View: https://youtu.be/Z9dWr-ehsKY
This dude says enforced monogamy is the problem and not solution, what you guys think? If you’re high IQ, You should watch the whole video.
@BlkPillPres
@IncelKing
Last edited:
View: https://youtu.be/Z9dWr-ehsKY
This dude says enforced monogamy is the problem and not solution, what you guys think? If you’re high IQ, You should watch the whole video.
@BlkPillPres
@IncelKing
T
oldcel is high on copium
"Depends on what you mean by" "enforced monogamy"
Watch video
P
OMG HE'S A SOY NECKBEARD
EVERY FUCKING TIME
EVERY FUCKING TIME
Monogamy is God's plan for us. If people correctly enforced it, both inceldom and feminism would be solved.
God is cope.
D
Massive cope, women talk about how they hate being stuck with incel or soy or even normie tier men and lord it over us how glad they are they have a choice from us nowadays and hence we are bad people for wanting them and not respecting their rights to "worthy men". Fucking eugenicists.
Yea tbh foids are evil simple as that
D
I'll go with "high standards/oversocial" but sure, same difference
Dont forget that they laugh, mock and ridicule truecels just for existing.
if you think of humans as just a bunch of highly intelligent apes then there is no such thing as morals and should do whatever necessary to keep the species from becoming extinct.
didn't watch much of the vid but it seems like just quantity over quality arguments
didn't watch much of the vid but it seems like just quantity over quality arguments
He seems decently high IQ. You should watch the whole video.
The guy is right. Humans aren't monogamous but they are tribal species so women never had unlimited access to chads ever except now. the only way to solve inceldom is either: end globalisation and force people to live in groups of 100 people max or forced monogamy. the first one is impratical and it would mean go back in time. And the second one, though it's not ideal, it's the only solution at least for the moment.
High IQ. Agreed.
soy not even once
P
soy. not even 1nceelab
P
Alright hurdleafterhurdle, Let's hear your ingenious, well thought out, TOTALLY LEGAL way in which you can solve the Inceldom and Feminism issue.
I'm waiting.
lmao he probably posts her and just virtue signaling in hope that maybe he'll get to lick the sole of a 300lbs roastie
Yes, because they are currently in times of sexual paradise. No one wants to eat old oat bread when he can have freshly baked wheat one. That the women lust in insanity over her husband was a exception in history and is not needed for a successful, happy marriage. Cut their unlimited access to Chads, make sex before marriage a shameful thing, chastity a virtue and social rule, and adultery a crime.
enforced monogamy is the only way
D
Literally surgery. Technology got us into this mess, it will get us out. Either that or we do enforced monogamy etc. but women will scream their heads off at not wanting us and it will still be miserable. This isn't bluepill, this is facing the problem. You think you're gonna like a wife who's going to do everything she can to escape you or make your life hell? Some women might be stockholmable but nowadays with feminism that is a shrinking minority. We need to replace women, or fix ourselves. One or the other. Any other option flew out the window the moment we let women see a world in which they can have it even better (at our expense, and worse for us). Like children who get new toys and don't want to go back to the old ones. Would I like a monogamous world? Yes. Not because of only religion but a lot of history to support that it works if you choose partners well. is that possible given the experience and choice women have had today, and what they would be going back to against their feminist programming? No.
Actually with fewer choices, and less exposure, I believe women got lustier over less hot men, but yes, lust at that level is not important to marraige.
The problem is more that we cannot go back now. Women have seen how much better THEIR gender can have it, they will not let us push them back. For that to even be a possibility, we'd need to convince tons of soys, normies, chads, and gays to do so, none of which care and most of which defend women at least somewhat. We're fighting a losing war trying to go to the past. Let's go to the future and make biocunts or some shit.
the solution is war. technology capable of fully replacing foids is a thousand+ years off. with war, traditional societies can triumph over cuckolded weak soy pussy fag countries and enslave their spoiled foids/eradicate the roasties. let's hope they won't have to go against the whole world this time though
Low IQ.
All you're doing by advocating for surgery is increasing the looks threshold.
Now instead of you needing to be a 6/10 to ascend, you'd literally need to be an 8/10.
There will be factors that surgery can NEVER change (a 5'2 manlet is not going to be 6'2).
Making surgery easily accessible just drives foids to be even harsher than they already are on men.
That is one purpose of Christianity.
Marriage is symbolic. It represents Christ being one with the church and just like Jesus wouldn't divorce us for any small thing, If foids lived up to Christian values: Casual sex would stop. Prostitute would eventually stop. OnlyFans would be Obsolete. Women would be kinder towards sub-5 men (Christian foids are still cruel), and we'd have a much better chance as they'd seek Christian fruits and personality traits.
It depends on what you mean by Jordan Peterson.
Looks like a kike
D
Pretty sure I'd fucking die in either case so no personally. Have fun getting that to work.
Y
This is very true and why arrangedmarriagemaxxing wouldn't work out for a lot of incels.
If women are forced to be with you against their will through even light measures like social pressure, they'll make your life a living hell and your children will have to deal with a tumultuous upbringing that will mentally damage them too.
This is considering some of the women that are pressured to be with you don't kill you, take your money or harm your family as a result of being forced to be with you, which many of them are capable of doing.
If there were any serious discussions in America today about getting rid of no fault divorce, alimony and child support, you'd see how vicious a lot of self proclaimed non-feminist women would suddenly become because they lost their advantage of provision and protection without having to directly associate with an unattractive male.
D
True ig.
Surgery may be able to fix more. I also include gene editing and shit. Height is definitely a bigger problem but who knows. Press x to doubt we'll get nearly that far before society collapses at this rate, but it has a way of just hanging in there lately...
It worked in the past. We just need some leaders to have strong religious values.
Sadly anyone religious is seen as Satan himself and the west has strayed away from God.
dur, "JP only thinks male polygamy will happen but not polyandry" "dur men get way more benefits in marriage than women"
This dude has clearly not being paying attention to statistics, most women are attracted to a small minority of men. Living in his own fantasy world.
Most women don't benefit from marriage, even though they don't have to work in some shitty suifuel job and can just stay home and can obliterate you in divorce court, but this soy-male is like "wahmen are oppressed by marriage"
"Bruh, in hunter gatherer society, kids belonged to tribes not the parents"
False, modern hunter gatherer tribes show that the successful food gathering rate by the mother and grandmother are correlated with how well the child develops (since they actually provide most the calories, not the hunter males), so how is this correlation apparent if "muh tribe's kids".
"Who's child it actually is doesn't really matter cause the man isn't going to be giving family name or property"
The point of evolutionary biology is passing on genetics, and humans naturally have jealous tendencies when their partner cheats and such. If what the guy in the video was saying is true this wouldn't have evolved cause it's muh tribes kids, but it does, so why is that?
Also, hunter-gatherer tribes were essentially living in extended families or a village in size, so they were all closely related, and would have required constant intermingling and exchange of people with different tribes to prevent incest, which is what we see today. If two kids have the same father but different mother and don't know and then mate with one another, that will lead to incest, and over generations lead to inbreeding depression. Knowing the paternity is very important in small bands for this reason as well. Ancient tribes probably didn't know incest was bad either, as cousin marriages were common anyways, but we do know this now so him ignoring all this and calling back to shittier times with inferior social structures that can't work in far larger populations.
The author of sex at dawn has cherry picked a lot of his data, and it is narrative driven like most books compared to actual research, although the author does admit that there were many kinds of ways other than monogamy back then, which is true, but there is only 3 workable ways in post-agricultural soycieties, monogamy, polygamy, or 1 female with many males only if the males are brothers. But his whole point wasn't to undermine monogamy, but rather show that monogamy hasn't always been the only way, and to not be so antagonistic against people who are non monogamous. But hunter gatherer style of social structures obviously can't work, as they have even been proposed by people like Plato/Socrates of needing complete centralization and very low individual freedom, but the points have been addressed by philosophers like Aristotle. For kids, it would be a complete welfare state, where women would no incentive to not keep pumping out as many kids as they can, and soyciety keeps getting drained and eventually not able to afford to take care of them all, which is what would happen when you take into account what behaviors will be more successful evolutionarily and using game theory.
As for JP, despite all I said, he is still a cuck. We have paternity testing now so marriage is not needed anymore (unless you are religious I guess), but in this case there would still need to be a male figure in their life like maybe their uncle if siblings all lived together for proper development. If you are going to force a man to have to pay child support for the kid anyways like in modern soyciety, then you are by nature forcing the old structure that existed since agricultural soyciety.
Last edited:
High IQ. So enforced monogamy is the best way?
Not sure what the best way is, but calling to hunter gatherer lifestyles and social structures is low iq.
And no this doesn't contradict the unabomber, he wasn't a anarcho-primitivist, he was just for pre-industrial society.
W
Cuckservatism of allowing easy divorce.. led to the breakdown of the family in America. When I look around right now where I live, normal families with a Dad a Mom & kids are the exception.
The laws can be made so that divorce is still possible in extreme cases, but for most people is just not worth the effort.. aka its easier to stay in a semi-decent marriage than to try to go through the hoops that we would put in place to discourage divorce. As well as not making it financially rewarding to divorce for women. Yet at the same time people in an actual horrible marriage would put in the effort to go through the hoops, and administrative judges could expedite that process in those extreme cases.
Something with human beings is if you take away options people are surprisingly good at just getting on the best they can with what is available to them.
If people knew there was no way they could get out of their marriage, they would then spend their time thinking about other things in their life they wanted to be better. And they would try to make the best of their marriage. But if you let people change their choices, they get the 'grass is greener on the other side of the fence' thinking.
Stopping sex outside of marriage forces men to marry a woman. And then stopping divorce forces the woman to stay in the marriage.
The laws can be made so that divorce is still possible in extreme cases, but for most people is just not worth the effort.. aka its easier to stay in a semi-decent marriage than to try to go through the hoops that we would put in place to discourage divorce. As well as not making it financially rewarding to divorce for women. Yet at the same time people in an actual horrible marriage would put in the effort to go through the hoops, and administrative judges could expedite that process in those extreme cases.
Something with human beings is if you take away options people are surprisingly good at just getting on the best they can with what is available to them.
If people knew there was no way they could get out of their marriage, they would then spend their time thinking about other things in their life they wanted to be better. And they would try to make the best of their marriage. But if you let people change their choices, they get the 'grass is greener on the other side of the fence' thinking.
Stopping sex outside of marriage forces men to marry a woman. And then stopping divorce forces the woman to stay in the marriage.
D
@WizardofSoda forcing marriages to happen and stick doesn't make life better though. Would you want a woman who's up your ass 24/7? Better alone than in the company of assholes.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
