Theory Every affection towards another being has a sexual undertone to it. Be it passive/platonic or active/engaging with it.

[Lookslikeit]

Yes, i would go so far as to say even affection towards animals, especially the ones we raise and pet, have evolutionary sexual undertones behind it.

Humans have an innate obvious tendency to cherish animals that have the chararacteristics we would like to see in our sexual partner. Forward growth, symmetry, a long, smooth hair (in this case, body hair/feathers), beautiful shaped eyes, an agressive or soft look, etc.

We tend to flake easily on foids (as we should, honestly) for engaging with zoofilia of almost any kind, but on the other hand, we all heard about stories of men who fucked goats, sheeps, etc.

But its not my main point. The main point is that you need to engage with others in a "sexy" way, of the most obvious or less obvious way, to attract their favour.

As we have seen by the enormous difficulty allcels have to make personal friends or even aquire good jobs.

I would even say the fatherlessness of most men today has a saying in how lacking/miserable the SMV of most men are today.

Think about it. Feminism takes the male authority away. Men grow weaker/tender/softer in every way, making them everything bad to women, including and especially heinous looking subhumans.

While at the same time society pushes forcefully the ideas of a "confident man with a good personality" to woman (and men), while shaming them as shallow and fickle for wanting a man that looks and acts like a man should behave.

Then she finds a random guy that might not act exactly like the part but LOOKS the part. And the beta soy cuck bu her side.

Who do you think shes going for? Im not saying shes right or even doing the preferable thing. Im saying its a systemic problem that should have never gotten this far, and it would never have had if male boomer pigs and pugs didnt buy into the "easy sex" propaganda...

 

[PhineasSpear]

Im saying its a systemic problem that should have never gotten this far, and it would never have had if male boomer pigs and pugs didnt buy into the "easy sex" propaganda...

Deviating from the topic of this post. I will say this: As much prosperous as the industrial revolution made countries, on the social side I think it all but killed society.

Pre-industry, fathers used to make money by agrarian means (e.g. tending to farms) while also contributing primarily to children. The industrial revolution needed wage-slaves and removed them from their households and into factories, thus justifying the rigid standards of masculinity we have been subjected to.

Combined this with the fact women now entered the workforce, making whatever left of the job that men could have to justify their roles in the sexual contract now obsolete, and the invention of welfare/state care which now replaces the role of fathers, society now only uses men (specifically attractive men) for breeding bulls. Unattractive men are now only being used for economic slavery to contribute to the GDP then discarded.

 

[nihilum]

Unattractive men are now only being used for economic slavery to contribute to the GDP then discarded.

 

[Lookslikeit]

making whatever left of the job that men could have to justify their roles in the sexual contract now obsolete, and the invention of welfare/state care which now replaces the role of fathers, society now only uses men (specifically attractive men) for breeding bulls. Unattractive men are now only being used for economic slavery to contribute to the GDP then discarded.

Men has always been seen as an utilitarian factor of society. Would you send a woman to war, even if had the same strenght as men? Tricky question, but the right answer is no.

Woman have innate biological/existential/survivability of the species factors on their side, while for men, its the entire opposite.

If artificial wombs and sex robots become a viable thing and it lasts long enough though, you'll see women being truly equalized to men, socially relegated further and further away from the social ladder and their natural privileges given as a birth right.

I would even argue they'll be seen as "defective men" if this hypothetical down turn goes on more and more radically.

 

[PhineasSpear]

Men has always been seen as an utilitarian factor of society. Would you send a woman to war, even if had the same strenght as men? Tricky question, but the right answer is no.

True.

Woman have innate biological/existential/survivability of the species factors on their side, while for men, its the entire opposite.

This is also true. I was more thinking of the men's role in general. Back then - when country weren't as prosperous - I argue that the primary point of attraction were economic means and less-so physical attractiveness since women HAD to depend on men for resources. However since countries these days are prosperous (or nearing it) and women now can now make money via entering the workforce (thus "equalizing" them), the roles of men as providers has been diminishing.

If artificial wombs and sex robots become a viable thing and it lasts long enough though, you'll see women being truly equalized to men, socially relegated further and further away from the social ladder and their natural privileges given as a birth right.

I would even argue they'll be seen as "defective men" if this hypothetical down turn goes on more and more radically.

Would be funny if this actually happens.

 

[She Does Not Exist]

Pre-industry, fathers used to make money by agrarian means (e.g. tending to farms) while also contributing primarily to children. The industrial revolution needed wage-slaves and removed them from their households and into factories, thus justifying the rigid standards of masculinity we have been subjected to.

This was how 100% of the silent gen of my family lived, all were happy living in a little farm with trillion kids (usual for couples to have 8+ here)

super long lasting marriages, no troubles, no sickness, no illness.
Then boomers came, most have two to maybe four kids, some divorces, most married.
then the shit millennials with 1 or 2 kids tops, a lot of divorces, barely any marriages.
then gen z, no marriages, a lot of breakups.

 

[Lookslikeit]

This was how 100% of the silent gen of my family lived, all were happy living in a little farm with trillion kids (usual for couples to have 8+ here)

super long lasting marriages, no troubles, no sickness, no illness.
Then boomers came, most have two to maybe four kids, some divorces, most married.
then the shit millennials with 1 or 2 kids tops, a lot of divorces, barely any marriages.
then gen z, no marriages, a lot of breakups.

The easyness of comfort bringed the comfort of ease.

 

[PhineasSpear]

This was how 100% of the silent gen of my family lived, all were happy living in a little farm with trillion kids (usual for couples to have 8+ here)

super long lasting marriages, no troubles, no sickness, no illness.
Then boomers came, most have two to maybe four kids, some divorces, most married.
then the shit millennials with 1 or 2 kids tops, a lot of divorces, barely any marriages.
then gen z, no marriages, a lot of breakups.

The colonial model of life was peak society I argue.

All the problems you describe can be attributed to a scenario of Chesterton's fence; The liberals of the 1960s started questioning why we have traditions we have (e.g. monogamous marriages, the stigmatization of divorce), and called for it to be removed because of its "oppressiveness" (translation: it required them to be committed which they hate). From this attitude came the sexual and divorce revolution and voila - the destruction of relationships.

I've always felt like the 1960s was the decade the West "died" and that the past 60 years we were living in a slow terminal stage. The internet shortened that and COVID massively accelerated it.

 

[She Does Not Exist]

committed

commitment, loyalty, same thing for me.

you remove these two and the downfall is just inevitable.

I've always felt like the 1960s was the decade the West "died" and that the past 60 years we were living in a slow terminal stage. The internet shortened that and COVID massively accelerated it.

My BOOMER mom said the same shit to me last week, even she admited that 40 years ago if she had married it would not last.

Everyone in my family (boomers) are divorcing.

You take away the stigma of divorces (shunning for women) and presto, you have women who no longer 'attach' to a single partner anymore, they don't have any 'pressure' from society anymore, they are finally free.

I'm just sad and wish to die, I was born way to late.

 

[PhineasSpear]

I'm just sad and wish to die, I was born way to late.

Over.

 

[She Does Not Exist]

Over.

Never began for NEET ND Hopeless Romantic retards

 

[Lookslikeit]

I've always felt like the 1960s was the decade the West "died" and that the past 60 years we were living in a slow terminal stage. The internet shortened that and COVID massively accelerated it.

Agreed, although i wouldnt like to have to pretend to be christian and go to church every sunday with my family so my neighbours wouldnt look at me funny, though...