Blackpill All relationships devolve into betabuxxing

[yearning inkwel]

The only larp here is you, you are making your larp too obvious tbh, you need to tone it down a bit.

Between these two:

1. Suspicious dude-bro who is directing inkwells to whores, and telling them, "dude, sex with a whore is just like validation sex with looksmatched roasties who give you enthusiastic consent, you didn't lose out on much bro, just use whores bro, it's blackpilled to use whores didn't you know? It's blackpilled not to experience intimacy with an eager shaft-grasper."

2. I who, on the other hand, tells the inkwels that they should be hateful and angry and politicized and wrathful and they should organize so as to upturn the political order such that they and their sons are protected from the indignities they currently face?

Who is the larp?

 

[yearning inkwel]

I may not have what it takes to be the inkwel demagogue we need but, inshallah, I will help produce him. There are no personal solutions to systemic problems.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Suspicious dude-bro who is directing inkwells to whores, and telling them, "dude, sex with a whore is just like validation sex with looksmatched roasties who give you enthusiastic consent

If all you are going to do is prop up a strawman to argue against it just makes you look even more like a larp.

My entire position has always been that:
1. You shouldn't care about the validation (our ancestors in the far past were raiding villages and raping women, and forcefully claiming them as wives, they didn't care about female validation and they were definitely more masculine than modern men)

2. Valuing a woman's validation more than the use of her body IS FEMALE WORSHIP AND BLUE PILLED.

I never said the sex is just like sex with a woman who wants you.

The point is, men caring about whether or not a woman genuinely wants to fuck them IS A RELATIVELY NEW CONCEPT FOR THE SPECIES.

In the past women were just property.

YOUR MINDSET IS IRONICALLY VERY "PROGRESSIVE" AND FEMINIST IN NATURE.

If you lack the self-awareness required to see that, that's a YOU problem.

A lot of you idiots sound like feminists and you don't even realize it. You attempt to rewrite thousands of years of human history and known biology, with the modern day norms you were indoctrinated to believe.

Men in the past weren't this obsessed with "enthusiastic consent" or "female validation". Women were just property, something to be claimed, owned and used to their benefit (sex and furthering their lineage).

My rhetoric is a return to the original norms of masculinity (with the understanding that some things can't be done with the current laws):

[Hard To Swallow Edition] The Greatest Trick Society Ever Pulled Was Convincing Men To Adhere To A Feminized Standard Of Masculinity & Be Proud Of It

Ever heard of this quote: "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist" Well here's the thing, society has basically done this to men, and many men (ironically even so called "black pilled" incels) don't seem to be aware of this. Even though its right in...

incels.is

Now you can go ahead and keep chasing female validation, but you will likely never get it. So all you are doing is wasting your time obsessing about something that you can't change.

2. I who, on the other hand, tells the inkwels that they should be hateful and angry and politicized and wrathful and they should organize so as to upturn the political order such that they and their sons are protected from the indignities they currently face?

1. Nothing you said seemed to be about starting a political movement.

2. That shit costs money and public support. Most incels are for the retarded LDAR culture (so they'll always be broke) and society doesn't give a fuck about men, so good luck with that.

You are just chasing dreams, that's the core theme of your mindset. Whereas incels like me are pragmatists that focus on reality and what we can change.

3. Incels should focus on OPTING OUT OF SOCIETY, not trying to CHANGE SOCIETY. Everything has a natural order, let it take it's course and focus on improving your own life.

We were just born in an era in which it's inconvenient to be a man, there were women who were born in the era before feminism that felt the same.

 

[yearning inkwel]

If all you are going to do is prop up a strawman to argue against it just makes you look even more like a larp.

My entire position has always been that:
1. You shouldn't care about the validation (our ancestors in the far past were raiding villages and raping women, and forcefully claiming them as wives, they didn't care about female validation and they were definitely more masculine than modern men)

Not true. Most pairings through-out human history -- especially in the context of the ancestral evolutionary environment -- have been a result of mutual sexual selection. While the crime of rape is part of human nature, it is not the primary mode of sexual mating -- mutual selection is. I'm not bothering with the rest of your word salad.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Not true. Most pairings through-out human history -- especially in the context of the ancestral evolutionary environment -- have been a result of mutual sexual selection. While the crime of rape is part of human nature, it is not the primary mode of sexual mating -- mutual selection is. I'm not bothering with the rest of your word salad.

Wrong, most marriages throughout history have been arranged marriages, not people "marrying for love".

Things became less violent over time, but women were still kept in their place as property through social norms and laws (which prevented them from earning wages, owning property, and being independent of a man's leadership).

Daughters were handed off to their husbands by their father. A woman was always under the authority, control, and leadership of a man.

There was no "mutual selection" until recently in history. As we became more advanced, women had more and more of a say over who they married and had sex with. But the further back you go in history, they have less and less of a say.

You are peddling revisionist history bullshit.

 

[yearning inkwel]

Wrong, most marriages throughout history have been arranged marriages, not people "marrying for love".

Things became less violent over time, but women were still kept in their place as property through social norms and laws (which prevented them from earning wages, owning property, and being independent of a man's leadership).

Daughters were handed off to their husbands by their father. A woman was always under the authority, control, and leadership of a man.

There was no "mutual selection" until recently in history. As we became more advanced, women had more and more of a say over who they married and had sex with. But the further back you go in history, they have less and less of a say.

You are peddling revisionist history bullshit.

Human behavior is shaped more by the millions of years of evolution that preceded the past 10k years. The systems you describe were ones that managed this dynamic of monkey-brain mutual sexual selection that rounds out to polygyny. It is this same monkey-brain level mutual sexual selection that has been permitted because of the Sexual Revolution and, once again, leads to excess males. Some men are naturally out-competing other males from the place of pure sexiness/attraction and are consequently hoarding female erotic capital. What you describe as "natural" were systems meant to manage that dynamic. This is so basic evo-psych 101 shit that only an anti-incel subversive would deny it.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Some men are naturally out-competing other males from the place of pure sexiness/attraction and are consequently hoarding female erotic capital.

No, because in a purely natural environment I would be able to kill that man and take his woman without fearing "Jail Time" and advanced tracking systems used to find and imprison me.

Nothing about the competition today is "natural", it's a forced linear competition with unfair rules. Whereas in the past it was a free for all. Tall chad may be physically stronger than you, but a sharp stick to the jugular would kill him. That aspect unfairness made the "game" fair. The fact that there were no rules made it an even playing field.

But if you are a low tier male in the modern era, you are just fucked because you can't play as you used to in order to win.

What you describe as "natural" were systems meant to manage that dynamic.

Ironically women "choosing" who they fuck is also another system that is even more further divorced from nature than what I talked about.

If you think cavemen were begging women for pussy you are delusional, they were dragging bitches back to their caves.

Women were never the mutual selectors at any point in history till the modern "civilized" era, and now it's getting to the point in which they are pretty much the sole selectors all on their own, basically taking on the male role.

 

[yearning inkwel]

No, because in a purely natural environment I would be able to kill that man and take his woman without fearing "Jail Time" and advanced tracking systems used to find and imprison me.

As if the principle of sexual selection wouldn't mean you're also competing against more attractive and stronger men who could outcompete you physically for those roasties. In your fantasy, the assumption is simply that you have the strength, resources, will-power, allies etc to get your way -- except your sexual loserdom will invariably mean you lack in those qualities too. You're like a PUA fantasist except applied to the past. "Eons ago, I would have been a male who got his way through dominance!" Yea right buddy, as if even more dominant males weren't sexually selected and would be your competitors (in addition to being sexier/better looking.) I REALLY hate your dumb posts.

 

[BlkPillPres]

As if the principle of sexual selection wouldn't mean you're also competing against more attractive and stronger men who could outcompete you physically for those roasties. In your fantasy, the assumption is simply that you have the strength, resources, will-power, allies etc to get your way -- except your sexual loserdom will invariably mean you lack in those qualities too.

What's the point of quoting part of a post, and then critiquing something that is addressed a few lines after, you are really just coming off as disingenuous.

Nothing about the competition today is "natural", it's a forced linear competition with unfair rules. Whereas in the past it was a free for all. Tall chad may be physically stronger than you, but a sharp stick to the jugular would kill him. That aspect unfairness made the "game" fair. The fact that there were no rules made it an even playing field.

It doesn't take strength to survive in such a world, just intelligence. Average strength is more than enough unless you are going up against a group of men. But if it's one on one you can cheat your way into winning a fight against Chad.

Lastly, there were no abortions or morning after pills in the past. A lot of "inferior" males reproduced through hit and run tactices (rape and move on to the next victim). The woman would be forced to carry the pregnancy to term in the far past. If the child died it doesn't matter because the odds are in your favor because it's a numbers game.

A lot of men reproduced that way I'm sure. Rape was pretty common in the past.

 

[yearning inkwel]

What's the point of quoting part of a post, and then critiquing something that is addressed a few lines after, you are really just coming off as disingenuous.


It doesn't take strength to survive in such a world, just intelligence. Average strength is more than enough unless you are going up against a group of men. But if it's one on one you can cheat your way into winning a fight against Chad.

Lastly, there were no abortions or morning after pills in the past. A lot of "inferior" males reproduced through hit and run tactices (rape and move on to the next victim). The woman would be forced to carry the pregnancy to term in the far past. If the child died it doesn't matter because the odds are in your favor because it's a numbers game.

A lot of men reproduced that way I'm sure. Rape was pretty common in the past.

Those "inferior males" were outclassed in terms of having allies. They could not get their "rapey" ways without significant cost to themselves. Basically, you're endorsing rapist fantasies to convince men not to feel resentful over not being selected. You encourage a "sour grapes" attitude relentlessly to distract the inkwels. "Hey inkwel, you shouldn't be so sad over not getting an eager shaft-grasper unlike the pretty boy Chad over there. It's okay, just pay for it bro. It's just as good as the real thing." Hey inkwels, what are the intentions of the person/s whose entire purpose is to push this message? BlkPillPres is at war against incel angst. He is part of the people trying to "manage" the problem by changing "inkwel thinking." Beware.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Those "inferior males" were outclassed in terms of having allies.

Doesn't matter if they reproduced multiple times and passed on their genes, everybody is going to die anyways, but not everybody is going to have 10 offspring. Those guys still won even if they died in the wilderness a few years later.

I wouldn't really care about "surviving" in that era anyways, it was shit. No good food, always hunting to survive, no entertainment, etc.

The reason why modern men are so pacified today is because just surviving is enjoyable with all these modern conveniences.

 

[yearning inkwel]

Doesn't matter if they reproduced multiple times and passed on their genes, everybody is going to die anyways, but not everybody is going to have 10 offspring. Those guys still one even if they died in the wilderness a few years later.

It's very likely that if you're an incel now that you would have been likewise in the deep ancestral past. Incelism is a thing because of the decline of civilizational forces that used to moderate and control roasties. Inkwels as a class are overwhelmingly the males that benefited from the control of female sexuality by society. The benefit of that arrangement was, in addition to getting to access roastie beef-flaps, the inkwel kind were protected from the indignity of the "male gorgeousness hierarchy." What must be done is bringing back that old order. Encouraging men to slink around like low-life criminals hunting for pay-for-play is counterproductive to this necessary project.

 

[massculini]

The bible had a lot of fucking simps, and these were ironically men in God's favor, and they always fell because of the simping over a woman. Samson, David, Solomon, etc. Adam is the ultimate simp who started all of this shit in the stories lol.

I don't believe in the Christian religion, but if any of this is true, Adam has to get a fucking beat down in heaven from all of his male descendants.

And Eve needs to get gangbanged by them too

In other words, simping is a man's natural trait the only difference is some men get the best out of it while majority loses

 

[ResidentHell]

In other words, simping is a man's natural trait the only difference is some men get the best out of it while majority loses

No, simping is not natural. It is socially constructed behaviour that's recently surged in practice by men in modern society - As a result of the rise in feminist culture and the death of the patriarchal system (not saying that simping completely didnt exist in patriarchal pre-feminist world)
@BlkPillPres has already covered this subject in another thread.

[Hard To Swallow Edition] The Greatest Trick Society Ever Pulled Was Convincing Men To Adhere To A Feminized Standard Of Masculinity & Be Proud Of It

Ever heard of this quote: "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist" Well here's the thing, society has basically done this to men, and many men (ironically even so called "black pilled" incels) don't seem to be aware of this. Even though its right in...

incels.is

Dispelling The Red Pill/Black Pill Myth That Women Were The "Selectors" For The Entire History Of Our Species (They Only Recently Started)

Women never "selected" in the past, they were made to submit, and stronger dominant males were just more likely to be able to do this and kill off/beat the competition Women were never the ones "selecting for traits", men who had dominant traits will simply tend to be the ones that survive and...

incels.is

 

[massculini]

Well how does a prehistoric man persuade a female ?

 

[ResidentHell]

Well how does a prehistoric man persuade a female ?

For them it would have been a matter of conquest or payment. Its very unlikely that all prehistoric men would have simped their way into sex. More likely they used force or coercive methods (like arranged marriage or financial payment)

Men in the past have usually acquired women through these three methods:
1. Conquest - (Rape, taking over enemy lands and claiming their women, claiming a defeated kings queen, etc)
2. Diplomacy - (Arranged marriages, political deals, merging dynasties, ending wars, etc)
3. Payment - (Paying a father a "bride price" to wed his daughter, prostitution, buying a slave, etc)

 

[Asgard]

Chad gets toilets to betabux him.

While I rot in my mom's second floor basement, to be honest.

Life's unfair, and we've got lots of things to do in order to change this situation for the better.

 

[BuyingANewFace]

Chad gets toilets to betabux him.

THIS, right here!