Yeah, I know. I was just fired up about the topic and needed some mental release. LOL.”

I know exactly what you’re talking about. This shit is like therapy sometimes.

Cuckoldry might have worked in the past but we have DNA tests for that now. Even back in the day, the women (and men) were sometimes found out and the children were put out to die or the adulterers were stoned to death as a lesson for the others. I don’t condone this, obviously, but it happened and regularly enough to send a clear message.

Serial monogamy is not as successful as raising children in a state of marriage. Even polygamy is better than that for the children. The impact of constant, regular, and exclusive paternal involvement and presence cannot be underestimated. They are slowly (and stupidly, as the Bible could have told them that, which is why all parental admonitions and instructions are given to the FATHERS, not the mothers) beginning to see this in more and more statistics: anti-social behavior is directly linked to paternal involvement. Crime, drug-use, promiscuity, immodesty, divorce, suicide, work ethic, scholastic achievement, poverty, etc.
I’d even posit that, as long as the father is not a total ass or an active felon, his merely being alive, breathing, and present in the home is — for some unknown, magical reason — enough to ward off most negative behavior in the children.

Let me go further: women are largely interchangeable, men aren’t. A child who grows up with an aunt, grandmother, adopted mother, devoted housekeeper, etc. will only do marginally worse than one raised by their mother as long as the woman acts as if she was the mother. A child raised by anyone other than their father (even stepfathers or male relatives who try their very best) will do significantly worse. I don’t know why that is, though. But it’s something that’s getting lost in the “have a man in the home” discussion. Having a man isn’t enough; it has to be the biological father or the positive effect is only due to an increase in income and dual-parenting, not the man’s presence.

Because the mother’s care (due to breastfeeding, etc.) is so vital at the beginning of a child’s life, many are inclined to make the mother the default caretaker after divorce. This is shortsighted (again, as the Bible could have told you). Men’s positive influence on their children grows from year to year and if you sever that relationship at the beginning many men will not be able or willing to reconstruct it at a later date, when it is most needed. Once the child reaches 6 months of age, it is usually weaned to a bottle anyway and she can always pump so the breastfeeding isn’t really a topic anymore.

It’d be better to make joint-custody automatic in divorce and perhaps provide the father with child-care assistance to aid him in his attempt to maintain contact with his children. The mother doesn’t need child support as long as the custody is shared: men who are actively involved in their children’s lives aren’t going to let them starve or sleep out in the rain, regardless of their relationship with the mother. Duh. Child support only makes sense at all if the man severs all ties and only until/if she remarries.

So the goal (for children’s best outcome) should be: ensure paternity, severely restrict divorce, make joint-custody default, and limit child support.

You’ve hit on an important point here and I’m going to take it a step further.

Women have developed to fit a certain role “breeders” whereas men have developed to achieve a certain goal “protect, provide, and produce”. Therefore sexual selection would tend to keep women’s state constant while selecting for men who are best able to attain that goal within their society.

Women’s current schizophrenic behavior can be explained quite simply as a reaction to the change from one set of goals to another. Marriage used to be the method whereby men could contain women’s naturally promiscuous nature and steer them towards men fulfilling the newest set of goals. By forcing women to, essentially, choose one man and stick with him, the woman was forced to evaluate the men more carefully and select one who would be the most likely to succeed in their society.

In a highly warring society the selection would be for men who are large, strong, and quick. In our society the selection would be for men who have acquired a skills set that allows them to be competitive in the modern workforce (social competence and intelligence). Contrary to what you read on men’s boards, the birth rate is highest for betas. They are the most sexually successful as they are the most inclined to marry and the birth rate is much higher for married women.

Except in the black population (due to poor education and a lack of reliable contraception), many women may be interested in having sex with an alpha but they don’t reproduce with them. It used to be that you therefore couldn’t have sex with them at all, now you can beat the system by having sex but using contraception.

Because of contraception, from a genetic point of view, most alphas are dead-ends unless they eventually marry. And even then their divorce rate is so high that the marriages are inherently unstable, which would further depress their reproductive success. And if they manage to “knock up” one of their concubines, the instability of the parental relationship means that their progeny are less successful than those from men who have invested more heavily in their offspring.

In other words, the future belongs to the betas. The alphas had a bonanza for a while but it’s going to slow down as they simply die out, and women wisen up when the beta men refuse to play along. You will see women becoming more and more the “pursuers” in relationships with betas, more complaints of “I can’t find a good man.”, a slowing or even reversal of divorce rates, and more women naming and shaming their cohorts who don’t “play by the rules”. The fact that you are already seeing these things supports my theory.

Alphas are actually most successful in civilizations that are highly beta-ized as they are pressured into marriage and family. Whenever they come out on top it is because the civilization is in decline and will soon be taken over by a more beta-ized one (Islam?). Basically, the sexual anarchy we see around us right now is alphas enjoying the downfall and trying to get some last-minute shagging in before it all goes to hell.

But isn’t it generally a pendulum?: the alphas are on top, then the betas are on top, then the alphas are on top…

“while 80% of women and 40% of men may pass on their genetic material, the offspring will be at the same levels of evolution: male or female,”

what link? I’m just speculating using the logic of selection.

No selection pressure = no evolutionary change.”

Men genetically exist more on the extreme sides of the bell curve for allmost all abilities and traits. There are more male outliers, both good and bad. Women are genetic filters. They select men whose genetic experimentation is successful. The reason men have more evolutionary selection pressure on them is that they are worth less from a biological perspective. Nature doesn’t take as many chances with the breeders. It takes more chances with the doers, as you never know what needs to be done, but you always need breeders.

How is this possible if we mate together and share DNA. DNA has a bunch of tricks to it that allow it all types of fancy stuff, and I won’t go into those here, and I don’t know them that well, but besides that, that shriveled up little piece of crap Y-chromosome that feminist love to bash because its tiny, well, its tiny because its effecient and productive. It makes a huge difference in our genetic makeup. Not many animals have as much sex specialization as we do. As a social, cooperative species, we have really specialized the sex roles compared to other advanced species. The Y-chromosome is very powerful, both in good and bad ways. It is probably more open to genetic mutations then other chromosomes, because it doesn’t allow for the genetic reduntancy of matching pair chromosomes, so it is the Y chromosome that makes men have more of a range of abilities on the bell curve, both adaptive and maladaptive. So are men more evolved….enh, maybe evolved more to specialize compared to women. Evolved more to mutate more than women. Evolved more to excell and evolved more to fail. Its a gray area. You could argue women evolve less because they already fit their niche perfectly and don’t need to. I’d like to reiterate that men are not superior to women, we are different. We are superior on average for specific abilities, but not on average overall. The main benefit I think men on average is the ability to seperate their logical analytical thoughts from their emotions. This has a downside although, as when it is taken too far, you get sociopaths. So maybe women are better for not being less emotional. Its somewhat subjective, and depends on context of what the environmental niche someone exists in; scientist or caregiver, civil engineer or social worker, etc.