Serious Isn't the idea that people must only date their looksmatches kinda feminist and cucked?

[Mainländer]

If you're ugly and support that, you're saying that Chad can have the more attractive women whereas you yourself only deserve the least attractive ones.

This is kinda feminist because it judges the value of both men and women the same way, when traditionally, the woman's value is primarily based on her attractiveness and youth, whereas this isn't the case for men (I know, there's the argument that you're just a betabuxx when you're ugly/old and get yourself a young and attractive woman, but still, it's a way to have sexual access to such women).

It's cucked because you want Chad to have it better than you. Ok, more attractive people will usually date people around their own level of looks, but why does it have to be a rule? If an ugly guy somehow gets a Stacy, what's wrong with that?

It's a lot like the idea that only young (i.e. below a certain arbitrary age, almost always post-puberty btw) people can date young people, which is a deeply feminist one (based on the feminist concept of "power imbalance").

 

[PLA1092]

It prevents foids from being able to further enact hypergamy and the usual extreme standards that leads to today's discrimination against subhumans and rampant inceldom, and it would likely happen naturally anyway, most of the time, in a world where such moral degeneracy and foid privilege wasn't allowed; if you're talking about the government deciding it, then someone would need to get the unattractive foids, though that might depend on many factors.

 

[DryDick]

People establish the looksmatch rule because they know that if they don't, then Chad will steamroll them. So it's guarding against Chads dominance in the dating market.

If an ugly guy dates a hot girl then it seems to be an issue of envy from men. "That's not supposed to happen, how come I can't get a stacy? Let's make fun of them." Women's friends shame each other for dating ugly men because they don't want people they hang out with to "downgrade" in terms of genetics.

 

[berais]

People establish the looksmatch rule

who "established" it

because they know that if they don't, then Chad will steamroll them. So it's guarding against Chads dominance in the dating market.

you're saying whining about looksmatches has slowed chad down from steamrolling non chads? those chads are laughing in their boots if you think this. it makes their life that much easier.

Women's friends shame each other for dating ugly men because they don't want people they hang out with to "downgrade" in terms of genetics.

women's friends shame them because they know an ugly guy will treat her amazing, but can't stand his face. they are resentful that their friend is able to stand the ugly man's face and therefore enjoy the love that he gives her, and the woman's friend can't get from chad.

 

[DryDick]

who "established" it

It's something that people come to learn naturally. In any normal society people choose their looksmatch because that's their threshold - the best they can do. Going for uglier is a waste and going for better-looking is potentially dangerous. Psychologically healthy women know a guy way better looking than her is likely to be a player and will use her and leave. It's just that these bitches have such inflated egos nowadays that they can't see themselves accurately.

you're saying whining about looksmatches has slowed chad down from steamrolling non chads? those chads are laughing in their boots if you think this. it makes their life that much easier.

It hasn't, you're right. There are no rules to the dating market today. It's kind of like slut shaming today; it's going to do very little to prevent women from being sluts.

women's friends shame them because they know an ugly guy will treat her amazing, but can't stand his face. they are resentful that their friend is able to stand the ugly man's face and therefore enjoy the love that he gives her, and the woman's friend can't get from chad.

This is partially true. They resent the fact that she can get love but also the fact that she's with someone uglier that will lower the quality of her social circle and make everyone else look like lesser quality mates - because again, people get with people on their level.

 

[Don Vito]

If you're ugly and support that, you're saying that Chad can have the more attractive women whereas you yourself only deserve the least attractive ones.

This is kinda feminist because it judges the value of both men and women the same way, when traditionally, the woman's value is primarily based on her attractiveness and youth, whereas this isn't the case for men (I know, there's the argument that you're just a betabuxx when you're ugly/old and get yourself a young and attractive woman, but still, it's a way to have sexual access to such women).

I agree. Sadly, beggars can´t choose. The lookmatch theory is something that born in a post sexual revolution era ignoring that men are more thirsty than foids and foids are naturally picky choosers. Foids should have never worked. Only remain as walkingwombs and taking care of their children and weight.

It's cucked because you want Chad to have it better than you. Ok, more attractive people will usually date people around their own level of looks, but why does it have to be a rule? If an ugly guy somehow gets a Stacy, what's wrong with that?

It's a lot like the idea that only young (i.e. below a certain arbitrary age, almost always post-puberty btw) people can date young people, which is a deeply feminist one (based on the feminist concept of "power imbalance").

Power imbalance is bullshit nowadays. Those young foids are more powerful moneywise and socialwise than majority of men. Specially the ones they consider ´creep´because of their looks.

 

[pixy.POULTRYKANG]

Better than having all the women only sleep with the top percentage of men. Everyone wants the best but not everyone can have it.

 

[berais]

It's something that people come to learn naturally. In any normal society people choose their looksmatch because that's their threshold - the best they can do. Going for uglier is a waste and going for better-looking is potentially dangerous. Psychologically healthy women know a guy way better looking than her is likely to be a player and will use her and leave. It's just that these bitches have such inflated egos nowadays that they can't see themselves accurately.

How is going for better "dangerous"?

It hasn't, you're right. There are no rules to the dating market today. It's kind of like slut shaming today; it's going to do very little to prevent women from being sluts.

So all this shit talk on the forum is in vain? who knew. seems blue pilled to not acknowledge it.

This is partially true. They resent the fact that she can get love but also the fact that she's with someone uglier that will lower the quality of her social circle and make everyone else look like lesser quality mates - because again, people get with people on their level.

they can get love. what they cant get is MUTUAL LOVE.

also the social circle thing is bs

 

[Man]

It’s the fairest “get what you give” way to date.

Being fair and lacking entitlement has nothing to do with feminism.

 

[Mainländer]

“get what you give”

But then you're assuming that looks are everything and that men and women must be valued exactly the same way. I question such assumption.

I agree that looks are by far the most important factor for attraction, at least genuine, non-betabuxx attraction, but they aren't the only one, especially if you do account for non-genuine attraction (which, like I wrote in OP, it's also a way to obtain sex and a relationship).

For instance, there are crazy BPD women who do have sex and even fall in love with much uglier men than their looksmatches. They're total outliers, but they do exist.

 

[Virginscarecrow999]

Women hate seeing pretty Women with average guys
"She could do so much better" we all know he's most likely betabuxxing

 

[Mainländer]

Women hate seeing pretty Women with average guys
"She could do so much better" we all know he's most likely betabuxxing

It seems to me that that whole looksmatch thing is just like the age cuck thing. 100% feelings, 0 reason.

"I don't like seeing X and Y together". Well, guess what, fuck you (not you, @Virginscarecrow999 ,the hypothetical looksmatch enforcer/age cuck beign addressed here.

 

[NorthernWind]

It seems that male feminists endorse this 'looksmatch' idea.
It's sad that some people on this forum support this.
First, they present adequate incels in a negative light - 'you only want to date a Stacy despite being ugly himself'.
Not true. It's more about finding your partner at least moderately attractive.
If you don't find her physically attractive, how do you even planning to have sex with her?

 

[Man]

But then you're assuming that looks are everything and that men and women must be valued exactly the same way. I question such assumption.

I agree that looks are by far the most important factor for attraction, at least genuine, non-betabuxx attraction, but they aren't the only one, especially if you do account for non-genuine attraction (which, like I wrote in OP, it's also a way to obtain sex and a relationship).

For instance, there are crazy BPD women who do have sex and even fall in love with much uglier men than their looksmatches. They're total outliers, but they do exist.

The only reason men and women were evaluated differently in the past is because there was a different buyer in a “buyers market” in truth women had no choice and didn’t choose men with resources, men with resources had access to any woman he want and obviously favored attractive and useful women.

Today, men have no choice and throw themselves at any girl who then evaluates him primarily on his attractiveness and then on his compatibility / similarity.

This is the standard that exists now, you can challenge it and deconstruct it but you can’t make it go away unfortunately. The underlying mechanic isn’t founded in reason it’s founded in genetics and nature.

 

[MiSKiRaT]

I deserve 10/10 giga stacy, you deserve 10/10 giga stacy, all of us deserve 10/10 giga stacies for all the lonely years we suffered. fuck this cuckold system rewarding prettyfags just for being born attractive fuck genes and fuck nature GIVE ME MY 10/10 GIGA STACY NOW

 

[Cope or die]

If you're ugly and support that, you're saying that Chad can have the more attractive women whereas you yourself only deserve the least attractive ones.

This is kinda feminist because it judges the value of both men and women the same way, when traditionally, the woman's value is primarily based on her attractiveness and youth, whereas this isn't the case for men (I know, there's the argument that you're just a betabuxx when you're ugly/old and get yourself a young and attractive woman, but still, it's a way to have sexual access to such women).

It's cucked because you want Chad to have it better than you. Ok, more attractive people will usually date people around their own level of looks, but why does it have to be a rule? If an ugly guy somehow gets a Stacy, what's wrong with that?

It's a lot like the idea that only young (i.e. below a certain arbitrary age, almost always post-puberty btw) people can date young people, which is a deeply feminist one (based on the feminist concept of "power imbalance").

I've said as much. Its retarded to think everyone should always be with their looksmatch by default. Sure most average looking people are with other average looking people but for men you should have access to better women if you make more money. Thats why most men strive to do better financially. Theyre hoping for better women as well as better quality of life, etc.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

This reminds me of a paper by Gilles Saint-Paul wherein he uses a grossly oversimplified mathematical model of marriage to mathematically prove that the only "stable marriage assignments (on a population level)" are either looksmatched or hypergamous. While his result cannot reasonably be applied to real life, it might be indicative of something.

 

[Cope or die]

It prevents foids from being able to further enact hypergamy and the usual extreme standards that leads to today's discrimination against subhumans and rampant inceldom, and it would likely happen naturally anyway, most of the time, in a world where such moral degeneracy and foid privilege wasn't allowed; if you're talking about the government deciding it, then someone would need to get the unattractive foids, though that might depend on many factors.

Has nothing to do with hypergamy. Hypergamy always exist anyway. All the looksmatch theory does is ensure you can never have access to better women based on your own looks.

It seems that male feminists endorse this 'looksmatch' idea.
It's sad that some people on this forum support this.
First, they present adequate incels in a negative light - 'you only want to date a Stacy despite being ugly himself'.
Not true. It's more about finding your partner at least moderately attractive.
If you don't find her physically attractive, how do you even planning to have sex with her?

High iq. Its really not even that hard for most women to be somewhat attractive. Just dont dont be a landwhale.

 

[Mainländer]

It seems that male feminists endorse this 'looksmatch' idea.
It's sad that some people on this forum support this.
First, they present adequate incels in a negative light - 'you only want to date a Stacy despite being ugly himself'.
Not true. It's more about finding your partner at least moderately attractive.
If you don't find her physically attractive, how do you even planning to have sex with her?

As for me, I have already even fallen in love for plenty of ugly girls. Maybe some were even uglier than me, it's hard to measure. Cockeyed girls, horsefaced girls, fat girls, girls with fucked up teeth, you name it. She just has to be my type (young and caucasian) and it can happen.

It's more about what one likes than about conventional attractiveness for me. But still question that whole looksmatch thing.

 

[Martes]

It prevents foids from being able to further enact hypergamy and the usual extreme standards that leads to today's discrimination against subhumans and rampant inceldom, and it would likely happen naturally anyway, most of the time, in a world where such moral degeneracy and foid privilege wasn't allowed; if you're talking about the government deciding it, then someone would need to get the unattractive foids, though that might depend on many factors.

 

[Intellau_Celistic]

My looksmatch changes depending on what aspect of my features are observed.

 

[reddeath]

This is wrong on so many levels. Everyone dating their looksmatch benefits men, specifically incels, and here's why.

Women's natural tendency is to chase after the most physically attractive men. That's why most societies have been polyamorous with the top guys having multiple wives and everyone else having nothing. The problem is that the guys left with nothing had no reason to care about society and were more likely to commit crimes and start revolts. This phenomenon is called Young Male Syndrome btw.

Anyways, to help combat this, many societies moved towards monogamy where women would be forced to pick one man who was about their level. This was great for the ugly and average-looking men because they finally had a chance at having a wife, even if they weren't supermodel gorgeous. Women who tried to cheat the system by having sex outside of marriage or by leaving their husbands for a hotter guy were socially ostracized.

Uh oh, do you hear that? It's the feminists. They destroyed marriage with things like no-fault divorce and alimony. They normalized being a slut having sex out of wedlock. Now we're right back to ancient times when the top guys have multiple women. The only difference between now and ancient times is that thanks to women in the workforce and the government, women don't even need our money or physical strength anymore. All us men have to offer women is our attractiveness and if you don't have it you're shit out of luck.

Everyone dating their looksmatch is the only thing protecting incels from women's hypergamous tendencies.

If you're ugly and support that, you're saying that Chad can have the more attractive women whereas you yourself only deserve the least attractive ones.

Yes, the idea of being forced to settle for an ugly girl sucks. But it's better than nothing. And when monogamy isn't enforced that's exactly what we get, nothing.

 

[NorthernWind]

This idea may sound good 'on paper' ( like communism ) but fail in real life like social utopias ( those aim is to create just and fair society for everyone ).

 

[NorthernWind]

As for me, I have already even fallen in love for plenty of ugly girls. Maybe some were even uglier than me, it's hard to measure. Cockeyed girls, horsefaced girls, fat girls, girls with fucked up teeth, you name it. She just has to be my type (young and caucasian) and it can happen.

It's more about what one likes than about conventional attractiveness for me. But still question that whole looksmatch thing.

'To each their own'.
For example some members post pics on females and many others call them unattractive while I find them good looking.
On the other hand, ER is called volcel or fakecel because he only wanted 'white blonde Stacies' despite that picture of blonde 'Stacy' is a maximum high tier Becky in my book ( and I'm generous towards her because I don't find her type attractive at all ).

 

[Mainländer]

This is wrong on so many levels. Everyone dating their looksmatch benefits men, specifically incels, and here's why.

Women's natural tendency is to chase after the most physically attractive men. That's why most societies have been polyamorous with the top guys having multiple wives and everyone else having nothing. The problem is that the guys left with nothing had no reason to care about society and were more likely to commit crimes and start revolts. This phenomenon is called Young Male Syndrome btw.

Anyways, to help combat this, many societies moved towards monogamy where women would be forced to pick one man who was about their level. This was great for the ugly and average-looking men because they finally had a chance at having a wife, even if they weren't supermodel gorgeous. Women who tried to cheat the system by having sex outside of marriage or by leaving their husbands for a hotter guy were socially ostracized.

Uh oh, do you hear that? It's the feminists. They destroyed marriage with things like no-fault divorce and alimony. They normalized being a slut having sex out of wedlock. Now we're right back to ancient times when the top guys have multiple women. The only difference between now and ancient times is that thanks to women in the workforce and the government, women don't even need our money or physical strength anymore. All us men have to offer women is our attractiveness and if you don't have it you're shit out of luck.

Everyone dating their looksmatch is the only thing protecting incels from women's hypergamous tendencies.

Yes, the idea of being forced to settle for an ugly girl sucks. But it's better than nothing. And when monogamy isn't enforced that's exactly what we get, nothing.

I'm all for marriage, and I know people will usually date someone at least close to their looks level/social class/age or whatever. I just don't see how it has to be an enforced rule like many here do. As long as monogamy was enforced, the problem would be solved. Chad committed to a Stacy? Great. Chad committed to an ugly girl? Even better, from the point of view of the average incel.

 

[reddeath]

Oh, I reread the post and i got you. The fact that women get shamed for pairing off with uglier dudes is bs