No. They are attracted to survival (resources are means of survival) while the man with resources they accept as a consequence. No woman in the world is sexually attracted to Donald Trump or Harvey Weinstein or Louis CK.
I mean this is just wrong from an evolutionary standpoint, are they more attracted looks? Sure? Most of the time yeah.
And once they have an easily survivable environment, as all women in the West have now, then what?
Women are attracted to good looking, tall men. Women also want money. If they can find both in the same man, great. If not, the way they behave is depends on their particular situation and environment. But in no case is having sex in exchange for resources anything other than prostitution.
This is also not true at all, there are plenty of subtle ways of flaunting status/resources in a way that does not attract a golddigger and just activates a womans biological attraction to stability, which will want her to be in a relationship with you even if you aren't a gigachad. Of course the looks to resource stability ratio depends on various factors, such as the level of hypergamy in an area.
Not true, I don't know where this chart is from, or what data this is referencing, but for example if we take a look at Marriage Data, the older someone gets the more likely they are to get Married, this correlates quite a bit with studies measuring virginity in older aswell, basically the older you get as a man, the more likely you are to lose your virginity.
Also take a look at dating app heatmaps, and you'll see the people who are doing the worst and having the most problems are
Men between the ages 18-29 in high population city areas, typically that are primarily leftwing in nature.
Yes, because that's the first generation that had to deal with Tinder. Boomers have had their share of pussy back when the average foid could choose between three dudes in her shitty little town.
And yet even in the age of Tinder older men have it easier than younger men, better jobs, more financial stability, more sexual options, more options in general.
Yes, because he's having sex with women who are prostitutes, in hindsight insanely expensive prostitutes. There was no woman who had sex with him that was not repulsed by him. And he just had to be a movie mogul surrounded by desperate actresses.
Just because you call them a prostitute doesn't make them a prostitute.
As easy as that, huh? Remember, women in their 20s already out-earn men in their 20s, so what you're saying is you just have to be their moneymatch?
As a whole sure? But there are many locations where they don't? Even in America? I don't know where you live, but women out earn men where I live, maybe out earn men where you live aswell, but there's many where they don't. Ever considered, oh I don't know...moving there? One of the things people with a bit of money seem to not really grasp their head around, is that not every place in the world, not every sexual market, is like their own.
I mean why do you think there are men in Sweden in Norway who are 6/10+ and Have a decent job, and 6 foot+ and yet they're still Incel where they live? Wow I wonder why, and they have to go elsewhere, outside of their country to other sexual markets to even have a chance, and that's bad for people in other sexual markets because they're probably a Chad/Chad in another sexual market, but what choice do they have if their own women don't like that.
I know something about that. I'm 36 and I've been a programmer since my teens. At times I was earning up to 10 times the median salary where I was living and I just don't see this magical power of money (admittedly non-millionaire money) to make men attractive. It's not just my own experience; due to my line of work I've known hundreds of guys with six figure salaries and they get laid about as much as you'd expect form their looks/height.
It just sounds to me like they're not utilizing their money properly or aren't very well versed on various blackpills and facts to do so. Locationmaxxing, Ruralmaxxing, Surgerymaxxing, Gymmaxxing, Statusmaxxing, all these things are easier with money.
I get it if a guy is broke and isn't physically attractive that money will be a barrier, but that's a simple (though not easy) problem to solve. Not on this forum, though.
It's not a simple or easy solution for me, I know
@Cuyen has agreed with me on money related problems aswell, aswell as other Incels I have spoken to who have similar in areas similar to mine. I think when you don't have money, you become very savvy with it, especially if you live in an environment where it's hard to get it, obviously this excludes low education retarded subhumans who are poor because of other reasons, but you start to think of solutions that could easily solve your problems, you utilize every bit of money you get to try and help in some way, etc. Minmaxxing pennies, so this goes onto the next point.
Yeah? What would you do with $5000?
I could use this as quite as quite the starting point for escaping where I live, and move to a better sexual market, where my odds of being an Incel are dramatically lower than where I live. I could move somewhere where it's much easier to find a job, hypergamy is lower because of various reasons, or where I have much value in said sexual market, etc.
You're conflating the black pill and the red pill.
Not really, I get why there'd be some confusion especially if you're not familiar with where the pills originated on certain image boards and forums, and in certain political spheres, like for example MGTOW retards adopted the term redpill to mean their own thing, but in reality and among many groups, the redpill just meant the truth, but The BLACKPILL meant dark truths. There's also the Whitepill, or people say they're Whitepilled, which are happy truths, or uplifting light truths. There's people who try to spread whitepills.
The black pill (in the context of incels) is that there is no hope.
Even among Incels this isn't really true tho dude, but I guess a lot of people don't know the origin of a lot of these terms and have their own definitions so if you want to believe its over and stop trying and go down road, that's not really Involuntarily Celibate anymore, because even Serge said you have to be consistently trying to a degree to be Incel even on this forum.
It's healthy to believe otherwise, so more power to you, but then I don't get why you'd want to be on this forum.
Because i'm an Incel?
If I only had that thing I don't have, I wouldn't be in this situation. Guess what, that goes for everybody here. You're lucky in that getting what you don't have doesn't entirely depend on foids.
Except my point is there are many people who actually have solutions on this very forum but are willfully ignoring them, out of comfort, or out of being a fakecel sex haver who wants to pretend they're an Incel, or other reasons. I have seen it all at this point.
So you have solutions, you just need to work at it. Completely different than someone who's 5'6" or has a face that's a vaginal desiccant.
Bro i'm 5'5, and I still think money is my primary issue. I could heightmaxx to like 5'9-5'10 using various methods, aswell as get some cosmetic surgery, nothing super major, i'm a deformed abominationcel, but I do have some problems that could be solved with surgery, and that would definitely increase my SMV by a point or two.
You've just described me. I'm reasonably well off, gymmaxxed and live in a city of millions. What would you do if you were me? Statusmaxx in a rural area where i'd be less hated.
I would definitely move out of the city to a better sexual market, or surgerymaxx, both probably.
lol bluepill cope, women want guys with looks more then anything .
Somewhat of a non argument but, yeah to a degree. It's a bit contextual, but money does play a massive role, same with status, media halo, other factors.
Depends on the location. If they live and grow up in rich liberated places and money isn't a problem most of them tend to go for attractiveness. That's why most of us are here right now because we cant play the provider game ( which is related to personality game because having a good personality is an advantage when climbing a hierarchy because reciprocity is important to human)
Yeah for sure, but that's actually mostly because they're not a virgin, and the reason why they're not a virgin is because typically in these leftist city areas, they grew up without a father, which triggers ancient evolutionary nonsense which brings out warrior breeding mate selection, and they'll get pumped and dump and constantly get worse and more hypergamaous, which is a very primitive and unecessary and destructive in a modern society, mate selection process.
This is why I would say locationmaxxing is one of the best things you can do.
If you live in America, i'd suggest doing heavy research in the areas on this map, that don't have any Blue dots, I think you might be pleasantly surprised by some places if you're not a complete abominationcel.
No..., that's not how evolution works...
Merely 70,000 years (ever since humans started building civilization) isn't enough to outdo hundreds of millions of years of evolution.
Homo sapiens, which has been living for the past 250,000 years, has ancestors with many more years of evolution than the pathetic 70k.
Just watch how we have been able to walk for a few millions of years and we still haven't completely adapted to this evolution change.
What makes you think mere 70k will change hypergamy, a much more primitive trait that exists even today, in other animals?
I don't think comprehended what I said very well. Also there's many aspects of evolution, some are more volatile than others, and some traits can change and evolve and be stronger in a much shorter period of time. For example you might be surprised at how a mere 2000 Years can highly influence certain peoples behavior of a certain race for example.
Now when I say over the last 100 years a lot of destruction was done on evolutionary progress, i'm referring to cultural evolutionary progress. You see as certain races, cultures, and societies evolve, we develop systems in place to allow for optimal evolutionary growth. In many European and Asian civilized societies, it was naturally discovered even without many of the science or data today that traditionalist systems are what allow for more men to breed, society to be happy, society to grow, populations to increase, productivity to be higher, I mean the list goes on and on, and this is a system that has evolved over thousands of years, built to constrain certain negatives of human nature, and if we examine why these things and traditional systems evolved in the first place, was because as a species, and the many sub species within our species, these systems, this cultural evolutionary progress would contstrain a lot of negative biological traits in humans, and hopefully in many generations of these contraints, a lot of negative primitive traits would be bred out over time.
Now females needed a lot more of this than men, also with modern science and data, we can also see, instead of their way of doing it, if we implemented a modern form of eugenics, we could probably breed out a lot of fucked up traits in women, without genetic engineering, probably within 100-200 years.
Now the problem, sadly that Marxism undid and destroyed this evolutionary progress, at least the cultural evolutionary progress, so now we're headed back the primitive road, and its why sexual selection processes, and sexual markets, especially in leftist areas are resembling very ancient and primitive sexual selection patterns, and why more and more men are becoming Incel. It's quite tragic really.
Also a lot of negative female traits might be a lot more recent in the evolutionary timeline than you might think, when you go far back enough most of that just theory that is run by corrupt institutions, and many biologists disagree with. For example, let's take Loyalty for a spin. People say women aren't Loyal. Well this is actually quite true to an extent, but why, and what causes this, and the self centered nature behind this?
Well we can trace it back it to lets say a village or a tribe had certain people in it, various different men and women, now a rival tribe comes along and kills all the men. What happens to the women? Well the men will probably attempt to rape them right or take them as wives, etc. So let's see what would happen with some of these women. A Rival tribesman might say, become my wife or I will kill you, now a loyal and superior female, a morally superior female rather. She would rather die than desecrate her dead husband by becoming a sex slave for some scum of another tribe, but what happens to her genetics? They're gone, because they might kill or rape her to death for her disloyalty, not becoming a slave. But a woman who in fear, decides, she doesn't want to die, she doesn't care if her husband is dead or if she has to become a wife of the tribe that murdered her husband, she doesn't want to die. So what happens?
The woman with the good and loyal traits, ones that would have been passed on to her daughters, dies, her genetic lineage stops with her, but the woman who was disloyal and survives, lives on and her genetics pass on. This is actually a form of dysgenics, from a cultural standpoint, especially from a stable cultural standpoint, you can understand where it comes from a survivability standpoint, but you can imagine thousands of years of this happening, where this might lead evolutionarily. It makes women more prone to primitive and animalistic behavioral choices, even in civilized society.
We can isolate these negative traits nowadays, and breed them out of existence, but this wont be allowed of course, but the chaos of the devolved female benefits the elite who destroyed society in the first place.
