Say hello to my dad.

[FrothySolutions]

Dude more men are raped every year in America than women and that's a fact:

More men are raped in the US than women

In 2008, it was estimated 216,000 inmates were sexually assaulted while serving time in America, according to the Department of Justice figures.

www.dailymail.co.uk

No one cares because most male rape victims are raped in prison. "Haha prison rape - so funny lol." Men are worthless.

He's not saying women are raped more than men. He's saying even if they were, you don't need to wait for figures. You don't need to wait at all, you can just say "I don't like men getting raped and I feel like this issue doesn't get enough advocacy."

I mean that's what I implied. I don't want to "rewire" female instinct to like us and hate chads. I want all of us to be "free" and actually use our brains to choose. Not the "lizard" brain. The only thing I was debating was the fact that you were trivializing how shitty the "lizard" part is.

He says he's not trivializing society's biases, he believes we shouldn't prejudice people for how they look either. It's just you might not get laid for it. Society could become more open minded, but you might still be incel. Loved, appreciated, held in esteem, but still incel. Because you need to be physically attractive to have sex.

It doesn't matter if he was a 'social' person or not. People back then were social by default because the state of technology did not allow you to entertain yourself all on your own like we can, you had to go out to have fun.
If he had several sexual partners he has no right to criticize us or claim to understand where we're coming from.

He says you don't need to be hungry to want to help the hungry. You don't need to be a woman to want to save babies. You're allowed to have opinions on both of these issues.

 

[Numb]

you need to be physically attractive to have sex.

Says who, reasoning or the lizard brain? If in theory it was possible to eradicate this "autonomous" concept. Then having sex wouldn't be based on physical attractiveness as much as it is now. Incels almost wouldn't even exist if it was like this. Foids and men would use other factors and reasoning for their romantic conquests. If a foid falls in love with a man because of ((((personality)))) and truly wants to be with him regardless of looks. A "chad" comes out of nowhere and her brain literally destroys her reasoned out feelings and fills it with this forced "urge" for chad. Without her consent. It's not a good thing to base it off of the lizard brain. If it was truly "choice" based it wouldn't be based on physical rubrics. Everyone would have a different "rubric".

 

[FrothySolutions]

My dad comes in to add, "This thinking that we need to divide people into whose cause is more important, that's not justice. That's why we have division."

Says who, reasoning or the lizard brain? If in theory it was possible to eradicate this "autonomous" concept. Then having sex wouldn't be based on physical attractiveness as much as it is now. Incels almost wouldn't even exist if it was like this. Foids and men would use other factors and reasoning for their romantic conquests. If a foid falls in love with a man because of ((((personality)))) and truly wants to be with him regardless of looks. A "chad" comes out of nowhere and her brain literally destroys her reasoned out feelings and fills it with this forced "urge" for chad. Without her consent. It's not a good thing to base it off of the lizard brain. If it was truly "choice" based it wouldn't be based on physical rubrics. Everyone would have a different "rubric".

My dad says you can be free to choose, but also be physically attracted to someone. Physical attraction isn't just for animals. Physical attraction and our standards for a persons aesthetics are actually a sophisticated and very non-animal thing. The world you'd create is a world that doesn't hate incels for being ugly, but still won't have sex with them. And that not being sexually attracted to someone isn't the same as instinctual hate for them.
EDIT: My family is here and now they're hearing what's going on. They're looking at the article. My sister has something to say. I dunno if anyone wants to hear it.

 

[Numb]

My dad comes in to add, "This thinking that we need to divide people into whose cause is more important, that's not justice. That's why we have division."



My dad says you can be free to choose, but also be physically attracted to someone. Physical attraction isn't just for animals. Physical attraction and our standards for a persons aesthetics are actually a sophisticated and very non-animal thing. The world you'd create is a world that doesn't hate incels for being ugly, but still won't have sex with them. And that not being sexually attracted to someone isn't the same as instinctual hate for them.

"Physical attraction isn't just for animals. Physical attraction and our standards for a persons aesthetics are actually a sophisticated and very non-animal thing"

Untrue. It's automatic and subconscious, it'd be stupid to say that if we got rid of this "lizard" brain there would be no physical rubric. But it would mean that people aren't "forced" into it. So there would be people who base it off of different things. So it would give incels a chance. It'd be illogical to say it didn't. For example. "A more caveman like face" isn't something so drastically needed is it? Every day countries are leaving the jungle mindset. But our subconscious brain still thinks we're in the jungle. We need to get rid of that. And i'd like to add it isn't "unreasonable" to not like someone who is fit. but to be forced into doing it is a different ball game. It's not unreasonable for a girl to want to be with someone with a good personality and not care for looks. Many foids on many different red pill forums already wanting to do that but their "brains" don't let them. This proves that "incels" would indeed find love if they are incel due to physical reasons because of the giant amount of foids that exist already and the various different "rubrics" they would develop if they were free. I bet some foids would opt to even "disable" this lizard function so they ONLY care about personality. Sounds outlandish but it's not impossible. And being unattracted IS linked to negative connotation to them regarding "hate". They are seen as "less good people" and "less innocent". Read our wiki you'll find studies that prove it.
I'd like to add that in the theoretical world i'd create. There'd be an infinite amount of "preferences" so any incel would just be a voicel. Because they could "evolve" to those preferences. It wouldn't just be tethered to physical looks

 

[FrothySolutions]

"Physical attraction isn't just for animals. Physical attraction and our standards for a persons aesthetics are actually a sophisticated and very non-animal thing"

Untrue. It's automatic and subconscious, it'd be stupid to say that if we got rid of this "lizard" brain there would be no physical rubric. But it would mean that people aren't "forced" into it. So there would be people who base it off of different things. So it would give incels a chance. It'd be illogical to say it didn't. For example. "A more caveman like face" isn't something so drastically needed is it? Every day countries are leaving the jungle mindset. But our subconscious brain still thinks we're in the jungle. We need to get rid of that. And i'd like to add it isn't "unreasonable" to not like someone who is fit. but to be forced into doing it is a different ball game. It's not unreasonable for a girl to want to be with someone with a good personality and not care for looks. Many foids on many different red pill forums already wanting to do that but their "brains" don't let them. This proves that "incels" would indeed find love if they are incel due to physical reasons because of the giant amount of foids that exist already and the various different "rubrics" they would develop if they were free. I bet some foids would opt to even "disable" this lizard function so they ONLY care about personality. Sounds outlandish but it's not impossible. And being unattracted IS linked to negative connotation to them regarding "hate". They are seen as "less good people" and "less innocent". Read our wiki you'll find studies that prove it.
I'd like to add that in the theoretical world i'd create. There'd be an infinite amount of "preferences" so any incel would just be a voicel. Because they could "evolve" to those preferences. It wouldn't just be tethered to physical looks

He's not saying that people don't equate ugliness with "less good," he's saying even if we didn't have this "instinct," many people would look at an incel and say "I understand that he's a good person, but I'm not physically attracted to him." They won't mistreat their ugly kids, but they won't have sex with ugly people. Women won't "hate" unfit men, see them as "inferior," but they will not want to have sex with them.
EDIT: My family is now saying you can't narrow down what every human in the world is attracted to. Yes, there are trends. Societal trends. And studies will reflect that. But you can't say all men or all women are hard-wired the same from birth. Because there are lesbians. Lesbians attracted to effeminate lipstick lesbians. Lesbians who don't have any masculine traits.

 

[Numb]

He's not saying that people don't equate ugliness with "less good," he's saying even if we didn't have this "instinct," many people would look at an incel and say "I understand that he's a good person, but I'm not physically attracted to him." They won't mistreat their ugly kids, but they won't have sex with ugly people. Women won't "hate" unfit men, see them as "inferior," but they will not want to have sex with them.
EDIT: My family is now saying you can't narrow down what every human in the world is attracted to. Yes, there are trends. Societal trends. And studies will reflect that. But you can't say all men or all women are hard-wired the same from birth. Because there are lesbians. Lesbians attracted to effeminate lipstick lesbians. Lesbians who don't have any masculine traits.

Well we were talking about hetero relationships. I thought that was already an implication, and gay men ARE actually selective like this in their relationship. They still base it off of autonomous reactions. So my theory about "lizard" brains would still be applied here. The more "dominant" men would like the more "submissive" men etc. It's still the same idea but with a different sex preference. So it doesn't change anything.


""instinct," many people would look at an incel and say "I understand that he's a good person, but I'm not physically attracted to him."

But in my theory if people didn't have the "instinct" some wouldn't even care if he's ugly or not. They wouldn't consider it a negative or positive. because they logically decided it doesn't matter. So they (some of them) would fuck incels based on their personality for instance. My theory still stands.

" Women won't "hate" unfit men, see them as "inferior," but they will not want to have sex with them."

It's been scientifically proven that when women see "ugly" / "unfit" men their "brains (lizard brain)" automatically assume they are bad PEOPLE. and have bad personalities. And that they are less Innocent for their actions. Look at the studies in the wiki. This is simply untrue.

can't narrow down what every human in the world is attracted to. Yes, there are trends. Societal trends. And studies will reflect that.

It's been proven that you can. For instance among all cultures "lighter" skin is perceived automatically as healthier because "white = good". This autonomous stuff goes beyond culture and society. It can be warped a little. But the biological factors remain the same. And among all women of different cultures "cavemen" like faces = more attractive. Please read the studies, they aren't based on a "select" country or social class. they are based in a general perception of ALL cultures. We're not dumb.

 

[FrothySolutions]

Well we were talking about hetero relationships. I thought that was already an implication, and gay men ARE actually selective like this in their relationship. They still base it off of autonomous reactions. So my theory about "lizard" brains would still be applied here. The more "dominant" men would like the more "submissive" men etc. It's still the same idea but with a different sex preference. So it doesn't change anything.


""instinct," many people would look at an incel and say "I understand that he's a good person, but I'm not physically attracted to him."

But in my theory if people didn't have the "instinct" some wouldn't even care if he's ugly or not. They wouldn't consider it a negative or positive. because they logically decided it doesn't matter. So they (some of them) would fuck incels based on their personality for instance. My theory still stands.

" Women won't "hate" unfit men, see them as "inferior," but they will not want to have sex with them."

It's been scientifically proven that when women see "ugly" / "unfit" men their "brains (lizard brain)" automatically assume they are bad PEOPLE. and have bad personalities. And that they are less Innocent for their actions. Look at the studies in the wiki. This is simply untrue.

can't narrow down what every human in the world is attracted to. Yes, there are trends. Societal trends. And studies will reflect that.

It's been proven that you can. For instance among all cultures "lighter" skin is perceived automatically as healthier because "white = good". This autonomous stuff goes beyond culture and society. It can be warped a little. But the biological factors remain the same. And among all women of different cultures "cavemen" like faces = more attractive. Please read the studies, they aren't based on a "select" country or social class. they are based in a general perception of ALL cultures. We're not dumb.

He doesn't know about "scientific," because first of all these studies are just polls. He says you're taking the idea of "scientific" too far. You're looking at a majority of one group of people who were polled and taking that to mean "Well that must mean all people everywhere are born with the same wiring." The study is only "scientific" in that it uses a scientific method. It doesn't go in and prove anything chemical. The best argument you have is that you've proven a societal trend. And if you really wanted to play lawyerball you could say that the sample size wasn't right, or the wrong people were polled, or call out any number of biases in the process.

But he's not saying these biases don't exist. Whether they be chemical or social. He's not saying some women don't equate ugly/unfit with "bad person." He's saying even if you open this woman's mind, she will still be like "Yeah but I'm just not attracted to him. He's ugly." That doesn't mean she hates the ugly man. For some women now, yes, it does mean she hates the ugly man. But in your ideal future where people's minds are opened, you still will never get rid of people's physical preferences. Even today you could have sex with an ugly man, but why would you want to? If you have a reason, that must mean you're attracted to him for other reasons. Which does happen for some men.

 

[Robtical]

All the power and potency is on their hand. If one day they chose to only select 7 foot tall asian men for instance. Who is man to stop them?

Men probably can't physically stop them but they can slut shame them and refuse to betabux them after they get off the cock carousel. That can be a good deterrent for their slutty behavior.

you still will never get rid of people's physical preferences.

If you have less options your demands for physical beauty will lower. For example, my preference is attractive 18 year olds, but I'll settle for fucking a 40 year old land whale if it was for free and no strings attached. Foids' preferences lower when they're old and desperate for a betabux. That's why men should shame those used whores and let them know they will only be fit to be used as cum rags and don't deserve to be wives, and also shame the low IQ cucks if they decide to marry the used roasts.