Blackpill Looksmatch is an unfair criteria for pairing up men and women.

[IncelKing]

This is in reply to this thread:

https://incels.is/threads/the-hypocrisy-of-the-standardcels.216324/#post-4850284

Too many incels here think that being a low-tier male means you should have literally no standards for what you find attractive, and should fuck the most repulsive looking women just because they are your "looksmatch", otherwise you are no different to foids. They think that a low-tier male should force himself to fuck women he genuinely has zero attraction for, just because they are his female looks-equivalent, and that rejecting such women makes him a "volcel".

Being ugly doesn't mean you are biologically programmed to be attracted to ugly people. Just because a male is a 2/10 subhuman truecel doesnt mean that he would automatically find his 2/10 looksmatch attractive. This is illogical.

Who you find attractive and your level of attractiveness are mutually exclusive variables, they are not correlated.

Why should a male be resigned to a life of fucking ugly women to whom he has no attraction, just because he lost the genetic lottery and was born with inferior looks (which was out of his control)? The patriarchy provided a viable solution by giving MEN monopoly power over MATERIAL RESOURCES in recognition of WOMEN' monopoly power over SEXUAL RESOURCES. This meant women would pair up with a man based on his MATERIAL RESOURCES rather than his LOOKS, Hence, ugly males were able to attract women above their own level of looks BY MERIT of being a productive member and valued contributor in society. It was a MERITOCRATIC SYSTEM which rewarded average/unattractive males with the ability to attract attractive females, giving men an incentive to work hard. In other words:

low-tier male with average salary could get his low-tier female looksmatch.

low-tier male with above average salary (top 20%) could get mid-tier becky.

low-tier male with significantly above average salary (top 1%) could get high-tier Stacy.

This was the perfect system. The disadvantage of a man's looks was balanced out by the advantage of having resources to use as leverage in attracting women. A low-tier male could get high-tier women if had enough resources.

The LOOKS of a female who a man should be paired up with should solely be determined by the amount of MATERIAL RESOURCES in his possession.

Pairing up men and women based on looks is completely illogical because both sexes have monopoly power over resources of a different nature. Women have always been chased for their looks, men have always been chased for their wealth. This has been the case for most of human history (until the last 50 years, the negative consequences of which we are just beginning to see today).

Concept of looksmatch should be abolished. Men and women should be paired up based on a man's wealth and a women's looks.

@BlkPillPres

 

[BlkPillPres]

I think I'll have to disagree with you on this one, if you and a woman are of a similar level of looks, and you refuse to date her and she is willing to date you, then you are volcel

If its a completely financial tit for tat arrangement that's a different scenario, then it makes sense that you demand a higher level of looks if you are providing the wealth and resources

But in the case of "mutual interest", if you wouldn't date/fuck a woman who is on the same level of looks as you, then you shouldn't expect any woman to have mutual interest in you either

Being ugly doesn't mean you are biologically programmed to be attracted to ugly people. Just because a male is a 2/10 subhuman truecel

Ironically any woman can use this same line of reasoning to be "Chad only", you are pretty much validating the thoughts and actions of the average woman and their ridiculous standards

 

[Deleted member 26140]

If you think rejecting your looksmatch is okay you subsequently also can't complain about female hypergamy because you're no better.

 

[BlkPillPres]

If you think rejecting your looksmatch is okay you subsequently also can't complain about female hypergamy because you're no better.

This, its very ironic for an incel to reject his looksmatch because he isn't really incel at that point, and he's just justified all the women that rejected him, it really is just hypocrisy

Now if you are just paying and you basically want to own a woman, aim for the best because you are paying, but if you are seriously trying to date and "find a mate", you can't refuse to date someone on your level, that's just ridiculous

 

[ThoughtfulCel]

If you think rejecting your looksmatch is okay you subsequently also can't complain about female hypergamy because you're no better.

Entire thread shattered.

 

[truthpill]

High IQ thread, it's a shame this perfect system had to end when women were given rights and sexually liberated though.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Youre just arguing for betabuxx which is fucked up JFL. Id take my looksmatch non-gold digger foid anyday compared to a 7/10 gold digging whore.

 

[Deleted member 24256]

If you think rejecting your looksmatch is okay you subsequently also can't complain about female hypergamy because you're no better.

 

[DirtyCurryCell]

low-tier male with average salary could get his low-tier female looksmatch.

low-tier male with above average salary (top 20%) could get mid-tier becky.

low-tier male with significantly above average salary (top 1%) could get high-tier Stacy.

This is still the same.
But the foids they get are all used goods.
So...

 

[IncelKing]

I think I'll have to disagree with you on this one, if you and a woman are of a similar level of looks, and you refuse to date her and she is willing to date you, then you are volcel

Well it depends on a man's OPTIONS which is determined by his wealth. If a man has enough wealth to attract a 5/10 woman despite being a 2/10 himself, he is justified in rejecting his looksmatch because he literally has more lucrative options.

But in the case of "mutual interest", if you wouldn't date/fuck a woman who is on the same level of looks as you, then you shouldn't expect any woman to have mutual interest in you either

i'd definitely reject a woman of the same looks level as me if i had the option to get a better looking female. But even Without the option, i would rather be incel than to be with a subhuman woman, thats just my personal preference, but unlike those who call standardcels volcels, i'm not going to judge nor name-call incels who will settle for their looksmatch.

It's easy for a 4/10 incel to accept his looksmatch as she will also be 4/10 (which is just slightly below average, but still very acceptable).

Now imagine the roll of the dice, flip of the coin, draw of a card to determine the circumstances of your birth, had a different outcome, and you found yourself in a 2/10 body/face, yet everything else about you as a person (your beliefs, mindset, personality, interests etc.) remained the same. Would you be able to genuinely be attracted to a butt ugly 2/10 female?

Ironically any woman can use this same line of reasoning to be "Chad only", you are pretty much validating the thoughts and actions of the average woman and their ridiculous standards

Its not the same thing. In the current system, only women and genetically superior men are the winners BY VIRTUE OF GENETICS while low-tier males are the losers BY VIRTUE OF GENETICS.

The ability for a low-tier male to attract women using his resources has decreased drastically as women now maintain monopoly power over sexual/reproductive resources while also gaining a 50% share in the material resources which men once held a monopoly power over.

In the system i proposed, ONLY a mans resources matter, his looks have ZERO importance. A man isnt BORN with any options (even Chad) , he has to CREATE options through hard work, hence its a meritocratic system which gives all males (irregardless of genetics) a fair chance.

 

[shii410]

They think that a low-tier male should force himself to fuck women he genuinely has zero attraction for, just because they are his female looks-equivalent, and that rejecting such women makes him a "volcel".

you could literally use this exact line of logic to say that femcels who only want Chad are involuntarily celibate. because you "can't force them to fuck men they have zero attraction to"

 

[BlkPillPres]

In the system i proposed, ONLY a mans resources matter, his looks have ZERO importance

That's not a balanced system, I don't expect women to have to marry the fucking elephant man because they can't afford to buy sliced bread lol, I think women should have to date and marry their looksmatches, that is all

 

[IncelKing]

That's not a balanced system, I don't expect women to have to marry the fucking elephant man because they can't afford to buy sliced bread lol, I think women should have to date and marry their looksmatches, that is all

strawman, elephant man and deformed/disabled men are the EXCEPTION TO THE RULE in which case looks DO matter, looks ONLY matter at the lower extreme end of the looks scale (less than 0.25% of all males, basically sub 1 males), any male who is non-disabled should settle for a woman of a looks level which corresponds to his resources level.

Also what makes my system unbalanced? Resources and looks both form a normal distribution, both variables exist in the structure of a hierarchy. These identical attributes allow the variables to be interchangeable without creating imbalance in the system.

If you think men should settle for their looksmatch irregardless of their level of wealth, then that means a BROKE 2/10 male and RICH 2/10 male would both have to settle for their 2/10 female counterpart, THEY BOTH GET THE SAME "REWARD".

Such a system would give no incentive to men to work hard, seeing as though they will just have to settle for their looksmatch at the end of the day irregardless of how hard they work or how successful they become.

 

[Irredeemable]

If you think rejecting your looksmatch is okay you subsequently also can't complain about female hypergamy because you're no better.

 

[Ropemaxx]

If you think rejecting your looksmatch is okay you subsequently also can't complain about female hypergamy because you're no better.

 

[BITG]

strawman, elephant man and deformed/disabled men are the EXCEPTION TO THE RULE in which case looks DO matter, looks ONLY matter at the lower extreme end of the looks scale (less than 0.25% of all males, basically sub 1 males), any male who is non-disabled should settle for a woman of a looks level which corresponds to his resources level.

Also what makes my system unbalanced? Resources and looks both form a normal distribution, both variables exist in the structure of a hierarchy. These identical attributes allow the variables to be interchangeable without creating imbalance in the system.

If you think men should settle for their looksmatch irregardless of their level of wealth, then that means a BROKE 2/10 male and RICH 2/10 male would both have to settle for their 2/10 female counterpart, THEY BOTH GET THE SAME "REWARD".

Such a system would give no incentive to men to work hard, seeing as though they will just have to settle for their looksmatch at the end of the day irregardless of how hard they work or how successful they become.

Holy fuck, I thought @BlkPillPres was higher IQ than you, but I was wrong, maybe you’re number 1 on this forum. Length of the Milky Way IQ

 

[IncelKing]

That's not a balanced system, I don't expect women to have to marry the fucking elephant man because they can't afford to buy sliced bread lol, I think women should have to date and marry their looksmatches, that is all

remove the shackles of genetics from men by rewarding them for success, and you'll see how motivated the male sex becomes to contribute to a society's technological progress, innovation, scientific advancements etc.

 

[Lame Dude]

You can always talk about what it should be, but its not going to happen.

Even a high ranking engineer's wage cant compete with onlyfans pay. For the better or worse, the die is cast.

 

[BITG]

remove the shackles of genetics from men by rewarding them for success, and you'll see how motivated the male sex becomes to contribute to a society's technological progress, innovation, scientific advancements etc.

 

[IncelKing]

You can always talk about what it should be, but its not going to happen.

Even a high ranking engineer's wage cant compete with onlyfans pay. For the better or worse, the die is cast.

who says its not going to happen? Do you honestly think majority of males are going to be complacent and do nothing as society continues to decrease the quality of life for the collective male populace? Do you think men will sit idly as they watch womens' standards continue to increase, resulting in fewer and fewer men being able to get sex?

Women underestimate mens' tolerance, women will keep pushing us closer and closer to the edge to test our limits but men will push back. Society is only enjoying peace and prosperity because Shit hasn't yet hit the fan. Right now inceldom isnt a problem for the majority of males, who still think they have a chance just because they were able to get the crumbs on the floor (old/used pussy), leftover from the feast of the kings (genetically superior males).

But The pot is slowly boiling and something dark is stirring, soon it is bound to explode.

Let women have their fun, its not going to last very long. Men are going to retaliate and the cycle of history will repeat itself as men put an end to the modern global empire, allowing a new one to emerge from the ashes, reborn like a phoenix. In order to usher in a new era, the old must first be destroyed.

Things are not looking good for women in the near future, all we have to do is have patience and "wait" for the temporary period of female dominance to end as men proceed to reclaim what is rightfully theirs.

Note: I am high as fuck rn lol, so excuse my rambling

 

[Hate_my_life]

My looksmatch is dating as Chad/Tyrone as I write this (Very srs).

 

[Lame Dude]

Do you honestly think majority of males are going to be complacent and do nothing as society continues to decrease the quality of life for the collective populace?

Yep

..."wait" for the temporary period of female dominance to end as men proceed to reclaim what is rightfully theirs.

We will all be dead and forgotten by then. IF it ever happens.

Honestly I want to believe what you say, but that is no different than believing in god / afterlife and things will somehow get even. It is just a cope after all.

 

[BITG]

who says its not going to happen? Do you honestly think majority of males are going to be complacent and do nothing as society continues to decrease the quality of life for the collective male populace? Do you think men will sit idly as they watch womens' standards continue to increase, resulting in fewer and fewer men being able to get sex?

Women underestimate mens' tolerance, women will keep pushing us closer and closer to the edge to test our limits but men will push back. Society is only enjoying peace and prosperity because Shit hasn't yet hit the fan. Right now inceldom isnt a problem for the majority of males, who still think they have a chance just because they were able to get the crumbs on the floor (old/used pussy), leftover from the feast of the kings (genetically superior males).

But The pot is slowly boiling and something dark is stirring, soon it is bound to explode.

Let women have their fun, its not going to last very long. Men are going to retaliate and the cycle of history will repeat itself as men put an end to the modern global empire, allowing a new one to emerge from the ashes, reborn like a phoenix. In order to usher in a new era, the old must first be destroyed.

Things are not looking good for women in the near future, all we have to do is have patience and "wait" for the temporary period of female dominance to end as men proceed to reclaim what is rightfully theirs.

Note: I am high as fuck rn lol, so excuse my rambling

Do you think things will go back to how they were pre feminism? As in taking away women’s rights? Also, please clear up for me how women were married to men pre feminism, did they themselves choose high status men (in terms of finance)? Or was if their fathers who married them off?

 

[IncelKing]

Yep

We will all be dead and forgotten by then. IF it ever happens.

Honestly I want to believe what you say, but that is no different than believing in god / afterlife and things will somehow get even. It is just a cope after all.

You are placing self-imposed limitations upon yourself by telling yourself "it will never happen", just so that you dont feel like a cuck who is sitting down and doing nothing while the men who actually believe in the possibility of restoring men to their natural position of power, take the necessary ACTIONS in the REAL WORLD to make their dreams into a reality, you will keep dreaming.

I make sure take every possibility into account, to maximise the opportunities in life for personal benefit.

Here is a brilliant monologue by Lord Petyr Baelish to Sansa Stark during a time of war, telling her to take all possibilities into consideration before making any ambitious move at a time when the 7 Kingdoms were at facing an impending and inevitable WAR, a speech which sounds like something straight out of Sun Tzu's Art of Warfare



Sansa got mindblown at the end lmao
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L4bRXL94Ws

 

[Lame Dude]

just so that you dont feel like a cuck who is sitting down and doing nothing

I dont accept that accusation. I know full well how defeated and weak I am and what I said is in no way to make myself feel superior.
In fact I despise people who cope by thinking "Im incel because they are afraid of me/cant handle me."

Although I have to admit, I do choose the worse outcomes while trying to be realistic. How can you not, after seeing all your hopes crushed?

 

[dirtykombatcel]

I think I'll have to disagree with you on this one, if you and a woman are of a similar level of looks, and you refuse to date her and she is willing to date you, then you are volcel

If its a completely financial tit for tat arrangement that's a different scenario, then it makes sense that you demand a higher level of looks if you are providing the wealth and resources

But in the case of "mutual interest", if you wouldn't date/fuck a woman who is on the same level of looks as you, then you shouldn't expect any woman to have mutual interest in you either



Ironically any woman can use this same line of reasoning to be "Chad only", you are pretty much validating the thoughts and actions of the average woman and their ridiculous standards

Exactly this, since it is also much more related to the current scenario, rather than your POV which centers around the way society worked tens of years ago.

It is right and you mostly make a good point, however it is not well correlated with what is actually going on right now in the world. It is tied to the past.

Also also like @BlkPillPres is saying, the biological arguments could be used by women too when justifying their attraction to Chads. We as humans have evolved so much by struggling against our primitiveness, not enslaving ourselves to it.

 

[System Restore]

This is in reply to this thread:

https://incels.is/threads/the-hypocrisy-of-the-standardcels.216324/#post-4850284

Too many incels here think that being a low-tier male means you should have literally no standards for what you find attractive, and should fuck the most repulsive looking women just because they are your "looksmatch", otherwise you are no different to foids. They think that a low-tier male should force himself to fuck women he genuinely has zero attraction for, just because they are his female looks-equivalent, and that rejecting such women makes him a "volcel".

Being ugly doesn't mean you are biologically programmed to be attracted to ugly people. Just because a male is a 2/10 subhuman truecel doesnt mean that he would automatically find his 2/10 looksmatch attractive. This is illogical.

Who you find attractive and your level of attractiveness are mutually exclusive variables, they are not correlated.

Why should a male be resigned to a life of fucking ugly women to whom he has no attraction, just because he lost the genetic lottery and was born with inferior looks (which was out of his control)? The patriarchy provided a viable solution by giving MEN monopoly power over MATERIAL RESOURCES in recognition of WOMEN' monopoly power over SEXUAL RESOURCES. This meant women would pair up with a man based on his MATERIAL RESOURCES rather than his LOOKS, Hence, ugly males were able to attract women above their own level of looks BY MERIT of being a productive member and valued contributor in society. It was a MERITOCRATIC SYSTEM which rewarded average/unattractive males with the ability to attract attractive females, giving men an incentive to work hard. In other words:

low-tier male with average salary could get his low-tier female looksmatch.

low-tier male with above average salary (top 20%) could get mid-tier becky.

low-tier male with significantly above average salary (top 1%) could get high-tier Stacy.

This was the perfect system. The disadvantage of a man's looks was balanced out by the advantage of having resources to use as leverage in attracting women. A low-tier male could get high-tier women if had enough resources.

The LOOKS of a female who a man should be paired up with should solely be determined by the amount of MATERIAL RESOURCES in his possession.

Pairing up men and women based on looks is completely illogical because both sexes have monopoly power over resources of a different nature. Women have always been chased for their looks, men have always been chased for their wealth. This has been the case for most of human history (until the last 50 years, the negative consequences of which we are just beginning to see today).

Concept of looksmatch should be abolished. Men and women should be paired up based on a man's wealth and a women's looks.

@BlkPillPres

And if there are a lot more girls than boys being born only the fat, ugly, and old girls will be incels. Ordinary men could have a 6/10 girl and the most successful men could have three or more 8+/10 girls.

If you think men should settle for their looksmatch irregardless of their level of wealth, then that means a BROKE 2/10 male and RICH 2/10 male would both have to settle for their 2/10 female counterpart, THEY BOTH GET THE SAME "REWARD".

Such a system would give no incentive to men to work hard, seeing as though they will just have to settle for their looksmatch at the end of the day irregardless of how hard they work or how successful they become.

Guys like could just LDAR and be entitled to a white JB

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oliq8m8Qph0


While founders of youtube will forever a slave to their "looksmatch"

 

[EyesAreSoCold]

The patriarchy provided a viable solution by giving MEN monopoly power over MATERIAL RESOURCES in recognition of WOMEN' monopoly power over SEXUAL RESOURCES.

This is the natural state of things, it's not a product of patriarchy. Men are naturally good at creating material resources, while women are good at getting their way.

But I sort of agree with your general point, men have more to offer than looks. Problem today is that women get all of that for free from the state so masculinity has been reduced to only looks.

 

[happiless]

I agree with OP in principle but not in reality. In an ideal world, 100% of the workforce would consist of men and each man would be rewarded for hard work with an attractive foid. To enable this, foids would be purchasable property with little to no rights. The productivity of men would skyrocket in such a society. But of course we live in the opposite, which is why ugly men can't really expect anything better than their looksmatch. If you're a richcel you can find a golddigger, but it would probably fuck Chad behind your back anyway.

remove the shackles of genetics from men by rewarding them for success, and you'll see how motivated the male sex becomes to contribute to a society's technological progress, innovation, scientific advancements etc.

The opposite is reality in 2020, and the reason why many incels aren't willing to follow your moneymaxxing ideology. Lots of effort for few rewards

 

[Deleted member 20195]

This is a completely hypothetical cope of a thread to begin with. Your looksmatch has 10x more SMV than you, she will never date you.

 

[Smitty]

More redpilled garbage from fakecel op

 

[IncelKing]

I agree with OP in principle but not in reality. In an ideal world, 100% of the workforce would consist of men and each man would be rewarded for hard work with an attractive foid. To enable this, foids would be purchasable property with little to no rights. The productivity of men would skyrocket in such a society. But of course we live in the opposite, which is why ugly men can't really expect anything better than their looksmatch. If you're a richcel you can find a golddigger, but it would probably fuck Chad behind your back anyway.


The opposite is reality in 2020, and the reason why many incels aren't willing to follow your moneymaxxing ideology. Lots of effort for few rewards

lmao what do you mean this isnt the case in reality? only long ago during caveman era, prior to the creation of civilized societies, women chased men for their genetics just like today. But for the millenia between now and the caveman era (basically 95% of human history), women' primary criteria for mating with men was resources.

I dont think you understand the importance of resources, we literally need resources in order to survive. However, resources are scarce hence there has always been competition for the limited resources available and In a world governed by the natural law of 'survival of the fittest', a man's "fitness" was measured by the amount of resources in his control/possession, hence women pursued men who had the resources necessary to provide them with a life of comfort, safety, security etc.

 

[Sheogorath]

Who you find attractive and your level of attractiveness are mutually exclusive variables, they are not correlated.

I think there is at least a slight correlation, statistically speaking.

I think I'm a lot more attracted to Beckys than Chads are.

 

[Deleted member 25707]

Entire thread shattered.

View attachment 279507

armchair philosophers and psedo intellectuals BTFOd

 

[HappilySingle]

Your argument is lame, and this thread is lame. Most incels are too broken to even earn enough to push past the poverty line.

 

[Deleted member 19546]

if you and a woman are of a similar level of looks, and you refuse to date her and she is willing to date you, then you are volcel

The fact that this even has to be said...

 

[Sparrow's Song]

Looksmatching as a subhuman truecel is just biological terrorism. I wouldn't mind femlets getting with tallfag chads if manlets could get with tall foids. It's better for people to be attracted to people who have higher genetic stats in the areas they are lacking and vice versa... That would balance the gene pool out to some degree.

 

[Deleted member 26506]

high IQ thread, wealth should be the main thing that determines the looks of your foid (actually, foids are still physically attracted to wealth)
If a man is a 2/10 but he was able to be rich, then he has a high IQ brain and high cognitive capabilities, and his genes should be spread
with the best looking foid

Your argument is lame, and this thread is lame. Most incels are too broken to even earn enough to push past the poverty line.

Majority of incels are middle class, and if I am not wrong then there is an equal amount of incels who are lower-class and upper-class

 

[IncelKing]

Entire thread shattered.

View attachment 279507

im struggling to see how my thread was shattered by a meaningless statement backed up with no explanation. It seems like very few people on this forum have the IQ required for sound reading comprehension.

I clearly stated in my thread that men naturally hold monopoly power over MATERIAL RESOURCES while women hold monopoly power over SEXUAL/REPRODUCTIVE RESOURCES.

Hence men should be judged by their WEALTH while women should be judged by LOOKS (instead of judging both sexes by looks as is the case with the concept of "looksmatch").

As For anybody else who is going to keep bringing up points which i literally already addressed in the thread, i wont entertain you with a reply, this is the last time im repeating myself.

Believe whatever you want, Cant convince an idiot no matter how hard you try.

Looksmatching as a subhuman truecel is just biological terrorism. I wouldn't mind femlets getting with tallfag chads if manlets could get with tall foids. It's better for people to be attracted to people who have higher genetic stats in the areas they are lacking and vice versa... That would balance the gene pool out to some degree.

finally somebody gets it.

A man's wealth correlating to a woman's looks is meritocratic and gives men (who are the creators and destroyers of the world) an incentive to be productive, removing advantages from genetically superior males and disadvantages from genetically inferior males.

So a hard-working truecel would get Stacy while NEET chad will have to settle for a subhuman foid. The gene pool will balance out greatly.

Also keep in mind that a subhuman couple can give birth to attractive children and an attractive couple could give birth to subhuman children due to genetic recombination, so the gene pool is already balanced as it is.

 

[PPEcel]

Ironically any woman can use this same line of reasoning to be "Chad only", you are pretty much validating the thoughts and actions of the average woman and their ridiculous standards

Exactly, standardcels are volcels.

If you reject your looksmatch, you're a volcel, period -- bar any financial or status-based leverage.

 

[IncelKing]

bar any financial or status-based leverage.

my point is that for men, wealth should be the PRIMARY leverage, looks should be SECONDARY.

 

[PPEcel]

Youre just arguing for betabuxx which is fucked up JFL. Id take my looksmatch non-gold digger foid anyday compared to a 7/10 gold digging whore.

You're telling me a 3/10 disfigured Saudi billionaire should resign his life to fucking some fat landwhale when he could easily set up an arrangement with one of his favourite Instagram sluts?

my point is that for men, wealth should be the PRIMARY leverage, looks should be SECONDARY.

Is that true for women as well? Should a working-class Chad be obligated to settle for a wealthier landwhale?

 

[IncelKing]

You're telling me a 3/10 disfigured Saudi billionaire should resign his life to fucking some fat landwhale when he could easily set up an arrangement with one of his favourite Instagram sluts?

lol dude ignore him, i blocked him for a reason. cant tolerate all these low IQ idiots, at the beginning its fun to destroy them in debates but after a while it just gets tiresome, because you find yourself expending a lot of time/energy in explaining simple concepts and communicating basic ideas.

In the same way that some people are born physically unattractive, some people are born mentally challenged. I feel like some of the incels i talk to on this forum drew the short stick in both aspects, they were not only born ugly, they were also born with low IQ.

We are slaves to our genetics at the end, some are blessed while others are cursed.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

lol dude ignore him, i blocked him for a reason. cant tolerate all these low IQ idiots, at the beginning its fun to destroy them in debates but after a while it just gets tiresome, because you find yourself expending a lot of time/energy in explaining simple concepts and communicating basic ideas.

In the same way that some people are born physically unattractive, some people are born mentally challenged. I feel like some of the incels i talk to on this forum drew the short stick in both aspects, they were not only born ugly, they were also born with low IQ.

We are slaves to our genetics at the end, some are blessed while others are cursed.

Wtf are you on about retard? I don't ever remember arguing with you.

You're telling me a 3/10 disfigured Saudi billionaire should resign his life to fucking some fat landwhale when he could easily set up an arrangement with one of his favourite Instagram sluts?

Iam saying hookers> betabuxxing. A lot of men betabux thinking the foid loves them.

 

[IncelKing]

You're telling me a 3/10 disfigured Saudi billionaire should resign his life to fucking some fat landwhale when he could easily set up an arrangement with one of his favourite Instagram sluts?


Is that true for women as well? Should a working-class Chad be obligated to settle for a wealthier landwhale?

As i said:

finally somebody gets it.

A man's wealth correlating to a woman's looks is meritocratic and gives men (who are the creators and destroyers of the world) an incentive to be productive, removing advantages from genetically superior males and disadvantages from genetically inferior males.

So a hard-working truecel would get Stacy while NEET chad will have to settle for a subhuman foid. The gene pool will balance out greatly.

Also keep in mind that a subhuman couple can give birth to attractive children and an attractive couple could give birth to subhuman children due to genetic recombination, so the gene pool is already balanced as it is.

 

[IncelKing]

Do you think things will go back to how they were pre feminism? As in taking away women’s rights? Also, please clear up for me how women were married to men pre feminism, did they themselves choose high status men (in terms of finance)? Or was if their fathers who married them off?

women didnt have the right to work or own property, hence their only way to SURVIVE was to get married to a man who had the MATERIAL RESOURCES to look after her PHYSICAL NEEDS.

Fathers married their daughters to men of their choosing, women were essentially property of their fathers and then once they got married they became property of their husbands. Marriage as an institution was essential for building the family unit, which is the "building block" of society.

FEMALE Sexual Market Value (SMV) has always been derived from their LOOKS. Hence, The more beautiful a woman, the more rich a man would need to be in order to be deemed worthy as an eligible husband by the woman's father (as MALE worth came from WEALTH). Also keep in mind that men would need to pay the father of the bride "dowry" or payment of some sort for access to his daughter. Think of this dowry as an initial down-payment or "deposit" in a long line of negative cash flows (expenditure associated with raising a family, all of which the man was responsible for). Fathers basically "sold" their daughters to their future husbands

The father PRIMARILY concerned himself with ensuring that his daughter would be well looked after and taken care of by finding the best "provider", this was the role of men in patriarchal societies, to provide women with safety, shelter, security in exchange for access to their sexual/reproductive resources. When it came to marriage,The LOOKS of a man was a SECONDARY attribute, which only came into consideration once a man met the WEALTH requirements FIRST

A MAN would ensure a woman's SURVIVAL while a WOMAN would allow the man to propagate his DNA, ensuring that he attained GENETIC IMMORTALITY.

This took place on a SOCIETAL SCALE.

Men maintained a monopoly over material resources and women maintained monopoly power over sexual/reproductive resources, facilitating a "trade" of resources between the sexes, the relationship between the collective male populace and the collective female populace has always been "transactional" in nature.

 

[PPEcel]

Iam saying hookers> betabuxxing. A lot of men betabux thinking the foid loves them.

Fine, fair enough, I agree.

Keep in mind, though, that some men betabux because there's familial or social pressure for them to do so. Some men, if their finances allow, will engage in both betabuxxing and escortcelling.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Fine, fair enough, I agree.

Keep in mind, though, that some men betabux because there's familial or social pressure for them to do so. Some men, if their finances allow, will engage in both betabuxxing and escortcelling.

Why dont you betabuxx though? You have enough money to do it.

 

[truthpill]

Like I've said, this thread is some of the highest IQ stuff I've ever seen. Anyone disagreeing is implying that a hard working male should be limited to his looksmatch, which is absolutely ridiculous. This would mean that people like Bill Gates have to settle, despite being geniuses and massive wealth generators.

 

[mänline]

Like I've said, this thread is some of the highest IQ stuff I've ever seen. Anyone disagreeing is implying that a hard working male should be limited to his looksmatch, which is absolutely ridiculous. This would mean that people like Bill Gates have to settle, despite being geniuses and massive wealth generators.

For me it is commons sense and also never been denied by the majority, that it is not 100% looks. But you need "your shit together" to have a chance of looksmatch and extraordinary money today to get lucky above your looksmatch.