[Whitepill] Sex is a biological need. Love is not a biological need. [Love copers DO NOT ENTER]

[CopingForBrutality]

Sex is a biological need, we can satisfy that need whether we are incels or not through means of escortcelling, it is a fair transactional action, you pay, you get sex and it is a reasonable price in many European countries. If it were to be cucked like some people say then marriage is also cucked because it is also built on the basis of transaction, and a more complex form of transaction for that matter. Love is absolutely not an equation in a marriage, the foundations of marriage is built upon a transactional basis, if the transactions in the contract are broken then the marriage breaks. Marriage/Romantic Relationships are just a huge unwritten contract that have specific transactions that need to be met otherwise it will not uphold, ‘love’ may be considered just a high feeling that one gets when the requirements in the contract are being fulfilled however it is purely a metaphysical notion categorised by our culture, it doesn’t exist in the real sense, it’s an intangible concept that can’t be measured. Marriages exist not because humans want to feel loved but because it is a barter and trade situation, both parties benefit from it, men get sex, food and someone to talk with, women will get shelter and money, this is a simplified take and it is more complex in the modern world but this is the basic model of it.

Love is not a prerequisite that is needed to obtain sex because of the method mentioned above, and it is not a prerequisite for ‘better’ sex either. If the transactions are cut then the so-called ‘love’ disappears, but it never disappears because the concept of love is purely metaphysical, it doesn’t exist in the real sense so nothing disappears, it was not there in the first place. Marriages never fail because the love is dimmed. It’s fails purely for transactional reasons, where a transaction failed to be delivered then the contract was broken.

What are some of the transactional aspects of a marriage/relationship contract? A common one would be LMS (Looks Money Status), here are some others :

- Shared goals
- Shared hobbies
- Validation (Foid validation is worthless but people see it as a valid transaction in today’s culture)

All of these are transactional aspects of keeping a relationship tied together, many of times if there is financial trouble the couple breaks up, or if the man loses his looks overtime and then the woman decides to commit infidelity, the couple breaks up. There was a U.S marine who had his face burnt off and his wife left him because one of the transactions failed. You see where this is going? When the contract is broken because a transaction in the marriage is failed to be met then the relationship fails. A relationship does not fail because love is dimmed overtime, it fails because one or both parties did not meet the transactions that were supposed to be in the unwritten contract. If a marriage is being upheld it is because the transactions are being met in the contract, it is not because love is making the wheels turn. Only bluepillers want us to believe it is love making all of this turn, they want us to think love is a magical divinity ingredient that can be applied to objects, they want us to think they are in some type of godhood state but at the end of the day they know they aren’t worth shit, they don’t want to admit all of these are mere transactions for the fear they won’t be seen as a god anymore, they can’t self masturbate without being deemed as a God. It comparable to a Brahmin feeding prasad to his Gods at the temple whilst knowing Dalits have to stand outside and feel dehumanised because of not participating in it. We see it as funny because of how absurd it is placing divinity in such things, but it is the exactly same situation between the love normies fawn over and us incels, people are just too blind to see it just like the Dalit standing outside the temple.

We can’t categorise ‘love’ into a biological need because it does not exist in the literal sense, only in our cultural metaphysical dimension. Incels aren’t missing out on much when it comes to relationships, we simply aren’t taking part in the barter and trade that is occurring between normies and their girlfriends, but nothing we are missing out is biological so it does not make sense to be worried about it, the only thing we are missing out on is deemed as cultural but we can circumvent this by not engaging in the present culture of today.

Spoiler: tag

@K9Otaku @JayGoptri @CantEscapeYourFate

 

[eclispe]

fuck sex. embrace spirtuality and death!

 

[NirvanaFan1988]

 

[CantEscapeYourFate]

High IQ thread. Anyone that wants "love" from foids is a bluepilled female worshipper.

 

[InternetSupremeBoss]

You are coping

 

[50ChadsOfGrey]

OP is most likely fakecel for his knowledge

 

[blackpillednigga]

lmao I just love it when theres a wall of text thread and I scroll down and all the comments are like "high iq thread"

 

[Loner94]

Well said even teen love the thing certain people on here like to hype the most is transactional even emotions can be derived as a resource.

 

[just another incel]

Since love is a biochemical process to maintain the result of sex, the family, one thing goes with the other. On the contrary, sex without love is worthless. If you're just after occasional hedonism then go to the whorehouse.

 

[InfernumOsculum]

Sex is a biological need, we can satisfy that need whether we are incels or not through means of escortcelling, it is a fair transactional action, you pay, you get sex and it is a reasonable price in many European countries. If it were to be cucked like some people say then marriage is also cucked because it is also built on the basis of transaction, and a more complex form of transaction for that matter. Love is absolutely not an equation in a marriage, the foundations of marriage is built upon a transactional basis, if the transactions in the contract are broken then the marriage breaks. Marriage/Romantic Relationships are just a huge unwritten contract that have specific transactions that need to be met otherwise it will not uphold, ‘love’ may be considered just a high feeling that one gets when the requirements in the contract are being fulfilled however it is purely a metaphysical notion categorised by our culture, it doesn’t exist in the real sense, it’s an intangible concept that can’t be measured. Marriages exist not because humans want to feel loved but because it is a barter and trade situation, both parties benefit from it, men get sex, food and someone to talk with, women will get shelter and money, this is a simplified take and it is more complex in the modern world but this is the basic model of it.

Love is not a prerequisite that is needed to obtain sex because of the method mentioned above, and it is not a prerequisite for ‘better’ sex either. If the transactions are cut then the so-called ‘love’ disappears, but it never disappears because the concept of love is purely metaphysical, it doesn’t exist in the real sense so nothing disappears, it was not there in the first place. Marriages never fail because the love is dimmed. It’s fails purely for transactional reasons, where a transaction failed to be delivered then the contract was broken.

What are some of the transactional aspects of a marriage/relationship contract? A common one would be LMS (Looks Money Status), here are some others :

- Shared goals
- Shared hobbies
- Validation (Foid validation is worthless but people see it as a valid transaction in today’s culture)

All of these are transactional aspects of keeping a relationship tied together, many of times if there is financial trouble the couple breaks up, or if the man loses his looks overtime and then the woman decides to commit infidelity, the couple breaks up. There was a U.S marine who had his face burnt off and his wife left him because one of the transactions failed. You see where this is going? When the contract is broken because a transaction in the marriage is failed to be met then the relationship fails. A relationship does not fail because love is dimmed overtime, it fails because one or both parties did not meet the transactions that were supposed to be in the unwritten contract. If a marriage is being upheld it is because the transactions are being met in the contract, it is not because love is making the wheels turn. Only bluepillers want us to believe it is love making all of this turn, they want us to think love is a magical divinity ingredient that can be applied to objects, they want us to think they are in some type of godhood state but at the end of the day they know they aren’t worth shit, they don’t want to admit all of these are mere transactions for the fear they won’t be seen as a god anymore, they can’t self masturbate without being deemed as a God. It comparable to a Brahmin feeding prasad to his Gods at the temple whilst knowing Dalits have to stand outside and feel dehumanised because of not participating in it. We see it as funny because of how absurd it is placing divinity in such things, but it is the exactly same situation between the love normies fawn over and us incels, people are just too blind to see it just like the Dalit standing outside the temple.

We can’t categorise ‘love’ into a biological need because it does not exist in the literal sense, only in our cultural metaphysical dimension. Incels aren’t missing out on much when it comes to relationships, we simply aren’t taking part in the barter and trade that is occurring between normies and their girlfriends, but nothing we are missing out is biological so it does not make sense to be worried about it, the only thing we are missing out on is deemed as cultural but we can circumvent this by not engaging in the present culture of today.

Spoiler: tag

@K9Otaku @JayGoptri @CantEscapeYourFate

This is all cope. Sure it’s transactional, but it’s a transaction rooted in our biological needs.

It’s like calling apples vain and pointless because you have to pay money to eat it. The problem is that you still have to eat fucking food otherwise you’ll die.

Sex is a necessary need not only because we have the urge to reproduce but also because of the broader social fulfillment we receive from it.

The difference is that we are basically the equivalent of a gross unwanted homeless man that begs for some snacks that 99% of people think “ew, this gross weirdo might stab me”. We circumstantially are denied a need to healthy psychological and social fulfillment, and not even allowed to take part of the transaction because of a few millimeters of bone and a few divergent signals in our brain.

Our very existence, just walking around the earth like Cain, causes people’s brain signals to create instinctual revulsion, with some acting out that instinctual revulsion by belittling immutable characteristics completely out of our control. Human nature itself, from average upwards, hates our very existence and views us like a germ, a disease, no matter how much we try to be accepted or receive love.

It’s especially miserable if you are an ugly high testosterone male.

 

[Soulflayer]

Since love is a biochemical process to maintain the result of sex, the family, one thing goes with the other. On the contrary, sex without love is worthless. If you're just after occasional hedonism then go to the whorehouse.

 

[CopingForBrutality]

Since love is a biochemical process to maintain the result of sex, the family, one thing goes with the other. On the contrary, sex without love is worthless. If you're just after occasional hedonism then go to the whorehouse.

Nuclear families are a resultant of culture not biology. Almost all species in the animal kingdom don't have nuclear families or place love on their children. Nuclear families are a resultant of our culture because it's much more efficient to run the world that way and raise children that are strong in completing their life goals, since we are not taking part in that culture (as we are an untouchable) then we exit the culture and the culture's categorisation of us wouldn't matter anymore. A Dalit is unfazed if he does not partake in Hindu culture. It's easier said than done but it's doable.

This is all cope. Sure it’s transactional, but it’s a transaction rooted in our biological needs.

It’s like calling apples vain and pointless because you have to pay money to eat it. The problem is that you still have to eat fucking food otherwise you’ll die.

Food is biological, the want for love is cultural, that's the difference. One transaction is out of necessity, the other is a mere want to assimilate into the present culture.

Sex is a necessary need not only because we have the urge to reproduce but also because of the broader social fulfillment we receive from it.

Sex we can get, as shown above (brothels). Social fulfilment is not a biological need, we can live without social fulfilment and some aspects of social fulfilment is harmful because if you are naïve enough it will shoot up your ego to unnecessary amounts which will bite you back later on. If social fulfilment was the key to being more happy then premature death would not be extremely common in the pop culture industry, those individuals should be the most immune as they are packed with LMS yet we have a phenomenon called the '27 club'.

The reason why they end up dying early despite seemingly having everything is because they finally realise they aren't a God, they realise all this validation they get from socialisation doesn't make them into a magical human being, that they aren't worth shit at the end of the day. They realise they are still a human being like everyone else, they forgot to abandon their crazy high ego from the beginning, so they either die from overdose because they can't cope dealing with revelation or they end up killing themselves.

 

[JayGoptri]

Definitely some good things to be examined in this post.

 

[ResidentHell]

Sex is a necessary need not only because we have the urge to reproduce but also because of the broader social fulfillment we receive from it.

^

Sex we can get, as shown above (brothels). Social fulfilment is not a biological need, we can live without social fulfilment and some aspects of social fulfilment is harmful because if you are naïve enough it will shoot up your ego to unnecessary amounts which will bite you back later on. If social fulfilment was the key to being more happy then premature death would not be extremely common in the pop culture industry, those individuals should be the most immune as they are packed with LMS yet we have a phenomenon called the '27 club'.

The reason why they end up dying early despite seemingly having everything is because they finally realise they aren't a God, they realise all this validation they get from socialisation doesn't make them into a magical human being, that they aren't worth shit at the end of the day. They realise they are still a human being like everyone else, they forgot to abandon their crazy high ego from the beginning, so they either die from overdose because they can't cope dealing with revelation or they end up killing themselves

If you look at the historical patterns of sex relations between humans, social validation was never really treated as an essential object of sex relations. Before 1950's, many men used coercive methods to obtain sex from women (e.g. escortbux, rape, blackmail, arranged marriage), and it was a common practice among them (as they weren't as cucked as zoomers & millenials). It's only in recent decades, the female transformed into a demi-goddess figure in the eyes of normies, that normies now value a female's opinion and her emotions, over their own primal impulse to fuck her via coercion or force

It's a new trend, this notion of "wanting to be fulfilled by a woman's love". If you look at the patriarchal history of sexual relations between men and women --- You'll easily notice that female validation wasn't a major object of interest to men who fucked or/and reproduced with women. Females were mainly treated as subjects of control by their male counterparts. They were expected to submit to men in marriage, and became "property" of men who they married. As for the females who weren't married off, many of them would become sex slaves or whores (often because they had no other choice as a non-virgin female bachelor)

It was comparative to a master-slave partnership - If she was unmarried virgin, she'll be groomed for marriage. If she was unmarried but non-virgin, unless she married the male who unvirginized her, she was guaranteed to become a lifetime bachelor, and have to work in a profession that caters to only women. Which at the time would have been nursing, housemaid or prostitution. At best, she may have became a concubine (aka personal sex slave) of a married man if she went into nursing or housemaidenry

It's funny because if you bluepilled bots really think it's essential for men to care about "love" or "female validation" --- You'd have to ask yourself, "Why did many married men in the past have concubines despite being married?" . I think it's obvious why. Maybe you should use your reason abilities to figure it out

 

[MillionBashStream97]

Cope. If it was only about the physical sensation you would be content with jerking off.

Or just going to a escort, and both would be sufficient for them to delete their account, and not consider themselves "Incels" anymore.

But, they are being dishonest for the sake of coming off "alof" and "not a female worshipper". Even though I have no fucking idea how wanting female connection and female worshipping are in any way related. They CAN be, but if they want to talk about Simps, they can and have.

 

[InfernumOsculum]

^



If you look at the historical patterns of sex relations between humans, social validation was never really treated as an essential object of sex relations. Before 1950's, many men used coercive methods to obtain sex from women (e.g. escortbux, rape, blackmail, arranged marriage), and it was a common practice among them (as they weren't as cucked as zoomers & millenials). It's only in recent decades, the female transformed into a demi-goddess figure in the eyes of normies, that normies now value a female's opinion and her emotions, over their own primal impulse to fuck her via coercion or force

It's a new trend, this notion of "wanting to be fulfilled by a woman's love". If you look at the patriarchal history of sexual relations between men and women --- You'll easily notice that female validation wasn't a major object of interest to men who fucked or/and reproduced with women. Females were mainly treated as subjects of control by their male counterparts. They were expected to submit to men in marriage, and became "property" of men who they married. As for the females who weren't married off, many of them would become sex slaves or whores (often because they had no other choice as a non-virgin female bachelor)

It was comparative to a master-slave partnership - If she was unmarried virgin, she'll be groomed for marriage. If she was unmarried but non-virgin, unless she married the male who unvirginized her, she was guaranteed to become a lifetime bachelor, and have to work in a profession that caters to only women. Which at the time would have been nursing, housemaid or prostitution. At best, she may have became a concubine (aka personal sex slave) of a married man if she went into nursing or housemaidenry

It's funny because if you bluepilled bots really think it's essential for men to care about "love" or "female validation" --- You'd have to ask yourself, "Why did many married men in the past have concubines despite being married?" . I think it's obvious why. Maybe you should use your reason abilities to figure it out

This is all cope too. Even with arranged marriages there was still some level of freedom of choice by women in picking the men. And it filled the biological social need for acceptance by giving both men and women an illusion of choice.

Women because they picked the most desirable man possible, men because a woman picked them.

 

[CruxGammata]

love revolves around sexual pleasure

 

[greggymex7]

Sex

 

[ResidentHell]

This is all cope too. Even with arranged marriages there was still some level of freedom of choice by women in picking the men. And it filled the biological social need for acceptance by giving both men and women an illusion of choice.

Women because they picked the most desirable man possible, men because a woman picked them.

Associating a selection process with biological need is a misnomer. The marital partner selection process is a cultured process, since it's not an essential process to establish a sexually active / reproductive partnership in the natural world. In a less cultured environment, the female could easily be forced or coerced into sex slavery, which wasn't exactly uncommon in the past

Before 1950's, many men used coercive methods to obtain sex from women (e.g. escortbux, rape, blackmail, arranged marriage), and it was a common practice among them

As for the females who weren't married off, many of them would become sex slaves or whores (often because they had no other choice as a non-virgin female bachelor)

If she was unmarried but non-virgin, unless she married the male who unvirginized her, she was guaranteed to become a lifetime bachelor, and have to work in a profession that caters to only women. Which at the time would have been nursing, housemaid or prostitution. At best, she may have became a concubine (aka personal sex slave) of a married man if she went into nursing or housemaidenry

In the selection phase of arranged marriage, the female or the male may be the chooser depending on circumstances e.g. two or more men have expressed interest in same female but she can only choose one, e.g., a parent with two or more daughters has pleaded with a man to marry any one of their daughters, and all daughters have accepted they will be married off to him if he chooses any one of them

Also when you say "Women... they picked the most desirable one", you should recall that historically, arranged marriage was focused more on the extension / transfer of financial wealth of the person / family to another family via the marital partnership. In the past, marriage was a common method used by people to extend, transfer or combine their economic wealth with their spouse's family wealth (or someone from the spouse's side of the family), and most arranged marriages are done for this reason. Arranged marriage has more to do with extension / transfer of economic wealth than it has to do with "romantic love interest". Before the liberal gynocratic era, the desirability of a potential husband was focused more on the genetic value / economic status of the man, and less on "immaterial traits" of the man. So when a man was accepted, it was primairly because he had the right genes or a suitable economic situation, not because he had a "great personality" or "great mindset"

So in response --- No, it's not cope. Men weren't validated for their personality or intellect; they were validated for genetic wealth and financial wealth. It can be argued that evolutionary human biological science has affected the sexual selection process even in respect of marriage. But at end of day, desirability & sexual selection mostly comes down to material factors like LMS, and not factors like "mindsets", "emotions" or "personalities"

 

[w1818alone]

Not but true

 

[SocialzERo]

Cope but ok. If attachment that we call love served no purpose we would all be schizoids but it’s there for a reason.

 

[XMR]

This is all cope. Sure it’s transactional, but it’s a transaction rooted in our biological needs.

It’s like calling apples vain and pointless because you have to pay money to eat it. The problem is that you still have to eat fucking food otherwise you’ll die.

Sex is a necessary need not only because we have the urge to reproduce but also because of the broader social fulfillment we receive from it.

The difference is that we are basically the equivalent of a gross unwanted homeless man that begs for some snacks that 99% of people think “ew, this gross weirdo might stab me”. We circumstantially are denied a need to healthy psychological and social fulfillment, and not even allowed to take part of the transaction because of a few millimeters of bone and a few divergent signals in our brain.

Our very existence, just walking around the earth like Cain, causes people’s brain signals to create instinctual revulsion, with some acting out that instinctual revulsion by belittling immutable characteristics completely out of our control. Human nature itself, from average upwards, hates our very existence and views us like a germ, a disease, no matter how much we try to be accepted or receive love.

It’s especially miserable if you are an ugly high testosterone male.

lol well said, "walking around the earth like Cain", I thought I was the only one who noticed this about being a loner... it's like we did something wrong but we can't recall exactly what it is we did...

and yes, it's our unchangeable characteristics masked as "bro take a shower, get fresher clothes" etc.

 

[XMR]

Since love is a biochemical process to maintain the result of sex, the family, one thing goes with the other. On the contrary, sex without love is worthless. If you're just after occasional hedonism then go to the whorehouse.

I have never felt love though I don't think it exists... I think like others have said, love is a cultural concept. Probably only for the poor people who are brainwashed to believe it exists so that they can cope well and keep working...

 

[Buried Alive 2.0]

Since love is a biochemical process to maintain the result of sex, the family, one thing goes with the other. On the contrary, sex without love is worthless. If you're just after occasional hedonism then go to the whorehouse.

 

[67InchesSubhuman]

Sex with an escort is not the same as regular sex. What people call love or passion is just physical affection.

And validation really matters! Paying directly for sex is not the same as getting it the traditional consensual way.

 

[just another incel]

Nuclear families are a resultant of culture not biology. Almost all species in the animal kingdom don't have nuclear families or place love on their children. Nuclear families are a resultant of our culture because it's much more efficient to run the world that way and raise children that are strong in completing their life goals, since we are not taking part in that culture (as we are an untouchable) then we exit the culture and the culture's categorisation of us wouldn't matter anymore. A Dalit is unfazed if he does not partake in Hindu culture. It's easier said than done but it's doable.

That is not true. Some species even feel sadness when a member of the community dies. This is the case with animals in pack groups. Dogs are sad when their master, with whom they have nothing to do biologically, dies or even leaves the house. The joy is enormous when the master is back. Simply because the owner is part of the family unit. Wild boars will kill you if you get too close to their young. Dogs will kill you if you do or even threaten violence against one of their human pack members. Pairs of swans do not copulate for years if their clutch is destroyed. Sure, that's genetic programming expressed biochemically. But these feelings exist because they have proven themselves through evolution and have therefore prevailed in the respective population. Denying the purpose of love is nonsense. Of course, we can debate their origin.

 

[CopingForBrutality]

That is not true. Some species even feel sadness when a member of the community dies. This is the case with animals in pack groups. Dogs are sad when their master, with whom they have nothing to do biologically, dies or even leaves the house. The joy is enormous when the master is back. Simply because the owner is part of the family unit. Wild boars will kill you if you get too close to their young. Dogs will kill you if you do or even threaten violence against one of their human pack members. Pairs of swans do not Copulate for years if their clutch is destroyed. Sure, that's genetic programming expressed biochemically. But these feelings exist because they have proven themselves through evolution and have therefore prevailed in the respective population. Denying the purpose of love is nonsense. Of course, one can debate their origin.

Some species exhibit a level of community and protection, the examples you provided still do not align with the clear and specific emphasis that human nuclear families place on parent-child relationships. Additionally, those examples point to a sense of community bond for the purpose of survival rather than a sense of familial love and affection. Community bonding may be present in other species for survival, but the specific emphasis on nuclear families and love is unique to human culture, without the culture it would cease to exist in concept and one would not feel saddened because it is not part of the cultural norm.

Even if the non-human species mentioned experienced motherly love it is not same as the love that incels are talking about. Motherly love is much different to the cultural love experienced between a spouse, a motherly love is unconditional, even if you were an acid victim and failed in life it is likely your mother will still love you, the same can't be said about a spouse, the concepts are different. One is engrained in biology, the other is purely cultural. Remember, the ability to create culture is what sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, it's very common to see species that display motherly love (biological) but it's difficult to see examples of biological spouse love, it is unique to us humans because our culture has facilitated its presence.

Furthermore without the societal and cultural expectations placed upon humans, the emphasis on nuclear families would not exist in the same way. Monogamy was not practised amongst humans until 10,000 years ago, but with an overridden culture it became the norm in many societies. It's the same with the concept of spouse love.

 

[just another incel]

Some species exhibit a level of community and protection, the examples you provided still do not align with the clear and specific emphasis that human nuclear families place on parent-child relationships. Additionally, those examples point to a sense of community bond for the purpose of survival rather than a sense of familial love and affection. Community bonding may be present in other species for survival, but the specific emphasis on nuclear families and love is unique to human culture, without the culture it would cease to exist in concept and one would not feel saddened because it is not part of the cultural norm.

Even if the non-human species mentioned experienced motherly love it is not same as the love that incels are talking about. Motherly love is much different to the cultural love experienced between a spouse, a motherly love is unconditional, even if you were an acid victim and failed in life it is likely your mother will still love you, the same can't be said about a spouse, the concepts are different. One is engrained in biology, the other is purely cultural. Remember, the ability to create culture is what sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, it's very common to see species that display motherly love (biological) but it's difficult to see examples of biological spouse love, it is unique to us humans because our culture has facilitated its presence.

Furthermore without the societal and cultural expectations placed upon humans, the emphasis on nuclear families would not exist in the same way. Monogamy was not practised amongst humans until 10,000 years ago, but with an overridden culture it became the norm in many societies. It's the same with the concept of spouse love.

This is further nonsense since, as I said, “love” is a biochemical process. Certain hormones are released to create such bonds in the first place. There are even hormones that are released when handling offspring. This is no different for some animal species. A culture was not a prerequisite for this. It was even the other way around. In humans, this is simply more pronounced than in some animals because humans do not have such a high reproduction rate to be able to do without close clan communities within a larger pack group. Especially because of the long time it takes to raise the offspring. We need a division of tasks that does not exist so strong in other species. So there has to be a strong sense of bonding so that the caveman doesn't forget his cavewoman + kid during the next hunt and do not eat the prey alone. That's why there are small families within the pack. Probably also because greater intelligence means there is also a greater ability to distrust within a larger pack group. In animals, the role of the alpha animal is clear. The feeding order is clear. Humans, on the other hand, are always looking for ways to cheat and circumvent the hierarchy. Especially if they are physically inferior. This creates more conflict, makes the group more inefficient and requires further demarcation within the pack since raising the offspring is so complex, everyone has to be careful not to be cheated on by the other.

That's also the reason why we live close together but lock our front doors from each other. We are safer and stronger in the larger community. But within the same community, individual families cannot and do not want to trust each other completely. Because there are always individuals who do not follow the rules and also disregard the authority of the leader, in this case the state, the laws and the police, in order to enrich themselves at the expense of their pack members. And the people who do something like that are rarely what one could describe as leader types in society, since otherwise they would be at the top of the social order and wouldn't have the need to break into any apartments. They have other ways to enrich themselves at the expense of the general public.

 

[psychotic_cock69]

love ain't real, love is a Joooooish propaganda spreaded by vaginal jooooze. joooose must die. heil mein Führer

 

[Nig nog pilled]

You are coping

Pedophile

 

[TheGrayWolf]

Sex with an escort is not the same as regular sex. What people call love or passion is just physical affection.

And validation really matters! Paying directly for sex is not the same as getting it the traditional consensual way.

 

[Rabbi Schneerson]

View attachment 908741

Yooooooo lol

 

[Blackpill Monk]

Since love is a biochemical process to maintain the result of sex, the family, one thing goes with the other. On the contrary, sex without love is worthless. If you're just after occasional hedonism then go to the whorehouse.

 

[highschoolcel]

Sex is a biological need, we can satisfy that need whether we are incels or not through means of escortcelling, it is a fair transactional action, you pay, you get sex and it is a reasonable price in many European countries. If it were to be cucked like some people say then marriage is also cucked because it is also built on the basis of transaction, and a more complex form of transaction for that matter. Love is absolutely not an equation in a marriage, the foundations of marriage is built upon a transactional basis, if the transactions in the contract are broken then the marriage breaks. Marriage/Romantic Relationships are just a huge unwritten contract that have specific transactions that need to be met otherwise it will not uphold, ‘love’ may be considered just a high feeling that one gets when the requirements in the contract are being fulfilled however it is purely a metaphysical notion categorised by our culture, it doesn’t exist in the real sense, it’s an intangible concept that can’t be measured. Marriages exist not because humans want to feel loved but because it is a barter and trade situation, both parties benefit from it, men get sex, food and someone to talk with, women will get shelter and money, this is a simplified take and it is more complex in the modern world but this is the basic model of it.

Love is not a prerequisite that is needed to obtain sex because of the method mentioned above, and it is not a prerequisite for ‘better’ sex either. If the transactions are cut then the so-called ‘love’ disappears, but it never disappears because the concept of love is purely metaphysical, it doesn’t exist in the real sense so nothing disappears, it was not there in the first place. Marriages never fail because the love is dimmed. It’s fails purely for transactional reasons, where a transaction failed to be delivered then the contract was broken.

What are some of the transactional aspects of a marriage/relationship contract? A common one would be LMS (Looks Money Status), here are some others :

- Shared goals
- Shared hobbies
- Validation (Foid validation is worthless but people see it as a valid transaction in today’s culture)

All of these are transactional aspects of keeping a relationship tied together, many of times if there is financial trouble the couple breaks up, or if the man loses his looks overtime and then the woman decides to commit infidelity, the couple breaks up. There was a U.S marine who had his face burnt off and his wife left him because one of the transactions failed. You see where this is going? When the contract is broken because a transaction in the marriage is failed to be met then the relationship fails. A relationship does not fail because love is dimmed overtime, it fails because one or both parties did not meet the transactions that were supposed to be in the unwritten contract. If a marriage is being upheld it is because the transactions are being met in the contract, it is not because love is making the wheels turn. Only bluepillers want us to believe it is love making all of this turn, they want us to think love is a magical divinity ingredient that can be applied to objects, they want us to think they are in some type of godhood state but at the end of the day they know they aren’t worth shit, they don’t want to admit all of these are mere transactions for the fear they won’t be seen as a god anymore, they can’t self masturbate without being deemed as a God. It comparable to a Brahmin feeding prasad to his Gods at the temple whilst knowing Dalits have to stand outside and feel dehumanised because of not participating in it. We see it as funny because of how absurd it is placing divinity in such things, but it is the exactly same situation between the love normies fawn over and us incels, people are just too blind to see it just like the Dalit standing outside the temple.

We can’t categorise ‘love’ into a biological need because it does not exist in the literal sense, only in our cultural metaphysical dimension. Incels aren’t missing out on much when it comes to relationships, we simply aren’t taking part in the barter and trade that is occurring between normies and their girlfriends, but nothing we are missing out is biological so it does not make sense to be worried about it, the only thing we are missing out on is deemed as cultural but we can circumvent this by not engaging in the present culture of today.

Spoiler: tag

@K9Otaku @JayGoptri @CantEscapeYourFate

(dnr)

 

[Friezacel]

cope

 

[JudeoBiden]

Sex is real. Love is not. People who weren't groomed to believe in love simply don't.

 

[Shaktiman]

Sex resides in the primitive hind part of the brain while love in the more developed front part.Both sex and love are required with sex being more of a primal need like hunger then love.Even psycopaths love themselves though they cant feel love for others