Why do women have so high standards

>tfw feels so good to have kids with a woman you love
It really does make me think I am in the top 1%

I don't get this graph, how does the objective attractiveness get decided here?

explain congolese pygmies then

why did they evolve to be midgets instead of 6'3" chads?

that wasn't an answer and why are you getting mad?

so you're saying i come to your house and bash your face in, i can just blame it on biology?

Reminder you should not post that graph without the second part. Otherwise it's considered bait.

Attached: DcXX8meUQAAYQS8.png (858x374, 34K)

basically OP is saying it's okay for incels to shoot up everything because it's just biology.

>women don't into logics
MATH DOESN'T LIE, NORMIES

If you are a retarded criminal, you can blame whatever you want bro. Do you think anybody cares about you or something?
Women select the best men for the job

>more likely to reproduce = best

Attached: 1568210446514.jpg (570x587, 43K)

so we can just blame whatever we want on biology?
do you think you're making a point or something? because you're saying jack shit right now.

you're a faggot, guess it's just biology.

Correct, literally the definition of fitness. The nuance is in sustained reproduction and having beta cucks maybe help the rest of us with innovations and being the first to die in war

You are asking what I think you should do if you know you are mentally retarded. I say: I dont really care. Blaming biology or some other scapegoat wont change your mental retardation.

The OP is not worried about your mental retardation either. He is saying biology dictates attraction. The same reason you dont have sex with a 95 year old man is why women wont have sex with you, ever

lmgtfy.com/?q=what is the naturalistic fallacy

you have no idea what you're talking about except that you're gay and you blame biology for it.

Muh TOK.
Get a life. You overthink this shit

>You overthink this shit
>code for "I'm a brainlet who doesn't think about anything and your argument is hard for me so I'll just say you should'nt think about it"

Attached: 1563212523422.gif (287x206, 1.06M)

Us females got large variety of options these days. So out of 100 why not pick the best one?

Attached: konkonaaaahm.jpg (397x381, 47K)

damn you really got him bro. nah, youre just over thinking some gay shit lol.

>youre just over thinking some gay shit lol.
Oh god I've been demolished by your sheer intelligence.

Why don't you read the new book Blueprint by Robert Plomin? And The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker while you're at it?

oh god you're a gay nerd!!!

why don't you have sex? also, get a life.

>Biology advances itself. If the best men are reproducing then society improves
The "best" according to women isn't beneficial for a society.

Attached: (Megaloceros+giganteus).jpg (960x720, 77K)

>linking lmgtfy to a fallacy definition is a hard argument
yikes

it's objectively beneficial to about 70% of society.

>it's objectively beneficial to about 70% of society.
Nice figure you pulled out of your ass.

What makes women able to select the men that are the best for the advancement of the species? What if they aren't actually qualified to make that decision?

50% of society is women you retard.

Okay, take height for example. Taller people die earlier on average, have to deal with joint and back pain more, have a higher risk of diseases such as cancer, require more energy to stay alive. Just to name a few. If we were to go back to a hunter-gatherer society, natural selection were to take its course and women wouldnt be selecting for the tallest and most attractive men. They would be selecting any male that could keep them safe.

Most people desire chocolate more than vegetables, this does not make chocolate more beneficial to ones health. Our desires are based on our primitive past where circumstances were much different. The same is true for our sexual desires. What our sexual desires want today is not necessarily the most healthy for the civilized life we have now since those desires are adapted for a very different world.

Reminder women like niggers because they are stupid

Their lack of brain activity makes women think they are fun and confident. But really there's just nothing going on up there. Like a drunk person.

Women have bad taste for leading evolution

Yes it's impressive that he's so retarded that he thinks a high scool level fallacy argument is "overthinking"

The species advances by virtue of surviving through time. If your genes arent selected, they are definitively not valuable to society

>comparing mild joint pain with being childless incels who play minecraft all day
not sure where you're going with this. i'll take the mild joint pain.

Deferring to the definition of a type of fallacy when you are incapable of having an argument is definitely not overthinking, correct.

>not necessarily
only time will tell. most people who eat a lot of chocolate survive and have kids.

>If your genes arent selected, they are definitively not valuable to society
That would imply women are inherently selecting for traits that are valuable for society, but animals are not necessarily social animals. It's possible for a species to evolve to be less social, thus destroying society.

Are you allowed to date anyone if you don't have your money made, and a house, and a car, and your education all completed with your permanent job?

Attached: 1567651559108.jpg (581x637, 56K)

Circular reasoning. Google Fisherian Runaway, sexual selection does not actually work to the benefit of the species and often actually handicaps them. An obvious example: the plumage of the male peacock hinders its flight ability but the female peacocks select the males with the largest plumages. Your understanding of evolution is on the level of a 15 year old who read about Darwin for the first time in his life.

Attached: Peacock_Flying.jpg (2048x1147, 928K)

It's no one's fault, it's just a fact of life. Our society was built on restricting women, and has been for thousands of years. Liberating women is definitely just and a good thing to do, but we can't deny that it will have adverse effects (along with positive ones), especially on men.

>because biology
youtube.com/watch?v=cMJK7F3LH-I

I made it better

Irish elk was dope af

Attached: sexual selection.png (960x720, 193K)

Of course there's no reason not to. Only an idiot of a woman would settle for less if they're just looking for sex. We don't begrudge women for acting logically so much as we seek a new societal paradigm that encourages both men and women to pursue monogamy and chastity before marriage.

so all those hood rats and trailer trash are preferable genes for society? how dumb are you

Do you think it would be better for the peacock to select a male who is overweight, violent, and lazy? Humans are doing just fine little man. You are making arbitrary and fallacious assumptions about what is good for a species under evolution. There is only 1 qualifier. Reproductive fitness

Hey nigger, men arent 1% of the population. Sociopaths are, get your facts straight before you open your retard hole

Yes absolutely. When compared to incel genes, misogyny genes, transgender white male genes

Restricting women and murdering and enslaving weak men.

>writing misogynistic comments online or being a loser is somehow worse than regular assault, theft, and murder

look at all these future doctors

Attached: Family-waiting-for-housing-assistance.jpg (1263x1037, 367K)

How does writing blogs on the internet create a child? Thats right it doesnt

Strong dubs. Strong post.

>posts people with family values as a bad thing
Oh sorry mr goldstein

You're making my point for me. Being violent and criminal is less harmful to your reproductive chances than being a shutin loser, even though being violent and criminal does far more harm to society than being a shutin loser.

its free, swipe yo ebt

Attached: maxresdefault (96).jpg (1280x720, 152K)

do you have a point or are you just blabbering shit you know nothing about in circles? retard.

Actually spending 100% of your time blogging has a bigger impact on your chances of sex than spending 0.0005% of your time stealing, while spending 20-30% chasing women and developing social skills.

No lie. I wanna fuck that hog.

Shekelstein is really worried he wont have a new yacht tomorrow :(

oh its this idiot again

Then you don't got problem with me. I'm trad as heck.

>implying he's the one with the circular argument

What are you talking about? It would definitely be adaptively better for female peacocks to select males with small plumage that can fly and, you know, survive better. The plumage is used as an indicator of health, because only a healthy and competent peacock can grow such large feathers. The larger the feathers, the healthier it is likely to be. This health effect is further amplified because the plumage is actually a hinderance, so it's able to grow such feathers even while handicapped.

You can see this in humans too. Why do men like big tits, even though they actually cause back problems, don't provide any extra milk, and slow women down? The going theory today in evolutionary psych is that it's because big, symmetrical tits are harder to grow than small symmetrical ones. That is, they serve as an indicator of health and fitness, on both a genetic and nutritional level. That was fine as an indicator in the Stone Age, but today? It's a preference that actively hurts women, and drives them to do stupid shit like inject silicon into their bodies.

user was correct to call your reasoning circular. You're arguing that proliferation of traits determines which traits are best, and those traits are best because they are proliferated. That's absurd for animals, but it's even more absurd in humans.

A shut in loser is destructive in other ways but sure, if you think they should have kids, put them to the test. How many successful fathers never go outside?

>muh evo psych
>muh legitimate clinical retardation
Theoretical survival < Actual survival. If being a greasy Minecraft nerd means you dont have kids, end of story for any argument about those genes. Yeah maybe women should be even more selective, and maybe culture will shift again to tell them to be more selective or there will be consequences. Right now, fuck off with your peacock analogy and come back when you have a real argument

you sincerely sound like a complete moron and you are absolutely awful at this

>real men decided big boobies are better
>random dummy says small boobies are better
>small booby women go extinct
>random dummy still convinced that small is better because of some lame side effect
Oof. There are side effects to anything. Small tits can be seen as worse than having inverted tits because there is still chance for cancer. If it was better it would be better, not worse

Wow you must be so smart and experienced. Im guessing you have a few kids by now?

I'm going to explain this one last time to you:
A male peacock with normal plumage and few colors will survive far better than one with huge, brightly colored feathers. It can fly away from predators and hide better. The actual survival is better. Similarly, a woman with smaller tits can survive more easily than one with big tits, but we prefer the big tits all the same.

traits that are selected for =/= traits that help you survive

>If being a greasy Minecraft nerd means you dont have kids, end of story for any argument about those genes.
Greasy computer nerds have horrible traits and no one is saying women should reproduce with them over better partners. That's all you talking.

i have 2 kids with 2 different women
so using your own argument, i am a superior being than you because you're clearly a virgin

>still going on about some outlier example
Ok.
>greasy Minecraft nerds deserve to be virgins
Exactly

>only 2
>broken family
>superior
Kek. But yes your genes and lifestyle are the precise definition of fit

so you admit you're pathetic compared to me?

>outlier example
The peacock is just an obvious example of it, but the effect is everywhere and in all species. Look at how male birds will hoard shiny objects in order to attract female birds. It's not that finding a bottle cap on the ground actually helps the male bird survive. No, it actually hurts its chances of survival because it's wasting time collecting literal trash. Female birds prefer it because it serves as an indicator that the male bird is fit enough to find food, and can find food in such quantities that it can dedicate extra time to collecting such trinkets.

Using such indicators is vital for animals in the wild, but humans today live in a complex society. We don't need to use indicators. We could just straight up test someone's genome for flaws, put them through an exercise test, or give them an IQ test to determine their traits.

The use of indicators is thusly flawed, even though it's ingrained into our biology. Therefore, an argument like "the best traits are the ones we select for" is plainly retarded.
>Exactly
Well at least we agree on something.

Its possible by my understanding of evolution. My kids are well taken care of and I have a stable family. Only time will tell! Youre the one who cant accept that success is actually success because you are afraid of big tits or something

>big tits are better for survival
>no I won't give a single reason why

Its an outlier. Sexual selection was also what gave us more creativity, self awareness, the practice of teaching our children, the practice of raising our children longer, the practice of building and cooperating, etc etc etc

>Its possible by my understanding of evolution.
Which clearly hasn't changed since 5th grade.

how does it feel to be a complete genetic loser compared to me lmao

The reason is that small tits went extinct

Feels good, man. Im proud of my family.

families are for betabux suckers

>but neanderthals are better than humans because they produce less climate change!
Okay then go have sex With a Neanderthal, nobody here is stopping you

Uh oh! We have an alpha dog lone wolf in the house! Lol you do you

Most of the time sexual selection chooses traits beneficial to survival, I agree, but it doesn't always do so. Therefore, saying something like "DD tits is always good because it's selected for" is silly. I've given you several examples of sexual selection favoring traits that hurt survival and can give more if you like. I'm a bio major so I like talking about this stuff.

lmao he needs to buy his wife shit to get pussy

Sexual selection created stone-age societies. If you consider them preferable to modern societies then it might be ideal. All civilized societies however heavily controlled female-driven sexual selection.

Huh, good point. I guess White people must be inferior to Black people because Black people reproduce at a higher rate.

If that lasts then yes, that would be true.
Sexual selection created men who were more dominant and controlling when it was beneficial. Now sexual selection allows less controlling men because those type of men are actually detrimental.

I guess having a lower IQ is better too because IQ and fertility are inversely related.

And its natural for men to become violent if they cant find a woman to fuck. Hope you dont bitch about school shooters.