Testing
10hr ago
I did say in the post itself that I wasn't serious.
Note I am not serious here
I mostly wrote it to hear intresting moral arguments against it or for it.
I am not posting it to convince anyone to do it but because it's a good starting prompt for philosophy and a fun writing excercise.
Aren't there very few women promiscuous which have sex with chads? Most women have relatively few dating partners. The promiscuous women are selecting for superficial features since they are in for sex and pleasure. Normal women are just not having that much sex and are not available on dating apps since they are taken.
So it gives an appearance that all women are very shallow since only the very shallow women are available for dating.
| Number of Partners | Men (%) | Women (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 0 to 1 | 16% – 17% | 22% – 23% |
| 2 to 4 | 21% – 22% | 30% – 31% |
| 5 to 9 | 20% | 25% – 28% |
| 10 or more | 42% | 19% – 22% |
How would an incel uprising work in this context? Normal men and women are pairing up. Promiscuous women are choosing to have sex for pleasure instead of dating the bottom 20% since they don't have any societal pressure to do so.
If we lived in a gender reversed world lots of incels would indeed be having sex with female equivalent of chads who are readily available instead of getting in permanent relationship with ugly women.
In this gender reversed world, there would be few hot women who are satisfying lot of medicore men and there would be lot of fat women which are never picked.
This is not even a new thing by the way, even in 1800s there were still an lowerclass of men who never reproduced.
In places like Britain, France, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, and the early United States, the rate of adults who lived to old age without having children was shockingly high—between 15% and 20%
Even then women were not dating poor men and preferred living alone than that.
The behaviour simply makes sense from game theory and evolutionary perspective.
Testing
12hr ago
Also you are completely correct about fisher. In a free society if a such a cultural movement arose women who are not selecting against male embryos would gain an enormous evolutionary advantage. The genes which make people not want to abort male babies would propagate and this society would go back to normal.
It's probably trivial to write a simulation to prove this.
Maybe it would take baby vats or something like that to keep the society going.
Well it certainly isn't practically feasible. I am not arguing on that. It's more of an argument against eugenics, most people who consider themselves eugenicists would say there is something wrong with this but not normal eugenics. (Ignoring for the moment the obviously evil state repression which would be required for actually implementing eugenics)
I am thinking what is morally wrong with this plan or is it even wrong? Provided you can somehow convince everyone to follow it, should you? One poster pointed out that this can lead to demonization of men which can be a super small minority. That is one moral problem.
I also posted this because this seemed like the type of policy which would be supported by the most radical of feminists and incels both. Which I find pretty comedic.
Testing
13hr ago
Any future where goverment is this powerful and uses it for such pointless bullshit is a complete dystopia. This assumes a scenario where very different cultural movements have won out and people are choosing to do this.
An elegant solution to all the male crisises, embryonic sex selection. https://mistakesweremade.substack.com/p/the-y-chromosome-is-dysgenic
Men commit far more crime than women, they are more prone to diseases and they live shorter lives.
There may be more variation in men's IQ scores and they are more common in STEM, so we would certainly need some men for new discoveries and the like but what is the need for 1:1 sex ratio?
Most people don't work on intellectual tasks in civilization which need constant innovation and incredible time spent on them with a singular focus. Most jobs are mundane and of maintaince variety. We can just have few men which work on hard research type jobs where vast majority of population is women. Maybe with lack of men female researchers would lead. Besides if super intelligence arrives we may not need men working at these jobs at all.
This would solve the incel problem since men are rarer, this would solve the problem of dangerous men preying on women.
Note I am not serious here, but talking about this hypothetical seems like fun. It does seem obviously wrong but I can't pinpoint any specific moral principle it might violate.
Surely there is something wrong with this argument but what is it? It seems fine from an purely utalitarian perspective.
Edit: i am again restating that I am not seriously considering this. It's starting prompt for philosophy and a fun writing excercise.
The uprising thing was in another comment by you
I assumed that by hypergamy you meant something close to the meme where there are ten women who are trying to date one man while rest of nine men are ignored.
Some women preferring to date men richer and more successful than them is a much weaker assertion.
More options
Context Copy link