How do you contemplate picrelated and all of its implications

>>133898580
>I have nothing to gain from taking part in society as a lower 80 % male. I am disposable
Basically.
It's so easy to explain the epidemic of herbivore men if you just open your eyes.
Unfortunately there's a half of the population who has a lot to gain by keeping them shut.

Until it benefits women to help men they'll just keep helping themselves.

>>133898580
What does the y axis represent?
The most attractive women rate all men at 0%?

It's just hypergamy caused by feminism, the only way I can rectify this is if you keep selling shit over priced then consumers will find other merchants. If what's almost strictly white women want to get fat and still expect a relationship that looks like it's from Hollywood then guy's are going to go elsewhere, likely Asian in some way.

I think if there's a literal hole in white matrilineal haplogroups it'll be very obvious. If we replace white women with what's looking like Hispanic, Arab, Indian and east Asian women it'll be very obvious and a notable black mark on our genome.

But it's what's going to happen because as a guy who looks like a 16 year old underwear model with a beard, I'm not dating fat white girls and I'm not good enough for "attractive" white girls. There is no way anyone can convince me to play this game when there are thin Indian women in power suits checking me out. I don't know how you could expect me not to choose the better looking and more intelligent option?

Feminism won the gene war because it made white women socially infertile. No, I'm not having a kid with you after even 30 because fuck autism and fuck downs syndrome.

>>133898580
it always been like that. It's why monasteries were full of men, not women, it's why you send men at war, because you can dispose of half of them without impairing the reproduction inside your population.
Women want to fuck beautiful strong men and what ? Because you aren't one of them you think it's unfair ? it is unfair, life is unfair.
I am a 36 yo old virgin and at least I know why : bad health, not attractive, not intelligent, do you want men like me to reproduce ? No. Hence your graphics.

>>133899531
>what are nuns

>>133899658
nuns exist massively only from 19th century. Priests and monks from ever.

This was a major redpill for me about women. This isn't hypergamy. This is is who they are attracted to. You have to be better looking than 80% of guys to be considered average looking. Ouch.

>>133898580
The media presented to us is distorting their perception or reality. Confound their impressionable minds!

File: womensnature.jpg (73KB, 641x333px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 641x333px

This was my latest redpill about women. This is just how most women are.

File: 1500217970790.png (189KB, 1306x1186px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1306x1186px

>>133899041
The y-axis is the percent of the population

No man received a rating of 7/7 or "most attractive" from women.
81% of men were rated 3/7 in attractiveness. Half the remaining men, landed in the 4/7 spot.
Only 5% of men are considered 5/7 material, and only 2% of men are considered 6/7 material.
And 0% of men are 7/7 most attractive, perfect.

In other words, female ratings of men follow a long-tail distribution curve, where very very few men are considered to be attractive.

Meanwhile, when men rate female attractiveness, it is a normal distribution curve. 50% of women are rated less than a 4/7 and 50% of women are rated more than a 4/7. Only 6% of women are considered to be total uggos by men, and only 6% of women are considered perfect.

Let's do a comparison:

Women consider 81% of men to be 3/7 or worse in appearance.
Men consider 40% of women to be 3/7 or worse in appearance.

Women consider 2% of men to be 6/7 or better in appearance.
Men consider 21% of women to be 6/7 or better in appearance.

I wonder how feminists would use this data to prove that men are all misogynist pigs who hate women?

File: 1472124584169.png (565KB, 1280x623px) Image search: [Google]

565KB, 1280x623px

>>133899531
You're more or less correct - it's darwinian evolution in action.

There's no reason for women to breed with more than the very top selection of men, because they only need/want the very best genetics. From a darwinian perspective that's fantastic. You always get a better generation with the best genes from the last.

However, there's a problem: The selection traits haven't kept up with technological and sociological progress. No man can survive nuclear fire alone. And civil wars can be as destructive as nuclear ones. We aren't small tribes anymore, we're civilizations of millions. Which means we can't have 80-90% of men going without any kind of relationship outlet without incurring massive civil unrest.

Enter: Marriage
This gives more men - maybe even most - a shot at genuine sexual reproduction. This keeps society itself functioning. Now, this 81% group of men may not be perfect super saiyans, but they're certainly not awful, and they're good at working together. So we sacrifice a little bit of genetic fitness on short-term traits, for significantly better genetic fitness on long-term traits. e.g. running a functioning civilization that will outlast our present environment.

Furthermore, Marriage sets the stage for r/k selection theory. Fewer children and better cared for, rather than many children and left to fend for themselves. Single-motherhood is exactly what we don't want.

Women aren't THINKING about any of this of course. It's instinctual, and we haven't had (yet) an extinction level event that levels every civilization and population that hasn't kept its shit together.

(Well, we're undergoing a kind of extinction event right now, but it's liberals and anti-racists purging themselves from the gene pool; that's why gen z is so much more conservative. Only the conservative monogamous types are reproducing effectively and setting themselves up for top positions in the genetic pool.)

File: P88.jpg (151KB, 1354x889px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1354x889px

>>133899041
brainlet

>>133902199
and yet mostly stupid people reproduce. Not ugly ones as me, stupid ones.

File: 1492093394794.png (196KB, 352x315px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 352x315px

>OkCupid
stopped reading right there

>>133902979
Ugly and stupid usually go together.

Attractiveness has a high correlation with IQ. So does reaction speed. People who LOOK attractive also tend to be more attractive in intelligence and personality.