Post: #1

So I am about half way through Sperm Wars and have to say despite being recommended by so many "Red Pill" sources it seems to run counter to much of what much of the community believes not to mention now I am hearing that it has been debunked. Any thoughts on this?
Something that confused me was that it is often recommended with The Red Queen (great book in my opinion) and how men want as many women as possible (obviously) and women want the best man (genes) possible. Whereas this book says women have sex with as many men as possible.
Which is it?
Sometimes I think this book was just recommended to enforce the "all women are sluts" stuff I may be wrong if anything this seems to be a lot of what Feminist say the whole "women are just as sexually active as men" trope.
Another concern was this was said to be disproven and Robin Baker has a shaky reputation (loves to court controversy) I ordered a book called Promiscuity by Tim Birkhead that should explain this.
Anyways this book is recommended a lot but should be?
What are your thoughts?
I mean yeah there are some good things in it but nothing you wouldn't get from The Red Queen or The Rationale Male except without all the crap.

Post: #2

Physicist and anthropologist Gregory Cochran thinks that sperm competition is bullshit hyped by loons.

Post: #3

Better to keep it simple and just read Bang.

There can be such a thing as T.M.I.

That's what I think about it.

Post: #4

When I see single mothers with kids looking way different I believe Mr Baker is absolutely right about his theories.

Post: #5

I think sperm wars is an interesting book that ultimately may not be substantially correct. It's a beautiful, elegant theory of how sperm competition works and, consequently, how are individual sexual behaviors are oriented. However, as they say, beauty does not always equal truth (indeed, it rarely does).

One thing i noticed is that alot of the red pill community seems to gloss over some of sperm wars' points. For example, Baker actually makes the case that while some men have more competitive sperm than others, the genetic "fitness" of non-competitive men might not necessarily be inferior. For example, he gave the example of the "super alpha" dude who couldn't get his wife pregnant because sperm contained too many killers and not enough fertilizers. Perfectly good for a sperm war in a promiscuous lifestyle, but suboptimal for producing kids in monogamy. Overall, he argues that the multiplicity of sexual mating strategies (monogamy, promiscuity, and bisexuality) are all at the equilibrium in society these days such that the numbers are what they are and for good reason.

Indeed, the thesis of sperm wars is not that every guy should be alpha as fuck. Instead, it is that every body should - if it is even possible - make good decisions based on what kind of biological predisposition they have.

Post: #6

A better read would be The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.

Post: #7

Dupe:

/thread-31154.html

Post: #8

It's not complicated

1) The primary imperative of men is to have sex with lots of fertile women
2) The primary imperative of women is to have sex with lots high value men with value being determined by genes and provision