to central authority 4. They rear the youth to suppress alpha traits and be more beta.
    In civilization, excess alphas are used to man the military, police, or are exiled/killed/jailed. Enforced monogamy suppresses the most destructive aspect hypergamy and offers a bribe to betas (a guaranteed wife and kids) and wards off alphas…forcing them to betaize themselves.

    So, liberated women….i.e. women with unrestricted hypergamy will eventually lead to the failure of the civilization itself….it will be weakened to the point where its taken over by a more r selected group.

    Women entering politics is a disaster. There is a reason most societies prevented it. Women will instinctually push for pro hypergamy policies which would undermine the civilization itself.

    Proof. Andrea Merkel of Germany opened the heartland of civilized Europe to uncivilized Africans and Asiatics……..

    She claims she did it for ‘humanitarian reasons’… ….Evo Psych and FI reveal that she did it as an expression of her Hypergamy. She wants to see, be around, and fucked by ALPHAS. The average German is decidedly beta.

    Women have little understanding of this. That is why they always vote for socialistic policies. They want their provision assured so that they are free to dispense with betas and can go and fuck alphas.

    Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is a text book example. All of the blabbing she does all come down to one thing….deep down she just wants an alpha to tell her to shut the fuck up, who will then bend her over and impregnate her.

  61. @anon reader: that’s called “artificial selection,” and it works the same way. Instead of a natural environment selecting for certain traits, it was man himself choosing to breed male dog A with female dog B because both had the same trait desired in the canine. It’s just a change in relative probabilities with the determining factors being altered. In fact, it’s possible for evolution to occur without a selection pressure at ALL, which is known as “genetic drift,” you might want to look that up, it’s pretty interesting stuff.

    @kfg: you’re exactly correct. The whole “life couldn’t have just happened by random chance” arguments are strawmen, in addition to being irrelevant (evolutionary theory is completely independent of the origin of life; the two are related, but one is not dependent on the other). When I say there’s luck involved in evolution I’m not saying it’s only down to luck; that would be impossible, you wouldn’t even be able to form any coherent cells, the genetic code would be a jumbled mess of gibberish. There needs to be order and control somewhere, somehow, along the line, or it would all just be genetic chaos. We all generally have the same number of chromosomes in the same order, after all.

  62. Youngmaster

    @anon reader: that’s called “artificial selection,” and it works the same way. Instead of a natural environment selecting for certain traits, it was man himself choosing to breed male dog A with female dog B because both had the same trait desired in the canine

    Dude, where’s my randomness? Where’s the “luck”?

  63. It’s right where it always was. You are fundamentally not comprehending this.

    Artificial selection doesn’t change how evolution works. It only changes the selection pressure to be that for which you’re attempting to control. Say you want a dog breed with long legs. If you have male dog A and female dog B in your gene pool, and they have the longest legs of all the males and females respectively, you breed them, HOPING that the result is a litter with long legs. Is every pup going to have genes expressed as “long legs”? No. Why? Because LUCK. In fact, there may be no physical appearance of change in leg length at all compared to the norm if the gene is recessive, and there may not even be any change in the genotype with respect to the formation of the legs whatsoever. But if you keep breeding long legged dogs in your gene pool, eventually you will have developed a breed with long legs. How long that takes is totally out of your control because of randomness of genetic shuffling. And remember, even if you successfully do this, you haven’t been controlling for the other randomized gene configurations, which means your long legged dog breed might now have any number of positive or negative traits, again, because of randomness.

    The luck aspect hasn’t gone anywhere. If the wind pushes a ball off a cliff, it’s not much different from me pushing a ball off a cliff; gravity is still gravity, and ultimately where the ball ends up is luck. But I can myself increase the chances of the ball ending up somewhere specific. In order to remove luck/randomness from the formation of an organism entirely, you’d need to genetically engineer every base pair from the ground up, which is as close to impossible as it is to control the path of a stone from the moon to my house down to the exact nanometer. And do that every single generation.

  64. Tomassi: For most of a woman’s life she is the sexual selector while the male is the performer.
    Cooper: “women don’t care about your struggles, they hang out at the finish line and pick the winners”

    What an excellent triangulation. If you cannot see both landmarks you’ve wandered off the RP bearing.

  65. It’s right where it always was. You are fundamentally not comprehending this.

    Really? How do you know that?

    Artificial selection doesn’t change how evolution works. It only changes the selection pressure to be that for which you’re attempting to control.

    Your claim is that selection is all about “luck”. There’s a certain breed of sheepdog that never bites sheep. They never bite sheep because for a couple of centuries any dog of that breed that did bite sheep was killed. This is not a random event. This is deliberate. It’s also still practiced today.

    I guess you could say that’s “bad luck” for the dog in question….but that would be an evasion.

    Frankly not sure what your point is, but you might need to read beyond the Wikipedia / high school biology level. Just a suggestion.

  66. “It’s built into the system. The random mutations that result from sexual reproduction and the shuffling of the genes and base pairs is the luck aspect.”

    …not even wrong…

  67. “Rome fell. Civilization had to be built over.”

    Wtf history have you been reading? Rome morphed into the Holy Roman Empire. There was no rebuilding of civilization.

  68. “They never bite sheep because for a couple of centuries any dog of that breed that did bite sheep was killed.”

    More like peaceful shepherds were allowed to breed and the hostile ones weren’t, but I’m being spergy about dog breeding. hehe

  69. “Really? How do you know that?”

    …because you just directly and intentionally implied that artificial selection means there’s no luck or randomness involved in reproduction when that’s in effect. That was the entire point of you saying “where’s the luck?” And this implication is outright wrong. That’s how I know that. It doesn’t matter if I’m driving the car or you’re driving the car, the way the engine works and the tires turn and the car moves all remain the same.

    “Your claim is that selection is all about “luck”.”

    No, that is not my claim. Again, your comprehension is trash, and proof to the contrary of the above quote can be seen in just the last three posts I’ve made. You wouldn’t have made such an error if you read them through. The point was that luck is a factor, and plays a huge role. I haven’t contradicted myself nor have you refuted anything I’ve said. To make an even simpler braindead analogy for you, you can try to control the kinds of cards in a deck, but you can’t control how a randomly drawn hand comes out of that deck. You can only influence the probability of getting a certain hand by changing the cards in the deck. The luck is still there.

    “but you might need to read beyond the Wikipedia / high school biology level. Just a suggestion.”

    I have a literal degree in biology and every single thing I’ve said has been strictly from memory. You may wish to fact check my statements and verify them; I’m confident in my position. And I am not surprised in the slightest that you don’t know what my point is.

  70. “Rome morphed into the Holy Roman Empire.”

    The Holy Roman Empire was founded a few centuries into the rebuilding by a Frank (i.e. German) lording over France. Much of what is now Italy was still the Kingdom of the Eastern Goths (Oster Reich, more Germans), although the Lombards (yet more Germans) had moved in.

    The Holy Roman Empire was not Roman, was nominally Holy, but it did establish an empire for a time, until Chucky went all King Lear.

  71. Rollo talks about the millions of sperm in each ejaculation and nobody but me notices that men have the unique capacity to create massive possibilities of genetic combinations and genetic mutations.

    “Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap” is irrelevant as regards mate choice (unless you are spergy about numbers, hehe) but it is important as regards increasing genetic options for the human race. From an evolutionary point of view, men having large numbers of sperm increases the survivability of the human gene pool.

    If you want to move beyond introductory biology, google “cooperative evolution” and “gene methylation”.

    Let’s suppose that a lion mates and produces a lion cub with superior genetics that will manifest after the cub matures. However, after the cub is born, another lion wins the pride and kills all the cubs. There, luck kills off superior genes and it has nothing to do with natural selection acting on superior genetics. Just dumb luck.

    NS and mutations are independent of each other and beneficial mutations don’t necessarily improve survivability.

    Evolution is a whole lot more than NS + mutations.

    Cooperative evolution and genetic methylation killed the idea that the selfish gene was the only force in evolution. So much for Dawkins.

  72. When it comes to Maternity Fraud, babies changed at birth, a mother can sue for millions and it’s the most terrible thing that can happen to a woman, to raise an offspring that’s not her genetic legacy, yet, a man must step up and be a slave when it comes to paternity fraud, and knowingly or unknowingly raise an offspring that’s not his genetic legacy for a stable provider is more important than a man’s need to determine the authenticity of his genetic legacy.

    There are enough movies made and novels written on the terrible trauma a mother goes through raising an offspring that’s not her’s unknowingly, and vice versa for men….hmmm.

    Welcome to Clown World, gentlemen. The line forms to the left. There are enough Jon Snows for us to be Net Stark. Shut up and get to work, slave. The ‘Real’ Slave. Bwahahahahaha

  73. Young
    “Really? How do you know that?”

    …because you just directly and intentionally implied that artificial selection means there’s no luck or randomness involved in reproduction when that’s in effect.

    Your problem with reading comprehension is not my problem.
    Your lack of knowledge is also not my problem.

  74. Youngmaster
    Natural selection is survival via biology through luck. That’s the whole point.

    Me
    “Your claim is that selection is all about “luck”.”

    Youngmaster
    No, that is not my claim.

    Ah. Thanks for clearing that up.

  75. “More like peaceful shepherds were allowed to breed and the hostile ones weren’t, but I’m being spergy about dog breeding.”

    These are rural working dogs. They were not kept as pets. There were no animal shelters or dog rescues. People didn’t think of dogs the way people today do and no resources were wasted on useless animals.

    The unwanted dogs were culled, i.e. not allowed to live, but I’m being spergy about animal husbandry.

  76. @Anon Reader

    “Ah. Thanks for clearing that up.”

    You’re welcome. I’ll reiterate: at no point have I contradicted myself. theasdgamer made a comment that to me was an implication claiming luck has nothing to do with natural selection, which is wrong. And I stated that natural selection is survival via biology through luck, which it is. This does NOT, nor did it ever, mean that luck is the only factor in natural selection or evolution, or that it is, as your strawman goes, “all about luck.” It plays a very important role, but never was it claimed it’s 100% luck or randomness. For the third time, your comprehension is utter trash, and you would be better served trying to think things through before striking the keyboard in the future.

    “Your problem with reading comprehension is not my problem. Your lack of knowledge is also not my problem.”

    No, your comprehension problem is your problem. “Lack of knowledge” isn’t an argument either, it’s an evasion, a distraction away from your ability to produce actual arguments, and you’ll note there is a conspicuous lack of any refutation of the biological mechanisms I’ve set out. You’re embarrassing yourself and all you can muster are insults now. Pretty clear we’re done here.

  77. All this talk of natural selection, r/K selection and such reminded me of my favorite modern day philosopher, Idiocracy. I mean the classic philosophers such as Plato and Marcus Aurelius are good, but this guy is a modern day genius.

    Here is the intro to a documentary on his works. Somehow it just resonates….

    https://youtu.be/YwZ0ZUy7P3E

  78. KFG-> Men want hunting camps.

    Wahoo the real red pill camp outs on your shoulder land sound enticing – if you do actually get it going I request you make sure ASDgamer and Scribs commit to being there and if you can get both ScribblerG and Blaximus at the same time, I’m in like flint too 🙂

  79. Centuries, you would be surprised at how well all three of these men would get along IRL.

    Of course each of them (Blax ,Scrib and ASD) would be asked to sit as chair for their own fire topic.

  80. Wahoo – I may need to bring many bags of marshmallows to roast and some beverages for the chaired sessions

  81. @Youngmaster

    Suggestion: drop the word “luck” for describing random processes. It is an ambiguous term.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: