Blackpill Reminder For Bluepiller Lurkers

[Deleted member 35725]

A high-libido foid can have as much sex as she desires with as many men as she desires. She can easily rack up a 4-digit notch count if she likes.

A Chad also has options. If he is high-libido, he can become a slayer. If he is low-libido, he can find a stable girlfriend.

We incels have no say. It doesn't matter if our libido is high or low, it won't have an influence on the total number of our sexual experiences and sexual partners.

Bluepillers tend to assume that if a man is horny, he can just find willing sexual partners as easy as a foid can find them. That's the conclusion bluepillers reach due to their vehement denial of the sex-drive disparity between men and women. Since they deny that the average male sex-drive is far higher than the average female sex-drive, they say stuff like "It has never been easier to get laid, just open a Tinder bro." Their idea is that men and women have it equally easy to satisfy their sexual desires if they want to.

The reality is, if you are not a Chad, if you're an ugly pathetic 5'7cel like myself, it literally doesn't matter how intense your libido is - your total number of sexual partners will not be influenced by it. An ugly foid can indeed easily get laid, since demand far exceeds supply, so if the ugly foid has a high-libido, she can indeed just open a Tinder account and Juggernaut Law will spring into action instantly; she will rack up that 4-digit notch count.

An ugly man has no such ability. No matter how horny you are, your total number of sexual partners is strongly limited by your undesirability. An ugly man's libido is thus totally irrelevant. Anyone assuming, "Oh, he has a low number of sexual partners (e.g., zero sexual partners), therefore he must have a low-libido" is an utter idiot. An ugly man's libido is irrelevant. What is relevant is his ugliness. If you're unattractive, if you're short, have a below-average face, are a mentalcel, and so on, then your libido cannot be assumed from your total number of sexual partners. You can be the horniest man in the world, and still a virgin, because what determines your sexual success is not your libido, but your attractiveness, or lack thereof.

Since ugly foids can easily get their wet holes filled, bluepillers assume that ugly men just as easily can get their dicks wet. Only once you understand that there is a severe libido disparity between men and women (on average), and that therefore foids hold all the power in the sexual market, will you grasp how false that notion is. Bluepillers need to grasp that an ugly man can have an intense libido and still no success -- because he is ugly -- and that his lack of success does not mean that he is content with his situation. We are obviously not content with our situation. But bluepillers are such utter intellectual cowards and nincompoops that they refuse to follow where all the evidence leads and reach logical conclusions. They are emotional pieces of shit.

Sorry for the water thread, but I felt the need to say it.

 

[RandomBroCel]

 

[Inkblot]

I call a whore a whore because she's a whore. I can reasonably conclude that you're miffed because you want to be a manwhore. We call that a double standard, one of many examples I can find around here.

If you're mad that you can't be as degenerate as they instead of being annoyed that there's an overindulgence in that culture to begin with, meaning you have to work extra hard to find a diamond in the rough if you believe in monogamous relationships without prior casual relations, you are basically no different.

 

[Deleted member 35725]

I call a whore a whore because she's a whore. I can reasonably conclude that you're miffed because you want to be a manwhore. We call that a double standard, one of many examples I can find around here.

If you're mad that you can't be as degenerate as they instead of being annoyed that there's an overindulgence in that culture to begin with, meaning you have to work extra hard to find a diamond in the rough if you believe in monogamous relationships without prior casual relations, you are basically no different.

I think that I made myself perfectly clear in the OP, but to reiterate the point:

There is a libido disparity between men and women (which bluepillers deny); as a result, foids can have as much sex as they desire -- if they are high libido, they can totally satisfy their needs, because there are enough men willing to have sex with them, so their notch count can be as high as they want it to be -- while men cannot. However, Chad can at least score some, so Chad's libido has an influence on his sexual success: if Chad is high libido, he can have many partners. Not as easily as a foid, but easy enough. However, my assertion is that as non-Chads, as unattractive men, our own libido has no influence on our sexual success, and that despite some of us having high sex-drives, our total number of sexual partners remains low or non-existent, due to our ugliness.

So when bluepillers falsely assume, "He is a virgin, therefore he must have a low libido," their reasoning is wholly flawed, because if you are ugly, then it doesn't matter whether or not your libido is high - what determines your success is your ugliness, what determines your notch count is your looks, not your libido. You cannot assume anything about an ugly man's libido based on his sexual success or lack thereof. Most ugly men would like to be more successful, but there is no correlation between their desire (libido) and their actual success.

A low-libido foid will have few sexual partners, a high-libido foid will have plenty. With men, on the other hand, it is not so. Because if you are incel due to ugliness, your sexual success is not correlated with your libido. I can have a very high libido, but no sexual success, whereas Chad can have an average libido, but lots of partners, or at least far more than any incel, because what determines a male's number of sexual partners (unlike the case with foids) is not necessarily his libido, but his looks. Ugly looks strongly limit a male's sexual success, regardless of the intensity of his sex-drive, which is not the case with foids.

This point is obvious, but I think it better to spell it out to dispel confusion, a confusion sown by bluepiller bullshit.

 

[Inkblot]

^ everyone knows that attractive people are more desirable, even bluepillers. It isn't a secret. They generally advocate improving other aspects of your life in order to increase your chances in the dating pool. I have seen a lot of men who are around your height with a partner. It isn't mission impossible.

 

[Deleted member 36576]

^ everyone knows that attractive people are more desirable, even bluepillers. It isn't a secret.

you'd surprised with some idiots they legit think it's the dude's personality sometimes

 

[kanyepilled]

wet

 

[Deleted member 35725]

^ everyone knows that attractive people are more desirable, even bluepillers. It isn't a secret. They generally advocate improving other aspects of your life in order to increase your chances in the dating pool.

This is irrelevant for my overall point, though.

With foids, libido is strongly correlated with number of sexual partners. If a foid wants to have many partners, she will. Even if she is ugly. This is a consequence of male average sex-drive being higher than female average sex-drive, i.e. we desire women more than they desire us, on average.

So, a non-horny girl will have little or no sex, and a horny girl can fuck thousands of men. So far, so good. Looks have little influence here.

But I contend, based on all the evidence and on basic observation of reality (which reality bluepillers vehemently deny), that with men, libido is not as strongly correlated with the number of one's sexual partners.

If you are Chad, you can have leeway to choose if you want to have few or many sexual partners, based on your libido. A low-libido Chad (like a low-libido foid) will have few sexual partners, while a high-libido Chad (similarly to a high-libido foid) will be very successful.

But if you are an unattractive male, then your libido doesn't really play a strong role in your sexual success: even if you are high-libido, the number of your sexual partners will be low, as low as if you had a lower-than-average or a non-existent libido.

A Chad with an average or a low libido will thus have more sexual partners than even the horniest of ugly, unattractive, short incels.

I have seen a lot of men who are around your height with a partner. It isn't mission impossible.

Ahem.

 

[Inkblot]

Yeah, I know. There's nothing you can do about it. Your best bet is to lock someone down in a relationship where the common denominator is that you've both been practising abstinence (no hook-ups, etc), whether voluntarily or not. That way you can both appreciate one another just a little more.

Even if you weren't an incel would you really want to be picking up the broken pieces once the merry-go-round stops?

 

[Remaincel]

 

[Deleted member 35725]

Even if you weren't an incel would you really want to be picking up the broken pieces once the merry-go-round stops?

In a slightly more ideal world, there would be a stronger correlation between a male's libido and his sexual success, such as that men who aren't very horny would have few partners, and men who are very horny would have many partners, as is indeed the case among women.

But in reality, in this cruel and harsh world determined by lookism, where lookism puts a strong brake exclusively on men's (not on women's) sexual success, we have a somewhat absurd situation, or at least a very unpleasant situation, in which a man -- and only a man -- can be born into a life of total misery due to having a high sex-drive yet lacking the ability to satisfy it, due to his ugliness.

This is a life condition that: a) is fiercely denied by bluepillers, who simply deny the reality of inceldom altogether; b) foids never, ever, ever have to face, because even the ugliest of foids can find lots of willing partners all the time.

So this is an issue faced by unattractive men, and not faced by anyone else. As this is a forum for discussing the issues facing us, unattractive and resultantly incel men, and all the misleading propaganda surrounding our lives, I thought it proper to spell out exactly what it is that is so harshly bothering many of us.

 

[Inkblot]

This always come full circle. It's not entirely about the act of sex (unless you're hypersexual), it's about peer acceptance and your place in the social hierarchy which people channel through sexual preference.

• Attractive people receive more help
• Attractive people are less likely to be punished
• Attractive people are favoured in performance assessments
• Attractive people are more likely to be desired as a partner
• Attractive people are more intelligent on average (and it's subconsciously recognised)
• Attractive people benefit in political races
  • .. it goes on and on.

If it wasn't about that you would masturbate and be done with it. The contemporary phenomena of sexlessness is a casualty of technology. Men who are perceived as ugly are so priced out they can't even get a foot in the door. Society subconsciously discriminates against them from adolescence and upwards.

Unattractive people are valued less and you feel neglected, which is fair.

 

[Deleted member 35725]

If it wasn't about that you would masturbate and be done with it.

Nah; the realization that unattractive men often or usually need to contend with lifelong blue balls (unlike anyone else) is itself upsetting enough, regardless of all the myriads of other ways in which being ugly is detrimental to one's situation in life. What is also upsetting is that bluepillers seek to deny that, by turning the situation upside down, saying, "If a man is unsuccessful with women, he must have a low libido," which is absolutely false, and the point I'm arguing against in the OP. It's not about social status, it's about how only a specific cohort of people -- ugly men -- has to face lifelong sexual frustration, and how delusional people deny it and claim that ugly men must not be suffering all that much sexual frustration, or else we would "easily" get laid to alleviate it. "Just open a Tinder account, bro."

I am sick and tired of the lies.

 

[Inkblot]

bluepillers seek to deny that, by turning the situation upside down, saying, "If a man is unsuccessful with women, he must have a low libido," which is absolutely false

I've never seen anyone say that before. You could just visit prostitutes if you need some sort of relief, idk. I thought you were trying to ascend in your other thread. Reel in your expectations a little and I'm sure you could pull something off. You're motivated and competent enough imo.

 

[Deleted member 35725]

I've never seen anyone say that before.

Since bluepillers non-ironically advise one to "get a haircut," "take a shower," just be yourself," "just be confident," and other platitudes, it is at the very least strongly implied -- if not explicitly verbalized -- in their worldview that what is preventing an ugly man from ascending is his lack of sufficient desire, that if only he willed and tried a little bit harder, he would surely succeed, because in the bluepilled worldview, men and women are basically the same and interchangeable, so if ugly girls can get easily laid, certainly, so goes their logic, ugly men can too, and if high libido is correlated with sexual success among some people, then surely, so again goes the blupilled "logic," it must be correlated with sexual success among all people. So if you fail with women, you must have low libido, they reason, implicitly if not explicitly.

That is the line of "reasoning" I rail against here. For reference, look at all the bluepiller threads claiming that incels are "secretly gay." Why do they claim that? Because they assume that it's impossible that we really are horny for women, but are incapable of getting laid (due to our looks), so they need to argue that "Actually, these silly inkwells don't really desire women at all, I bet they are asexual or gay in the closet, tee hee tee hee." The idea that we aren't asexual or gay, that we are straight, and that indeed, some of us have high heterosexual libidos, but that despite that, we just can't get laid and are relegated to sexual loserdom, is unfathomable to many of these bluepillers. So the logic goes, "If you don't get laid, you must not really want to." We see this kind of argumentation all the time among bluepiller forums.

They assume that we did not make any effort to succeed, that surely we must not really want to succeed, and being looks-denialists in general, they add insult to injury by telling us that it's about muh personality; they assume that merely fixing our "attitude" and putting some effort into "showers" and so on would have made some of us swim in an ocean full of pussy, and that the only reason we haven't had any success is because we surely did not try. That this is completely detached from all observed reality and basic common sense, and that the people claiming that suffer extreme cognitive dissonance as it's as obvious as the nose on their face that the world doesn't work that way, doesn't change the fact that this is a typical bluepiller position on inceldom.

There is a lot of unfairness in this situation, and while ranting about it will not (immediately) fix it, that is one of the uses of this board, so I rant about the situation, and I believe that what I'm saying reflects what many others in the community experience and think.

 

[Loner94]

Bluepillers will forever be in denial