SEDUCTION
I now have to describe the evolutionary impact of seduction.
I first have to start by addressing what seduction is NOT.
Seduction must not be equated with sympathy or the feeling of what is called falling in love.
The main hypothesis of
Fisherian runaway is described like this:
The evolution of male ornamentation, an example being the colourful and elaborate male peacock plumage compared to the relatively subdued femalepeahen plumage, represented a paradox for evolutionary biologists in the period following Darwin and leading up to the modern evolutionary synthesis; the selection for costly ornaments appearing incompatible with natural selection. Fisherian runaway is an attempt to resolve this paradox using an assumed genetic basis for both the preference and the ornament, and through the less obvious but powerful forces of sexual selection (a sub component of natural selection). Fisherian runaway hypothesizes that females choose “attractive” males with the most exaggerated ornaments based solely upon the males’ possession of that ornament. According to Fisher, if strong enough, female preference for exaggerated ornamentation in mate selection could be enough to undermine natural selection if the ornament under sexual selection is otherwise non-adaptive (naturally selected against). Fisher hypothesized this counteraction would result in the next generation’s male offspring being more likely to possess the ornament (and female offspring more likely to possess the preference for the ornament) than the previous generation. Over subsequent generations this would lead to the runaway selection (via a positive feedback mechanism) for males who possess the most exaggerated ornaments.
However, this becomes disadvantageous to for the birds, as….
The plumage dimorphism of male peacocks and female peahen of the species within the Pavo genus are the de facto example of the ornamentation paradox that has long puzzled evolutionary biologists. The peacock’s colorful and elaborate tail requires a great deal of energy to grow and maintain. It also reduces the bird’s agility, and may even increase the animal’s visibility to predators. It would appear that the expression of an elaborate and colourful tail would serve to lower the overall fitness of the individuals who possess it. Yet, it has evolved. Within the context of evolution this would indicate that peacocks with longer and more colorfully elaborate tails have some advantage over peacocks who don’t, that is to say the expression of the costly tail serves to increase overall fitness. Fisherian runaway posits that the evolution of the peacock tail is made possible if peahens have a preference to mate with peacocks that possess a longer and more colourful tail. Peahens that select males with these tails in turn have male offspring that are more likely to have long and colourful tails and thus are more likely to be sexually successful themselves because of the preference for them by peahens. Furthermore the peahens that select males with longer and more colourful tails are more likely to produce peahen offspring that have a preference for peacocks with longer and more colourful tails. Given this, having a preference for longer and more colorful tails bestows an advantage to peahens just as having a longer and more colorful tail does bestows an advantage upon peacocks.
I am not trying to judge the amount of validity this hypothesis has in its original context. For one, I am not not educated in that field. Also, not even all of the scientists agree.
My point is that this resembles what I will be talking about here in a way that it describes the horrendous impacts of seduction on human species.
Seduction is inherently worthless. Being “sexy” alone doesn’t mean anything. In many societies throughout history extreme obesity was a status symbol. Being attractive means nothing on its own.
What matters for the betterment of species is why somebody is attractive. If somebody is attractive due to positive traits that is the most important factor for it’s betterment. If one is attractive due to negative traits that is horrible for its betterment.
One of the greatest lies told today is that just by being reproductively successful you’re successful participating in a betterment of the species.
But how is that logical or possible if the main tool for this success today is seduction, which offers nothing but “pretty feathers”? What needs to be accentuated is that things like presentation of strength, material goods or intelligence/morality aren’t seduction. Seduction is “smooth talk”, it is a desire to procreate by giving nothing at all.
In other words, seduction is an evolutionary tool that is, if successful in a large number, disastrous for the species, since it removes the incentive to produce from men unskilled in it (but skilled in vital things) by removing their ability to ever enter relationships, have sex or create a family.
It is the single greatest negative aspect of modern society. Nothing is more disastrous for men, women or children than seduction being a successful evolutionary tool.
Seduction is disastrous for men since it enables the most stupid and immoral men to procreate while destroying the incentive of decent men.
Seduction is disastrous for women since it turns them into sluts who pick any man if he is immoral or stupid enough (which modern Western women believe is “sexy”) and it eventually likely turns them into single mothers
Seduction is horrible for children since it means they will be a product of most immoral and stupid men as well as sluts and that will likely live in a single-parent household and in poverty (since they will understand that wealth is no great reproductive tool).
Seduction is simply an all-round disaster.
