It's mostly propagated by our species because men's sex drive is much higher on a consistent basis compared to foids at any stage of their lives.
This is an unfounded paradigm assumption.
We literally have no data on this outside of self reported data from women (JFL AT TRUSTING WOMEN) and sub8 males thinking women are prude little angles that recoil at the mere thought of penis.
Reality is, if you've ever chadfished or seen chad-female interactions IRL, you would know that women are just as horny as men.
This is the very basis for what we call alpha fucks - beta bux or as science calls it, concealed ovulation also known as sexual crypsis.
Its literally one of the most fundamental parts of AF/BB that the female of the species
hides her sex drive from the less desirable "buxxer" male in order to hide paternity and have leverage over him by strategically withholding sex.
This dangling of a reward over their victims head while said reward is freely distributed to desirable males alone is extremely psychopathic.
Another reason why their sex drive may seem low is because as someone put it, in terms of sexual desire, men are long distance runners and women are periodical sprinters. This means a mens desire will be permanent but latent. A womans desire will be sporadic and spontaneous and occur for a week or so a month around ovulation.
Furthermore, we also have studies that show that women are practically aroused by
everything that moves including apes, homo-sex, hetereo sex et. al.
lists.ibiblio.org
I reccomend reading this paper. They asked participants to state their sexual preference and then showed them gay porn, hetero porn and animals fucking.
1. the men all reported truthful, aka when they said they were gay, they only got a boner from gay sex and so on
2. the women were all lying. Every single stimulus turned them on, lesbian, hetero, gay, animals - it didnt matter
Then the foid who conducted this research ends it on a complete KEKFUEL cope of a line, where she says measuring foids vagina getting wet is not an indicator of women getting sexually aroused and we shouldnt preemptively judge women.
Yet at the same time they use exactly this method of measuring gentile arousal to catch pedophiles in court by measuring if they get a boner from looking at pictures of children. It's laughable.
So, please, stop fucking coping with the "low female sex drive" - lastly, where do you even get that idea from and who is propagating it?
I have never ever heard a man say of himself or other men that "all that men think about is sex."
Think about yourself, how much do you think about sex in a day?
Probably not that much. Maybe once when ur bored, or whenever your routine fap session comes around. And you do million other things too that stimulate you, like video games, hobbies, daydreaming about being a fighter jet pilot idk (women dont daydream, they are not people).
This fairy tale of men being horny dogs that only want sex and only think about sex is mostly propagated by
women not men. Its pure fucking projection.
Another argument is that testosterone makes you more horny and so men have to be more horny than man.
I can also easily counter this:
Imagine you desire to eat existed on a spectrum of 0 to 100%.
Let's assume a mans desire to eat is 80%, a womans desire is only 50%.
The man however, has 20 things to do that give him joy besides eating. He is much more able to cope with hunger than the woman. A man can entertain himself with video games while hungry, he can think about intellectual things, create something etc...
The woman on the other hand, is not capable of this. She defines herself as being a female body and nothing beyond that. She has no interest in video games, reading, intellectual stimulation. Her main source of entertainment is talking to bakers, thinking about bread and people that make bread, and the bread baking process and also what happens once you eat bread.
That's her entire life. Bread, bread, bread.
Furthermore, unlike the male, the female has unrestricted access to bread at any given time.
She can pick up her phone and have the best bread imaginable delivered to her doorstep at a whim.
Which gender will consume more bread at the end of the day?
Females of course.
Just replace bread with sex and everything around bread = relationships, talking, chit chatting, making babies, sex.
Their entire being is sexual.
So even if their sex drive was lower, their internal disposition will make them more likely to have more sex because at the end of the day, all they find entertaining is relationships, gossip, sex, and talking about their body.
What's the only thing women ever talk about?
What do we men say about female comedians? - they only talk about their body "MUUUHHH VAGINA" is an ancient fucking meme.
Sex is like masturbation is for us to them, its a casual activity you do for leisure and pleasure.
So again, even if they had lower sex drives, they would have more sex then men simply because they can easily get sex and they have a narrow range of interests compared to men, all of which center on sex, relationships and reproduction.
How does one judge something that has yet to be observed?
By being primed with presuppositions prior to observing it.
For instance, if I tell you, well on the other side of the world someone is sending radio signals.
You've been primed to believe:
1. there is another side of the world
2. radio signals are real
3. radio signals can be sent
you dont know if any of this is true or false, neither can you find it out.
Then I show you an instrument with a moving needle and I go, ah, this right here is picking up the signals.
Because I primed you to believe all of the above exist, you will be now much more likely to assume the instrument is actually reading radio signals sent from someone on the other side of the world.
The same applies to the genders.
If I prime men by telling them their sex drive is higher than womens, something no man can prove, its only an assumption based on what people tell you, you will assume its true. Especially if your gf/wife doesnt put out, your presupposition will make you think women dont want sex as much as men. Even though you have zero evidence for that.
This goes for many, man beliefs such as
1. men being more violent,
2. men being rapists (men dont rape, its a complete meme, link:
https://wimminz.wordpress.com/2011-04/wimminz-morality-or-lack-of/)
3. women being motherly and loving kids despite every evidence to the contrary (single motherhood has been disastrous)
4. women looking for personality in a man, while men want women based on looks (complete inversion, most women reproduce, most men dont. this alone shows you men will fuck anything that moves and even have babies with it, which is a huge emotional commitment for the man, which also implies men have sex for other reasons than pleasure, or all of us would just see whores and there would be no forum.)
There are no neutral facts of nature, all of us have been infected with unfounded presuppositions about reality. Nobody is neutral.
I suggest looking into the problem of induction, its very interesting.
Your presuppositions, where ever you get them from, government propaganda, lies of parents and women, or making logical errors or falling for cognitive biases - they shape how you interpret reality. Reality is not a thing that stands alone.
A lot of people say, truth is what lines up with reality, as if "reality" was this factual thing we can all agree on. This is hogwash. What counts as reality is influenced by our presuppositions to an extreme degree. There is no neutrality.
Let me give you an example of how someone could come to believe in a fault presupposition about reality based on an observation:
A man goes to the gym. He is 6/10 facially.
As blackpillers we know that face trumps all in studies and gym is a complete meme. Face, face, face.
However, our little hypothetical gym-normie does not know this. Well, one day a female signals to him in the club and he approaches.
(Another presupposition that has been scientifically disproven: Men don't make the first move, women do and men rationalize it later. Women also make the encounter seem accidental later "oh we bumped into each other" - meanwhile she bumped into him on purpose)
Anyway, our little gym-normie approaches the female
1. thinking he initiated the contact (wrong)
2. thinking his gym-cope is directly correlated with the females attraction to him (he has no evidence of this at all - its a presupposition)
3. the female will gaslight him further by saying his gym-performance makes him hot (shes betabuxxing him by reinforcing the idea of AF/BB that men have to put effort into pleasing women by wokking themselves up to female standard)
So now our little gymrat thinks that lifting gets you pussy and he will tell this bullshit to everyone, including his future sons. He may even start a youtube channel and propagate this lie.
People do this all the time. That's why listening to successful people for advice is fucking retarded. You should be listening to people that FAIL for advice. Not the apex of a field where 80% of business fail within the first 5 years. These people only think they can give advice because they succeeded.
Their presupposition is that because they succeeded, they must've done something right and they must know what they are doing. This is not true. There is no connection between success and your actions that is easily established. It could just be luck, a favorable economy (bull market), or nepotism. Or maybe you just have looks, a strutting jawline and you are tall, so people naturally view you as a leader, see article:
They don't hate them because they're beautiful — it's more complicated.
www.cnbc.com
Just-World-Fallacy and Fundamental Attribution error contribute massively to this:
1. Just-World-Fallacy: Everyone gets what they deserve, except for me, I'm special. Hobos are just lazy, but when I get kicked in the balls, its coincide and the system is unfair. Also, good things only happen to good people and bad things to bad people. And when I get hurt, it reverses, because obviously I am a good person and not deserving of such suffering.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
2. Fundamental Attribution error: Essentially the same observation. When bad things happen to others, they deserved it. When good things happen to others, they didn't deserve it, it was luck. When bad things happen to me, it was bad luck, undeserved. When good things happen to me, it was deserved and the system is just.
Winners in a rigged game think the game is fair.
This is a fundamental, years old blackpill that's been established by studies as well.
In a study designed to measure perceptions of inequality, Cornell researchers found that winners of a simple card game were far more likely than losers to believe the game’s outcome was fair, even when it was heavily tilted in their favor.
news.cornell.edu
WASHINGTON (AP) — When it comes to fairness and privilege, a new study finds it really is not about how you play the game. It's about whether you win or lose. A new experiment, played out as a card game,...
www.seattletimes.com
So whenever you see someone give advice, they already presuppose they know why they succeeded or didn't. Which they can't possible know unless they are somehow omnipotent.
I also fucking lol hard at people that give advice on mental health and get millions of views, but look like college-football players with a huge skull and frame.
Yes, im sure this guy can give me valuable life lessons on how to deal with hardship.
He just happens to be tall, white with blue eyes and a huge fucking frame
And yet this retard is one of the most popular mental-health podcasts people currently watch.
Why would I trust this guy and not some mumbai street dog on this forum whos been through the meat grinder?
This guy has ZERO experience with dealing with suffering, ZEROOOOO.
He can't even tell you why suffering is bad, his worldview can't justify why it is bad, he just assumes depression is bad.
That's another topic btw, there is actually a discussion within psychology whether depression is bad or actually the
correct reaction to what we are experiencing.
Also, studies have found that depressed people demonstrate higher ability to make social judgements, which also destroys the entire "touch grass" shit. People that are depressed and lonely and rot understand social dynamics MORE than normies:
Who are the best amateur social psychologists? Introverts prone to melancholy, according to a new study by Yale researchers.
news.yale.edu
Again, why do people believe this obviously illogical idea that people magically "stop socializing because they are depressed" instead of "people become depressed from what happens when they socialize?"
It's simply a faulty presupposition that originates in the experience of normies who never ever have been socially isolated. They can't even become isolated because
people will come and get them out of it. Its's not a choice for them to socialize, it just happens because they have looks. So based on that experience, they project and presuppose that when you are lonely and rot in your basement
it has to be your choice to do that and you are literally running away from all these opportunities to socialize.
There are many, many more examples of how peoples experience shapes their presuppositions about the world. The problem of induction is super important here. People constantly make inferential reasoning claims, inductive claims that have no basis in what they are actually observing.
1. a girl gives you sex, THATS IT. Thats all you have, thats what happens. Now lets look at possible presuppositions
a) its my personality
b) its me making money and grooming
c) its me going to gym
d) its looks
People always like to think they have control over their own actions when they often don't. Very few things in life are in our control.
So they invent reasons why their actions have impact. Or they invent reasons why they didn't deserve what happened to them.
Both are bullshit. Neither can tell why anything happens to them.
Looks is by far one of the best heuristics here, obviously. It cuts through the shit. The first judgements people make of you are always looks based and informed by their presuppositions about how looks correlate to personality (tall people = better leaders; short man = has to have inferiority complex etc.)
2. If nobody is in control of their own looks and ultimate destiny and how people judge them, then the only conclusion is to stop caring. If a process is outside your control, its pointless to care anyway.
Either way, you just hurt yourself by caring about something you can't control. Now, "just stop caring" is of course clown shit, but really, that's what you should be working towards at that point.
This btw, perfectly lines up with the christian worldview. Nothing here matters. As Jesus says, "be in the world, not off the world."
Everything that happens is outside your control, God is in charge. You can't tell why some people are fucked up and some succeed despite being monsters. If God is real, then you can at least assume these things have purpose and God has morally sufficient reason to let them happen. But you can't really tell whether they are good or bad either.
If you read the book of Job, that's the entire point. Job looses everything and he doesn't understand why. Its not punishment, he was perfect. God gives, god takes away and we don't know why. The christian worldview lines up with the blackpill. "A man devises his way but God directs his steps" is another saying from the bible.
Another case is early on in Genesis in the bible. Joseph is the youngest of his brothers and very chaddy. His brothers get jelly and sell him to slave traders to get rid of him. Joseph goes trough a ton of hardship, including a false rape accusation. Eventually however, he gets made prime-minister of Egypt. His brothers accidentally meet him and he reveals its him, and hes in fact not dead.
When they cower in fear and beg for mercy, he says "am I in the place of God? You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good."
Before you object and say this is nonsense, you can also simply replace God with determinism. You can't tell whether something is good or bad in the grand scheme of things really. You can only presuppose that you know somehow, but again, thats just a baseless presupposition.
For instance, why is pain a bad thing. Nothing about pain tells us that we ought to avoid pain as a law.
This is a classic problem for people that throw the problem of evil around and say God is an evil Tyrant. The onus is on them. How do they know things are good or bad? Without a standard to fall back on, all they have are their own presuppositions, which are equally as faith based as the one the christian holds
deliberately.
Would you rather pick your presuppositions and construct a coherent worldview on presuppositions you have thought about and logically evaluated, or would you rather get your worldview from presuppositions you acquire subconsciously by making erroneous judgments influenced by cognitive biases?
As they say, if you don't give yourself a prayer rule (reinforcing your deliberately chosen presuppositions so you dont slip into false ones), the devil/world will give you one.
