Should you have no standards if you are an incel?

[Haaribol]

Nature doesn't care that women want a career or not though. Also it's a fact that birth and complications rise dramatically the older a woman gets, especially at age 30.

Another interesting biological fact:

The study published by the University of St. Andrews and Edinburgh University in Scotland found that women have lost 90 percent of their eggs by the time they are 30 years old, and only have about 3 percent remaining by the time they are 40.

For Women Who Want Kids, 'the Sooner the Better': 90 Percent of Eggs Gone By Age 30

A new study by the University of St. Andrews and Edinburgh University shows that women lose about 90 percent of their ovarian eggs by the time they're age 30, making it much more difficult to have a successful pregnancy and healthy baby. Dr. Marie Savard, ABC News medical contributor, discusses...

abcnews.go.com

Hmm, seems nature is trying to say something here... Guess what? All doctors agree, women should have children sooner than later for a myriad of biological reasons.

Yes, it's a fact that the number of eggs women have decreases steadily once women hit their 30's. Still, the vast majority of them don't have problems becoming pregnant (around 50% within six months after trying to conceive) and giving birth to healthy children. Sure, nature has programmed women to have their fertility peak around 25. But that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone must adhere to that, that would be biological determinism.
Should we cheat on our wives whenever we can, given the fact that we tend to be polyamorous by nature?

 

[czecha]

Yes, it's a fact that the number of eggs women have decreases steadily once women hit their 30's. Still, the vast majority of them don't have problems becoming pregnant (around 50% within six months after trying to conceive) and giving birth to healthy children. Sure, nature has programmed women to have their fertility peak around 25. But that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone must adhere to that, that would be biological determinism.
Should we cheat on our wives whenever we can, given the fact that we tend to be polyamorous by nature?

No, we should settle and get kids by the time we are 25

 

[czecha]

Well, hate to tell you this, but we are not living in the 19th century anymore. Women do want to have a career AND have children nowadays.
Nothing wrong with that - it gives them fulfillment, self-respect and social and financial capital. All of these are beneficial for her children and their future. Besides, there is zero evidence that women who do have children in their late 30's conceive children with lower IQ or other disabilities. Absolutely zero. Sure, when a woman reaches her mid 30's the chance increases that there are chromosomal abnormalities in the foetus, but when this is not the case (vast, very vast majority of pregnancies) all is fine.

You realize only disabilities that make you end up in a wheelchair or a paych ward are pretty much accounted for by bluepilled sjw scientists?
When in fact recessed maxillas, shortness, male pattern baldness and so on are a disability, even more so in 20 years than now

 

[INT]

No, we should settle and get kids by the time we are 25

f*** no.

 

[INT]

Nature doesn't care that women want a career or not though. Also it's a fact that birth complications rise dramatically the older a woman gets, especially at age 30.

Another interesting biological fact:

The study published by the University of St. Andrews and Edinburgh University in Scotland found that women have lost 90 percent of their eggs by the time they are 30 years old, and only have about 3 percent remaining by the time they are 40.

For Women Who Want Kids, 'the Sooner the Better': 90 Percent of Eggs Gone By Age 30

A new study by the University of St. Andrews and Edinburgh University shows that women lose about 90 percent of their ovarian eggs by the time they're age 30, making it much more difficult to have a successful pregnancy and healthy baby. Dr. Marie Savard, ABC News medical contributor, discusses...

abcnews.go.com

Hmm, seems nature is trying to say something here... Guess what? All doctors agree, women should have children sooner than later for a myriad of biological reasons.

Well, it is a personal decision. I occasionally drink even though it slightly increases chances of a few chronic diseases. Nature is clearly telling me it is not the right thing to do but for me, the guaranteed reward of worth the non guaranteed risk.

If we would mirror our behavior with what nature ‘wants us to do’ men would also not be in monogamous relationships, we would have unprotected sex, we would sh*t wherever we want to etc etc.

 

[czecha]

Well, it is a personal decision. I occasionally drink even though it slightly increases chances of a few chronic diseases. Nature is clearly telling me it is not the right thing to do but for me, the guaranteed reward of worth the non guaranteed risk.

If we would mirror our behavior with what nature ‘wants us to do’ men would also not be in monogamous relationships, we would have unprotected sex, we would sh*t wherever we want to etc etc.

Cope

 

[INT]

Cope

Thank you die once again putting the extent of your IQ/vocabulary on display.

 

[vondoom]

please dont mulitply...

 

[disfiguredyoungman]

If we would mirror our behavior with what nature ‘wants us to do’ men would also not be in monogamous relationships, we would have unprotected sex, we would sh*t wherever we want to etc etc.

That's a very poor understanding of evolutionary and behavioural biology speaking.

 

[INT]

That's a very poor understanding of evolutionary and behavioural biology speaking.

That is a very poor post if you do not explain why.

 

[whatintheworld]

Nothing is stopping women from having careers and kids early...in fact companies are more accommodating than ever.

The issue is:

Many western individuals live alone and cannot rely on extended family, like grandparents/aunts/uncles/ whoever to help with raising the children.

Many women do not want to settle down early because their hypergamy is on overdrive due to modern society and technology, and they are on the lookout for the "next best thing".

High costs, particular in housing, make it financially difficult to have children early.

The destruction of the nuclear family in modern western society is a contributing factor to all of this but...that is a topic for another day.

 

[INT]

Lol are you seriously comparing drinking alcohol on occasions to older women giving birth?

No. I am fairly certain that you know that I made an analogy so this looks like an attempt to just not reply to the content of that analogy. The point I was making is that everyone is free to do whatever they want. I can completely understand that a woman is willing to trade a slight drop in fertilaty but a fulfilling and succesful career over a slightly higher fertility and no career. Risk and reward + Free choice.

You're making the same argument as the other user. Again when it comes to giving birth especially at a later age, nature doesn't care what you want. Like it or not.

Where do I say that we should care about what nature cares about? I am very much aware that it is easier to get a healthy child at the age of 20 compared to 37 for a woman. The only thing I say is that we should not let nature or what is 'natural' dictate our actions. Warfare, rape and non-monogamy are all things nature dictates us towards. So what? I prefer to choose what feels right for me.

And it's a balance between focus on individualism and collectivism.

I agree

The west is much too individualistic and liberal imo and this is detrimental to a sustainable society long term.

That is your opinion and truly just that.

 

[whatintheworld]

Having said all of that I think the optimal age to get married and have children is 28-32 for a man and 24-27 for a woman.

 

[czecha]

Nothing is stopping women from having careers and kids early...in fact companies are more accommodating than ever.

The issue is:

Many western individuals live alone and cannot rely on extended family, like grandparents/aunts/uncles/ whoever to help with raising the children.

Many women do not want to settle down early because their hypergamy is on overdrive due to modern society and technology, and they are on the lookout for the "next best thing".

High costs, particular in housing, make it financially difficult to have children early.

The destruction of the nuclear family in modern western society is a contributing factor to all of this but...that is a topic for another day.

High iq

 

[czecha]

Having said all of that I think the optimal age to get married and have children is 28-32 for a man and 24-27 for a woman.

Cope

 

[czecha]

That is a very poor post if you do not explain why.

Cope

 

[disfiguredyoungman]

That is a very poor post if you do not explain why.

Many reasons from different angles.
First of all nature doesn't want us to do anything. A deterministic process has provided us with a soft- and hardware, that can be ambiguous and flexible in instances, depending on the situation.

Secondly, monogamy is not that uncommon in nature, it occurs among basically all clades, from fish to mammals.
And specifically in humans social monogamy seems to be the prevalent mating strategy as well. Among advanced societies as well as the most basal hunterer and gatherer societies. So we actually seem to have involved to practice a form of monogamy.

The whole angle of your post is based on the implicit idea, that positive inclinations are derrived from 'animalistic evolutionary artefacts'. Whereas your negative inclination to not follow that urge is somehow a high minded human trait, seperate from kingdom of animals and the evolutionary process. No, that's not correct. Other animals have been proven to show restraint in favor of more longterm goals or potential negative side effects of the immediate action.
Evolution provided us with basic urges, inclinations and fears, that can sometimes be competing with each other. If you decide not to bang your secretary in fear of ruining your relationship with your spouse, or because you don't want to cause her potential pain, you are simply following a different line of code that was naturally selected for.

No idea where you got the idea from that men secretely would want to sh*t everywhere if they could though...maybe that's just your personal preference.

 

[Norwoody]

virgin only pls

 

[czecha]

Many reasons from different angles.
First of all nature doesn't want us to do anything. A deterministic process has provided us with a soft- and hardware, that can be ambiguous and flexible in instances, depending on the situation.

Secondly, monogamy is not that uncommon in nature, it occurs among basically all clades, from fish to mammals.
And specifically in humans social monogamy seems to be the prevalent mating strategy as well. Among advanced societies as well as the most basal hunterer and gatherer societies. So we actually seem to have involved to practice a form of monogamy.

The whole angle of your post is based on the implicit idea, that positive inclinations are derrived from 'animalistic evolutionary artefacts'. Whereas your negative inclination to not follow that urge is somehow a high minded human trait, seperate from kingdom of animals and the evolutionary process. No, that's not correct. Other animals have been proven to show restraint in favor of more longterm goals or potential negative side effects of the immediate action.
Evolution provided us with basic urges, inclinations and fears, that can sometimes be competing with each other. If you decide not to bang your secretary in fear of ruining your relationship with your spouse, or because you don't want to cause her potential pain, you are simply following a different line of code that was naturally selected for.

No idea where you got the idea from that men secretely would want to sh*t everywhere if they could though...maybe that's just your personal preference.

Brutal norwood pill

 

[vondoom]

virgin only pls

takes one to know one^^
but yeah got to match...