[clevernickname]

It's human nature to crave sex, maybe not with every single person you meet, but certainly with more than a single partner in your entire life, right? For thousands of years, Christianity attempted to "work on this" aspect of human nature and make non-monogamous sexuality taboo. It was fairly successful at it. Yet (depending on your perspective) it only took somewhere between a few years and a few decades post-sexual revolution for it all to come crashing down spectacularly.

If the most powerful institution in the western world couldn't "fix" this aspect of human nature over millennia, it is sheer arrogance to think we can do better today.

[flukus]

I'm not sure if that's the best example. People that don't crave sex fall out of the gene pool pretty quickly.

Something like aggressive behavior though, is something that can be selected against.

[clevernickname]

Feminists have selected against male aggressive behavior in our education systems for decades. They have "successfully" ruined the lives of countless western boys and laid the foundation for immigrants from non-castrated cultures to take their stead with redoubled aggression. Turns out that it's much easier to beat boys into submission than it is to subvert female attraction to dominance.

[vkou]

This is not r/redpill, if you're going to make outlandish claims, please back them up with good citations.

[clevernickname]

"This is not r/redpill" says it all, but ok. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-...