You have both misapplied what I wrote to apply to the majority of beta men when I was specifically referring to lower betas and omegas.
This is the bottom 10% of the male population from a genetic perspective. These are guys with some kind of defect, be it physical or psychological that prevents them from successfully interacting with women.
My point was that a situation where such men have no access to women is perfectly reasonable. Defective men should not be receiving female attention. Nature simply does not want defective Y chromosomes entering the gene pool, which is why women have innate disgust or outright blindness toward omegas.
A blue collar bad boy with a prison record is not necessarily an omega. Neither is an unemployed musician. They may not be productive citizens on a societal level, but that doesn't matter, and isn't what I was talking about. I'm simply talking about evolutionary success from a genetic level. They're productive men from a reproductive standpoint, which is ultimately what matters in terms of the long-term evolution of humanity. If you're mother nature testing out human DNA templates, the most important criterion is not how intelligent or how productive or how good looking your human is, but how likely they are to reproduce. If you don't nail that first point, nothing else matters, because it won't stick around for long.
From a societal perspective, the state has an interest in promoting the reproduction of beta men, not omega men. If we roughly assign the bottom 10% of men as omega and the top 10% as alpha, that leaves 80% betas. This is the group that makes civilization possible and and whose sexual access should be guaranteed through marriage/monogamy.
The problem is that these "incels" view themselves as aggrieved betas when they are, in fact, omega losers who have failed to demonstrate reproductive fitness (evidenced by the fact that they complain online about being celibate and beg for government assistance rather than taking the initiative toward self-improvement like a worthy man would).
The key takeaway here is the distinction between the beta and the omega. The beta is the bedrock of society. The omega is a failed beta whose genes have no business in the next generation. Lumping omegas in with the greater mass of betas is simply poisoning the gene pool with maladaptive reproductive traits.
This is the bottom 10% of the male population from a genetic perspective. These are guys with some kind of defect, be it physical or psychological that prevents them from successfully interacting with women.
My point was that a situation where such men have no access to women is perfectly reasonable. Defective men should not be receiving female attention. Nature simply does not want defective Y chromosomes entering the gene pool, which is why women have innate disgust or outright blindness toward omegas.
A blue collar bad boy with a prison record is not necessarily an omega. Neither is an unemployed musician. They may not be productive citizens on a societal level, but that doesn't matter, and isn't what I was talking about. I'm simply talking about evolutionary success from a genetic level. They're productive men from a reproductive standpoint, which is ultimately what matters in terms of the long-term evolution of humanity. If you're mother nature testing out human DNA templates, the most important criterion is not how intelligent or how productive or how good looking your human is, but how likely they are to reproduce. If you don't nail that first point, nothing else matters, because it won't stick around for long.
From a societal perspective, the state has an interest in promoting the reproduction of beta men, not omega men. If we roughly assign the bottom 10% of men as omega and the top 10% as alpha, that leaves 80% betas. This is the group that makes civilization possible and and whose sexual access should be guaranteed through marriage/monogamy.
The problem is that these "incels" view themselves as aggrieved betas when they are, in fact, omega losers who have failed to demonstrate reproductive fitness (evidenced by the fact that they complain online about being celibate and beg for government assistance rather than taking the initiative toward self-improvement like a worthy man would).
The key takeaway here is the distinction between the beta and the omega. The beta is the bedrock of society. The omega is a failed beta whose genes have no business in the next generation. Lumping omegas in with the greater mass of betas is simply poisoning the gene pool with maladaptive reproductive traits.
[size=8pt]"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.”[/size] [size=7pt] - Romans 8:18[/size]