Should Women Be Allowed To Breed With Whomever They Want?

[Monsieur Chauvin]

Should Women Have The Right To Breed With Whomever They Want?



In evolutionary biology, it is male-male competition for available females and female reproductive choice which functions as the behavioural ecological mechanism that ultimately drives human sexual reproduction. Thus, men compete for the attention of women - normally women who are beneath them in terms of socio-economic status - and the individual woman passively selects a man who proves himself to be the dominant Alpha male. According to the latest socio-biological research, male-male competition tends to gravitate around female youth and fertility, especially around those females between the ages of 18-24; because every woman goes through a period of youthfulness and optimal reproductive capacity in which she is viewed as being very attractive to the opposite sex, virtually any woman is capable of attracting any large crowd of available males. Hence, provided the female is both young and fertile, any woman can settle down with the man of her choice, get married whenever she desires and have as many children as she is capable of having. Only women who both consciously and deliberately choose to remain single and eventually become spinsters manage to avoid the whole burden of female reproductive choice altogether. However, because of such factors as differential parental investment (Trivers, 1972), the female must invest a much greater amount of time and energy into the rearing and nurturing of viable offspring, as opposed to the male who need invest little more than a few ejaculations of seminal fluid. Therefore, because of the biological and intellectual inferiority of the female, as well as her heavy parental investment, women select men on the basis of such things as physical strength, athletic prowess, natural aggression, and socio-economic status – all of these being characteristics that help provide an economically stable environment, free from rapists, kidnappers and other aggressors, in which the female can successfully breed. Because not all men are violent criminals or have the necessary financial wealth to give away for nothing, most men are excluded from the heterosexual marketplace.

But what kinds of men do women find attractive? The evolutionary psychological literature argues that female sexual preference often gravitates towards the selection of dominant Alpha males for committed relationships and/or reproductive purposes. Alpha males represent a select group of individuals which not only includes males of high socio-economic status, but also the most violent, aggressive, and testosterone-fuelled males of the human species. Thus, modern research reveals that women are either attracted to violent criminals and dangerous psychopaths or men of adequate socio-economic status.

Why any woman would be attracted to a man who owned a big house and a fast car is self-explanatory, but why do women find violent criminals, dangerous psychopaths, and brutal mass murderers to be so attractive? In the distant past, men who possessed high levels of physical strength, athletic prowess, and natural aggression were those deemed most capable of defending and providing for a woman and her children. In an age where might made right and tilling the land for sustenance involved an incredible amount of physical strength, it made perfect sense for a woman to choose a warrior as a prospective mate. A scholar, a poet, or a philosopher would stand no chance before a horde of wandering barbarians, unpaid soldiers, and merciless nomads, and the woman and her offspring would be slaughtered in cold blood. However, if a woman selected a man who was known for having an aggressive, violent, even murderous temperament, she was simply making a long-term investment in being able to raise viable offspring within an economically stable environment. Moreover, the "sexy sons" hypothesis (Weatherhead and Robertson, 1979) postulates that a man's ability to provide for his wife and children is irrelevant to his genetic value as a potential father of viable offspring. Women would select an "attractive" male on the basis of such testosterone-related features as physical strength, athletic prowess, bilateral symmetry, aggression, dominance, and hypermasculinity, as opposed to the weakness and kindness of an "unattractive", more feminised male. By selecting "bad boys" as potential mates, the woman would produce more "bad boys" who would be just as tough as their fathers and able to compete against other "bad boys" in the struggle for reproductive access to available females. From an evolutionary biological point of view, "nice guys" would not be considered attractive partners because they would be publicly humiliated, beaten up, and even killed by rival males.

Even today, in a world where women are physically weaker and less aggressive than men, it still makes sense for a woman to select "tough guys" over "nice guys”. Hundreds of thousands of women are often raped, tortured, mutilated, and even brutally killed each year, especially in Third World countries, often making it necessary for women to follow their primitive evolutionary drive by valuing physical strength and a violent temperament in a male sex partner, especially when financial wealth is very scarce.

However, conventional female reproductive choice exerts an enormously dysgenic influence over the quality of the human species. As a matter of fact, the quality of human being currently being produced has degenerated considerably, to the point where we have ceased producing the great artists, composers, mathematicians, scientists, and philosophers of the past; according to Charles Murray (2003), human achievement has actually steadily decreased since the 1850s. Women are attracted to easy money and fast cars; nevertheless, just because a man possesses wealth does not necessarily mean that the man himself is a picture of health or is somehow free of the genetic taint of hereditary illness. The female belief that wealth is more desirable than good health virtually ensures the existence of degenerate offspring for many centuries to come. Because women are attracted to violent criminals, dangerous psychopaths, and brutal mass murderers, they help pass on genes that code for violence and aggression from generation to generation. As more and more women date and settle down with aggressive, even dangerous males, the rate of violent crime will forever be on the increase and the permanent underclass that exists at the bottom of every society will expand to such an extent that its very reach will contaminate the upper echelons of society. Caucasian women, especially White Anglo-Saxon Protestant females, are committing acts of ethnic genocide against the white race by seeking out the violent criminals and brutal mass murderers of other races, especially those of the Negro and Mestizo races, and by doing so they are bringing about the gradual degeneration of white stock through pollution by the worst genetic material that alien blood has to offer.

Therefore, it should be obvious from the foregoing, that women do not know how to wield the awesome power of female reproductive choice. They are attracted to violent, brutal men and prize economic wealth over intelligence, creativity, and having a sense of justice. Because women are both intellectually and biologically inferior to men, they are often attracted to looks only (that of wealth, big muscles, and quick tempers) and are incapable of probing into the depths of human personality and character. After all, it is because of women and women alone that poverty, crime, and war exist.

Should a State Commission for the Scientific Eugenic Improvement of Humankind be established which supplants female reproductive choice and, through government intervention, pairs both male and female together? In other words, given the dysgenic effects of female reproductive choice, should the state determine which women should be allowed to marry and with whom? Should those who are unfit to marry and have children be forbidden to do so?

Should women have the right to breed with whomever they want?

Given the fact that women are attracted to violent criminals, dangerous psychopaths, brutal mass murderers, avaricious money men and selfish plutocrats, I think it is in the best interests of humanity that women be prevented from exercising female reproductive choice and that the state should decide who a woman should be allowed to breed with and marry.

[Arrow Cross]

No. But neither men.

[Edmonds Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Monsieur Chauvin

Should a State Commission for the Scientific Eugenic Improvement of Humankind be established which supplants female reproductive choice and, through government intervention, pairs both male and female together?

This is a great idea but I think selective breeding should be practiced on a smaller scale, humankind doesn't need to be improved.

Should those who are unfit to marry and have children be forbidden to do so?

In a perfect world we'd just sell them to the turks, our trash is someone else's treasure.

[ASIAN DUB FOUNDATION]

can you reduce your posts down to like 50-75 words because I don't have the attention span to read them as they are

[Johnson]

Women are stupid, and I don't respect them,
That's right, I just have sex with them,
Show me your genitals, your genitals,
(What!)
Show me your genitals,
(Your genitalia!)
Show me your genitals, your genitals,
(What!)
Show me your genitals,
(Your genitalia!)
You're talking to me about stuff, why?
I'd rather see your titties,
Now you're talking to me about other stuff, why?
I'd much rather see your titties,
I can't have sex with your personality,
And I can't put my penis in your college degree,
And I can't shove my fist in your childhood dreams,
So why're you sharing all this information with me?
It's not sexist 'cause I'm saying it in a song,
That's right bitch, now take off your thong, and...
Show me your genitals, your genitals,
(What!)
Show me your genitals,
(Your genitalia!)
Show me your genitals, your genitals,
(What!)
Show me your genitals,
(Your genitalia!)
Knock knock, who's there?
It's me, wondering why you're not naked,
Knock knock, who's there?
Me again, still wondering why you're not naked,
I wanna see your bum, I don't care what you say,
No I don't have feelings, 'cause feelings are gay,
Something something in the month of May,
Bitches love my penis 'cause it's really big,
Girl's brains are much stupider than men's are,
So they should always listen to us, 'cause we're smart,
Women are only good for three things,
Cooking, cleaning, and vaginas,
Show me your genitals, your genitals,
(What!)
Show me your genitals,
(Your genitalia!)
Show me your genitals, your genitals,
(What!)
Show me your genitals,
(Your genitalia!)
I can give good sex to you,
'Cause I'm really good at sex,
I can give good sex to you,
'Cause I'm really good at sex,
Aww yeah, that's right,
Shake your...bums,
I'm out of here,
I gotta...go have sex with a lot of girls.

[Alia]

As a believer in Eugenics, a firm yes to this one. Except in a state of Nature, wherein natural selections fills the role of choosing superior mates by weeding out the others, degeneration to a most certainly vile and undesirable state can only be prevented through forced Eugenics.

[Marklar of the Marklars]

This is a trick question as women frankly DON'T KNOW what/who they want. They live on impulses and whims.

Let women choose who to breed with and you get more Heidi Klums who is now on her fourth mongrel. The decision belongs to the family and the state.

[Alia]

Originally Posted by Marklar of the Marklars

This is a trick question as women frankly DON'T KNOW what/who they want. They live on impulses and whims.

Let women choose who to breed with and you get more Heidi Klums who is now on her fourth mongrel. The decision belongs to the family and the state.

You're 100% right, unfortunately that's only half the picture.

Men also, should be paired with women for the good of the State, not the good of another notch on their belt and another chance of getting AIDS.

As long as they stay in their race: Yes.

[Fugasnaya]

I don't think forced selective breeding will make that big a difference in the quality of the resulting offspring. How a child is raised has far more impact than what genes it has in determining the quality of the individual. By taking randomness out of the equation we run the risk of opening the door for large scale genetic weakness.

I think if we want to save the world from stupidity the first and greatest step to take would be to raise an army and burn Hollywood, CA to the ground. What we need is to establish a more organic culture that does not completely disregard the question of race. As it stands, the values that promote race mixing and degeneracy are imposed upon the population by virulent mass media outlets.