Reminder:The average top 1% male (in terms of looks) has almost 300 sexual partners.The top 20% of men, have 73% of all sexual encounters, with the top 1% having 20%.The bottom 30% of men, in terms of looks, have... 2,8% of all sexual encounters.Again:The bottom 30% of men, in terms of looks, have 2,8% of all sexual encounters.Why is this a problem?Partnerships between women and the "top" men they desire are almost without exception, sterile. Women want to have more kids, but the handsome men they desire do not want to impregnate them, and the men who DO want kids are too ugly and undesirable (in womens minds) to serve as dads. Hence, society is slowly collapsing:https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-the-life-sciences/article/toward-individualistic-reproduction-solving-the-fertility-crisis-could-require-a-further-marginalization-of-men/F26A4750B666344157278B72CFC5D223You may not like these facts, but they explain a lot about the modern western world. The author of this paper proposes some very controversial ideas- such as offering financial incentives to women, so that becoming a single mother, with all its challenges, becomes preferable to staying childless, from an economic perceptive. In other words, just pay women obscene amounts of money to get pregnant. Of course, men would have to bear this burden through additional taxes. As controversial as this might sound, it's either this, or massive, completely unrestricted immigration from the 3rd world. We are facing demographic collapse.
>>84947993easier solution would be to remove all DEI initiatives and force women to compete on merit. Get out of the way of nature and it will sort itself out
>>84947993Or how about putting women into place again.That's what will happen either way once sharia law is on the table.
Retarded study thatThe person I know that has had most sex? Divorced twice and having to maintain two families.This idea of top men based on how much sex they have is homosexual shit, it belongs on >>>/lgbt/
>>84947993This paper had a lot of issues. It's a theoretical/opinion piece framed as empirical argument.To claim that gender equality causes lower fertility through the specific mechanism they propose, you'd need to statistically control for these other variables, hold them constant and see if gender equality still predicts fertility. This is called multiple regression or partial correlation. If you control for GDP per capita, urbanization rate, and religious observance, and gender equality still has strong independent predictive power, your case gets stronger. If the effect disappears or shrinks dramatically, you have a confounding problem. The paper doesn't do this and it presents the raw bivariate correlation (just two variables, no controls) as evidence for their specific causal mechanism, which is a significant methodological gap.The evolutionary psychology framework is largely unfalsified hypothesis-stacking. Concepts like "Mating Equilibrium Shift" are new terms the authors coined themselves. They aren't established constructs with independent empirical support. The paper acknowledges this toward the end, noting the claims "remain provisional and require further empirical testing."The framing carries a clear normative valence that shapes which data gets presented. Dating app statistics (like "women swipe left on 95% of men") are drawn from industry reports and journalism rather than peer-reviewed studies. The mechanism by which women's "short-term mating preferences" are supposedly being upregulated is asserted more than demonstrated.The journal, itseld, Politics and the Life Sciences is legitimate, but also a place where this kind of speculative biosocial argument faces less methodological scrutiny than it would in, say, demography or behavioral ecology journals.
>>84947993Maybe the government should intervene to help women get impregnated by chads.All that matters is to restore birthrates and we all make sacrifices right? take away male rights
>>84947993Is this a meme chart, or has anyone that's not a brooding incel taken it seriously
>>84948237I'm just not gonna do wagie work then, simple as
>>84948257>my competing model/worldview and data: It's fucking nothing.jpg
I think this is a kind of self correcting social darwinian selection process, even if it is temporarily uncomfortable for society at large. Women choosing high value males to the exclusion of all others who subsequently fritter away their fertile years simply don't pass on their picky genes. Even if they do get knocked up, children of single parents suffer much worse life prospects than children of 2 parent households, meaning their childrens own life trajectories and mating opportunities get limited as a consequence. Wealth, access to resources and education priviledges stable family units. Eventually women who find average males attractive partners and want children become more predominant than the picky ones, through a combination of natural selection and socio economic pressures. If we want social policy to accelerate this, we should probably be providing more resources to 2 parent households, in ways that exclude single parents, such as extending maternity benefits to include fathers.
>>84947993>number of female sexual partners>sexual encountersyou read the chart wrong retard
>You may not like these facts, but they explain a lot about the modern western world. And it's true, but it is a very hard truth to deal with. People don't want to accept the fact that people (not just woman) in this world in this world are >not level-headedAnd have been brainwashed to think that they deserve the best looking, wealthy partner ever. And I understand if people don't agree with this but most people who don't agree with it never experienced it, or they have but never had a bad experience never.
>>84948281It would be kind of a big deal if the data wasn't just some statistics fuckup, and obviously I trust nothing on the internet
>>84947993>The author of this paper proposes some very controversial ideas- such as offering financial incentives to women, so that becoming a single mother, with all its challenges, becomes preferable to staying childless, from an economic perceptive. In other words, just pay women obscene amounts of money to get pregnant.Having kids from who? Chad ain't gonna have kids with random hook up girl, child support and shit. Laws need to be changed but women would never vote for removing child support from men.
>>84948287>Eventually women who find average males attractive partners and want children become more predominant than the picky ones, through a combination of natural selection and socio economic pressures. If we want social policy to accelerate this, we should probably be providing more resources to 2 parent households, in ways that exclude single parents, such as extending maternity benefits to include fathers.That would happen after many many generations, society would be in shambles by then.
>>84947993I agree with this study therefore it is good. Copypasting is a pain because the bot flags commas and periods from other websites as unallowed text.
>>84949267Historically, crises inevitably occur over the life span of a civilisation. At some point contemporary society will have to experience going backwards before going forwards again.
>>84947993Kind of funny being born at the start of the end of pair bonding era.
>>84949681Nah this study is fucking retarded>women get too much resources from the government, how do we solve this problem>we give them more resources so single motherhood brings fertility upkekypow the human race is genuinely throwing away millions of years of evolution, children "raised" by single mothers will be the average person in two generations.
>>84947993lmao some dude taking the survey just wrote in 300 as a joke and you're taking it seriously
>Women want to have more kidsThis is objectively untrue and is the real reason why society is slowly collapsing
>>84950341You're somehow missing the part about them only wanting children with high percentile men who don't want children.
>>84947993top 1% and will be going into modelling once i iron out a few last minute things. will put together my portfolio in the fall with a couple of hired people. talking to like five different women in person right now and will fuck one at a time and see if they are okay with being in a big group with me. i wouldn't care if they all lived with me, my rent would be like nothing at that point if they chipped in. full head of hair, ethereal eyes, premium skin, hollows coming in, brutal heavy jaw. it's the high fashion/editorial anomaly lane in modelling given my juxtaposition of features with the contrast of the more feminine eyes and huge jaw, hardly ever seen on anyone. i can't express in words what it's like to be in this position because i'm so used to it at this point. my look is so strong that i would have genuinely zero anxiety about fucking any of these women right in the middle of a shop, let everyone watch. i would actually find it quite amusing to be watched like that probably why i have zero qualms with entering modelling and being on a busy set with a bunch of strangers, camera and a $10k light setup
>>84947993Women lie about it thats the issue. Nobody cares if Bolt can outrun you, everyone cares if you insist you can be like Bolt too by muh hardwork however
>>84948177>actual break down>no repliesLol thanks though for deboonking
>>84947993that doesn't make sense. I doubt I have even jerked off to 300 different women.
>>84947993Honestly its not attractive to get with a lot of them. The few that do it shows that you are pretty fucking weak willed. Like a womanizer is a women's fetish, a good girl is a man's. Get over it cry baby. If you wanna go have a ton of sex go figure it out. Than waste away in your later years like a total shmuck tryin to chase tail like you have nothing better to do.
Theres two options.>tax the shit out of non breeding males so female single motherhood is economically viableActual incel revolt>take away all womens rightsHow most of human history has functioned.Gee I wonder which we should do.
>>84948316>Is blackpilled >Takes "data" seriously.Walk outside.Normies are fucking like crazy.We are the outliers and we are weird.
>>84952775>tax the shit out of non breeding males so female single motherhood is economically viableThey already do. This still not gonna work because of child support laws Chads aren't gonna impregnate women.It works for blacks because fir blacks de facto law is different, child support aren't enforced. Any white man doing same absent back daddy shit will end in prison for not paying child support. And women aren't gonna vote to cancel child support for white men.
