Thread title reads like an apex cope, but let me expand.
I saw it mentioned in passing (on MPC) that frenetic sexual conquest was not a "straight" way of approaching relationships. I noted it, but never gave it especially much thought. Recently, I recalled the statement and have thought on it further. I believe it now to make sense in light of the behavioral idiosyncrasies associated with Chads and of certain biological avenues of causality.
What kind of man habitually puts himself in the company of whores, is able to "game" them, knows how they think - and, moreover, enjoys all of it? A big fucking faggot, that's what kind. I can hear it now, "Cope, Chad look good, don't need to, they approach him, 1,000 matches". If things ended there, why do most prettibois act exactly the way they look? Why are they almost invariably vain narcissists? Why do they use Instagram and sundry forms of social media? Why are they hypersocialized and of dull mind? Why do they speak and write in a kind of brain-damaged millennial wigger pidgin? Could well be an unavoidable consequence of engaging with women at such a frequency - could also be something within them that drives their licentiousness, they makes them particularly adept at pulling it off, that is physiognomically detectable in their soft skin, delicate noses, and positive canthal tilt.
Now, related to dyed-in-the-wool homos: they have been observed to display higher serum T levels relative to heterosexuals. Now, does this mean they are more "masculine"? Is masculinity reducible to the presence and actions of a single endocrine agent? No, naturally. You need only consider their affective affinity toward the eternal foid, toward the flighty and histrionic mind of the human female. The lisping voices, the lack of self-control, the capriciousness. It is known as well that foids, related to their very low levels, are hypersensitive to testosterone. Could a large part of "femaleness" be traced, counterintuitively ("We could not confirm a relationship between male-to-female testosterone, maximum female testosterone, or the seasonal androgen response of females with any life-history parameter. We conclude that the expectation that testosterone regulates traits in females in a similar manner as in males should be reconsidered"), to the influence of testosterone, of the impulses and feelings produced when it is present in excess of the biological capacity to control its action? The feminine whimsy, the narcissism, the passive-agressive status signaling may well have some relation to a corruption of "male" drives.
This all finds its expression in the sexual lifestyles of "successful" men; "slayers". Chasing transient, cheap encounters, unable to form lasting bonds; moving from body to body, trapped in the confused play of lustful impulses, striving toward completion and never finding it, never transcending physicality, never creating. Straight relationships, you would imagine, naturally tend toward consummation - their object is the production of something. This is corporeally obvious in the form of offspring, is also present as the general structure of a stable union. Chadfags are chaotic and profligate fornicators; useless; formless.
Relatedly, why do you think it is that so many soyers are monomaniacally fixated on sex even if they're not the type to be able to get it? It is the product of a feminized disposition, a tendency toward hedonism and incontinence. The IncelTiers "Chads" may have given themselves a more apt epithet than is immediately apparent.
I saw it mentioned in passing (on MPC) that frenetic sexual conquest was not a "straight" way of approaching relationships. I noted it, but never gave it especially much thought. Recently, I recalled the statement and have thought on it further. I believe it now to make sense in light of the behavioral idiosyncrasies associated with Chads and of certain biological avenues of causality.
What kind of man habitually puts himself in the company of whores, is able to "game" them, knows how they think - and, moreover, enjoys all of it? A big fucking faggot, that's what kind. I can hear it now, "Cope, Chad look good, don't need to, they approach him, 1,000 matches". If things ended there, why do most prettibois act exactly the way they look? Why are they almost invariably vain narcissists? Why do they use Instagram and sundry forms of social media? Why are they hypersocialized and of dull mind? Why do they speak and write in a kind of brain-damaged millennial wigger pidgin? Could well be an unavoidable consequence of engaging with women at such a frequency - could also be something within them that drives their licentiousness, they makes them particularly adept at pulling it off, that is physiognomically detectable in their soft skin, delicate noses, and positive canthal tilt.
Now, related to dyed-in-the-wool homos: they have been observed to display higher serum T levels relative to heterosexuals. Now, does this mean they are more "masculine"? Is masculinity reducible to the presence and actions of a single endocrine agent? No, naturally. You need only consider their affective affinity toward the eternal foid, toward the flighty and histrionic mind of the human female. The lisping voices, the lack of self-control, the capriciousness. It is known as well that foids, related to their very low levels, are hypersensitive to testosterone. Could a large part of "femaleness" be traced, counterintuitively ("We could not confirm a relationship between male-to-female testosterone, maximum female testosterone, or the seasonal androgen response of females with any life-history parameter. We conclude that the expectation that testosterone regulates traits in females in a similar manner as in males should be reconsidered"), to the influence of testosterone, of the impulses and feelings produced when it is present in excess of the biological capacity to control its action? The feminine whimsy, the narcissism, the passive-agressive status signaling may well have some relation to a corruption of "male" drives.
This all finds its expression in the sexual lifestyles of "successful" men; "slayers". Chasing transient, cheap encounters, unable to form lasting bonds; moving from body to body, trapped in the confused play of lustful impulses, striving toward completion and never finding it, never transcending physicality, never creating. Straight relationships, you would imagine, naturally tend toward consummation - their object is the production of something. This is corporeally obvious in the form of offspring, is also present as the general structure of a stable union. Chadfags are chaotic and profligate fornicators; useless; formless.
Relatedly, why do you think it is that so many soyers are monomaniacally fixated on sex even if they're not the type to be able to get it? It is the product of a feminized disposition, a tendency toward hedonism and incontinence. The IncelTiers "Chads" may have given themselves a more apt epithet than is immediately apparent.
