> Is sex going to become a privilege reserved for only the most elite men? If the majority of men cannot enjoy intimacy, expect incel terrorism to increase exponentially.

Sex is unconditionally a privilege as long as we believe in consent. It is the prerogative of anyone who owns their own body to decide whether or not to give themselves to anyone. That includes the prerogative of holding out only for metaphorical Brad Pitt.

I'm not sure "but the incels engage in terrorism" is going to persuade women to give their bodies to the men they don't want.

Maybe we're just heading toward single motherhood with fewer but more prolific fathers which I think happened before. As a man without children relying on government assistance, the real issue is this arrangement these days tends to rely on welfare and therefore higher taxes for me who has no stake in it.

Equilibrium will be restored after the members of the generation whose minds were poisoned and did not successfully reproduce do in fact die off (with their ideas). This is the process of evolution.

>If women would rather remain single than setting for a partner who doesn't match all their expectations

This is why Lori Gottlieb wrote Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough. <https://smile.amazon.com/Marry-Him-Case-Settling-Enough-eboo...>

One can also see the relation to the message of Susan "the Princeton mom" Patton's Marry Smart. <https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/13/living/princeton-mom-book-mar...>.

How do the numbers shake out in ape and monkey tribes? Or other animals?

Female primates are generally selective of the males they will mate with, looking for traits in the males that would give their offspring greater chances for survival, while male primates are significantly less selective of the females they will mate with.

I’m surprised people seem to think homo sapiens sapiens has somehow moved beyond instinctual behaviors programmed by thousands upon thousands of years of evolution.

We haven’t.

> I’m surprised people seem to think homo sapiens sapiens has somehow moved beyond instinctual behaviors programmed by thousands upon thousands of years of evolution.

> We haven’t.

I have seen my own children develop their understanding of the world through such stereotypical behaviors that it further solidifies my appreciation of just how much human behavior is derived from innate instinct.

Maybe not instinctively, but socially we definitely have at some point. Sharia, coverture, old testament laws, etc.

I think the taste of men in women is very predictable. We're all focussed on the same 5%.

With women, it's different. Each individual woman has a different taste. Some like men with beards, others hate them. Some like tattoos, others hate them. Some like them more chubby, some skinny. Some like a funny guy, some a serious one that doesn't act childish.

If you don't believe me, play a game with a women where you try to guess which guys she finds attractive. Very hard. With guys, that game is easy.

Make a fake profile on Tinder and the results speak for themselves. Women flock to a specific phenotype of homo sapien with a very high probability (top 5% of men). I think of this phenotype as a race of its own, since its members share many common characteristics, and interestingly the one many focus on first, skin color, isn't one of the distinguishing factors.

Since you seem to know, what does the 5% profile look like? It's all genetically fixed, or does the style and environment in the pictures play a role?

As a starting point geometrically the 95 percentile has proportions like those in the faces you see when you search Google Images or Bing Images for "average face in every country." Notice that the average face of either sex is universally attractive to most people.

Beyond this there are about 55 features that need to come together to get the 95th percentile phenotype. Rather than enumerating them all here, there is a four part analysis on YouTube:

  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhEuWSXxu5k
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwbGW9jeDeo
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz7tI7qT5t8
  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2otjA_98StY

I'm sorry but that's just the face. It's a bit absurd that women would only take the face into account. In fact, it absurd that women would only take looks into account.

Is there room for anything else on Tinder? Or other dating apps? Do people on those sites care? Debatable. Obviously looks are not the only factor in a relationship, but they are a major one, especially in longer term relationships, and are often the only factor.

Evidence from 2014 craigslist personals: https://incels.wiki/images/6/61/Juggernaut_test_2014.jpg

Looks unmatched couples are unstable and the better looking partner is at elevated risk of monkey branching.

Yeah basically it's pure capitalism:

- before, religion and morals were preventing sleeping around, which was effectively doing "sexual socialism" for the "poor" of the sexual market. this led to everyone having 1 partner as a pareto optimum. (even if in many cases paople were sleeping out of marriage)

- with sexual liberation (both of men and women), top performers get all the spoils, as it is with monopoly and businesses, and the lower perfomer gets... what's left.

Conclusion : be a top performer. Equality is always only a social construct

Of all possible takes on the situation I must admit I didn't expect to see this wild one

The other condition required is also banning birth control.

I suppose Afghanistan is the place to be!