You did nothing wrong. You are plenty attractive for the women that have existed throughout history.
You aren't attractive enough for today's women, but that's because today's women are mutants engineered by western democracies that made the fatal error of granting them voting rights. As a consequence, womens' biological drives have been left completely unchecked by any form of legislation for many decades, and we're living in the hell that results from such untamed, unregulated sexual selection.
We're witnessing a female biological fantasy land; women only want and can get Chad because there's nothing preventing them from only wanting and getting Chad.
If the roles were reversed and we were in a male biological fantasy land, we can imagine how this would look: men would only want and could get harems and there'd nothing preventing them from only wanting and getting harems.
There's a middle ground here.
All humans should thrive and prosper, and since we don't choose whether we're born male or female, none of us should want to live in a society that unnecessarily benefits one sex at the expense of another.
It's not misogynistic to want to take away womens' rights, since there's an inherent asymmetry when it comes to sexual selection in humans. Women hold more power in the sexual marketplace and this must be offset by giving them less economic freedoms and less political rights. It's common sense. The founders and Enlightenment philosophers understood this.
Unfortunately, we've changed the laws that they so wisely put in place more than 200 years ago to prevent the nightmare we're now living.
You aren't attractive enough for today's women, but that's because today's women are mutants engineered by western democracies that made the fatal error of granting them voting rights. As a consequence, womens' biological drives have been left completely unchecked by any form of legislation for many decades, and we're living in the hell that results from such untamed, unregulated sexual selection.
We're witnessing a female biological fantasy land; women only want and can get Chad because there's nothing preventing them from only wanting and getting Chad.
If the roles were reversed and we were in a male biological fantasy land, we can imagine how this would look: men would only want and could get harems and there'd nothing preventing them from only wanting and getting harems.
There's a middle ground here.
All humans should thrive and prosper, and since we don't choose whether we're born male or female, none of us should want to live in a society that unnecessarily benefits one sex at the expense of another.
It's not misogynistic to want to take away womens' rights, since there's an inherent asymmetry when it comes to sexual selection in humans. Women hold more power in the sexual marketplace and this must be offset by giving them less economic freedoms and less political rights. It's common sense. The founders and Enlightenment philosophers understood this.
Unfortunately, we've changed the laws that they so wisely put in place more than 200 years ago to prevent the nightmare we're now living.
Last edited:
