@adam-l

Second, and my specific point, is that what the female attraction circuits perceive as "good" might have nothing to do with adaptive quality, and be just a superstimulus. That's how psychopathy holds a niche in societies. It's not women's business to contain it: that's left to the wider society. Women have notoriously narrow social scope, and their limiting switches are external.

Well it's essentially novelty within a scope, right. So traits that are novel or stand out from the rest of her social bubble are going to stand out and be attractive.

But those attractive traits still generally follow the same playbook. Good looks, tall, strong, social proof, status, provisioning etc.

My point is that today there is really nothing inherently "good" about the female sexual strategy boosting "good" male genes. Whether a "superstimulus gene" proves adaptive, neutral or maladaptive takes several generations, and has no straightforward relation to the person's wellbeing.

Evoluiton is inherently about trying random shit and seeing what sticks. But the idea of passing on better genes to your offspring is pretty hardwired.

But it's also selfish. If she can mate with a "good genes" guy, there's at least a chance she can get some benefit from said guy.

I was reading Rollo's takedown of the Mate Switching Hypothesis in favor of the Dual Mating Strategy and I want to raise an issue that is monumental, but doesn't receive the proper attention.

It has to do with the "good genes" part of the DMS. First thing, "good genes" means "good in the context of the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA)". That much is acknowledged.

Second, and my specific point, is that what the female attraction circuits perceive as "good" might have nothing to do with adaptive quality, and be just a superstimulus. That's how psychopathy holds a niche in societies. It's not women's business to contain it: that's left to the wider society. Women have notoriously narrow social scope, and their limiting switches are external.

Evolution famously proceeds in random directions.

My point is that today there is really nothing inherently "good" about the female sexual strategy boosting "good" male genes. Whether a "superstimulus gene" proves adaptive, neutral or maladaptive takes several generations, and has no straightforward relation to the person's wellbeing.

Just to illustrate how we live in a world that puts women's feelings above responsibility or the happiness of others, here is a funny little story from a left wing British media outlet. Wall impacting entitlement princess throws away home and normality for her children seeking tingles and ends up alone. Husband never fought it, just wanted to build a new home away from her.

www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/dating-dysfunctional-middle-aged-men-was-the-worst-thing-about-divorce/ss-AA1WFiCF?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=699717cb624f458188b2b235a088f284&ei=25#image=9

Essentially A middle aged, middle class woman "resents" her husband and watches a TV adaptation of a romantic novel. This makes her decide that she needs to feel passion again. Throughout it all her failures to secure happiness are never blamed on her failure to give to a relationship. Much is blamed on the men and at the end, she is single still without the romance she was seeking but that portrayed is a good thing. (Probably is a good thing for all men).

Invest in a princess and this could be you in 15 years' time gents. She was, in her own words, perfectly amicable this one. Just resented him deeply while he soldiered on taking it all until she took half of everything and threw the kids into chaos. Do not invest in a woman in the west. Note how I said that. I did not say a western woman. They are all pretty much alike. They all only want as much as they can have and a bit more. The west says they can have a bit more and you will pay for it.

Now this anonymous article could be a fake up of a well worn tale but when you see it from a left wing media outlet, you know it shows how messed up things are. They think this is interesting and something their reader will value, yet this reads like a fake article from the manosphere to laugh at dumb wall splatting entitlement princesses.

@Kloi Its one thing to consider how many women would qualify, its another to consider how many qualified candidates would apply for the job to wear the "cook and make babies" apron.

In the last 5 decades those who apply for the job only want the job when they have "found themselves" (found they are running out of time on the cock carousel).

There is a growing number of wannabe trad wives but they do not actually want this apron. This is a "maid's apron" They want to have the princess dress and have lots of great experiences. They might just cook but the idea of being a mother to a large brood is pretty repellent to them.

That's all at the application stage. When it comes to what happens in post, I think it all comes down to whether the job gives enough perceived benefits as to whether they actually keep their word on the not a cunt/bitch bit. The problem is that the bar for enough perceived benefit is set very high by the hive who all have their own incomes and spend on themselves. "Yeah but I have some great kids" cuts little ice in a world where being beautiful smug and child free is pretty much the ideal.