>>17131795No that anon is spot on, and history repeats in validating what he is saying.
When resources become abundant and a civilization succeeds and doesn't have to strive, exactly what he says happens.
Women seek far more for men that act like niggers.
That are cavalier, are bombastic, that are flamboyant, that wear nonsense fashions meant to catch attention, and that live risk taking lifestyles that give off the veneer of being hyper-masculine because in truth they have little to lose, and less to actually offer aside the thin appearance of being the most masculine on offer.
When so many men are available that could keep her and her spawn fed, or a society succeeds to the point she can inherit enough money that she won't ever be homeless or have to whore out, the ability to provide takes second seat to other sexually attractive features when women are left to determine who they want to fuck.
Some borderline retarded nigger with a gold chain and no reason not to pose as being "hard" looks like the best mate to them. Some powdered wig fop in a muddy alleyway with a rapier rattling it at other retards, who has little to nothing he owns, looks a better option compared to the village baker that is more wealthy, healthy and is more stocky.
Rome the same sort of thing happened.
Yet you think he's talking literally about colorful feathers sprouting out of people's ass.
Yes we're not birds, but the kind of game that bar roasties get wet over because it is "romantic", as in low value men is not much different than peacocks twitching feathers. It does nothing to help neither the bird nor the pickup artist survive yet females see it as being an indication of a stronger mate in a situation without actual struggle revealing how worthless these things are.
I think it's you that has a misunderstanding of female nature if your takeaway of what that anon is saying is "everyone will just be gay"
that isn't what r-type strategy in a primarily K-type species means.
