>>20555833>Monogamy makes no sense from an evolutionary or eugenics perspectiveEugenics is different from sexual selection because it also removes female choice too. For example under sexual selection, short women desire tall men for whatever reason e.g. more attractive offspring. Eugenics however would forbid short women from reproducing with tall men if height was the trait being arbitrarily selected; the women would not be able to choose.
Sexual selection is not the same as eugenics or natural selection. Next time some hole tries to say her shallow preferences is just her trying to improve the gene pool, smack her down and remind her if that is the case, then she shouldn't reproduce either.
"High IQ successful chads" aren't reproducing any more than short, skinny, malnourished africans fresh off the boat, because they are having sterile, non-reproducing sex. Even the most promiscuous roasties aren't even having that many children despite "expressing sexual selection" because they aren't reproducing or getting abortions. So tell me, where is the eugenics/natural selection? There isn't any and it's just fucking cope for degenerate behaviour.
Just a reminder "eugenics" is when BOTH sexes are under selection, not just one. Otherwise it won't work.
I have no problem with natural selection. My problem is that ugly, short, and autistic women with very poor genetics can easily get laid. Putting Eugenics into the hands of hyper-emotional, midwit, non-logical females is the most stupid move you can make to literally fuck your nation into the stone age. Pic related.
