"Male Beauty" is analogous to Simping and Disgenic Breeding

Question

"Male Beauty" is analogous to Simping and Disgenic Breeding

According to the Fisherian Runaway mechanism, in many species, it is the females who determine whether a particular male is permitted to mate. As observed in the prominent example of the peacock, male peacocks have developed traits that are detrimental to their survival in the context of natural selection, such as long tails, bright and colorful feathers, and a lack of camouflage. These ornamental characteristics have been selected over generations simply because they are attractive to females. This dynamic does not operate in reverse as in this case, female peacocks lack such ornamentation, which means that inversely to the males, they didn't need to appeal to the opposite sex to reproduce.

The conclusion drawn here is that females of a species, when unrestricted, can select for traits that may be disadvantageous to their male counterparts.

Some people claim that the act of reproduction on its own is proof of your genetic fitness. Here's where I ask you anons a question: If you were to reproduce, how can you be certain that rather than possessing beneficial genetic material, you are not merely conforming to female-imposed biological standards that serve no practical purpose beyond ornamentation?

If you advocate so vehemently for "male beauty," you might as well equate yourself to the male peacock's acquiescence to the female.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisherian_runaway

Woman fuck dogs and kids

The only thing that matters genetically is passing on your genes which is why they were so heavily selected to being pretty birds. However humans are not birds and being a preening faggot will only bring you the lowest quality women

that serve no practical purpose beyond ornamentation

Plenty of evidence suggests that those traits indicate high quality because the male is able to survive even with the additional burden. Surviving to reproductive age with burdensome ornamentation indicates good health, low parasite load and access to sufficient resources. Obviously this selective process can go too far but there is still a function to these traits.

Male birds have identical chromosome pairs they are effectively the human equivalent of females.

Plenty of evidence suggests that those traits indicate high quality because the male is able to survive even with the additional burden.

That's not a very sustainable model of reproduction. Do you know what the males of many species have developed to offset the disadvantages of the Female Choice mechanism?
Ducks (like Mallards), dolphins, elephant seals, chimpanzees, orangutans, sea otters, harbor seals, fruit flies, water striders, bed bugs, dung flies, guppies, and MANY more, have developed coercive mating tactics, like rape, to prevent the dysgenic effects of Female Choice. If this approach of ornamentation was so useful, why did so many species go down the route of coercive mating?

Didn't read
Just kys

You're from Brazil, this fact alone should be far more insulting to you and damaging to your dignity, if it existed, than any curse in the English language.
Eat shit and die, favella monkey.

Females are protected from the state from just being taken on sight; none of your faggy shit matters the only thing needed to breed to you being stronger then the female you caught at the watering hole everything else is a deception built around acceptence of this lie

I only read the title of your post but it is brazen retarded.

Tall men with broad shoulders and western facial features are the most attractive. These men are also the strongest and the smartest.

Facial aesthetics are a better predictor of mental capacity than anything else, including parents' intelligence or wealth

get fucekd

completely unsubstantiated opinions

Come back when learn to not contradict yourself in the same phrase.

notice the french made a tread about homosexual behavior

Is goat fucking a hetero activity?

this guy a furry

Feminism exalts female whims as the ultimate measure of truth and correctness. Any man who conforms to female desire and lets female whims form the basis of his self-worth has cucked to feminist ideology, even if he LARPs as le alpha chad in the bedroom.

learn to read nigger the state is the only thing that prtects females from us just taking it

Islam does nothing like that sharlman the lesser homosexual

my esl might've gotten the better of me
Until you show your flag, I won't be responding to you any further.

If its so harmful, why do so many species go down it though?

the dysgenic effects of Female Choice

Females should be selective with their mates given the resources required for foetal development/child rearing and the finite number of eggs available as well as the limited reproductive period. Males should be less selective because spermatazoans are cheap and easy to produce and the male does not need to gestate or lactate. Just because human relationships have become incredibly fucked up (primarily due to birth control decoupling reproduction and copulation) doesn't mean there isn't a vlid purpose to female mate choice.

why did so many species go down the route of coercive mating

Because males and females have different interests when it comes to reproduction. But if we're going to talk about dysgenics then you can't really argue for everyone reproducing. Resources are finite and not every allele should be transmitted to the next generation.

dunno
my daughters a strong girl with nice hair and pretty eyes and my younger son is a half sperg who loves trains and math but he looks like my wife
im like a 7 to 9 depending on my upkeep/dressing(i am out of shape right now) my wifes probably a 5 or 6 but shes the most amazing person i know and my best friend.
she farts when she laughs too hard, its funny and it makes me laugh and then we both laugh even harder because usually shell fart again.
the second c section fucked up her gastro
in anycase i dont think i have any specific traits i was selected for, im pretty sure ive impregnated at least 3 h1 student visa worker chicks, two from argentina one from brazil when i was ski bumming in vail colorado
i dress like shit and still look like gold
my father is 63 and everytime we go to the park with my kids or shopping or something a woman ALWAYS hits on him it never fucking fails. so maybe im just blessed? who knows
people study this shit for their ENTIRE LIVES. no one ficking knows
soul mates are real thats my only take away. pretty bitches get at me constantly but you can just look into their face and know you just KNOW nothings there
no connection

Because these traits could only have evolved in environments where they did not confer a significant disadvantage. A trait beneficial in one ecosystem could prove detrimental in another, that kind of thing. But can the same be said for humans? The defining characteristic of humans is not physical fitness but intelligence, which exhibits a high degree of polymorphism; i.e it's universally advantageous, regardless of the environment, whereas the absence of intelligence is consistently disadvantageous. This contrasts with many fitness traits, which offer context-dependent benefits.

If these species that depended on Female Choice to reproduce and succeed in the evolutionary race migrated to any other area, they'd fail miserably. Can you really call this "success"?

>completely unsubstantiated

I don't come to this shithole website to spoonfeed retards. I don't care to change your opinion, kill yourself

retards reproduce all the time
hot ones
ugly ones
99% of humanity is fucking stupid
get over it
your bot/AI info feed will gain nothing from this thread
like i said people have spent their entire lives dedicated to studying this shit even forgoing the chance to pass on their own genes in the process
NO ONE KNOWS
IT DOESNT FUCKING MATTER

Then don't post here, fag. Arguments can't be made up on the go, they gotta have evidence to back them up.

I'd say you're a proof of what OP was trying to prove.

five

What does a man suitable for reproduction look like in your sick imagination?

OP be like

"This man is too beatiful and shouldn't have children!!1"

You are brown

Instead of breeding based on "muh looks," wouldn't it be better to breed based upon natural temperament and behavior?

Hey womerinos, breed with me because I preened myself like a faggot!!1!

Fag.

Posts a painting for his "ideal man"

Are you leftist? Because you think something fictional is real

wearing a fucking feather on your hat is not preening yourself like a faggot

gtfo with your weak ass bait, dumb frog nigger

Ideal man

I posted a real, historical person. What's "fictional" about conquistadors? Get sober before you write another post.

Did you see the zesty-ass boy in your pic, jungle monkey? tf outta here with that bs

based upon natural temperament and behavior

They choose this when their expiration date is over. 25-30 is still an acceptable age

hows that?
i chose my wife, she did not choose me.
weve been together for almost 20 years, ive known her since she was 13(i was 16) inwas her first boyfriend we took each others virginity we split up, i was stupid fucked around, and called her drunk one night and she came over, cried into my arms about how she was waiting and waiting for this day to come we went to bed and a year later i put a ring on her finger
despite my flaws i am a catch and i know it
i settled
she got her fairy tale ending
people getting filtered by letting women make decisions are flawed mechanically
we are not birds

Pol will complain about women breeding with Pretty boy thugs then turn around and denounce OP for saying essentially the same thing.

Pol is retarded.

Pic related deserves to fuck and breed the most females according to nu-Anon Babble

Nazi repressed homo lust is real it seems.

Studies on peahens show they are not attracted to the peacock's display. At best, the display only shows the health of the peacock.

Pol will complain about women breeding with Pretty boy thugs then turn around and denounce OP for saying essentially the same thing.

I wonder why I'm bashed for substantiating their sentiments with scientific evidence.

traits that are detrimental to their survival

So explain why there are still peacocks, Muhammed.

Female Choice becomes active because liberalism released all restraints from women

Females select for aesthetics at the expense of a more beneficial genetic makeup

Obtain a generation of nu-men snoyboys

I don't get why this is seen as contentious.

Peacocks aren't beautiful, they are fit. A peacock that doesn't get enough food won't be able to grow an impressive plumage which demonstrates it's inferior genes to survive. Similarly a flashy peacock obviously can escape predators. They are analogues to muscles in humans, if you are starving you sure as shit won't be buff.

That's not a very sustainable model of reproduction.

So how come peacocks aren't extinct then?

Explains why russian women are pretty and the men absolute troglodytes and gay as fuck.

Many reasons. In some cases, human activities have inadvertently protected peafowl populations by reducing predator numbers or providing alternative habitats. They also occupy a specific ecological niche where their behaviors and characteristics are well-adapted, which means that they are way less capable of rapid evolutionary change, i.e they've stagnated. You don't have to be smart to comprehend what that entails, say in the case of humans.

rants about peacocks

posts pic showing pheasants

your point is null and void

If I tied a weight to the back of 100 men and had them all dumped onto a deserted predator filled island, the ones remaining after a year were probably those with the greatest physical endurance and strength. There's other good traits that might not have been selected for this way, like intelligence, but I don't think that's the main strategy for pheasants

Moron

And many other animals have elaborate courtship rituals, entirely consensual intercourse, and lifelong monogamous pairbonds with mutual assistance and mutual childrearing

Marmosets, albatross, beavers, hell even some skinks, and ideally the human couple

You dumbass faggot, there's never been a civilization where you could just kidnap any woman you'd like, the state currently protects rapists far more than any ancient regime did where you'd just get slaughtered by her father if she was loved at all

Based soul mate enjoyer, I have also been so blessed, no one can understand it if they don't also have it

These ornamental characteristics have been selected over generations simply because they are attractive to females.

no. galliformes nest on the ground, and males are supposed to be bait, to draw away predators from the female. this is why males are easily visible. females do seem to prefer more visible males simply because there is a prize in being attached to better bait and the lineages that preferred the more colorful cock edged out the other lineages.

I guess white skin is a failure, considering it can't be transposed from European forests into African savannah without severe increase in health issues

In clown world, criminalism and thuggery seem like a legit strategic choice

the point is: women select traits that are overall disadvantageous to the species. traits such as extraversion (not inherently bad itself), adhd, smoking, aggressiveness, narcissism, etc.

the problem is, women do not care, and no one will ever convince them. this is ultimately why women being "free" is a bad thing because they ultimately do not give a fuck and will never select for long-term net-good traits in men, but only ones that serve themselves.

incel science thread

cope and seethe, incel

Why do you think aggressiveness and adhd are necessarily bad for the species? Narcissim may be something not necessarily 'selected' for, but narcissists may successfully breed more often through manipulation and being better liars, essentially subverting female choice mechanics which seems to be what you want anyway. Smoking is just more common to people with ADHD, it isn't smoking specifically being selected

Yes. All systems of morality always stemmed from practical purposes. The reason circumcision is embedded into religion is that a long while ago, desert inhabitants lacked the necessary water to clean their penises, which induced foreskin irritation and possibly infections. An outdated solution to that is cutting the foreskin entirely, and they used religion to justify that. Now, ask yourself why female sexuality was restricted across ALL religions. What was the pragmatic purpose behind it?

you're already falling inline with how women want you to think about this shit

Not really invested in the topic but people are portraying the peacock as some weak fragile pretty bird when it is quite capable of killing snakes.

male peacocks have developed traits that are detrimental to their survival in the context of natural selection

Female galliforms sit on eggs on the ground for several weeks at a time. They need to be maximally camoflaged

Males on the other hand do not sit on eggs, they're mobile at all times, and they're brightly colored to serve as a distraction for predators so they don't otherwise notice the camoflaged hen sitting on eggs

The males and females have a mutualistic relationship with one another

This is a meme, their style of circumcision was to remove literally just the tip of the 'excess' foreskin - they still would have been benefitted by the function of the foreskin as a covering. A dry ass shitty sand region would make complete removal even more damaging to their dick, and also make the death of the male infant way more likely.

The total removal thing was invented by rabbis far later because jews were too easily stretching it back out to pass dick inspections and pass as non jewish

Is that why gays do like to dress up as a kakadu?

the world is run by evil elites and we cant do anything through normal systems to stop this megalithic structural daemon

white nations are being overrun with foreign invaders who are going largely unpunished while raping and pillaging

aggression is bad!!

wtf you mean theyre different because birds make more birds differently than people make more people?

i like the birds that set up a 70s boy band routine to get their buddy a mate

You do know that peafowl are at least 20-million years old, right? How did they survive 19,997,000 years before humans provided them alternative habitats?
Why are the Peacocks with the largest most elaborate tails the least likely to get eaten in the wild?
Could it be that combined with their loud call they can scare away predators with their tail and agressive behavior? Or could it be that they have more early warning because they are surrounded by their harem of Peahens that can warn them of approaching danger?

women choose shitty mates

i mean just look at the catalog and see the dysgenic offspring women have

Equating birds and primates

You're a dumb nigger. You're the blackest, most retarded gorilla nigger I've seen in at least three days.

Exactly my point.
And you're the niggest faggot. This mechanism applies to mammals, reptiles, even insects. Tongue a nigger's anus, dumb coon.

Then why don't we have technicolor gorillas or rainbow tailed gibbons you stupid frog?
Primates are not birds you snail eating faggot.

its not so much about beauty but about showing you can survive even though you have signal colors like a strip bar on a trucker parking lot.
Predators are more likely to spot him, the long feathers can hinder him etc. but he's still alive. he must be doing something right or he was born under a lucky star.
like a white man who walks across Martin Luther King Blvd at night, wearing a gold Rolex without getting mugged.

Female mammals are mobile while pregnant. Female galliforms have to sit on the ground, unmoving, for 3-6 weeks depending on the species. This is why the female is camoflaged and the male is brightly colored

Look at bird species that share egg hatching duties. The male and female look almost identical

If any female bird is the exclusive parent that sits on eggs, she will be camoflaged and the male will be brightly colored

Ok now I am a bit invested in the topic.

Now, ask yourself why female sexuality was restricted across ALL religions. What was the pragmatic purpose behind it?

Because men cannot accept or don't like the fact that women (nor men) by default are not innately monogamy orientated. The only way to keep that façade is through intense social programming through society and religion.

Humans are not born by default monogamous nor polyamorous, it comes down to individual choice but heavily influenced by social norms.
In this regard, humans are the only ones that create personalized sexual contracts. This is why cheating is exclusive to humans.
If your polyamorous partner asks you for permission to fuck someone else and you permit it, that's not cheating because the parties involved are not violating the established guidelines.

There would be a lot less heart break if people were just upfront on what they really wanted.
For example, if you want a short-term monogamous relationship with a woman who wants a long-term monogamous, why lie like many men do and pretend you want what the woman wants. Then after a few dates bring up some bullshit excuse and cut it off?

Alan Roger Currie talks about all this.
youtube.com/watch?v=wjIcaeO_Npc

You'll just faced with a wall of non-arguments according to which any and all traits that are detrimental are then somehow considered a good thing because those who have them are still alive. We already have live ones such as or .
This is what happens when you put far too much faith in total adaptationism which hasn't been taken seriously among biologist for a long time.
Misadaptation happens all the time, and sexual selection is one of its key vectors.
I'm still waiting on retards trying to claim that the human female choice exemplified in is somehow feminine intuition 485D quantum chess and the best for humanity.

its not about the application of bird standarts on mammals illeterate hasbara faggot
his point is in every spieces women are dysgenic and not eugenic in mating

So tell us what humanity loses from some whiny faggot like you not breeding?

PriMaTes ArE nOt BirDs

What difference does it make you dumb moon cricket. The point is that Fisherian Runaway confirms women have dysgenic breeding practices.

someone who actually eugenically knows shit compared to you dysgenic faggot

free female choice is somehow feminine intuition 485D quantum chess and the best for humanity.

I wonder how anyone could possibly come up with that conclusion, given the evidence at our disposal.

Interesting! Thanks for this

This is why women circumcise their sons, damaging the organ but sexualizing it. Pretty but harder to use

women refuse to get the fuck over themselves

Yes we know

We know, but things become much more credible when they're documented.

A mutilated dick isn't prettier. Insanity carving a sexual amputee fetish into their child. Absolutely RAPED.

gynocentric way of thinking imposed by jewish establishment in order to mock you or fatigue you into submission trough you not trying anymore to not deal with same bullshit constantly spammed 24/7/365

The Hungarian mentioned it before me to be fair

I personally have a bunch of free-range junglefowl and gamefowl so I witness this stuff firsthand. The males confidently strut around and crow loudly while the females hide like ninjas in bushes for weeks at a time sitting on eggs. The reproductive strategy is obvious

That, and the fact that advocating for female choice is a strategy in the intrasexual competition for beta males to reproduce with females. They know their deficiency when compared with stronger males, so they try to overturn what they cannot confront.

look, ladies, I'm a feminist!

I support females rights!

It's all too tiresome.

Not to you. Not in a classical sense.

But in the female sexual mind, it looks erect and erotic.

Why incel is used as an insult
youtu.be/xw0iKHeKAfQ

I applaud the OP for a interasting disscussion and to correct his point, we cannot compare humans to peacocks, because humans unlike peacocks actually altered their habitat and eliminated all the evolutionary pressure(that is actually why we need wars, because cultures in wars either find themselfs or find themselfs lacking), but OP is still correct. To everybody saying "why did peacocks survive then if they are maladpated", we can ask simillar question about humans "why did weird humans survive if they are maladapted" and to answer this is because as we developed our habitats more and more complex tasks arose, such that we had to select even "undesirable" males, that why institution of marriage has to be enforced by culture as otherwise we devolve back into hunter-gatheres, or in our case into preavious state of civilization which would be industrial or even worse agrocultural, we do need variety, but dont get me wrong, we do not need brown people in our genepool, just those weird spergs wo do crayz stuff with tools like computers, welding... or even weirdos that obsses on stuff like state building or economy managment

and to answer this is because as we developed our habitats more and more complex tasks arose

no we invented patriarchy and thus also stripped womens right to choose
remember his point is females generally in animal kingdom and in civilization are dysgenic and not eugenic and thus

just those weird spergs wo do crayz stuff with tools like computers, welding... or even weirdos that obsses on stuff like state building or economy managment

ie men who know shit and actually are eugenically more compatible to most of women are fucked and left to die off because of gynocentric way of thinking enforced upon us and emancipation of women despite their obvious biological differences

humans cannot be compared to animal kingdom anymore as we do not have predators anymore, thus we need artifical ones that is rival civilizations(wars), order arises from necessity, that is how roman empire was formed, just state building on steroids, because if not they would be consumed by neighbours and as they expanded more powerfull rivals appeard on the border, its not just rome that profited from roman exapnsion but whole continent which was forced to adapt, lest they be bested.

Thus introducing back human evolution at this point is determential, yes we are going to produce eugenically more perfect people, but will lose a great deal of variety that is needed to sustain a complex system that we are building. I have to add that females are not wrong in their choosing, its just that is not what is currently needed.