Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

It's Over I asked out a christian foid over text

Get used to rejections, that's the softest rejection I've seen
I should be used to it by now, I've been rejected so many times. I never cried over a girl before so I guess I must've liked her more than I thought.
 
Last edited:
She's the 16-year-old, tall girl with big boobs that I've mentioned before, not the Puerto Rican Tall-Queen. The Puerto Rican Tall-Queen (formerly My Puerto Rican Tall-Queen before she rejected me and became my ex-oneitis) had cute, small boobs.

I saw the tall, big boob girl almost everyday but never had a chance to have a conversation with her. I gave her my phone number one day. And she texted me. After we talked, I texted her two days later and then for the next couple days and I asked if she's seen unnecessarily censored videos, she said she hadn't so I sent her this one since she likes adventure time.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jC5oB4e7EKg



Later, I asked her out.

Me: "You said you liked hiking before, where do you like to do that?"

Her: "Wherever I don't have a specific place"

Me: "Okay, if you were going to go hiking with someone where would you want to do it?"

Her: "Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the video you sent me was vulgar and rude. I do not like that sort of stuff. Also we can be friends but nothing more. I am a Christian and I take my faith very serious"

Me: "What video?" (It had been a few days and I forgot)

Her: "Adventure time uncensored video"

Me: "I thought it was funny."

Her: "I didn't"

Me: "I'm sorry. I thought you would've."

Her: "Again I take my faith very serious, so please do not send anymore videos I would appreciate it"

Me: "I won't"

Her: "Thank you"


I cried that night even though I didn't really know her that well, I guess it was a combination of things, alot has been going wrong/staying the same over the past few months I have been absent from here.

Good to see you back
 
She's the 16-year-old, tall girl with big boobs that I've mentioned before, not the Puerto Rican Tall-Queen. The Puerto Rican Tall-Queen (formerly My Puerto Rican Tall-Queen before she rejected me and became my ex-oneitis) had cute, small boobs.

I saw the tall, big boob girl almost everyday but never had a chance to have a conversation with her. I gave her my phone number one day. And she texted me. After we talked, I texted her two days later and then for the next couple days and I asked if she's seen unnecessarily censored videos, she said she hadn't so I sent her this one since she likes adventure time.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jC5oB4e7EKg



Later, I asked her out.

Me: "You said you liked hiking before, where do you like to do that?"

Her: "Wherever I don't have a specific place"

Me: "Okay, if you were going to go hiking with someone where would you want to do it?"

Her: "Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the video you sent me was vulgar and rude. I do not like that sort of stuff. Also we can be friends but nothing more. I am a Christian and I take my faith very serious"

Me: "What video?" (It had been a few days and I forgot)

Her: "Adventure time uncensored video"

Me: "I thought it was funny."

Her: "I didn't"

Me: "I'm sorry. I thought you would've."

Her: "Again I take my faith very serious, so please do not send anymore videos I would appreciate it"

Me: "I won't"

Her: "Thank you"


I cried that night even though I didn't really know her that well, I guess it was a combination of things, alot has been going wrong/staying the same over the past few months I have been absent from here.

She most likely went to go get railed later

Don't take religious foids seriously
 
Holy shit you’re cringeworthy, sending adventure time shit to women? Are you fucking serious???

I wish I could beat you up irl to get this fag shit out of your system.
:feelskek: :feelskek: :feelskek: :feelskek: :feelskek: :feelskek: :feelskek: :feelskek:

I just now realized how completely autistic that would be to a foid. As if OP's chances weren't already slim enough, he made himself look even more non-NT.
 
Last edited:
Jfl you act like they're innocent little angels or something

I know many foids as young as 15 in my high school who dress provocatively and are sexually active
I know. That is still no excuse to go after them.
 
No, it isn't. Pedophilia (termed "pedophilic disorder") is defined by the DSM-5-TR (latest edition of the DSM) as "Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger)." There is no such a thing as ephebophilia (attraction to 15–17-year-olds) in the DSM, nor is it a sexual disorder; it is a completely healthy expression of male sexuality that shouldn't be medicalized (i.e. you shouldn't even call it "ephebophilia" just as you don't call attraction to "adults" teleiophilia) and criminalized. You're correct on hebephilia (according to Wikipedia, "strong, persistent sexual interest by adults in pubescent children who are in early adolescence, typically ages 11–14 and showing Tanner stages 2 to 3 of physical development"); it overlaps with hebephilia and it is abnormal considering you're attracted to undeveloped or underdeveloped children, which is also homosexual-adjacent when you consider how gender-ambiguous prepubertal children appear without identifying secondary sexual characteristics (boys and girls both have flat chests, high-pitched voices, no body hair, etc.).
You are correct that the technical definition of pedophilia is attraction to prepubescent children. However, in the post you were replying to, I was referring to the popular usage of pedophilia as a term, which often includes hebephilia and ephebophilia (which are both coordinate terms). Popular usage doesn't always conform to technical usage, like how people confuse the words "theory" and "hypothesis" all the time.
 
If you were Chad she would have loved that video..
 
However, in the post you were replying to, I was referring to the popular usage of pedophilia as a term, which often includes hebephilia and ephebophilia (which are both coordinate terms).
>argumentum ad populum
Popular usage doesn't always conform to technical usage, like how people confuse the words "theory" and "hypothesis" all the time.
And popular usage is oftentimes incorrect.
 
My mistake, I edited it.
Normally I'd agree with you, but appeals to specific fallacies don't always hold in certain topics. For example, in linguistics, which is our topic right now, appeal to popularity is a very valid talking point because the populace creates, maintains and molds the language. They are the ultimate, infallible authority. Any argument to the contrary iz beein' ay fakin prescriptivist cunt.
 
She's the 16-year-old, tall girl with big boobs that I've mentioned before, not the Puerto Rican Tall-Queen. The Puerto Rican Tall-Queen (formerly My Puerto Rican Tall-Queen before she rejected me and became my ex-oneitis) had cute, small boobs.

I saw the tall, big boob girl almost everyday but never had a chance to have a conversation with her. I gave her my phone number one day. And she texted me. After we talked, I texted her two days later and then for the next couple days and I asked if she's seen unnecessarily censored videos, she said she hadn't so I sent her this one since she likes adventure time.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jC5oB4e7EKg



Later, I asked her out.

Me: "You said you liked hiking before, where do you like to do that?"

Her: "Wherever I don't have a specific place"

Me: "Okay, if you were going to go hiking with someone where would you want to do it?"

Her: "Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the video you sent me was vulgar and rude. I do not like that sort of stuff. Also we can be friends but nothing more. I am a Christian and I take my faith very serious"

Me: "What video?" (It had been a few days and I forgot)

Her: "Adventure time uncensored video"

Me: "I thought it was funny."

Her: "I didn't"

Me: "I'm sorry. I thought you would've."

Her: "Again I take my faith very serious, so please do not send anymore videos I would appreciate it"

Me: "I won't"

Her: "Thank you"


I cried that night even though I didn't really know her that well, I guess it was a combination of things, alot has been going wrong/staying the same over the past few months I have been absent from here.

You got what you deserved retard.
 
Normally I'd agree with you, but appeals to specific fallacies don't always hold in certain topics.
True. That's called the fallacy fallacy.
For example, in linguistics, which is our topic right now, appeal to popularity is a very valid talking point because the populace creates, maintains and molds the language.
First off, I literally showed you a source from the most accredited psychiatric resource (DSM). Second, if this is the case, then it's all semantics, except you use the popular usage of the word (incorrect because you're talking about a genuine psychiatric condition where the populace have ZERO authority in deciding its definition) and I use the academic (correct) usage of the word. You're basically equating how laymen use the word to how professors do and saying these two have the same authority because "the populace creates, maintains and molds the language," ignoring that this isn't even the case; the populace (laymen) are not exclusively responsible for creating, maintaining and molding languages. A small example: we have Latin words and phrases still in use despite the fact that it was restricted to the upper classes, or a lot of academic and scientific words have filtered down to common speech. You're also forgetting the simple fact that academians ARE part of the so-called "populace."
They are the ultimate, infallible authority.
>argumentum ad populum
Any argument to the contrary iz beein' ay fakin prescriptivist cunt.
When you use a word, especially when you're accusing someone of something egregious, you have the responsibility to at least know what your word means, which you clearly didn't; you just threw it around like a buzzword, kind of like how liberals use "Nazis" without knowing it. Should you be called a "prescriptivist cunt" if you decided a liberal calling you a "Nazi" is using the word improperly?
 
True. That's called the fallacy fallacy.

First off, I literally showed you a source from the most accredited psychiatric resource (DSM). Second, if this is the case, then it's all semantics, except you use the popular usage of the word (incorrect because you're talking about a genuine psychiatric condition where the populace have ZERO authority in deciding its definition) and I use the academic (correct) usage of the word. You're basically equating how laymen use the word to how professors do and saying these two have the same authority because "the populace creates, maintains and molds the language," ignoring that this isn't even the case; the populace (laymen) are not exclusively responsible for creating, maintaining and molding languages. A small example: we have Latin words and phrases still in use despite the fact that it was restricted to the upper classes, or a lot of academic and scientific words have filtered down to common speech. You're also forgetting the simple fact that academians ARE part of the so-called "populace."

>argumentum ad populum

When you use a word, especially when you're accusing someone of something egregious, you have the responsibility to at least know what your word means, which you clearly didn't; you just threw it around like a buzzword, kind of like how liberals use "Nazis" without knowing it. Should you be called a "prescriptivist cunt" if you decided a liberal calling you a "Nazi" is using the word improperly?
I think you're confused as to what we're arguing about here. It's about me calling kiddy-diddlers "pedophiles" as an insult, not me formally or informally diagnosing them with the mental disorder of pedophilia.
 
I think you're confused as to what we're arguing about here. It's about me calling kiddy-diddlers "pedophiles" as an insult, not me formally or informally diagnosing them with the mental disorder of pedophilia.
Then don't use that word.
 
Agecucktard:soy:
Funny how you pedophiles had to make up a perceived insult for normal people with well-adjusted sexualities.
 
Brootal, if you would be taller and more attractive, she would have laughed her ass off
 
the adventure time video is funny
 
Funny how you pedophiles had to make up a perceived insult for normal people with well-adjusted sexualities.
Nothing wrong with preferring young foids. In fact, it has been proven that 14 year old are viewed as the most attractive age by straight men

Also death to agecucks
 
she takes her faith very seriously (unless chad is over then she has degenerate premarital sex)
 
Nothing wrong with preferring young foids. In fact, it has been proven that 14 year old are viewed as the most attractive age by straight men

Also death to agecucks
Could you cite this study please?

"attracted to 16 year olds = pedophile" :feelstastyman::feelstastyman::feelstastyman::feelstastyman:
I'd appreciate it if you could read the entire discourse before making moronic comments next time, dear pedophile.
 
Could you cite this study please?


I'd appreciate it if you could read the entire discourse before making moronic comments next time, dear pedophile.
 
when are u gonna delete ur account (for good). ur almost as annoying as Broly and Lycan were.
 
Could you cite this study please?


I'd appreciate it if you could read the entire discourse before making moronic comments next time, dear pedophile.
 
The law doesn't form the basis of morals. If you're 30 and going after a 16 year old girl, it's still wrong whether it's legal or not.
im over 30 and my dick can get hard with 16 yo, if u are not u just gay tbh.
 
The law doesn't form the basis of morals. If you're 30 and going after a 16 year old girl, it's still wrong whether it's legal or not.
terrible bait
 
Why though?
Because 16yo girls are literal babies and they can be easily manipulated by a 40yo autistic balding manlet into having sex with him. Jbs find these "predators" so extremely attractive that they just can't resist and all their decision making skills stop working.
A 16yo should be railed by a tiktok prettyboy instead because that's morally right. All major religions will tell you this.
If you are a slave to mother nature on the other hand, then obviously you would want to follow her commandments which will tell you that the frail twink should get all the pussy and not the strong and influental middle aged man.
Or you care about current societal norms which always changed throughout history. That is obviously the most high iq reason to be an agecuck.
 
Joined: May 31, 2024
Posts: 94
and by my knowledge of users that were active in 2022 you should know im not actually Grey. Truecel critical thinking skills.
 
and by my knowledge of users that were active in 2022 you should know im not actually Grey. Truecel critical thinking skills.
You literally created your account yesterday
 
You literally created your account yesterday
I don't even want to be condescending anymore. ur TRUECEL as fuck. k let's start over.

I had an account here in 2022 of the same name with a post count of 8k. I got it nuked and had no desire to return to this forum until yesterday (peak boredom :feelskek:)
 
Her: "Hello. I just wanted to let you know that the video you sent me was vulgar and rude. I do not like that sort of stuff. Also we can be friends but nothing more. I am a Christian and I take my faith very serious"
She sounds like a nut job with a stick up her ass. Christians like her are why everyone thinks religious people are mental cases and thought leftism was cool in the 70-2000s.

I’ll take a shot in the dark and say she’s a protestant that’s apart of some meme domination.
 
I don't even want to be condescending anymore. ur TRUECEL as fuck. k let's start over.

I had an account here in 2022 of the same name with a post count of 8k. I got it nuked and had no desire to return to this forum until yesterday (peak boredom :feelskek:)
thanks, thats what i wanted to know
 
Should have told her to fuck off

you know if it was chad she would have been like "ha ha, funny video"
 
I haven't the time to read the entire study, but the abstract says:
>Mean ratings of the sexual attractiveness of the underage girls were lower than those of overage girls and women
>No such relationship emerged with the same girls labeled [as being] within the age of consent or women
>Overall, these data suggest that men find pubescent girls identified as being under the age of consent sexually attractive, but inhibit their willingness to report this
Thus your paraphrasing is grossly misrepresenting the findings of this study. It appears to have found that men that are sexually attracted to prepubescent girls inhibit this when inquired about it, but there's nothing about "14 year old [being] viewed as the most attractive age by straight men"

Ban this agecuck!
Might as well change the name of this site to "MAPs Anonymous" while you're at it.
 
Last edited:
Because 16yo girls are literal babies and they can be easily manipulated by a 40yo autistic balding manlet into having sex with him. Jbs find these "predators" so extremely attractive that they just can't resist and all their decision making skills stop working.
A 16yo should be railed by a tiktok prettyboy instead because that's morally right. All major religions will tell you this.
If you are a slave to mother nature on the other hand, then obviously you would want to follow her commandments which will tell you that the frail twink should get all the pussy and not the strong and influental middle aged man.
Or you care about current societal norms which always changed throughout history. That is obviously the most high iq reason to be an agecuck.
Stronger, more attractive and more influential men taking our share of women is the cause of all our woes. Wanting to do the same thing to your younger brothers is hypocrisy at its finest.
 
Sending explicit cartoons to 16 year old Christian girls. Peak incel behaviour. :feelskek:

Why would you cry? It wasn't really a harsh rejection. She said you can be friends. Keep talking to her. Try to build up a rapport. Non-chads have to harass girls these days to have a chance, and it's easy (and somewhat acceptable to do) nowadays, with social media/texting etc.
 
Sending explicit cartoons to 16 year old Christian girls. Peak incel behaviour. :feelskek:
Sending explicit nudes to 20 year old Chads. Peak 16 year old Christian girl behaviour.
 

Similar threads

D
Replies
0
Views
124
Doesitmatter?
D
Q
Replies
4
Views
279
Qwertyuiop99
Q
T
Replies
106
Views
2K
reveries
reveries
whyamionhere
Replies
12
Views
430
HomicidalSuicidal88
HomicidalSuicidal88
Robo_Cope
Replies
7
Views
365
Robo_Cope
Robo_Cope

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top