Blackpill On female sexuality

[wereq]

Female sexuality characterized by gyrating hips, soft red lips mimicing the flushed vagina, and what not, is best described as a carrot being dangled in front of us men by women to get us to do what they want. But in the end, that carrot was never meant for us, it was always for them and them alone. Sexual manipulation only works when men are starved, not satiated. If they give us the carrot, they can't get what they want out of us. Male sexual thirst and starvation is the key to their control over us.

Female sexuality is very destructive to a man's psyche. Its the equivalent of injecting synthetic opioid like we see among the homeless. It feels good, but steadily destroys your mind, body, and soul overtime. It is a tool of subjugation and enslavement used by women to quickly and easily conquer us because as thirsty testosterone-fueled dogs, we men have no resistance against it. We easily become hooked and addicted to female flesh and this is EXACTLY what women want so that they can abuse our pathological dependency to get anything and everything out of us. They aren't just manipulating us, they are totally controlling us like puppeteers.

 

[Rapist]

And the solution is to use their greatest weapons against them.

 

[Tsunchad]

All because it was declared as "rape" by some cuck to force your wife to have sex.

 

[Seahorsecel]

Just genetically engineer men with lower sex drives theory

 

[Seahorsecel]

I don't think it's a testosterone thing, there is scientific literature done on testosterone that found out that testosterone has little to no effect on sex drive. I can't link, learned it from @GeckoBus

 

[wereq]

Just genetically engineer men with lower sex drives theory

tbh

 

[Deep.Nest]

All because it was declared as "rape" by some cuck to force your wife to have sex.

 

[wereq]

And the solution is to use their greatest weapons against them.

The solution to their manipulation and sexual narcissism is to use OUR greatest weapon against which they have no resistance: our capacity for violence.

 

[VideoGameCoper]

All because it was declared as "rape" by some cuck to force your wife to have sex.

 

[wereq]

All because it was declared as "rape" by some cuck to force your wife to have sex.

No point in marrying if you don't have on-demand sexual access to your wife's body.

 

[Tsunchad]

No point in marrying if you don't have on-demand sexual access to your wife's body.

A take Incel Tears can't even argue against without using mental gymnastics. I put a roof over her head, food in her belly, electricity and water yet the least the foid can do is offer her body. All relationships are transactional and yet foids refuse to fulfill their end of the bargain. Well they need to be forced through law, or the man takes everything.

 

[wereq]

A take Incel Tears can't even argue against without using mental gymnastics.

"Your wife is your life partner and not your sex doll!" But she's already been a sex doll fuck toy for Chads before marriage!

 

[wereq]

put a roof over her head, food in her belly, electricity and water yet the least the foid can do is offer her body. All relationships are transactional and yet foids refuse to fulfill their end of the bargain.

EXACTLY! Women want everything for free. This will come to an end soon. Men are waking up.

 

[Tsunchad]

EXACTLY! Women want everything for free. This will come to an end soon. Men are waking up.

Can't wait for the day where you can obligate your wife to walk around naked, then you suddenly catch her by surprise by suddenly shoving your dick up her snatch.

 

[wereq]

Can't wait for the day where you can obligate your wife to walk around naked, then you suddenly catch her by surprise by suddenly shoving your dick up her snatch.

Total domestic and sexual slavery for all foids!

 

[JudeoBiden]

All because it was declared as "rape" by some cuck to force your wife to have sex.

This was only made illegal in USA in 1990. In 1989, you could take your wife by force, and if she called the cops, they'd say it's perfectly legal. If you turned on the radio, Nirvana would be playing. That's how recently the rules were changed.

 

[GeckoBus]

I don't think it's a testosterone thing, there is scientific literature done on testosterone that found out that testosterone has little to no effect on sex drive. I can't link, learned it from @GeckoBus

@Seahorsecel
the book i looked into is this

1.68 MB file on MEGA

mega.nz

Some interesting quotes.

On Testosterone and sex drive:

We can mobilize the material capacities of T to effect bodily changes that signal masculinity, especially by introducing amounts of exogenous T that are significantly higher than what a given body is accustomed to. We can also possibly mobilize social situations to stimulate or depress endogenous T. But it’s very unlikely that T can be used to directly increase libido; decades of pharmaceutical experimentation and marketing have conclusively demonstrated that this just isn’t an effective way to boost sex drive in men or in women.

And on how testosterone and muscle building ability do not connect.

Many studies show that endogenous T is related to strength, but sometimes that relationship is found only in subgroups, like older men and frequently gets much smaller or even goes away entirely when other known correlates of strength like age, body mass or dimensions, and training are controlled. Together, the research provides strong contrast to the generic idea that T is a simple and overriding ingredient for strength.

Example: Women build muscle at the same proportional rate as as men, despite having way less testosterone:

Biology is full of examples showing that the same outcomes can be arrived at through different pathways. Take the apparent paradox that men and women get the same relative benefit from resistance exercise, in spite of the fact that T improves the effect of resistance exercise and women generally have much less T. A Brazilian team of researchers recently confirmed a more specific case of the general pattern: with resistance exercise, women build upper body strength as quickly as men do. This might be considered a surprising result, given that T is involved in muscular response to exercise, men’s T levels are generally considerably higher than women’s, and animal and human studies suggest that there is a higher concentration of androgen receptors in the upper body musculature compared to the lower body musculature.

There is also no link between testosterone and aggression and competition. Tradcons like to justify "gender roles" - something that hardly existed in history like they imagine - by appealing to men's "innate aggression and drive to compete, fueled by higher testosterone." There is no evidence for this.

Coates and colleagues provide some of the clearest examples of how the highly specific worldview of people who can invest disposable income for profit gets generalized as “human nature” via studies on T and risk-taking. In a 2010 article, Coates and his coauthors begin by explaining that studies using the challenge hypothesis and other insights from animal studies of hormones and behavior have had “questionable success.” The researchers say that this is because, first, higher cognitive functions in humans “refract the effects of testosterone,” and second, “the dependent variables in these studies, such as aggression, dominance, or status seeking, often cannot be defined or measured in humans with any objectivity.”

I always mention worldviews in my posts and how data is not neutral. Everyone has a bias, everyone has a worldview. And like an ink-blot test, where one sees his mom drowning in the bathtub, and another sees a picnic in hyde park, however people interpret the data reveals more about them than the data.

When people look at what we say about women, and yes, this may sound crazy, even violent posts here, and they automatically interpret that as threatening to women, they are instantly revealing their bias.

Let's say someone posts on here "GOD IM SO HORNY I WANT TO FUCK A WOMAN IN THE ASS, EVERY TIME I SEE A HOT WOMAN OUTSIDE, I JUST WANT TO CUM IN HER TIGHT PUSSY."

This is just polemic of course, but even statements like this have no inherent moral implication. It could be a joke, it could be an AI generated text on a porn site, it could be a woman trying to bait people etc. The actual intent and message is not inherent to the sentence, which acts as a kind of blank symbol as a whole. We could reduce the whole sentence to something like the "@" symbol. All and every interpretation of that sentence will be biased, even our own.

When it comes to research, we are dealing with philosophically illiterate tradcons interpreting the claims of equally philosophically illiterate scientists who are also operating under misandric biases etc. The result is logically fallacious thinking on a mass level.

Take this simple set of claims.

1. men want sex more than women
2. therefore men must have a higher sex drive than women.

How does 2 follow from 1? It does not at all. And if we asked people that make this claim, so how do we actually know that men have a higher sex drive, they would respond with, "because they want more sex than women" - thus completing the circular argument for us.
In science, there should always be a null-hypothesis, shouldnt there? Going after Popper, shouldnt we seek to falsify our own hypothesis?
So, ask them, what is the alternative explanation to men wanting more sex subjectively.

99% of them have never thought about this.
I can think of countless reasons in my head instantly.

1. women controlling the sexual economy on purpose, as a power move see this article "the sex war:" LINK

As the article points out
- women are the biggest anti-porn group
- women actively raised age of consent
- women slut-shame each other, thus demonizing sexuality for women

Women also got sex doll brothels for men banned.
Further driving this ideological divide is that men are inversely indoctrinated to think of themselves as horny beasts. If you are not horny, you are broken. You should wake up with a raging boner every morning, or you are not "healthy." Having sex = manly. It is interesting that these gender dynamics are again enforced moreso by women than by men.

Mothers Push Gender Stereotypes More Than Fathers, Study Reveals

The gender stereotype that says “boys don’t cry” is being perpetuated implicitly by mothers more than fathers, a new University of Guelph study has revealed. Prof. Kristel Thomassin found mothers may…

news.uoguelph.ca

So there is a huge cultural thing going on here.
For example, as an anecdote, i once saw an interview, this foid from south america says, in SA women want sex daily. They demand it. But when she went to the US, women were fridgid, only wanted sex maybe once a week.

48:42


View: https://youtu.be/png3WKqY0IE?t=2922


Another thing people will point to is self-reported masturbation rate, like here:

A study of 6000 women and men from 12 countries, commissioned by sex toy brand Womanizer in 2020, found that the women surveyed masturbate roughly once a week or 49 times a year. The men, however, masturbate on average 3 times a week or approximately 154 times a year.

However again, let us be philosophically anal here. To go from what that says to "men have a higher sex drive" is logically fallacious and a non-sequitur. The reported findings only support the hypothesis of higher male sex drive if you already think men have a higher sex drive to begin with. We can pose alternative hypothesis for this easily:

- there are cultural reasons, like female in-group preference automatically increasing male on male competition and social exclusion. Men want female validation but cant get it. Porn is all about foid validation. If you watch porn, most of it is a foid experiencing pleasure. The guy in the porn is just a dildo. Porn is a simulation of pleasing a woman. So to reduce the whole thing to "sex drive" is insane. Especially considering that most men would rather chase a woman to be rewarded with sex after effort, rather than to just pay for it. This indicates again, that female validation literally trumps the male sex drive.

The reason the two are conflated though is simply because there is a deliberate misconstruement between female validation and sex with a woman. A woman giving you free sex = highest validation she can give basically. However, if society admitted that men literally worship female validation to this extend, that we are collectively obsessed with women to the point of mass psychosis... well that is not what people want to hear, is it?

Does not quite sound like the usualy "men strong, men oppress women, men just want to fuck and see women as objects" type of rethoric.

I also want to throw another thing into the mix here, a general tidbit on how humans form habits and addictions:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3047254/

1.08 MB file on MEGA

mega.nz

TDLR
- the vast majority of drug addicts never end up in rehab and quit on their own
- the people that end up in rehab are a subset that has additional issues, like history of abues or health issues
- drugs are not inherently addictive as claimed in the "substance-addiction-disease" model, rather it is environmental circumstances that keep people trapped in habitually negative patterns
- this is proved because as the research shows, the 80% of people that quit drugs do it mostly because of things like getting married, returning from warzone (to home environment), etc

(side note: it is hilarious that female validation, as in marriage and relationships, can literally outcompete shit like heroin, to the point where men quit heroin and crack in order to maintain the good will of a woman, holy shit)

- this is not limited to drugs but extends to all human activity. The male sex drive could easily be part of that. For most of history women were viewed as more sexual than men, not vice versa. Stressed men with worse lives resort to more high risk behaviors, sexually, drugs, alcohol, fast driving. That does not mean they have a higher sex drive, maybe their life is just way worse than womens, so they cope with masturbation more.

It is interesting that people admit this connection between stress/trauma and increased sexuality when it comes to women, but not men. We always hear that sluts or promiscuous women are "damaged good" etc. Society readily tells us that women with mental issues are more sexual to cope, but fails to make the association between mens lives being harder, and men coping more as a result (with drugs, alcohol, sex etc).

Again, I am not saying this is necessarily true, I am just demonstrating that there are countless ways to approach human behavior and gender-specific patterns, none of which necessarily require biological reductionism to be explained.


2. abundance mindset vs deprivation mindset.
When you can get sex freely, you dont value it as much and you take only offers from the highest bidder. This is basic market economics. Women giving less sex or only conditional sex to most men and then inferring this is because women have lower sex drive, is like saying your local supermarket sets prices for bread because the store owner is less hungry than normal people.

3. Female lesbian pill.
Women in studies are attracted to other women in general, in spite of self-reported sexual orientation - see research my meredith chivers on this.

Further supporting this is the evidence for female in-group bias, which is exists only among women - women support each other, fetishsize each other, not men.

Lets do the math here, hope this is not retarded, cuz im bad at math.
Society is 50/50 men/women.
Women are all basically lesbian in studies. So now we get a huge amount of foid-foid attraction.
Factor in chads.
20% of men are chads + most women can get sex from other women.
This leaves a minority group of men who have restricted or no access to women, like 30% of society essentially. Lifelong incels are a giga minority in this crude model, because we have to remove buxxers from the 30% of men too. And men that go to prostitutes. And homosexuals and animal fuckers.

This kinda explains threads like this:

When you get to your late 20s, early 30s as virgin, you might stay that way your whole life (especially if it's not by choice).

I looked at CDC data from 2006-2008 (before the average of virginity rised a little). Of men ages 25-29, 3.8% have never engaged in any sexual contact with the opposite sex, compared to 3.1% of men ages 30-34, 1.3% of men ages 35-39, and 1.2% of men ages 40-44. This means 92.3% of men who never...

incels.is

At the end of life, only a single digit number of men and women will still be virgins.
Going back to my point, Women fucking each other and dogs over men could of course deprive men of sexual release as a whole.

Another dimension I have touched on but not really elabed is that sex drive is not necessarily triggered by hormones, but can also come about socially, which nobody ever talks about. Yes, sex drive can be a sort of "social construct" - let me give you an idea. Boobs.
In tons of countries around the world, boobs are not seen as sexual. I am not clowning, even in europe in the middle ages and beyond, noble women had themselves depicted with their boobies out:

There is historical evidence that some cultures, including classical antiquity, strongly discouraged cleavage or any hint of a bosom. During the Middle Ages and up to the Renaissance, a woman's stomach was often the central symbol of her sexuality, rather than the breasts.

Cleavage (breasts) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

@Stupid Clown - you mentioned this in your video on why porn sucks now, you showed an image of mid-riffs as sexual. Again, nothing is new under the sun.

Until the 12th century, the Christian West was not cleavage friendly but a change in attitude occurred by the 14th century with France leading the way,[157] when necklines were lowered, clothes were tightened and breasts were once again flaunted.[158]

Cleavage (breasts) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This paper hits at your question, though in a more general sense. There's actually a difference in how sexualized bodies are processed visually. What we learn to sexualize is highly culture dependent, though that's self-evident and how different cultures teach this sexualization is very different and many, many papers exist that approach that area from different directions.

Female breasts weren't considered sexual throughout western culture until pretty recently. In fact, nipple makeup was a thing in the 17th Century. It's actually the Germanic influence where breasts were considered desirable. This is why it's pretty common still in France (less influence in the American culture due to fewer immigrants. HUGE swathes of the USA have German ancestry) to have topless beaches - breasts are something really both sexes have, women just have larger fat deposits due to the glands in the area. Breasts are really little different than muffin tops.

In Asia, it's common to still have sexualization of women's feet. This is because of the Chinese "lotus blossom" feet where women's feet were broken and bound at a young age so that the feet would stay small. The standard of beauty and thought was that you couldn't control your genetics but you could control how tightly bound your feet were - so to have smaller feet showed great refinement and made you more desirable/beautiful.
So, yes, different cultures sexualize the human body differently and throughout time.

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ah0fj9/are_genitalia_sexualized_differently_in_cultures/


So we see from this that sex-drive and attraction to certain things can be purely cultural. So why not the male sex drive? Men are encouraged to masturbate and be sexual, that is the predominant stereotype pushed on men in our time. They keep us in a classic double bind - if you are not sexual you are worthless, but if you flaunt your sexuality you are a subhuman brute, controlled by raging hormones.

And inversly, women are encouraged to not be sexual by other women and signal high value by rejecting men. Rejection = I am high status enough to reject a man. Supporting evidence for this is that women pick and reject partners collectively:


View: https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPillScience/comments/gfsa5k/women_not_only_copy_the_mate_choice_of_other/


And also that women are more promiscious when travelling, when the social pressure to signal high-status is reduced (nobody knows what you did on vacation and women love to travel):

Study: Women more likely to experiment, take sexual risks while traveling

The "I like to travel, teeheee", like many memes, is based in reality and cold hard fact. There's a reason why so many young, and even married, women love to 'travel" so much without their betabuxx cucks. They enjoy "girls' trips" becasue they can engage in infidelity and experiment with men...

incels.is

So again, evidence for cultural pressure having influence on self-reported and actual sexual expression. This could disort data in self reported studies massively.

4. prostitutes and wives
- how do they get wet? Nobody ever asks this, if women can not get sexually aroused by average men, how exactly does betabuxxing (maintenance sex) and prostitution work? Again, this posts more to "abundance mindset" being the reason why women seem less horny, not an actual lower drive. If you had access to every food ever, you would not come off as hungy either. But you can still get hungry for a cheeseburger, in spite of aving access to kaviar no shit. The human drive to eat is indiscriminatory towards food. If you are hungry, anything will do.

Anyway, I am just throwing this at the wall and letting my thoughts run here. I dont like biological reductionism arguments and claims that are made like the conclusion is just obvious.

 

[Sloth]

All because it was declared as "rape" by some cuck to force your wife to have sex.

 

[Efiliste]

Years of inceldom make you immune to this.

 

[Tsunchad]

This was only made illegal in USA in 1990. In 1989, you could take your wife by force, and if she called the cops, they'd say it's perfectly legal. If you turned on the radio, Nirvana would be playing. That's how recently the rules were changed.

Hoping Project 2025 brings it back.

 

[Sinbad Gehenna]

The only answer to to fight back female seduction brainwashing is to control them with political power

 

[Failed Pullout]

Just genetically engineer men with lower sex drives theory

If genetic engineering exists in a reality then it is likely artificial wombs and sexbots are also a thing if such is affordable for non rich then the problem wouldn't exist.

 

[wereq]

@Seahorsecel
the book i looked into is this

1.68 MB file on MEGA

mega.nz

Some interesting quotes.

On Testosterone and sex drive:



And on how testosterone and muscle building ability do not connect.



Example: Women build muscle at the same proportional rate as as men, despite having way less testosterone:



There is also no link between testosterone and aggression and competition. Tradcons like to justify "gender roles" - something that hardly existed in history like they imagine - by appealing to men's "innate aggression and drive to compete, fueled by higher testosterone." There is no evidence for this.


I always mention worldviews in my posts and how data is not neutral. Everyone has a bias, everyone has a worldview. And like an ink-blot test, where one sees his mom drowning in the bathtub, and another sees a picnic in hyde park, however people interpret the data reveals more about them than the data.

When people look at what we say about women, and yes, this may sound crazy, even violent posts here, and they automatically interpret that as threatening to women, they are instantly revealing their bias.

Let's say someone posts on here "GOD IM SO HORNY I WANT TO FUCK A WOMAN IN THE ASS, EVERY TIME I SEE A HOT WOMAN OUTSIDE, I JUST WANT TO CUM IN HER TIGHT PUSSY."

This is just polemic of course, but even statements like this have no inherent moral implication. It could be a joke, it could be an AI generated text on a porn site, it could be a woman trying to bait people etc. The actual intent and message is not inherent to the sentence, which acts as a kind of blank symbol as a whole. We could reduce the whole sentence to something like the "@" symbol. All and every interpretation of that sentence will be biased, even our own.

When it comes to research, we are dealing with philosophically illiterate tradcons interpreting the claims of equally philosophically illiterate scientists who are also operating under misandric biases etc. The result is logically fallacious thinking on a mass level.

Take this simple set of claims.

1. men want sex more than women
2. therefore men must have a higher sex drive than women.

How does 2 follow from 1? It does not at all. And if we asked people that make this claim, so how do we actually know that men have a higher sex drive, they would respond with, "because they want more sex than women" - thus completing the circular argument for us.
In science, there should always be a null-hypothesis, shouldnt there? Going after Popper, shouldnt we seek to falsify our own hypothesis?
So, ask them, what is the alternative explanation to men wanting more sex subjectively.

99% of them have never thought about this.
I can think of countless reasons in my head instantly.

1. women controlling the sexual economy on purpose, as a power move see this article "the sex war:" LINK

As the article points out
- women are the biggest anti-porn group
- women actively raised age of consent
- women slut-shame each other, thus demonizing sexuality for women

Women also got sex doll brothels for men banned.
Further driving this ideological divide is that men are inversely indoctrinated to think of themselves as horny beasts. If you are not horny, you are broken. You should wake up with a raging boner every morning, or you are not "healthy." Having sex = manly. It is interesting that these gender dynamics are again enforced moreso by women than by men.

Mothers Push Gender Stereotypes More Than Fathers, Study Reveals

The gender stereotype that says “boys don’t cry” is being perpetuated implicitly by mothers more than fathers, a new University of Guelph study has revealed. Prof. Kristel Thomassin found mothers may…

news.uoguelph.ca

So there is a huge cultural thing going on here.
For example, as an anecdote, i once saw an interview, this foid from south america says, in SA women want sex daily. They demand it. But when she went to the US, women were fridgid, only wanted sex maybe once a week.

48:42


View: https://youtu.be/png3WKqY0IE?t=2922


Another thing people will point to is self-reported masturbation rate, like here:



However again, let us be philosophically anal here. To go from what that says to "men have a higher sex drive" is logically fallacious and a non-sequitur. The reported findings only support the hypothesis of higher male sex drive if you already think men have a higher sex drive to begin with. We can pose alternative hypothesis for this easily:

- there are cultural reasons, like female in-group preference automatically increasing male on male competition and social exclusion. Men want female validation but cant get it. Porn is all about foid validation. If you watch porn, most of it is a foid experiencing pleasure. The guy in the porn is just a dildo. Porn is a simulation of pleasing a woman. So to reduce the whole thing to "sex drive" is insane. Especially considering that most men would rather chase a woman to be rewarded with sex after effort, rather than to just pay for it. This indicates again, that female validation literally trumps the male sex drive.

The reason the two are conflated though is simply because there is a deliberate misconstruement between female validation and sex with a woman. A woman giving you free sex = highest validation she can give basically. However, if society admitted that men literally worship female validation to this extend, that we are collectively obsessed with women to the point of mass psychosis... well that is not what people want to hear, is it?

Does not quite sound like the usualy "men strong, men oppress women, men just want to fuck and see women as objects" type of rethoric.

I also want to throw another thing into the mix here, a general tidbit on how humans form habits and addictions:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3047254/

1.08 MB file on MEGA

mega.nz

TDLR
- the vast majority of drug addicts never end up in rehab and quit on their own
- the people that end up in rehab are a subset that has additional issues, like history of abues or health issues
- drugs are not inherently addictive as claimed in the "substance-addiction-disease" model, rather it is environmental circumstances that keep people trapped in habitually negative patterns
- this is proved because as the research shows, the 80% of people that quit drugs do it mostly because of things like getting married, returning from warzone (to home environment), etc

(side note: it is hilarious that female validation, as in marriage and relationships, can literally outcompete shit like heroin, to the point where men quit heroin and crack in order to maintain the good will of a woman, holy shit)

- this is not limited to drugs but extends to all human activity. The male sex drive could easily be part of that. For most of history women were viewed as more sexual than men, not vice versa. Stressed men with worse lives resort to more high risk behaviors, sexually, drugs, alcohol, fast driving. That does not mean they have a higher sex drive, maybe their life is just way worse than womens, so they cope with masturbation more.

It is interesting that people admit this connection between stress/trauma and increased sexuality when it comes to women, but not men. We always hear that sluts or promiscuous women are "damaged good" etc. Society readily tells us that women with mental issues are more sexual to cope, but fails to make the association between mens lives being harder, and men coping more as a result (with drugs, alcohol, sex etc).

Again, I am not saying this is necessarily true, I am just demonstrating that there are countless ways to approach human behavior and gender-specific patterns, none of which necessarily require biological reductionism to be explained.


2. abundance mindset vs deprivation mindset.
When you can get sex freely, you dont value it as much and you take only offers from the highest bidder. This is basic market economics. Women giving less sex or only conditional sex to most men and then inferring this is because women have lower sex drive, is like saying your local supermarket sets prices for bread because the store owner is less hungry than normal people.

3. Female lesbian pill.
Women in studies are attracted to other women in general, in spite of self-reported sexual orientation - see research my meredith chivers on this.

Further supporting this is the evidence for female in-group bias, which is exists only among women - women support each other, fetishsize each other, not men.

Lets do the math here, hope this is not retarded, cuz im bad at math.
Society is 50/50 men/women.
Women are all basically lesbian in studies. So now we get a huge amount of foid-foid attraction.
Factor in chads.
20% of men are chads + most women can get sex from other women.
This leaves a minority group of men who have restricted or no access to women, like 30% of society essentially. Lifelong incels are a giga minority in this crude model, because we have to remove buxxers from the 30% of men too. And men that go to prostitutes. And homosexuals and animal fuckers.

This kinda explains threads like this:

When you get to your late 20s, early 30s as virgin, you might stay that way your whole life (especially if it's not by choice).

I looked at CDC data from 2006-2008 (before the average of virginity rised a little). Of men ages 25-29, 3.8% have never engaged in any sexual contact with the opposite sex, compared to 3.1% of men ages 30-34, 1.3% of men ages 35-39, and 1.2% of men ages 40-44. This means 92.3% of men who never...

incels.is

At the end of life, only a single digit number of men and women will still be virgins.
Going back to my point, Women fucking each other and dogs over men could of course deprive men of sexual release as a whole.

Another dimension I have touched on but not really elabed is that sex drive is not necessarily triggered by hormones, but can also come about socially, which nobody ever talks about. Yes, sex drive can be a sort of "social construct" - let me give you an idea. Boobs.
In tons of countries around the world, boobs are not seen as sexual. I am not clowning, even in europe in the middle ages and beyond, noble women had themselves depicted with their boobies out:

View attachment 1234029

Cleavage (breasts) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

@Stupid Clown - you mentioned this in your video on why porn sucks now, you showed an image of mid-riffs as sexual. Again, nothing is new under the sun.

Cleavage (breasts) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ah0fj9/are_genitalia_sexualized_differently_in_cultures/


So we see from this that sex-drive and attraction to certain things can be purely cultural. So why not the male sex drive? Men are encouraged to masturbate and be sexual, that is the predominant stereotype pushed on men in our time. They keep us in a classic double bind - if you are not sexual you are worthless, but if you flaunt your sexuality you are a subhuman brute, controlled by raging hormones.

And inversly, women are encouraged to not be sexual by other women and signal high value by rejecting men. Rejection = I am high status enough to reject a man. Supporting evidence for this is that women pick and reject partners collectively:


View: https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPillScience/comments/gfsa5k/women_not_only_copy_the_mate_choice_of_other/


And also that women are more promiscious when travelling, when the social pressure to signal high-status is reduced (nobody knows what you did on vacation and women love to travel):

Study: Women more likely to experiment, take sexual risks while traveling

The "I like to travel, teeheee", like many memes, is based in reality and cold hard fact. There's a reason why so many young, and even married, women love to 'travel" so much without their betabuxx cucks. They enjoy "girls' trips" becasue they can engage in infidelity and experiment with men...

incels.is

So again, evidence for cultural pressure having influence on self-reported and actual sexual expression. This could disort data in self reported studies massively.

4. prostitutes and wives
- how do they get wet? Nobody ever asks this, if women can not get sexually aroused by average men, how exactly does betabuxxing (maintenance sex) and prostitution work? Again, this posts more to "abundance mindset" being the reason why women seem less horny, not an actual lower drive. If you had access to every food ever, you would not come off as hungy either. But you can still get hungry for a cheeseburger, in spite of aving access to kaviar no shit. The human drive to eat is indiscriminatory towards food. If you are hungry, anything will do.

Anyway, I am just throwing this at the wall and letting my thoughts run here. I dont like biological reductionism arguments and claims that are made like the conclusion is just obvious.

Bunch of bluepilled feminist nonsense. Testosterone obviously makes men horny dogs more than any woman ever. If not, why does TRT therapy raise libido?

 

[Stupid Clown]

@Seahorsecel
the book i looked into is this

1.68 MB file on MEGA

mega.nz

Some interesting quotes.

On Testosterone and sex drive:



And on how testosterone and muscle building ability do not connect.



Example: Women build muscle at the same proportional rate as as men, despite having way less testosterone:



There is also no link between testosterone and aggression and competition. Tradcons like to justify "gender roles" - something that hardly existed in history like they imagine - by appealing to men's "innate aggression and drive to compete, fueled by higher testosterone." There is no evidence for this.


I always mention worldviews in my posts and how data is not neutral. Everyone has a bias, everyone has a worldview. And like an ink-blot test, where one sees his mom drowning in the bathtub, and another sees a picnic in hyde park, however people interpret the data reveals more about them than the data.

When people look at what we say about women, and yes, this may sound crazy, even violent posts here, and they automatically interpret that as threatening to women, they are instantly revealing their bias.

Let's say someone posts on here "GOD IM SO HORNY I WANT TO FUCK A WOMAN IN THE ASS, EVERY TIME I SEE A HOT WOMAN OUTSIDE, I JUST WANT TO CUM IN HER TIGHT PUSSY."

This is just polemic of course, but even statements like this have no inherent moral implication. It could be a joke, it could be an AI generated text on a porn site, it could be a woman trying to bait people etc. The actual intent and message is not inherent to the sentence, which acts as a kind of blank symbol as a whole. We could reduce the whole sentence to something like the "@" symbol. All and every interpretation of that sentence will be biased, even our own.

When it comes to research, we are dealing with philosophically illiterate tradcons interpreting the claims of equally philosophically illiterate scientists who are also operating under misandric biases etc. The result is logically fallacious thinking on a mass level.

Take this simple set of claims.

1. men want sex more than women
2. therefore men must have a higher sex drive than women.

How does 2 follow from 1? It does not at all. And if we asked people that make this claim, so how do we actually know that men have a higher sex drive, they would respond with, "because they want more sex than women" - thus completing the circular argument for us.
In science, there should always be a null-hypothesis, shouldnt there? Going after Popper, shouldnt we seek to falsify our own hypothesis?
So, ask them, what is the alternative explanation to men wanting more sex subjectively.

99% of them have never thought about this.
I can think of countless reasons in my head instantly.

1. women controlling the sexual economy on purpose, as a power move see this article "the sex war:" LINK

As the article points out
- women are the biggest anti-porn group
- women actively raised age of consent
- women slut-shame each other, thus demonizing sexuality for women

Women also got sex doll brothels for men banned.
Further driving this ideological divide is that men are inversely indoctrinated to think of themselves as horny beasts. If you are not horny, you are broken. You should wake up with a raging boner every morning, or you are not "healthy." Having sex = manly. It is interesting that these gender dynamics are again enforced moreso by women than by men.

Mothers Push Gender Stereotypes More Than Fathers, Study Reveals

The gender stereotype that says “boys don’t cry” is being perpetuated implicitly by mothers more than fathers, a new University of Guelph study has revealed. Prof. Kristel Thomassin found mothers may…

news.uoguelph.ca

So there is a huge cultural thing going on here.
For example, as an anecdote, i once saw an interview, this foid from south america says, in SA women want sex daily. They demand it. But when she went to the US, women were fridgid, only wanted sex maybe once a week.

48:42


View: https://youtu.be/png3WKqY0IE?t=2922


Another thing people will point to is self-reported masturbation rate, like here:



However again, let us be philosophically anal here. To go from what that says to "men have a higher sex drive" is logically fallacious and a non-sequitur. The reported findings only support the hypothesis of higher male sex drive if you already think men have a higher sex drive to begin with. We can pose alternative hypothesis for this easily:

- there are cultural reasons, like female in-group preference automatically increasing male on male competition and social exclusion. Men want female validation but cant get it. Porn is all about foid validation. If you watch porn, most of it is a foid experiencing pleasure. The guy in the porn is just a dildo. Porn is a simulation of pleasing a woman. So to reduce the whole thing to "sex drive" is insane. Especially considering that most men would rather chase a woman to be rewarded with sex after effort, rather than to just pay for it. This indicates again, that female validation literally trumps the male sex drive.

The reason the two are conflated though is simply because there is a deliberate misconstruement between female validation and sex with a woman. A woman giving you free sex = highest validation she can give basically. However, if society admitted that men literally worship female validation to this extend, that we are collectively obsessed with women to the point of mass psychosis... well that is not what people want to hear, is it?

Does not quite sound like the usualy "men strong, men oppress women, men just want to fuck and see women as objects" type of rethoric.

I also want to throw another thing into the mix here, a general tidbit on how humans form habits and addictions:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3047254/

1.08 MB file on MEGA

mega.nz

TDLR
- the vast majority of drug addicts never end up in rehab and quit on their own
- the people that end up in rehab are a subset that has additional issues, like history of abues or health issues
- drugs are not inherently addictive as claimed in the "substance-addiction-disease" model, rather it is environmental circumstances that keep people trapped in habitually negative patterns
- this is proved because as the research shows, the 80% of people that quit drugs do it mostly because of things like getting married, returning from warzone (to home environment), etc

(side note: it is hilarious that female validation, as in marriage and relationships, can literally outcompete shit like heroin, to the point where men quit heroin and crack in order to maintain the good will of a woman, holy shit)

- this is not limited to drugs but extends to all human activity. The male sex drive could easily be part of that. For most of history women were viewed as more sexual than men, not vice versa. Stressed men with worse lives resort to more high risk behaviors, sexually, drugs, alcohol, fast driving. That does not mean they have a higher sex drive, maybe their life is just way worse than womens, so they cope with masturbation more.

It is interesting that people admit this connection between stress/trauma and increased sexuality when it comes to women, but not men. We always hear that sluts or promiscuous women are "damaged good" etc. Society readily tells us that women with mental issues are more sexual to cope, but fails to make the association between mens lives being harder, and men coping more as a result (with drugs, alcohol, sex etc).

Again, I am not saying this is necessarily true, I am just demonstrating that there are countless ways to approach human behavior and gender-specific patterns, none of which necessarily require biological reductionism to be explained.


2. abundance mindset vs deprivation mindset.
When you can get sex freely, you dont value it as much and you take only offers from the highest bidder. This is basic market economics. Women giving less sex or only conditional sex to most men and then inferring this is because women have lower sex drive, is like saying your local supermarket sets prices for bread because the store owner is less hungry than normal people.

3. Female lesbian pill.
Women in studies are attracted to other women in general, in spite of self-reported sexual orientation - see research my meredith chivers on this.

Further supporting this is the evidence for female in-group bias, which is exists only among women - women support each other, fetishsize each other, not men.

Lets do the math here, hope this is not retarded, cuz im bad at math.
Society is 50/50 men/women.
Women are all basically lesbian in studies. So now we get a huge amount of foid-foid attraction.
Factor in chads.
20% of men are chads + most women can get sex from other women.
This leaves a minority group of men who have restricted or no access to women, like 30% of society essentially. Lifelong incels are a giga minority in this crude model, because we have to remove buxxers from the 30% of men too. And men that go to prostitutes. And homosexuals and animal fuckers.

This kinda explains threads like this:

When you get to your late 20s, early 30s as virgin, you might stay that way your whole life (especially if it's not by choice).

I looked at CDC data from 2006-2008 (before the average of virginity rised a little). Of men ages 25-29, 3.8% have never engaged in any sexual contact with the opposite sex, compared to 3.1% of men ages 30-34, 1.3% of men ages 35-39, and 1.2% of men ages 40-44. This means 92.3% of men who never...

incels.is

At the end of life, only a single digit number of men and women will still be virgins.
Going back to my point, Women fucking each other and dogs over men could of course deprive men of sexual release as a whole.

Another dimension I have touched on but not really elabed is that sex drive is not necessarily triggered by hormones, but can also come about socially, which nobody ever talks about. Yes, sex drive can be a sort of "social construct" - let me give you an idea. Boobs.
In tons of countries around the world, boobs are not seen as sexual. I am not clowning, even in europe in the middle ages and beyond, noble women had themselves depicted with their boobies out:

View attachment 1234029

Cleavage (breasts) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

@Stupid Clown - you mentioned this in your video on why porn sucks now, you showed an image of mid-riffs as sexual. Again, nothing is new under the sun.

Cleavage (breasts) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ah0fj9/are_genitalia_sexualized_differently_in_cultures/


So we see from this that sex-drive and attraction to certain things can be purely cultural. So why not the male sex drive? Men are encouraged to masturbate and be sexual, that is the predominant stereotype pushed on men in our time. They keep us in a classic double bind - if you are not sexual you are worthless, but if you flaunt your sexuality you are a subhuman brute, controlled by raging hormones.

And inversly, women are encouraged to not be sexual by other women and signal high value by rejecting men. Rejection = I am high status enough to reject a man. Supporting evidence for this is that women pick and reject partners collectively:


View: https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPillScience/comments/gfsa5k/women_not_only_copy_the_mate_choice_of_other/


And also that women are more promiscious when travelling, when the social pressure to signal high-status is reduced (nobody knows what you did on vacation and women love to travel):

Study: Women more likely to experiment, take sexual risks while traveling

The "I like to travel, teeheee", like many memes, is based in reality and cold hard fact. There's a reason why so many young, and even married, women love to 'travel" so much without their betabuxx cucks. They enjoy "girls' trips" becasue they can engage in infidelity and experiment with men...

incels.is

So again, evidence for cultural pressure having influence on self-reported and actual sexual expression. This could disort data in self reported studies massively.

4. prostitutes and wives
- how do they get wet? Nobody ever asks this, if women can not get sexually aroused by average men, how exactly does betabuxxing (maintenance sex) and prostitution work? Again, this posts more to "abundance mindset" being the reason why women seem less horny, not an actual lower drive. If you had access to every food ever, you would not come off as hungy either. But you can still get hungry for a cheeseburger, in spite of aving access to kaviar no shit. The human drive to eat is indiscriminatory towards food. If you are hungry, anything will do.

Anyway, I am just throwing this at the wall and letting my thoughts run here. I dont like biological reductionism arguments and claims that are made like the conclusion is just obvious.

I believe there's studies that show most women don't orgasm during sex with boyfriends/husbands. I doubt their sexual preferencs are socially constructed.

 

[wereq]

I believe there's studies that show most women don't orgasm during sex with boyfriends/husbands. I doubt their sexual preferencs are socially constructed.

What he presented is all soy reddit bullshit. Testosterone does increase muscle mass and libido.

 

[JudeoBiden]

Hoping Project 2025 brings it back.

As much as Republicans are just 1990 Democrats, I can't imagine in my wettest of dreams something this based being done by them.