So, as a celibrate person myself, having been witness to a lot of blackpills, having seen a lot of my friends be successful sexually(but not me),
i strongly disagree with the looksism sort of trend going on here about the blackpill being that chad ultimately lookdomms lesser mortals.
There are a lot of slayers and even some average blokes I know who were/are wildly sexually successful, especially if they have drugs.
And that's as a trend, not as an exception to the trend. Any attempt to argue with this that involves acedontal stories and news is pointing to evidence
that can only act as exceptions to a trend, it cannot act as scientifically sound, plausible proof for a hypothesis that says "looks = success".
I have a different perspective. Here is my perspective. I welcome your challenges to my perspective.
My blackpill is this:
Put bluntly, chad is getting some in the same way that, for example, Ed Houben and Simon Watson, get some: he is well socially
connected, his reputation continues to increase, and to women, for a man to be desirable to one of them, he is desirable to all of them.
Females experience desire very collectively and are much more likely to think of males as trophies than males think of females as trophies.
according to my theory: if you are socially isolated and your name isnt getting passed around, females don't think very much of you, even if you are hot.
additionally: if you are socially well connected and people gossip about you constantly, even if your looks are average, they all want you.
My theory doesn't necessarily suggest it is possible to improve your ranking through socializing or making friends. Your friends may also
be low-score individuals and you may have a social disorder or flaw that makes females not want to talk about you. To some degree, chad may
not only have good looks or valuable attributes, he may also have invisible, irrevocable status points he inherited or has by connection which predispose him socially to always do better than you with females, such as how famous families propogated in ancient times by virtue of association, leading to extensive dispersion of genetics that all trace back to just one person through his male progeny being successful, regardless of their individual abilities. In other words: you're still screwed, but for reasons much harder to change.
Part Deux
In support of my theory I offer a hypothesis on why many of us are ignored or passed over for males of a different status which is supported by my definition of a blackpill. I believe that modern male celibacy is a phenomena not necessarily shared by males of medieval or antiquated times, and I believe that it can be explicitly linked to market economics and available male supply.
My hypothesis begins with a fact: The internet emerged in the 21st century as a globally available medium of interaction along with newly affordable air and land routes for migration, and after a decade of adaptation every male from boomers onward from every single culture on the earth has access to every single female and continually swamps them with attention.
Relative to this, a female must now make a choice of which male to supply her limited attention, sexual availability, and time to, and must if she is intelligent in any regards maximize what she gets out of the relationship, ie, must pick the best partner. However, with regard to any supply there is a bell curve. She now has access to potentially thousands of individuals who are superior within their field and can afford, given that there remains a consistent statistical rate of acceptance, to be more picky, and to only make herself available to some top percent of males, given that there are so many she still has a reasonable chance of finding a partner. To me, this also explains why women act like they do on dating sites.
However, males, as part of their natural reproductive skillset, are prone to over-inflating their own capabilities, to maxxing out their traits, to doing anything and everything required to be dominant in their field. She must therefore contend with a growing percentage of the males who are not really as good or as exceptional as they appear, and the more selective she becomes, the higher the risk becomes that a given male is, in fact, not really as great as he seems. When she gets to a certain point, she can no longer trust what they say, but must ultimately resort to her most reliable and infernal source of intelligence: her fellow females. I believe this is why a woman will often confer with other females when looking at male social profiles, when flicking through matches. She's overwhelmed! Cannot make any choice! they're all too good to be true!
As far as I can tell, a vast majority of females who believe they have any chance of landing a 5+ partner resorts to her personal social network and gives up on internet social networking, and as returning to the blackpill as I have described it, selects a partner other females approve of.
Not you. Even if you were the best she could ever secure. Doesn't matter if he's abusive. Other girls liked him.
Also, I'd like to know how looksmaxing isn't aspiring to normie thought patterns in some roundabout way. Even normies looksmax.
i strongly disagree with the looksism sort of trend going on here about the blackpill being that chad ultimately lookdomms lesser mortals.
There are a lot of slayers and even some average blokes I know who were/are wildly sexually successful, especially if they have drugs.
And that's as a trend, not as an exception to the trend. Any attempt to argue with this that involves acedontal stories and news is pointing to evidence
that can only act as exceptions to a trend, it cannot act as scientifically sound, plausible proof for a hypothesis that says "looks = success".
I have a different perspective. Here is my perspective. I welcome your challenges to my perspective.
My blackpill is this:
Put bluntly, chad is getting some in the same way that, for example, Ed Houben and Simon Watson, get some: he is well socially
connected, his reputation continues to increase, and to women, for a man to be desirable to one of them, he is desirable to all of them.
Females experience desire very collectively and are much more likely to think of males as trophies than males think of females as trophies.
according to my theory: if you are socially isolated and your name isnt getting passed around, females don't think very much of you, even if you are hot.
additionally: if you are socially well connected and people gossip about you constantly, even if your looks are average, they all want you.
My theory doesn't necessarily suggest it is possible to improve your ranking through socializing or making friends. Your friends may also
be low-score individuals and you may have a social disorder or flaw that makes females not want to talk about you. To some degree, chad may
not only have good looks or valuable attributes, he may also have invisible, irrevocable status points he inherited or has by connection which predispose him socially to always do better than you with females, such as how famous families propogated in ancient times by virtue of association, leading to extensive dispersion of genetics that all trace back to just one person through his male progeny being successful, regardless of their individual abilities. In other words: you're still screwed, but for reasons much harder to change.
Part Deux
In support of my theory I offer a hypothesis on why many of us are ignored or passed over for males of a different status which is supported by my definition of a blackpill. I believe that modern male celibacy is a phenomena not necessarily shared by males of medieval or antiquated times, and I believe that it can be explicitly linked to market economics and available male supply.
My hypothesis begins with a fact: The internet emerged in the 21st century as a globally available medium of interaction along with newly affordable air and land routes for migration, and after a decade of adaptation every male from boomers onward from every single culture on the earth has access to every single female and continually swamps them with attention.
Relative to this, a female must now make a choice of which male to supply her limited attention, sexual availability, and time to, and must if she is intelligent in any regards maximize what she gets out of the relationship, ie, must pick the best partner. However, with regard to any supply there is a bell curve. She now has access to potentially thousands of individuals who are superior within their field and can afford, given that there remains a consistent statistical rate of acceptance, to be more picky, and to only make herself available to some top percent of males, given that there are so many she still has a reasonable chance of finding a partner. To me, this also explains why women act like they do on dating sites.
However, males, as part of their natural reproductive skillset, are prone to over-inflating their own capabilities, to maxxing out their traits, to doing anything and everything required to be dominant in their field. She must therefore contend with a growing percentage of the males who are not really as good or as exceptional as they appear, and the more selective she becomes, the higher the risk becomes that a given male is, in fact, not really as great as he seems. When she gets to a certain point, she can no longer trust what they say, but must ultimately resort to her most reliable and infernal source of intelligence: her fellow females. I believe this is why a woman will often confer with other females when looking at male social profiles, when flicking through matches. She's overwhelmed! Cannot make any choice! they're all too good to be true!
As far as I can tell, a vast majority of females who believe they have any chance of landing a 5+ partner resorts to her personal social network and gives up on internet social networking, and as returning to the blackpill as I have described it, selects a partner other females approve of.
Not you. Even if you were the best she could ever secure. Doesn't matter if he's abusive. Other girls liked him.
Also, I'd like to know how looksmaxing isn't aspiring to normie thought patterns in some roundabout way. Even normies looksmax.
Last edited:
