PUA Forum :: The Sexodus

The low quality women can't find a man, and the low quality men can't find one either. Just as nature intended.

I think there is something to discuss here.

You're basically saying, and correct me if I'm way off, that undesirable people are being removed from the gene pool just as they were in the days of the neanderthal, only with different details on how. I think this argument relies solely on looks and physical features such as strength. Bear with me -

Have you ever seen the movie "Idiocracy?" It's pretty funny, and stars Luke Wilson as a soldier selected to participate in a cryogenic stasis experiment that goes wrong, and rather than be frozen for one year he ends up frozen for something like an entire millennium. Early on in the movie, a little narrative portrays how intelligent, mature responsible people more and more nowadays are holding off on having kids and starting families because they want to be in the best position to raise them into well-adjusted adults. Meanwhile, stupid people are fucking, a lot, with as many people as possible with no thought as to the consequences. This narrative follows two men, I forget the names they used it was something like Martin and Skeeter. Martin gets married to his college sweetheart, and they wait so long his wife only has a chance at having one kid because she froze his sperm whereas he died of a heart attack in his 50s. Skeeter fucked as much as he could because he was a moron who never planned on being stable enough to raise all his kids, grandkids, and great grandkids (whom he was only about 30-40 years older than). So the ratio ends up comical, like 30 descendants of Skeeter versus 1 of Martin.

I tend to believe this scenario more than what you portray. Sure, there may be some truth to your stance. There's actually a really interesting article in Forbes magazine from a couple weeks back addressing this in Japan, where population decline is actually seen as an issue in part because men are taught so much to be respectful to women that they just dont' know how to interact with them in a way that leads to a healthy relationship.

However, your theory only suggests that we are eliminating the genetically undesirable. Responsibility and intelligence aren't entirely genetic, nor can they be determined by just looking at someone. I'd be more worried about the future of Idiocracy lore, where future generations are comprised more and more of complete and total idiots.

Because you don't need any qualification to have a kid other than to A) not be sterile and B) fuck. Those are the only two pre-requisites.

You're basically saying, and correct me if I'm way off, that undesirable people are being removed from the gene pool just as they were in the days of the neanderthal, only with different details on how.

Have you ever seen the movie "Idiocracy?"

However, your theory only suggests that we are eliminating the genetically undesirable. Responsibility and intelligence aren't entirely genetic, nor can they be determined by just looking at someone.

And because it screens out pussies, it will also lead to a slow return to masculine equilibrium. Guess what a kid with pussy dad is much more likely to be?

The reason this generation is filled with little bitches, is because in part, everyone was getting married. Everyone was having children. That's been for five straight generations. And it's about to stop.
Only the good looking pussies will manage to procreate.

I think there is a lot of truth to this. I meet these guys at every college I go to. I'd say it's a good %20-25 of young men. They barely leave their house, rarely have a girlfriend and almost never a girlfriend they actually want.

The Old Days
In the past, these men could rely on social structures created by modern civilization to ensure that every man had exactly one woman. Maybe the lowest tier guy can't get a mid tier girl, but he can at least be assured a low tier woman.

However, with the social patriarchy crumbling, the men on the low end of spectrum lack any sort of guarantee. The fat chick is no longer forced to marry the fat guy. She can either hold out, hoping to snag someone out of her league(she can support herself after all), or even opt out altogether if she can't have her dream guy.

If you look at our prehistoric ancestors, about %20 of women never procreated, but about %40 of men didn't. So %20 of men being unable to find a mate appears to be nature's equilibrium coming in to play when an artificial societal construct is removed.

Yet at the same time, I think there is a natural reflex by the genetically unfit to screen themselves out. What do I mean by this? I think we all have certain basic "standards" so to speak built into ourselves. In the past, culture was prodding us to ignore these standards and mate anyway. Now? Not so much. Fat chicks being too picky and ending up alone is actually how nature designed it. The bottom tier of women and bottom two tiers of men are meant to be childless. And what we are seeing, is nature reasserting its influence, without the enforced equality of patriarchal structure.

Natural Eugenics
I look around and think to myself that an awful lot of the population is composed of people with almost no redeeming quality. They're ugly, stupid and generally suck as people. They seem prone to substance abuse on top of this. This is probably close to %15 or so of the population. These people probably never would have existed in the natural order. And I think they're about to be phased out again in the next few generations.

I think what we are witnessing is natural eugenics. There is a reason we went from regular primates to such highly intelligent animals that we could create civilization. This process was our well developed screening process, where each generation we were just a little bit better than the previous generation.

La Grande Histoire
With early civilization, we seemed to stagnate. Until we grew so big that we started starving and suffering from malnutrition. This screened for genetic unfitness, because only the strong children could survive a famine.
Scarce resources also lead to war. War proved to be a new way to implement the natural process again. The less physically fit and stupider men tended to be the ones who died. And it was the low quality women that were killed, because who wants to take her as war spoils?

The Modern Age
Only in the last century, have we had a situation where everyone was well fed, there was little risk of death as a result of malnutrition or physical unfitness in war(bullets are very much an equalizer).

All of this peace and prosperity, allowed for equality between the sexes. And with equality came autonomy. Women may have seen expanding rights, but they have not truly reached an equal status to men, until very recently. And just about the time the last vestiges of the patriarchy fade, we see nature returning.

The low quality women can't find a man, and the low quality men can't find one either. Just as nature intended.

Wow... so much bullshit...

Yeah, that was me in college... but it wasn't necessarily because I had chosen to "retreat,"

It's almost hilarious how you talk about "lowest tiers" in society, as if it somehow determines genetic fitness. The reality is that in many of these societies the highest tiers interbred with each other, resulting in a lot of genetic defects. "Tiers" were determined by birth station, and you didn't get to move out of your station unless maybe you were an especially attractive chick and the king happened to need a new harem girl.

Native American tribes I've read accounts stating that when there were more women than men they'd have polygamy, when there were more men than women it would be polygyny... and when the numbers were about even they'd have monogamy.

What that would mean in your "ancient cultures" is that when women mated, they would probably mate with multiple men at the same time! It's even theorized that women are more vocal during sex because their screams of passion would attract more men to attempt impregnating them.

And yet, I've never known a "fat chick" who wasn't at LEAST trying online dating and using camera tricks to make herself look 30lbs thinner.

Be honest, you made these numbers up... right? I highly doubt we can tell how many women procreated vs. didn't... and if women didn't I'd bet it had less to do with finding a mate and more to do with dying young and poor nutrition.

Except, no... in fact many cultures found fat chicks more attractive than our current culture!

And again with the "tiers" bullshit. Prior to civilization there were no tiers, there was an elder or medicine man who was basically just the oldest guy in the village. All the men were hunters, and all the women were gatherers and everyone took care of the kids together.

And again, everybody probably fucked everybody.

What they missed, though, is that genetic diversity being what it is... dumb, drugged out parents can actually have smart children. But I digress...

Exactly the opposite. The reason we are so successful is the wide range of diversity in our genes. The small variations that allow us to survive in the freezing climate of Alask AND the boiling heat of Africa. The diversity that gave us smart humans to invent shit, and dumb but strong humans to hunt and built shit. The diversity that lets some of us develop immunities to disease.

On an evolutionary scale, our success is determined by having variety. (Well, variety, intelligence and thumbs...)

Or you made weaker guys archers, or tacticians, or their stronger brothers helped protect them. Tactics win wars, not individuals for the most part.

And women? Oh brother... so your only expectation for what would happen to the women is that they'd be captured as "trophy wives" or slaughtered for being too ugly? In your mind was every middle age peasant girl a Kate Upton thanks to this wartime eugenics?

Also to have any real impact this would require everyone to constantly be at war. Millions of men and women probably procreated between wars, you realize that right?

Is this true? I went to college in Georgia and hung out in many schools there but never came across this. Most guys had some social life or interest in girls. Many guys weren't players, but were at least dating a girl or in a relationship. The guys you describe were probably 5-10% of the student population, and that's even in the all male schools. You're from Savannah right?

Quick comment, how about instead of complaining about feminism, unfair marriage/divorce laws and all that, how abt men start DOING something. Use economics and change the laws. Red pill, blue bill, MGTOW, are all pussy stuff because it's men NOT doing anything to improve things. A woman gets raped, she fights and gather support for stricter laws. A man gets falsely accused of rape, he walks away and does nothing to make it harder to falsely accuse the next man of rape. Same with divorce. A man gets railroaded in the court, he complains and does nothing.

Ps-women aren't dating above their looks. Sure they may meet guys online who fuck them, but dudes aren't dating fat girls. I don't see alot of less attractive women dating more attractive men in any city I travel to. A fat girl online will tell you, better looking guys don't ask them to dinner nor do they wife them. If they do hit them up, it's "come to my place at 2am."

Wow... so much bullshit...Women still don't quite have equal status to men,

and to complicate things there's so many people with so many different views... women are still being told that they should be bold, demure, businesslike and must get married young so they can have kids while putting off kids to focus on their career.

Honestly, right now everything is a mess for everyone. We all get mixed messages and I don't think anyone really knows how to act.

None of that is what nature intended.

Nature intended everyone to fuck everyone as much as possible.

Author:	Versalis [ Mon Dec 22, 2014 4:15 pm ]
Post subject:	The Sexodus
I just finished reading an article meetjoeblack posted about how modern culture has impacted many men. I know, I often say "Why are we discussing feminism", but I found this interesting. The premise is that the lowest tier of men have basically given up on sex and are withdrawing from society. They enter a cave of video games and pornography and never emerge again. I think there is a lot of truth to this. I meet these guys at every college I go to. I'd say it's a good %20-25 of young men. They barely leave their house, rarely have a girlfriend and almost never a girlfriend they actually want. The Old Days In the past, these men could rely on social structures created by modern civilization to ensure that every man had exactly one woman. Maybe the lowest tier guy can't get a mid tier girl, but he can at least be assured a low tier woman. However, with the social patriarchy crumbling, the men on the low end of spectrum lack any sort of guarantee. The fat chick is no longer forced to marry the fat guy. She can either hold out, hoping to snag someone out of her league(she can support herself after all), or even opt out altogether if she can't have her dream guy. Men are naturally more realistic than women, so we've probably always been more comfortable with settling. The Natural Order? Now what I wonder is, is this really a problem? If you look at our prehistoric ancestors, about %20 of women never procreated, but about %40 of men didn't. So %20 of men being unable to find a mate appears to be nature's equilibrium coming in to play when an artificial societal construct is removed. Now of course, I'm not all about nature. I like GMO, I'm sitting in a house heated by electricity and typing on a computer that I wouldn't find in the forest. Nature actually kind of sucks and we've improved on it in a lot of ways. Yet at the same time, I think there is a natural reflex by the genetically unfit to screen themselves out. What do I mean by this? I think we all have certain basic "standards" so to speak built into ourselves. In the past, culture was prodding us to ignore these standards and mate anyway. Now? Not so much. Fat chicks being too picky and ending up alone is actually how nature designed it. The bottom tier of women and bottom two tiers of men are meant to be childless. And what we are seeing, is nature reasserting its influence, without the enforced equality of patriarchal structure. Natural Eugenics I look around and think to myself that an awful lot of the population is composed of people with almost no redeeming quality. They're ugly, stupid and generally suck as people. They seem prone to substance abuse on top of this. This is probably close to %15 or so of the population. These people probably never would have existed in the natural order. And I think they're about to be phased out again in the next few generations. I think what we are witnessing is natural eugenics. There is a reason we went from regular primates to such highly intelligent animals that we could create civilization. This process was our well developed screening process, where each generation we were just a little bit better than the previous generation. La Grande Histoire With early civilization, we seemed to stagnate. Until we grew so big that we started starving and suffering from malnutrition. This screened for genetic unfitness, because only the strong children could survive a famine. Scarce resources also lead to war. War proved to be a new way to implement the natural process again. The less physically fit and stupider men tended to be the ones who died. And it was the low quality women that were killed, because who wants to take her as war spoils? The Modern Age Only in the last century, have we had a situation where everyone was well fed, there was little risk of death as a result of malnutrition or physical unfitness in war(bullets are very much an equalizer). All of this peace and prosperity, allowed for equality between the sexes. And with equality came autonomy. Women may have seen expanding rights, but they have not truly reached an equal status to men, until very recently. And just about the time the last vestiges of the patriarchy fade, we see nature returning. The low quality women can't find a man, and the low quality men can't find one either. Just as nature intended.

Author:	meetjoeblack [ Wed Dec 24, 2014 2:16 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The Sexodus
I have recently been fascinated by MGTOW, FEMINISM, MRM, MRA, and PU. I believe the effects of feminism have caused PU amongst these other things like "sexoduous." Men going their own way is a powerful thing but, these men tend to suggest avoidance and ostracizing oneself from women. To me, this is absolutely craziness. There are more and more men avoiding women all together. There are campaigns on campuses that are anti man and anything masculine. It does not take a genius to acknowledge the effects feminism has had on masculinity or for a lack of a better word, the lack of it today. The thing with gender equality is that, it is a good cause it forces change, and increases competition. The problem is that, gender neutrality depolarizes sexuality amongst the sexes, and ruins relationships unless the men and women are beyond ego. I have spoken about a lot of misogyny in PU. I believe this whether or not you agree or disagree. I do really like rsd but, they are pretty bad for it and it would seem, they have removed many of these videos. The content is great without it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm2aKGI4fWM I feel like there is some incredible content from the channel. I may not necessarily agree with everything put out there (JB for example). Then again, JB was censored and banned from entering countries contrary to freedom of speech. This is communism. Third Wave feminism has been reduces to the socialist agenda which is causing women against feminism. Why feminism instead of gender equality or neutrality? Cause its all about female power. Take for instance pop culture songs tailored to the females; "single ladies" - Beyounce... another words, promote sloot gonna sloot. Then, more female logic with "put a ring on it" cause women wait till marriage. You what m8? I have to admit, through PU, I have sort of lost my way at times, and have forgotten what this is all about. I do want to have a family; a wife and children. I do want a incredible woman not based upon her looks. I am talking beyond attraction, she is ambitious, independent, she has a career, is into fitness, she works out, she is nurturing, caring, loving, and offers value herself. She is not entitled based upon how she looks. She still feels the need to add value, be feminine, and go against social conditioning or feminist brain washing.

Author:	meetjoeblack [ Wed Dec 24, 2014 2:26 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The Sexodus
Quote: The low quality women can't find a man, and the low quality men can't find one either. Just as nature intended. Tyler is a really smart guy but, it is well documented that he has a lot of residual anger especially with women. Feel free to disagree. There is a lot of low quality men and women. You have women who gangbang and do toilet cocaine. You have male white knights and manginas out saying, "you can't say that" when referring to whores and sloots. Whats the truth? The thing is that, women are online dating; playing the passive dating role on a massive level. Despite being a low status woman; has several children, different fathers, low paying income, no education, and some mangina will marry her. Some women are in their 20s or 30s but, they have the maturity of a teenager. They never matured or grew up. They never learned to cook or clean, to be independent, to be nurturing, and work hard at something. Lower is the blue pill magina and white knight who thinks he needs a bow tie, must pay for dinners, dates, and wait for sex. The common trend is for man to wait till he finds one of these women later in life and he marries her. Two children and then out like the saying. She takes his resources and children. Women have evolved. Men are still in the process of change. Most are not doing well. Women value male resources, looks, money, power, and a variety of things. Men tend to value a woman based upon her looks. In PU you hear men rate women on a number scale based upon her looks but, nobody takes into account her family values, her career, ambitions, fitness and health, how active her gym membership is? What does her diet look like? Where was she educated (if applicable)? Meeting a woman that has a lot of things going for her beyond her looks is a rarity in this world. I value women on a variety of things. I am turned on by women who are ambitious, independent, she is pretty or cute and still works out. She is not putting up slooty pics on social medias for male attention and being a cock tease or jump off.

Author:	TGAP KEARNEY [ Wed Dec 24, 2014 2:41 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The Sexodus
Thanks for the post! This really got my gears turning.

Author:	DJ_Z [ Wed Dec 24, 2014 2:25 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Sexodus
I think there is something to discuss here. You're basically saying, and correct me if I'm way off, that undesirable people are being removed from the gene pool just as they were in the days of the neanderthal, only with different details on how. I think this argument relies solely on looks and physical features such as strength. Bear with me - Have you ever seen the movie "Idiocracy?" It's pretty funny, and stars Luke Wilson as a soldier selected to participate in a cryogenic stasis experiment that goes wrong, and rather than be frozen for one year he ends up frozen for something like an entire millennium. Early on in the movie, a little narrative portrays how intelligent, mature responsible people more and more nowadays are holding off on having kids and starting families because they want to be in the best position to raise them into well-adjusted adults. Meanwhile, stupid people are fucking, a lot, with as many people as possible with no thought as to the consequences. This narrative follows two men, I forget the names they used it was something like Martin and Skeeter. Martin gets married to his college sweetheart, and they wait so long his wife only has a chance at having one kid because she froze his sperm whereas he died of a heart attack in his 50s. Skeeter fucked as much as he could because he was a moron who never planned on being stable enough to raise all his kids, grandkids, and great grandkids (whom he was only about 30-40 years older than). So the ratio ends up comical, like 30 descendants of Skeeter versus 1 of Martin. I tend to believe this scenario more than what you portray. Sure, there may be some truth to your stance. There's actually a really interesting article in Forbes magazine from a couple weeks back addressing this in Japan, where population decline is actually seen as an issue in part because men are taught so much to be respectful to women that they just dont' know how to interact with them in a way that leads to a healthy relationship. However, your theory only suggests that we are eliminating the genetically undesirable. Responsibility and intelligence aren't entirely genetic, nor can they be determined by just looking at someone. I'd be more worried about the future of Idiocracy lore, where future generations are comprised more and more of complete and total idiots. Because you don't need any qualification to have a kid other than to A) not be sterile and B) fuck. Those are the only two pre-requisites.

PUA Forum https://pick-up-artist-forum.com/

The Sexodus https://pick-up-artist-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=186563	Page 1 of 15

Author:	meetjoeblack [ Wed Dec 24, 2014 4:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Sexodus
Quote: I think there is something to discuss here. You're basically saying, and correct me if I'm way off, that undesirable people are being removed from the gene pool just as they were in the days of the neanderthal, only with different details on how. I think this argument relies solely on looks and physical features such as strength. Bear with me - Traditionalism: Male = active dating role Female = passive dating role The game has changed now with passive dating role and social medias. We now have women who are obese deemed "few extra pounds" having access to men several classes outside her level of attractiveness. Science of attractionhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB1oMfs8nWY doc Women are now dating outside their level of class; marrying down once she has let time pass her by having been a jump off from 16-32. It plays into her entitlement and the beta male white knight and mangina is essentially a means to an end. His resources will provide for her poor lifestyle choices once she leaves him in a divorce and takes his children. MGTOW men have 1) either been through it or 2) are aware of their inevitable fate and are walking away. To me, it seems like these men are taking their ball and going home. I don't quite get it. Quote: Have you ever seen the movie "Idiocracy?" It's pretty funny, and stars Luke Wilson as a soldier selected to participate in a cryogenic stasis experiment that goes wrong, and rather than be frozen for one year he ends up frozen for something like an entire millennium. Early on in the movie, a little narrative portrays how intelligent, mature responsible people more and more nowadays are holding off on having kids and starting families because they want to be in the best position to raise them into well-adjusted adults. Meanwhile, stupid people are fucking, a lot, with as many people as possible with no thought as to the consequences. This narrative follows two men, I forget the names they used it was something like Martin and Skeeter. Martin gets married to his college sweetheart, and they wait so long his wife only has a chance at having one kid because she froze his sperm whereas he died of a heart attack in his 50s. Skeeter fucked as much as he could because he was a moron who never planned on being stable enough to raise all his kids, grandkids, and great grandkids (whom he was only about 30-40 years older than). So the ratio ends up comical, like 30 descendants of Skeeter versus 1 of Martin. I suspect that MGTOW is a product of this. Women were regarded as less than and feminism was born. Now, males are being emasculated and reduced to lesser than. Psychologically, the lack of female attention, relations, and intimacy is very damaging to a young boy and man. This is not something women can relate to while in her physical sexual peak. Quote: I tend to believe this scenario more than what you portray. Sure, there may be some truth to your stance. There's actually a really interesting article in Forbes magazine from a couple weeks back addressing this in Japan, where population decline is actually seen as an issue in part because men are taught so much to be respectful to women that they just dont' know how to interact with them in a way that leads to a healthy relationship. I heard a racist male attack Japanese culture and particularly made jokes about Hentai porn. I called him on his ignorance pointing to that, any time a culture, race or individual is alienated from a particular activity in this case sex, it will always rebel. The most sexually repressive culture responds with the most ridiculous response with cartoon pornography. This is what suppression breeds. Female suppression caused feminism. Now, we are have masculine suppression. Men who are not being men or are afraid too. We also have men walking away from everything. Quote: However, your theory only suggests that we are eliminating the genetically undesirable. Responsibility and intelligence aren't entirely genetic, nor can they be determined by just looking at someone. I'd be more worried about the future of Idiocracy lore, where future generations are comprised more and more of complete and total idiots. This goes back to MM, preselection, fittest of the species promote survival; Darwinism, etc. How hard is this to imagine? I think this is in fact reducing a much more complex issue but, from a general perspective since we are on a path towards attraction, lets keep it simple. We are already full of complete idiots in politics, in feminism, in MGTOW, and psychologically causing chaos. I don't think the male and female dynamic has ever been as fucked then it is now. Quote: Because you don't need any qualification to have a kid other than to A) not be sterile and B) fuck. Those are the only two pre-requisites. Exactly. We have idiots everywhere breeding. I heard someone once argue that, in the animal kingdom, if you cannot keep up with the pack, a wolf or wolf pack comes and eats you. In our society, we carry every bottom feeder and low life through social assistance our taxes pay for. For the physically challenged, retarded or mental health, there should be resources and aid. Its the bottom feeders and low lives that create havoc in our society, take everything, and add nothing. This is a problem. Someone posted about being booted off a college campus while doing PU. The thing is that, these are environments tailored to women. All women are good girls. They make up more then 60% of tuition in the school college or uni system and growing. More importantly, they pay for stupid programs like makeup and others that provide no job after finishing the program. There is a ton of anti male/masculinity campaigns on campus, feminist jargon, women studies but, nothing alpha or hyper-masculine. The good news is that, if there are red pill men, there must be red pill women too. There must be leaders amongst a group of sheep. For me, PU is all about finding that kind of feminine energy, and enjoying the experience no matter how long or short it may last.

Author:	Versalis [ Wed Dec 24, 2014 4:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Sexodus
Quote: You're basically saying, and correct me if I'm way off, that undesirable people are being removed from the gene pool just as they were in the days of the neanderthal, only with different details on how. Actually, I'm saying that for the last century, they haven't been. However, in THIS generation, we are seeing the seeds of nature spring forth. Meaning, these people were not being removed even 20 years ago. This is a very, very recent thing. And it's been happening most heavily in the last decade. Quote: Have you ever seen the movie "Idiocracy?" I have. It's a great movie. It is also very much fiction. The elites have always had fewer children than the common man. But the elite never seem to die off. You don't really need that many people to run things. Honestly, to a large extent you don't WANT everyone to be of equal intelligence. You need dumb people, to handle all of the medial tasks. Until we can make cheap robots to replace them. Then we just manipulate them into not wanting kids. The church is run by very smart social engineers, and it's served a great purpose. We need a lot of people with little critical thinking skills that do what they're told and have lots of equally dim children. First thing that stops being useful, we'll just come up with ways to prevent it. It's sort of like all of this dystopian hand wringing about women taking over everything. Never gonna happen. I've almost never met a woman who was a true leader. At best, they ape male traits poorly. On average, women are more intelligent than men and make better managers. However, the median does not lead society. Great leaders are almost always men. Great minds are almost always men. We have a higher ceiling and a lower floor than women. The stupidest person you'll ever meet, is likely a man. But so too is the most brilliant. As I don't worry about what is common, but what is exceptional, it's not a matter of worry for me. For one thing, the exceptional is defined by mediocrity. Quote: However, your theory only suggests that we are eliminating the genetically undesirable. Responsibility and intelligence aren't entirely genetic, nor can they be determined by just looking at someone. I mentioned intelligence throughout. It screens out not someone who is simply ugly. Or simply stupid. Or simply a little bitch. It mostly screens out men who are ALL THREE. Ugly, unitelligent and pussies. And at worst, screens out men who are two of those three(ugly and pussies). The reason these men are screened out, is both because they're pussies and because the lowest tier of women want something better than that. But of course, he is her equal. So she can't get better. And thus they both end up alone. And because it screens out pussies, it will also lead to a slow return to masculine equilibrium. Guess what a kid with pussy dad is much more likely to be? The reason this generation is filled with little bitches, is because in part, everyone was getting married. Everyone was having children. That's been for five straight generations. And it's about to stop. Only the good looking pussies will manage to procreate.

Author:	meetjoeblack [ Wed Dec 24, 2014 7:24 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Sexodus
Quote: And because it screens out pussies, it will also lead to a slow return to masculine equilibrium. Guess what a kid with pussy dad is much more likely to be? True but, the current court system promotes divorce favouring women all the time. This means, a woman could be unfit as a parent yet, contrary to arguing "equality" of genders, women by their very nature are deemed the more important parent. This is some of the most sexist shit imaginable. As it stands, it pushes women into a power play; passive dating role on a massive level through social medias, online dating, and other means. Women who were unable to attract men naturally now have a resource to access men outside her attraction level. Further more, if a man were to do a hit and run, he would be liable. If a woman lies about taking the pill, traps a man, and gets pregnant, she has no responsibility here. PU rarely discusses quality and quantity. PU allows for a man to reach a larger audience then playing the passive role and waiting game. Still, it is not easy task. Quote: The reason this generation is filled with little bitches, is because in part, everyone was getting married. Everyone was having children. That's been for five straight generations. And it's about to stop. Only the good looking pussies will manage to procreate. It maybe interesting for those who beat "alpha male" arguments to death. Many of these guys got the women in their youth. They found a woman, bought into the social narrative of forever, got married, had children, were emasculated, got divorced, paid out their hard earned money, and went MGTOW. I think you both have worthy arguments. The thing is that, the problem is much larger, and everyone tries to dumb it down. Lets have a PU system. Its not the perfect system cause, it is a numbers game, involves a lot of effort, and time. Much of the process is not productive or more so at some periods then in others. Marriage just does not seem the most intelligent move for men today. Sexodous seems like men taking their ball and going home but, with lower tier women dating men out of their class, little alternative is left for them. I cannot imagine being that kind of man. PU can be frustrating too. I find myself needing to rewire old unhealthy mindsets by social conditioning. If I were honest, I would have told you guys a decade ago, I would be married with at least two children to a beautiful wife and in my career.

Author:	neo87 [ Wed Dec 24, 2014 8:06 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Sexodus
Quick comment, how about instead of complaining about feminism, unfair marriage/divorce laws and all that, how abt men start DOING something. Use economics and change the laws. Red pill, blue bill, MGTOW, are all pussy stuff because it's men NOT doing anything to improve things. A woman gets raped, she fights and gather support for stricter laws. A man gets falsely accused of rape, he walks away and does nothing to make it harder to falsely accuse the next man of rape. Same with divorce. A man gets railroaded in the court, he complains and does nothing. Ps-women aren't dating above their looks. Sure they may meet guys online who fuck them, but dudes aren't dating fat girls. I don't see alot of less attractive women dating more attractive men in any city I travel to. A fat girl online will tell you, better looking guys don't ask them to dinner nor do they wife them. If they do hit them up, it's "come to my place at 2am."

Author:	Onoma [ Wed Dec 24, 2014 8:17 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Sexodus
Wow... so much bullshit... Quote: I think there is a lot of truth to this. I meet these guys at every college I go to. I'd say it's a good %20-25 of young men. They barely leave their house, rarely have a girlfriend and almost never a girlfriend they actually want. Yeah, that was me in college... but it wasn't necessarily because I had chosen to "retreat," it was because I lacked the social skills to do much else. The friends I did have reinforced my behavior... which by the way is pretty common. It's why they tell you to hang out with other guys who are good at getting women, after all! Quote: The Old Days In the past, these men could rely on social structures created by modern civilization to ensure that every man had exactly one woman. Maybe the lowest tier guy can't get a mid tier girl, but he can at least be assured a low tier woman. It's almost hilarious how you talk about "lowest tiers" in society, as if it somehow determines genetic fitness. The reality is that in many of these societies the highest tiers interbred with each other, resulting in a lot of genetic defects. "Tiers" were determined by birth station, and you didn't get to move out of your station unless maybe you were an especially attractive chick and the king happened to need a new harem girl. Now if you want to deal with some reality, first off you're only looking at European culture it seems like. Other cultures have had different mores. For instance, among Native American tribes I've read accounts stating that when there were more women than men they'd have polygamy, when there were more men than women it would be polygyny... and when the numbers were about even they'd have monogamy. None of which implies to me that many people were "cut out of the gene pool." In fact, there's a theory that the human penis was evolved primarily for sperm competition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_competition What that would mean in your "ancient cultures" is that when women mated, they would probably mate with multiple men at the same time! It's even theorized that women are more vocal during sex because their screams of passion would attract more men to attempt impregnating them. (I suspect this is also a reason for multiple orgasms and why women can take so much longer to "get there" than men in the first place. It was never really meant for one guy to satisfy a woman, it was meant for a line to form and keep going at it until she'd orgasmed her brains out!) So see, what I'm saying here is that any societal construct that "ensured" men got to mate with women is just that... a societal construct. Nature most likely had everyone fucking everyone. Quote: However, with the social patriarchy crumbling, the men on the low end of spectrum lack any sort of guarantee. The fat chick is no longer forced to marry the fat guy. She can either hold out, hoping to snag someone out of her league(she can support herself after all), or even opt out altogether if she can't have her dream guy. And yet, I've never known a "fat chick" who wasn't at LEAST trying online dating and using camera tricks to make herself look 30lbs thinner. Quote: If you look at our prehistoric ancestors, about %20 of women never procreated, but about %40 of men didn't. So %20 of men being unable to find a mate appears to be nature's equilibrium coming in to play when an artificial societal construct is removed. Be honest, you made these numbers up... right? I highly doubt we can tell how many women procreated vs. didn't... and if women didn't I'd bet it had less to do with finding a mate and more to do with dying young and poor nutrition. Quote: Yet at the same time, I think there is a natural reflex by the genetically unfit to screen themselves out. What do I mean by this? I think we all have certain basic "standards" so to speak built into ourselves. In the past, culture was prodding us to ignore these standards and mate anyway. Now? Not so much. Fat chicks being too picky and ending up alone is actually how nature designed it. The bottom tier of women and bottom two tiers of men are meant to be childless. And what we are seeing, is nature reasserting its influence, without the enforced equality of patriarchal structure. Except, no... in fact many cultures found fat chicks more attractive than our current culture! And again with the "tiers" bullshit. Prior to civilization there were no tiers, there was an elder or medicine man who was basically just the oldest guy in the village. All the men were hunters, and all the women were gatherers and everyone took care of the kids together. And again, everybody probably fucked everybody. Quote: Natural Eugenics I look around and think to myself that an awful lot of the population is composed of people with almost no redeeming quality. They're ugly, stupid and generally suck as people. They seem prone to substance abuse on top of this. This is probably close to %15 or so of the population. These people probably never would have existed in the natural order. And I think they're about to be phased out again in the next few generations. The really funny thing with this part, is that the people you're talking about are the MOST likely to procreate in our society. Those kids you were talking about in college? They're the ones who aren't going to be procreating for a long time... meanwhile the druggies and people too dumb to go to college are having a lot more drug-fueled sex, are a lot less likely to use protection and more likely to procreate. I mean... well Idiocracy pretty much covered that part. What they missed, though, is that genetic diversity being what it is... dumb, drugged out parents can actually have smart children. But I digress... Quote: I think what we are witnessing is natural eugenics. There is a reason we went from regular primates to such highly intelligent animals that we could create civilization. This process was our well developed screening process, where each generation we were just a little bit better than the previous generation. Exactly the opposite. The reason we are so successful is the wide range of diversity in our genes. The small variations that allow us to survive in the freezing climate of Alask AND the boiling heat of Africa. The diversity that gave us smart humans to invent shit, and dumb but strong humans to hunt and built shit. The diversity that lets some of us develop immunities to disease. On an evolutionary scale, our success is determined by having variety. (Well, variety, intelligence and thumbs...) This is why Eugenics is a really bad idea. If everyone has the same genes, we'll all be vulnerable to the same problems. Think of it this way, if eugenics "natural or otherwise" made everyone have Alaskan genes but then the world heated up by 10 degrees (thanks Global Warming!) we'd all be screwed because the heat would be killing our bodies designed for cold weather. Quote: La Grande Histoire With early civilization, we seemed to stagnate. Until we grew so big that we started starving and suffering from malnutrition. This screened for genetic unfitness, because only the strong children could survive a famine. Scarce resources also lead to war. War proved to be a new way to implement the natural process again. The less physically fit and stupider men tended to be the ones who died. And it was the low quality women that were killed, because who wants to take her as war spoils? Or you made weaker guys archers, or tacticians, or their stronger brothers helped protect them. Tactics win wars, not individuals for the most part. And women? Oh brother... so your only expectation for what would happen to the women is that they'd be captured as "trophy wives" or slaughtered for being too ugly? In your mind was every middle age peasant girl a Kate Upton thanks to this wartime eugenics? Also to have any real impact this would require everyone to constantly be at war. Millions of men and women probably procreated between wars, you realize that right? Quote: The Modern Age Only in the last century, have we had a situation where everyone was well fed, there was little risk of death as a result of malnutrition or physical unfitness in war(bullets are very much an equalizer). All of this peace and prosperity, allowed for equality between the sexes. And with equality came autonomy. Women may have seen expanding rights, but they have not truly reached an equal status to men, until very recently. And just about the time the last vestiges of the patriarchy fade, we see nature returning. The low quality women can't find a man, and the low quality men can't find one either. Just as nature intended. Women still don't quite have equal status to men, and to complicate things there's so many people with so many different views... women are still being told that they should be bold, demure, businesslike and must get married young so they can have kids while putting off kids to focus on their career. Honestly, right now everything is a mess for everyone. We all get mixed messages and I don't think anyone really knows how to act. None of that is what nature intended. Nature intended everyone to fuck everyone as much as possible.

Author:	neo87 [ Wed Dec 24, 2014 8:59 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Sexodus
Quote: I think there is a lot of truth to this. I meet these guys at every college I go to. I'd say it's a good %20-25 of young men. They barely leave their house, rarely have a girlfriend and almost never a girlfriend they actually want. Is this true? I went to college in Georgia and hung out in many schools there but never came across this. Most guys had some social life or interest in girls. Many guys weren't players, but were at least dating a girl or in a relationship. The guys you describe were probably 5-10% of the student population, and that's even in the all male schools. You're from Savannah right?

Author:	Versalis [ Wed Dec 24, 2014 10:24 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Sexodus
Quote: Wow... so much bullshit... Sorry if I angered you. I have strong opinions and I don't personally get mad about stuff I read on the internet. Even if I find it spectacularly dumb. Quote: Yeah, that was me in college... but it wasn't necessarily because I had chosen to "retreat," And yet you shaped up. You may want to argue "I was always good enough!". I partly disagree. You had potential to be more. You once sucked and then emerged from sucking. Just like the fat chick who became the pretty girl. If you had not taken the initiative to change, you have continued to be a lesser man. Quote: It's almost hilarious how you talk about "lowest tiers" in society, as if it somehow determines genetic fitness. The reality is that in many of these societies the highest tiers interbred with each other, resulting in a lot of genetic defects. "Tiers" were determined by birth station, and you didn't get to move out of your station unless maybe you were an especially attractive chick and the king happened to need a new harem girl. Your view of history appears to be primarily locked on Mediaeval, Western Europe. The world is a big place, and that portion of Europe that was less than %10 of its population, for less than %5 of the age of civilization. And the aristocracy you describe(which was less than %1 of that) were not the ones truly running things. They're statistical noise in the tier system. Quote: Native American tribes I've read accounts stating that when there were more women than men they'd have polygamy, when there were more men than women it would be polygyny... and when the numbers were about even they'd have monogamy. That doesn't really contradict much. Nearly everyone had a mate. And most people still had one. Perhaps some had more. But that's a societal construct that is forcing the unfit to mate. Quote: What that would mean in your "ancient cultures" is that when women mated, they would probably mate with multiple men at the same time! It's even theorized that women are more vocal during sex because their screams of passion would attract more men to attempt impregnating them. Which also signals she's worthy of mating with in the first place. Still not sure how you think you're disagreeing with me. Quote: And yet, I've never known a "fat chick" who wasn't at LEAST trying online dating and using camera tricks to make herself look 30lbs thinner. Yes. Holding out for a guy out of her league. Quote: Be honest, you made these numbers up... right? I highly doubt we can tell how many women procreated vs. didn't... and if women didn't I'd bet it had less to do with finding a mate and more to do with dying young and poor nutrition. I didn't. It comes from DNA studies by Jason Wilder on the Y chromosome. Our oldest common female ancestor is a lot older than the male. We have abouttwice as many common female ancestors as males. Thus proving the rate of non production is about twice as frequent in males. Quote: Except, no... in fact many cultures found fat chicks more attractive than our current culture! Bullshit that fat chicks like to pretend is true. Again, osteological studies tell us that the average woman at the dawn of civilization weighed barely 100lbs. Quote: And again with the "tiers" bullshit. Prior to civilization there were no tiers, there was an elder or medicine man who was basically just the oldest guy in the village. All the men were hunters, and all the women were gatherers and everyone took care of the kids together. Yes. Of those the tribe kept. You do realize how commonly they rejected babies for being flawed, and left to the elements to die? How often young men and young women were expelled from the tribe for not pulling their weight, for becoming fat? And the stupid hunters died off at a disproportionate rate, just as nature designed. Again, this only needed to happen to the bottom 1/5. And it did. Quote: And again, everybody probably fucked everybody. Everybody that was left. Quote: What they missed, though, is that genetic diversity being what it is... dumb, drugged out parents can actually have smart children. But I digress... This is true. We're dealing with averages. On average, smarter, better looking people, have higher quality children than dumber, ugly people. Exceptions of course, abound. Quote: Exactly the opposite. The reason we are so successful is the wide range of diversity in our genes. The small variations that allow us to survive in the freezing climate of Alask AND the boiling heat of Africa. The diversity that gave us smart humans to invent shit, and dumb but strong humans to hunt and built shit. The diversity that lets some of us develop immunities to disease. On an evolutionary scale, our success is determined by having variety. (Well, variety, intelligence and thumbs...) GOsh, it's like you're agreeing with everything I say, while imagining we're disagreeing. I said only those who are stupid, ugly, and weak get screened out. You then say "But we have each of those things!". Of course we do. And above, I just said we NEED most people to have lots of flaws. Just not to be worthless(as nearly 1/5 of the population clearly is). Quote: Or you made weaker guys archers, or tacticians, or their stronger brothers helped protect them. Tactics win wars, not individuals for the most part. Exactly The smart weak guy survives as a tactician. The stupid strong guy surveys with his big ass mace. And the weak, stupid guy gets handed a spear and dies because he sucks on every level. Quote: And women? Oh brother... so your only expectation for what would happen to the women is that they'd be captured as "trophy wives" or slaughtered for being too ugly? In your mind was every middle age peasant girl a Kate Upton thanks to this wartime eugenics? Again, it mostly culled the worst. Would killing the ugliest half of women make everyone look like that? No. But I'd bet good money, the next generation would be hotter than the last one. And probably by quite a lot. The Vikings were well known to raid cities for the most beautiful women, and/or kill the ugly ones. And the countries they settled were widely considered to feature the most beautiful women on the continent. Not a coincidence. Quote: Also to have any real impact this would require everyone to constantly be at war. Millions of men and women probably procreated between wars, you realize that right? Indeed. But the entire time we've had civilization, we've had malnutrition. Which kills the genetically weaker children. Physical attractiveness is a sign of genetic fitness. More ugly people die of malnutrition than pretty people. Again, this only needs to balance out a small portion of the time. Nothing approaching "Most", much less "Always".

Author:	Versalis [ Wed Dec 24, 2014 10:55 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Sexodus
Quote: Is this true? I went to college in Georgia and hung out in many schools there but never came across this. Most guys had some social life or interest in girls. Many guys weren't players, but were at least dating a girl or in a relationship. The guys you describe were probably 5-10% of the student population, and that's even in the all male schools. You're from Savannah right? No. I'm from... everywhere, lol. I've been to Savannah, though I've never actually stepped foot on Armstrong's campus. Nor have I been to Georgia Southern. Now , when it comes to the %20-25, I did say that it included men who totally withdrew from meeting women, and guys who almost do, but may have a girlfriend or two, that they are not happy with. And I tried to average things out between the more social, big schools, and the more secluded smaller schools. They have very different academic bodies. I think it's north of %10 in the major schools. But it could be that low. I tend to assume that I meet the recluses at a much, much lower rate, so there is some guesstimation here. But consider community college, and the smaller colleges like Shorter, Dalton, Columbus, Lagrange. It can be close to 1/3 of the population. These are guys who still live at home, and drive to school to get their parents off their back. There are some of these people at Kennesaw (possibly Georgia Southern and Valdosta). UGA? Of course not. That's where all the socially calibrated, academic. rich kids go. And GT is where most of the smart engineering type people in the surrounding five states, go. Smart guys may not be drowning in pussy, but rarely have no female options. If for no other reason, they have a good stable income, and tend to be fairly nice people. Some chick will settle for that. The only all-male colleges I know of in Georgia are black. I've never actually been to an all black college, so I'm not sure on that front. It was a lot like that in Ohio as well.

Author:	meetjoeblack [ Thu Dec 25, 2014 4:46 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The Sexodus
Quote: Quick comment, how about instead of complaining about feminism, unfair marriage/divorce laws and all that, how abt men start DOING something. Use economics and change the laws. Red pill, blue bill, MGTOW, are all pussy stuff because it's men NOT doing anything to improve things. A woman gets raped, she fights and gather support for stricter laws. A man gets falsely accused of rape, he walks away and does nothing to make it harder to falsely accuse the next man of rape. Same with divorce. A man gets railroaded in the court, he complains and does nothing. Ps-women aren't dating above their looks. Sure they may meet guys online who fuck them, but dudes aren't dating fat girls. I don't see alot of less attractive women dating more attractive men in any city I travel to. A fat girl online will tell you, better looking guys don't ask them to dinner nor do they wife them. If they do hit them up, it's "come to my place at 2am." You clearly have no clue how the laws work in your state or province. They spoon feed women. All your academic life takes to be ruined is one false rape allegation from some woman who wants attention. Some places immediately boot you out cause of the negative press it brings. Even if proven you are innocent, that ruins a man's life, and is psychologically damaging. Youtube false rape. Watch the shit storm that follows. Imagine being one of these men. I am shocked we do not hear more about these things in PU. Sweden is suppose to amongst some of the worst place to be around due to Feminism.

Page 1 of 15	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	meetjoeblack [ Thu Dec 25, 2014 4:52 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The Sexodus
Quote: Wow... so much bullshit...Women still don't quite have equal status to men, What planet are you on? Women practice the passive dating role. They place up slutty pics on any social media dating site and get bombarded from white knights and manginas. The court systems favor them even if they are a unfit parent. Quote: and to complicate things there's so many people with so many different views... women are still being told that they should be bold, demure, businesslike and must get married young so they can have kids while putting off kids to focus on their career. You have absolutely no fucking clue about what you are talking about. Women are more career oriented now then ever before popularizing the famous feminist quote, "i don't need a man." Of course, this tune changes once her friends start getting engaged, married, and having children. Quote: Honestly, right now everything is a mess for everyone. We all get mixed messages and I don't think anyone really knows how to act. I go for what I want. I do not care for lame ass cat call videos that attempt to portray man as villains. Quote: None of that is what nature intended. Nature intended everyone to fuck everyone as much as possible. Nature just is. If you run someone down with your care, you sir are liable. If a woman traps you with a pregnancy be it your child or some other man's, in some states and provinces, you are still liable. This is absolute madness. PU rarely discusses quality women. Something men should consider when pulling, is this woman a liability?