We've all heard it. Since the inception of manosphere and maybe even long before it, this point has been driven into the psyche of every man to point out the disparity between the sexes. While most of the manosphere uses this maxim to make you invest in yourself to better your status (and thus increase your options), feminists and gynocentric individuals use this maxim to discourage you from becoming better and to ensure you accept the notion of female superiority via reproductive biology.
As with most things, these people do not want to expend effort to become better and instead work hard at creating the mythos that they are better by default. "Women are wonderful" effect is a very good example of this. People who subscribe to this effect do not tolerate any notion that women are fallible human beings who make mistakes and should be held accountable to those mistakes. They prefer to establish the notion that women are infallible angels and any mistakes they have made is because of some external source messing with their inner (good) compass. "Sperm is cheap, Eggs are expensive" is just another notion that has been hijacked to serve the interest of people who subscribe to gynocentric ideals.
This is also the reason most women want a finished product and not a man in development. To someone who is "born perfect", the notion of having to work at yourself to become better sounds inferior and "unnatural". Such people are not good relationship material because they expect things to work out naturally (and in their favor) and will not expend the effort to maintain a healthy relationship. This can be observed in the relationship patterns of women who are slaves to their tingles. Their utter failure to realize that you won't become an athlete (regardless of your genetic potential) if you don't train hard makes them and keeps them a poor prospect for any long term relationships.
So, the next time you hear or read a dismissive "Sperm is cheap, Eggs are expensive", remember that they are equating their entire worth to the reproductive process (and not their character) because they don't have a good alternative to offer. Understand where they are coming from and go find someone better.
polishknight Endorsed 3y ago
If you read the FDS handbook to get an idea into their psyche, their cognitive dissonance is between: "Men can sire children at anytime, so they're cheap. Haha! Pay up!"
and
"This notion that women have a biological clock and declining SMV is just the LVM trying to scare us! Even a 50 year old grammy should be able to demand a HVM man just like in her 20's!"
Sperm is only cheap because men have a longer biological function with it in addition to what women demand from us (as we age, we usually become better earners.) In addition, women prefer to marry men their age or older because they don't want to endure the social stigma of other women staring a woman with a man who could be young enough to be her son.
Women hit their top SMV at age 22. It's ironic that FDS adherents encourage women to think of their SMV as immortal or to only meet men at the finish line rather than grabbing a young guy with good potential. It's the single greatest factor in why so many of them failed.
And indeed, when they run to the barn and treat themselves as cows and tables, they remind us that 35 year old women are effectively worthless to any but mid-level beta males.
moorekom Mod 3y ago
If we can tap the hamster that is running wild in FDS, we can power the entire east coast.
Oddest-One-Here 3y ago
For men, the ability to produce fresh sperm for decades means that from a biological POV, he can afford to spread his seed not to just the best women, but potentially any other women he can get access to, hence why "sperm is cheap".
Women only have maybe a few hundred 'eggs' and a limited time window to have the best possible healthy offspring (late teens to mid twenties), so wasting her few prime years on random men who are not going to provide for her offspring is a waste of her "expensive eggs".
Sure she can theoretically have more children after that, but her fertility drops each year afterwards and even if she gets pregnant, the health of the offspring will not be as good statistically as if she had them in her prime years.
moorekom Mod 3y ago
We are not discussing or disputing the biological process or its worth here. We are pointing out how certain people are using that to attribute special value to themselves. As another example, people tend to worship women because of being able to give birth, which is yet another natural process. I am not impressed by a woman who can give birth. Her part in that has been defined by nature already. I am impressed if that same woman raises her son (or daughter) to be a good man (or a woman).
polishknight Endorsed 3y ago
Neat point and I thought about how to respond to it three times and I hope the fourth time is a charm:
Cancel that, I wrote this a fifth time.
I love what you said about not being impressed by a woman who can give birth but in a way, that is the chemical attraction that drives a woman's SMV. Even if a man merely wants sex with her, he associates her attractiveness with her fertility.
But let's turn this the other way around: What about a man who looks (and by looks, also his demeanor, wealth, etc.) like he can have sex with hundreds of women. That is maximum fertility: An attractive woman at age 22 and a man whose perceived to be attractive to many women.
Note that I didn't specify particulars about what makes the man attractive. David Cassidy was a short guy but a TV star in the 1970's with millions of teenager girls putting his picture on their walls. It's called "pre-selection". It's interesting because what drives men to want women has zilch to do with what other men think of her.
Hamster style rutting, which is modern “free love”, relies upon a notion of biological irresponsible behavior: he has sex with multiple women without concern with whether the kids are raised well and she ruts with a hot guy and worries about them as “her world” later hoping for a bailout.
Caring about whether a child is raised well is humane, but not rutting behavior. If a woman has 10 kids with 10 different fathers and theoretically they’re good looking and the men have another 10 kids each and the girls rut as well, and most of these women are miserable at age 40 and the men dead in prison, “Who cares?” says biology.
It reminds me of Logan’s Run (the book) where the Carousel age was 21.
It’s truly a staggering personal decision whether one wants to spread their seed, with children leaving wretched lives, or to raise fewer children but to have them lead lives with dignity and meaning. When we use terms such as “freedom”, such as “free love”, that implies discipline. So you can spend your money any way you like: Do you invest it, or blow it on a weekend in Vegas? Or on booze? Setting one’s worldview on this matter, at the age of 21 or so, whether female or male, is insane but in some ways it’s easier for men when their sperm has value when they are older and therefore, a little better educated. Not that this always works out, of course.
moorekom Mod 3y ago
Being attracted to someone does not also mean that we are impressed by someone. I have been attracted to women who I have wished were nice people and because of that I never made any moves even if there was attraction and invitation from the other end. On a reproductive level, beauty and fertility is sufficient to make a woman a worthy candidate. But, when it comes to more than sex, that is never enough. Good looks alone does not make for a good wife.
Evolution does not really choose for the strongest. The species that reproduces the most, that can survive most calamities and that can adapt to changes will continue to exist until it no longer does. Evolution does not really have a grand purpose other than to be able to exist. Evolution does not care about happiness or the strongest.
Dalrock used to call women who engage in free love as feral women, which is apt because it takes us back to that level.
PS:
If you want to, you can also go through some of these posts from WATGMA.
https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre/comments/e01zyo/on_attraction_and_arousal/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre/comments/b55hft/evolutionary_maladaptations_or_how_moths_and/
https://old.reddit.com/r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre/comments/jbqvhk/what_society_looks_like_when_natural_instincts/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre/comments/9dpxxw/the_importance_of_balance/
polishknight Endorsed 3y ago
Yikes! Those links are like drinking from a fire hose.
It will take a while to go through them, much thanks. So far with the first two, I like some of the points but think the arguments are incomplete or subject to Great America bias. I had this too in that Americans have access to the world's goods but we project our own culture onto nature and eternity when this is the biggest bubble in history waiting to pop.
My initial remark to what you just said is the observation that until modern American culture of, say, the 1940's to present, a woman's beauty and fertility was sufficient for more than sex if only because, and I think this was part of a driver behind feminism, women rebelled against the notion of being dominated by men (even as they secretly crave it as one of the links above goes into).
Therefore... even if a woman largely was a spoiled brat but otherwise pretty and fertile, well, she could gossip with her harpies all she liked but if she wanted to eat, she eventually grew up. This has been the norm for all of human civilization although the rutting period, as I like to refer to it, was for millions of years before then.
The west is going through an existential crisis and may simply be overrun by patriarchal societies not navel gazing and "assimilating" into a suicidal culture. My point is that the west had come up with an idea to better the human condition rather than mere survival in a feudal order and it's now on the brink of collapse, sadly. With AI and technology, we may soon see a culling of humanity similar to the first outbreak of civilization back 10,000 years ago (if you've ever seen the film 10,000 BC)
In any case, what I find amusing about this discussion, and the links above, is how astute and erudite we are versus women's-studies-professors and otherwise well educated people who rave like the oracle of delphi. This is all fun, fantastic stuff.
moorekom Mod 3y ago
Speaking only for my posts, I know that most of the stuff is influenced by the society I reside in, the time I wrote it, my mentality at the time etc. Nothing is constant or unrelated to external factors. That said, American/western influence on the culture of the world is so huge that we cannot overlook it and it will have to be factored into anything and everything. Western culture is not the only one I have been exposed and different cultures have been impacted by it to varying degrees.
Likewise, we can also split hairs about how much romantic love is expected to be the default experience but is not natural and was fostered by French nobility (the women especially) since the 13th (or 12th) century (if we want to have a discussion on what is "nature"). What is considered natural and what is nature is rarely the same.
Just because a woman decides to assume the title of a woman does not make her a good wife, nor does it mean that she matured. Such women are the main reason for dead bedrooms and we both know that that used to be quite common before the sexual revolution in America (or in various parts of the world right now). They went through the motion to survive, to belong, to be accepted and respected. That does not make for a good wife in itself.
If you have read "The fate of the empires" by Sir Glubb or "Sex and culture" by Unwin, you would recognize the patterns and will realize that this is not a cultural or geographical thing. Human nature reacts to things similarly under similar conditions.
Scarborough 3y ago
Sperm = 21+ years of comittment with all legal risks coming with it, if we're talking HVM who would stick around
The post is dead on.
You don't become an athlete/ wife material if you don't train.