ngl a lot of you dudes arent even incels

[over_department]

A good amount of people here are probably just fakecels larping for fun.

 

[LeFrenchCel]

Can you give names + proof OP?

 

[whenitsoveritsover]

It's feeding into and indirectly contributing to our inceldom. It reinforces the idea that we're sexual invalids who get literal scraps of used, filthy pussy for our hard-earned money. But this is a product of the modern world and culture. Simps are everywhere (because hypergamy and men are dying of thirst) and prostitutes are both overabundant and overpriced, defying basic economics somehow.

The solution, which really is impractical and unrealistic, is a reversion to pre-feminism with a reintroduction of strong patriarchal and values and societal structures. Until we get rid of the current gynocratic culture, it will only get inexorably worse.

what needs to happen is prostitutes need to be more widely available AND hotter AND cheaper. once 20 bucks can get u a htb it won't be like we're muh invalids that hand over bags of cash for 1/10s.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

It's the liberal sexual culture that leads to more incels.

yeah ok that's obvious

The pathetic part is just a sad consequence of it.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that men are innately "pathetic" and that the current zeitgeist just brings it to the fore?

People, like electricity, also follow the path of least resistance, which means that you'll have a surplus of picky women who have to provide for themselves, and easiest, most profitable way to do that is to commodify their sexuality.

I'd expect half the female populace to be selling themselves if it were that simple.

For every whore out there eating by selling her body (whether that's on the streets, at a brothel, or on OnlyWhores), there's one less wife or girlfriend that pairs up with a regular hard-working man who would start a family.

plenty of sex workers have partners

If you want to fuck a whore, you should be free to do so.

agreed

It would, however, decrease rates of inceldom and increase more stable families.

I simply don't think having prostitution being normalized in a society is healthy for it. Less promiscuity and more family units, however, is.

Depending on what one values, that mayn't be worth all that much tho. If she ain't gonna desire you either way, would you really rather force her to be with you than let her do as she pleases? Would it really be so bad if we as a species run ourselves into the ground? I dunno man, I dunno.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

what needs to happen is prostitutes need to be more widely available AND hotter AND cheaper. once 20 bucks can get u a htb it won't be like we're muh invalids that hand over bags of cash for 1/10s.

the only way that'll ever happen is by force. You'd really wanna force such a state of affairs?

 

[NeverGetUp]

cant give them out unforunately

DM me their usernames

 

[whenitsoveritsover]

the only way that'll ever happen is by force. You'd really wanna force such a state of affairs?

what are they gonna do theyre women

 

[XtremeMax]

sometimes the things you guys say make it sound like ur hinting at the fact u have sex its weird.

like a lot of users here are/were legit fakecels that have sex and its well-documented

say this again when you have more posts

 

[kay']

ok GrAY

 

[whenitsoveritsover]

say this again when you have more posts

who are you again? i alreayd have more stars than u and barely started posting

 

[based_meme]

yeah ok that's obvious

Tbf, it wasn't obvious when these radical changes in culture were first introduced. A lot of men believed that this was going to turn into a fuckfest that they would get to participate in, not realizing that it was the beginning of a reversion to the natural state of mating pre-civilization. Today, we're seeing more and more of that with the insanity of online dating. I'm sure you've seen that the Gini coefficient of Tinder is worse than the global economy. JUST FUCKING KEK.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that men are innately "pathetic" and that the current zeitgeist just brings it to the fore?

Innately? No, I'd argue that the current zeitgeist has actually affected men and made them more pathetic. We're witnessing unprecedented levels of thirst, simping and men accepting cuckoldry by their wives and girlfriends. It's never, ever been as bad as it is today.

I'd expect half the female populace to be selling themselves if it were that simple.

Honestly, it is that simple. A woman can easily sign up on OnlyWhores and start making money just lying on her bed and recording pictures and videos of herself in lingerie. If she's very attractive, she'll make money hand over fist and it'll be the easist money she'll ever make in her fucking life.

There are a variety of reasons why most women don't openly do it as much. It's still somewhat stigmatized, so they would be bearing some social cost. That social cost would extend to personal and professional domains. If they're doing it on the side for extra money, it could cost them their job (there have been cases where women have lost their careers over it, like that one school teacher). It could also make their dating lives more difficult (the men who are dating them are less likely to be thirsty simps, so they're less likely to be accepting of that kind of behavior from them).

plenty of sex workers have partners

Proportionally, I'd wager far less of them do amongst themselves, and compared to every other profession. I'd be surprised if the number is above 15%, and if "partner" means long-term boyfriend/husband and not their pimp.

Depending on what one values, that mayn't be worth all that much tho.

What do mean? I'm not sure I follow.

If she ain't gonna desire you either way, would you really rather force her to be with you than let her do as she pleases?

Force? I wouldn't force anything. I would, however, prefer to societally limit their options, if the alternative to partnering up with a man that's not her first choice (hence the term "settle") is becoming a prostitute.

Would it really be so bad if we as a species run ourselves into the ground? I dunno man, I dunno.

Don't worry. We're doing a fantastic job of that already.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

what are they gonna do theyre women

I'll take that as a yes

 

[Ahnfeltia]

it wasn't obvious when these radical changes in culture were first introduced

understandable

Innately? No, I'd argue that the current zeitgeist has actually affected men and made them more pathetic. We're witnessing unprecedented levels of thirst, simping and men accepting cuckoldry by their wives and girlfriends. It's never, ever been as bad as it is today.

yeah ok modern culture may have amplified the innate "patheticism"

Honestly, it is that simple. A woman can easily sign up on OnlyWhores and start making money just lying on her bed and recording pictures and videos of herself in lingerie. If she's very attractive, she'll make money hand over fist and it'll be the easist money she'll ever make in her fucking life.

I'm not so sure. With how many women are on OnlyFans already, I wouldn't be surprised if it's hard to even gain traction, even if she's good-looking. What's more, if there's two gals on OnlyFans, would you subscribe to the one who shows a nipple or the one who doesn't? Except there ain't two gals on OnlyFans, but a wellspring of 'em.

I quickly looked up some numbers, and it seems as tho OnlyFans creators earn between 100 and 200 bucks per month on average, which the top 1% earning one third of all revenue. Don't sound like an easy-money market to me. Not unless one lucks out anyway.

There are a variety of reasons why most women don't openly do it as much. It's still somewhat stigmatized, so they would be bearing some social cost. That social cost would extend to personal and professional domains. If they're doing it on the side for extra money, it could cost them their job (there have been cases where women have lost their careers over it, like that one school teacher). It could also make their dating lives more difficult (the men who are dating them are less likely to be thirsty simps, so they're less likely to be accepting of that kind of behavior from them).

this is inter alia what I was implicitely referring to

if "partner" means long-term boyfriend/husband and not their pimp

kek

What do mean? I'm not sure I follow.

We've talked before about personal health, and whether health without sufficient quality of life was valuable at all. Same thing here, except with societal health instead of personal health. Is there value in a healthy society if life is dull? etc.

Force? I wouldn't force anything. I would, however, prefer to societally limit their options, if the alternative to partnering up with a man that's not her first choice (hence the term "settle") is becoming a prostitute.

You wouldn't personally force them, no, you'd have society do it for you. Don't get me wrong tho, societal pressure ain't always a bad thing. I'm just asking if you'd really want to use any form of pressure to turn back the clock if you could, just to get a reluctant wife?

Don't worry. We're doing a fantastic job of that already.

I know. Sometimes I wonder if I'd even turn the tide if somehow I could.

 

[based_meme]

I'm not so sure. With how many women are on OnlyFans already, I wouldn't be surprised if it's hard to even gain traction, even if she's good-looking. What's more, if there's two gals on OnlyFans, would you subscribe to the one who shows a nipple or the one who doesn't? Except there ain't two gals on OnlyFans, but a wellspring of 'em.

I quickly looked up some numbers, and it seems as tho OnlyFans creators earn between 100 and 200 bucks per month on average, which the top 1% earning one third of all revenue. Don't sound like an easy-money market to me. Not unless one lucks out anyway.

The issue of its profitability, sustainability and long-term viability is independent from its ease of "work" and low barrier to entry. Any woman can become a whore, but her natural attractiveness and other qualities (business acumen, personability), as well as factors outside of her control (market forces, field saturation etc.), will determine her level of success.

We've talked before about personal health, and whether health without sufficient quality of life was valuable at all. Same thing here, except with societal health instead of personal health. Is there value in a healthy society if life is dull? etc.

I'm viewing this from a top-down systems level and not at the atomized level of the individual from the bottom-up. A society is analogous to an organism and a member is analogous to a cell. A healthier body means healthier cells.

Life in a healthy society will not be dull (or be far less dull, since everyone experiences peaks and troughs), by virtue of society's health. You would find life to be comparably dull and dreary in a sick society, with increased rates of depression, suicidality and other factors affecting the well-being of the individual. You're asking the wrong question.

You wouldn't personally force them, no, you'd have society do it for you. Don't get me wrong tho, societal pressure ain't always a bad thing. I'm just asking if you'd really want to use any form of pressure to turn back the clock if you could, just to get a reluctant wife?

I'm not sure why you're using the term "force" here. Limiting someone's options is very different from forcing them into something. Women would pair up with men into families by necessity and their own volition, because the environment (society) that they're in doesn't have the options for the alternatives (whoring around and being a "strong independent womyn"). You're talking as if they would be help captive against their will and compelled into domestic bondage.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

The issue of its profitability, sustainability and long-term viability is independent from its ease of "work" and low barrier to entry. Any woman can become a whore, but her natural attractiveness and other qualities (business acumen, personability), as well as factors outside of her control (market forces, field saturation etc.), will determine her level of success.

Sure, but your original claim was

you'll have a surplus of picky women who have to provide for themselves, and easiest, most profitable way to do that is to commodify their sexuality

and easiness of providing for oneself should encompass more than ease of work or/and entry.

I'm viewing this from a top-down systems level and not at the atomized level of the individual from the bottom-up. A society is analogous to an organism and a member is analogous to a cell. A healthier body means healthier cells.

Life in a healthy society will not be dull (or be far less dull, since everyone experiences peaks and troughs), by virtue of society's health. You would find life to be comparably dull and dreary in a sick society, with increased rates of depression, suicidality and other factors affecting the well-being of the individual. You're asking the wrong question.

I fail to see how this works. How do you get at a society's health then? the only sensible way I can think of is to base it off of the healths of the members of said society, but that wouldn't be top-down, it'd be bottom-up.

Limiting someone's options is very different from forcing them into something.

I disagree. Taking away option A is effectively forcing someone into option B.

Women would pair up with men into families by necessity and their own volition, because the environment (society) that they're in doesn't have the options for the alternatives (whoring around and being a "strong independent womyn"). You're talking as if they would be help captive against their will and compelled into domestic bondage.

I suppose it might be a matter of perspective. If you view the hypothetical patriarchical society without reference to the status quo (ante) as you seem to then "forcing" is indeed not quite right. However, if you do view the hypothetical patriarchical society in reference to the status quo (ante) as I've been doing then "forcing" seems quite apt to me.

 

[fatass30000]

I'm actually KHHV. I don't even accept the idea of "escortcels," but I understand that it's a necessary evil.

why are you against escortcels?

 

[copemaxx9002]

I bang my hand

 

[based_meme]

Sure, but your original claim was

and easiness of providing for oneself should encompass more than ease of work or/and entry.

Compared to anything else she could be doing with virtually no barrier of entry, it's the best effort:reward she can ever have. Stocking shelves, serving drinks, waiting tables, secretarial/administrative work? None of them stand a chance compared to just rolling out of bed and turning on your camera to earn money.

It's not even close.

I fail to see how this works. How do you get at a society's health then? the only sensible way I can think of is to base it off of the healths of the members of said society, but that wouldn't be top-down, it'd be bottom-up.

There are many metrics you can use to make that kind of evaluation. Economic prosperity, unemployment levels, debt, mental health (from self-reports typically), prevalence of prescription medication use, and a whole host of other factors can be used to make an assessment of a society's health, not unlike a suite of tests and checks a medical doctor would perform during a physical.

Maybe the health of a society could be a book idea.

I disagree. Taking away option A is effectively forcing someone into option B.

Is society limitation of your access to heroine forcing you into being heroine sober? You can't lose what you've never had.

I suppose it might be a matter of perspective. If you view the hypothetical patriarchical society without reference to the status quo (ante) as you seem to then "forcing" is indeed not quite right. However, if you do view the hypothetical patriarchical society in reference to the status quo (ante) as I've been doing then "forcing" seems quite apt to me.

If you break this down fundamentally, having a pool of available choices, either from inception or by reduction (from a larger pool), is not inherently forcing anyone to do anything. They're categorically different things. One may seem like the other when you're limiting choices, but in a strict sense it isn't.

The onus is on you here to demonstrate how giving people a set of choices (by definition, this is at least two choices, else the term "choice" loses its meaning) is equivalent to "forcing" a choice.

 

[based_meme]

why are you against escortcels?

Just read this thread bro.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

There are many metrics you can use to make that kind of evaluation. Economic prosperity, unemployment levels, debt, mental health (from self-reports typically), prevalence of prescription medication use, and a whole host of other factors can be used to make an assessment of a society's health, not unlike a suite of tests and checks a medical doctor would perform during a physical.

All of your proposed metrics are aggregates/averages of facets of individual weal or lack thereof. How is that top-down as opposed to bottom-up?

If you break this down fundamentally, having a pool of available choices, either from inception or by reduction (from a larger pool), is not inherently forcing anyone to do anything. They're categorically different things. One may seem like the other when you're limiting choices, but in a strict sense it isn't.

The onus is on you here to demonstrate how giving people a set of choices (by definition, this is at least two choices, else the term "choice" loses its meaning) is equivalent to "forcing" a choice.

I'm saying that the act of reducing someone's choice pool is like forcing someone to pick one of the remaining options from the original choice pool.

 

[fatass30000]

For every whore out there eating by selling her body (whether that's on the streets, at a brothel, or on OnlyWhores), there's one less wife or girlfriend that pairs up with a regular hard-working man who would start a family.

most whores don’t choose that job, most are trafficked or do it out of drug addiction. Most of their customers are ugly old man, the only reason they do that job is because of absolute necessity. There’s not a worse fate for a woman than the fate of being a cumdumpster for incels. And woman who have the type of personality to seek out a job such as prostitution or only fans wouldn’t make good wives anyway. The man that would marry them if they didn’t become prostitutes would end up in a dead bedroom getting used for their resources.

 

[SecularNeo-Khazar]

A lot of men believed that this was going to turn into a fuckfest

because looks is all that matter. We even care aboout regarding inhuman subjects.

 

[based_meme]

All of your proposed metrics are aggregates/averages of facets of individual weal or lack thereof. How is that top-down as opposed to bottom-up?

Serious? The job market, interest rates, the very laws that prohibit or allow activities and behaviors (including the drugs people can take) - nearly everything is an effect from the top-down affecting the individual.

Societies and societal forces aren't the product of individuals, though individuals can influence, as evidenced by revolutionaries who adopt the political philosophies of someone and effect radical change, and, to a lesser extent, influential people in society who are, in turn, influenced by other thinkers and then exercise their power differently. They're created by groups and collections of dominant tribes/communities, who then impose their will, laws, morals, values etc. on everyone else. The individual you see is predominantly the distilled end-result of that, no matter the kind of society you observe.

I'm saying that the act of reducing someone's choice pool is like forcing someone to pick one of the remaining options from the original choice pool.

What you're forcing is the limit itself, not the ability to make the choice. "Forcing choice" is an oxymoron.

most whores don’t choose that job, most are trafficked or do it out of drug addiction. Most of their customers are ugly old man, the only reason they do that job is because of absolute necessity. There’s not a worse fate for a woman than the fate of being a cumdumpster for incels. And woman who have the type of personality to seek out a job such as prostitution or only fans wouldn’t make good wives anyway. The man that would marry them if they didn’t become prostitutes would end up in a dead bedroom getting used for their resources.

I'm not talking about the whores who have no choice in their prostitution.

 

[GaelicTruecel]

OK GrAY

A truecel would have a low post count due to not having the motivation to post. A high post count is a sign of a man with motivation and a man who enjoys interaction.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

The job market, interest rates, the very laws that prohibit or allow activities and behaviors (including the drugs people can take) - nearly everything is an effect from the top-down affecting the individual.

Societies and societal forces aren't the product of individuals, though individuals can influence, as evidenced by revolutionaries who adopt the political philosophies of someone and effect radical change, and, to a lesser extent, influential people in society who are, in turn, influenced by other thinkers and then exercise their power differently. They're created by groups and collections of dominant tribes/communities, who then impose their will, laws, morals, values etc. on everyone else. The individual you see is predominantly the distilled end-result of that, no matter the kind of society you observe.

I agree with all of this. I feel like we're talking past each other again. Methodologically measuring the health of a society via the healths of its members is bottom-up. I'm not denying top-down influences from society unto into its members.

What you're forcing is the limit itself, not the ability to make the choice. "Forcing choice" is an oxymoron.

Are you saying that reducing the choice pool doesn't necessitate making the choice, whereas forcing someone to choose does?

 

[Acorn29]

Yeah bro you got me I was a fakecel all this time

 

[based_meme]

I agree with all of this. I feel like we're talking past each other again.

Probably.

Methodologically measuring the health of a society via the healths of its members is bottom-up. I'm not denying top-down influences from society unto into its members.

But you have to establish what you're looking to measure first. You're not looking at a multitude of variables at the individual level and then seeing which ones society affects. You pick the ones you expect to have effects and then look to the individual level to measure the changes.

In this case (societal health), you would pick the variables for your model, like demographic information (income, marital status etc.), and then take your measurements at the unit level (the individual). It wouldn't make much sense to collect various data on a sample of individuals to try and establish societal health, because you have to set your parameters and use the stats you collect, then compare different societies with your model to check its reliability.

Maybe I'm just rusty, but I haven't done this in years.

Are you saying that reducing the choice pool doesn't necessitate making the choice, whereas forcing someone to choose does?

Whether you have 1000 options or just two, forcing is simply the taking away of their agency. Imagine supermarket A with only two options for cereal vs supermarket B next door with 20 different varieties. Supermarket A with only two choices isn't forcing you to pick one of the two cereals they offer, and neither is supermarket B with their wider selection.

I legitimately don't understand the problem here.

 

[darkdoomer]

my site

 

[Ahnfeltia]

Probably.


But you have to establish what you're looking to measure first. You're not looking at a multitude of variables at the individual level and then seeing which ones society affects. You pick the ones you expect to have effects and then look to the individual level to measure the changes.

In this case (societal health), you would pick the variables for your model, like demographic information (income, marital status etc.), and then take your measurements at the unit level (the individual). It wouldn't make much sense to collect various data on a sample of individuals to try and establish societal health, because you have to set your parameters and use the stats you collect, then compare different societies with your model to check its reliability.

Maybe I'm just rusty, but I haven't done this in years.


Whether you have 1000 options or just two, forcing is simply the taking away of their agency. Imagine supermarket A with only two options for cereal vs supermarket B next door with 20 different varieties. Supermarket A with only two choices isn't forcing you to pick one of the two cereals they offer, and neither is supermarket B with their wider selection.

I legitimately don't understand the problem here.

We're just arguing pedantries at this point. I suggest we drop it.

 

[Karakol96]

Yes im actually chad irl and am spending hours on this forum daily for fun

 

[based_meme]

We're just arguing pedantries at this point. I suggest we drop it.

You got it.

 

[Ron.Belgrade]

they probably lost their v-cards to hookers

The ron belgrade way

 

[smegma producer]

would not bother posting here if i could fuck

 

[Corvus]

Can you give names + proof OP?

OP is one of them

 

[Emba]

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Shut up GrAY Nigger.

 

[lowz1r]

like a lot of users here are/were legit fakecels that have sex and its well-documented

i have sex with my wife every day

 

[whenitsoveritsover]

i have sex with my wife every day

alright bro youre getting reported

 

[based_meme]

alright bro youre getting reported

There are so many larps here that I wouldn't be surprised if he was telling the truth.

 

[AsianKungFao]

cant give them out unforunately

Me when i make shit up

 

[whenitsoveritsover]

There are so many larps here that I wouldn't be surprised if he was telling the truth.

truly sickening. so sickening i hope this thread dies and is forgotten about forever

 

[Ahnfeltia]

The ron belgrade way

you are somewhat of a ikon on here