Blackpill The dogpill is bluepilled until there is no objective data and scientific research to support it.

[Moroccancel]

Most of the dogpill is based on anecdotal evidence and does not have sufficient scientific and statistical support to determine this sexual deviation as a generalized fact in the foid population. It's like talking about a "lesbianpill" where the foids become lesbians because they can't find a Chad to rip their pussy in two. Absurd at an evolutionary and statistically representative level.

Any supposed blackpill that does not have a scientific study behind it is a bluepill in disguise and a potential cope.

 

[IncelsNeverCry]

I believe there is still magic in this world, I wanna believe.

 

[Moroccancel]

I believe there is still magic in this world, I wanna believe.

Why this off-topic, brocel?

 

[IncelsNeverCry]

Why this off-topic, brocel?

The dog pill is a strong argumentative weapon because of how reactive and volatile it is, if it were nonsense it would take some of the magic away from the blackpill, even if it is exaggerated I believe in the seething it causes NT goyim.

 

[Pajeetsingh]

Open main menu​

Incel Wiki​

​

Search

Show my notifications​

User menu​

Dogpill​

Page Discussion

• Language​
• Watch​
• History​
• Edit​
• More​

The dogpill is a blackpilled theory that suggests that human females prefer sex with dogs or other Canids over sex with incels. Some more extreme dogpillers claim that women would prefer sex with a dog over even human chads.

In-depth explanation

Edit​

​

The dogpill is a term coined by incels which refers to the theory that suggests the existence of a sizeable demographic of women who prefer sex with male dogs over male humans. While the term is oftentimes used ironically, many have argued that there's a surprising amount of merit behind the claim. Those who subscribe to the idea refer to themselves as being "dogpilled" and cite how commonplace the sight of a single woman with a male dog tends to be along with the prevalence of recurring themes in popular culture and media promoting the bond between a woman and "man's best friend" (or, perhaps more accurately, "woman's best friend"[1]). While other animal-oriented stereotypes of single women such as the crazy cat lady exist, they serve merely as insults by means of projecting loneliness, whereas the dogpill implies a deeper and more serious look into the subject of women's sexuality, providing an explanation for how and why so many single women seemingly find non-human companions preferable to having a human partner.

Evidence

Edit​

​

The dog equivalent of a Chad is nicknamed Buster.

Even smaller breeds may dickmog you.

Fantasies

Edit​

​

The most persuasive evidence for the dogpill comes from online forums. There are, in fact, more forums with women fantasizing about sex with dogs[2] than there are forums dedicated to women lusting after male virgins. It's not out of the question to suggest that no forum of the latter kind exists. This is supported by the fact that women report finding male virgins sexually less attractive than partnered men.[3]
There is also a sizeable underground cottage industry of zoophilic pornography involving films depicting female actresses engaging in sexual activities with male dogs (including amateur films) [4] The most famous actress who starred in one of these films was Linda Lovelace, known for her participation in the infamous 1970s pornographic film "Deep Throat." She claimed to have been coerced at gunpoint while filming her pornographic movies. This is despite the possession, distribution, and production of such materials being illegal in many jurisdictions. Related to this, a 2011 Italian study on the pornography viewing habits of young adults documented that 16.5% of female pornography consumers reported that they had recently watched pornography involving sex with animals. This corresponded to roughly 10% of the female sample in total, who reported "currently" watching bestiality pornography.[5]
In 1973, author Nancy Friday published a famous book on female sexuality titled "My Secret Garden: Women's Sexual Fantasies" that luridly detailed women's deepest sexual fantasies. The book has been dubbed the "innocent dawning of what later became known as the sex-positive feminist movement".[6] The book was infamous for including several highly graphic female fantasies that pertained to the practice of bestiality, "primarily with dogs."

Dickpill

Edit​

​

Many breeds of dogs have a much larger penis than an average human male,[7][8] thus making the dogpill concomitant with the dickpill. This may also explain the large worldwide market for canine-inspired dildos. Bad Dragon, one of the most popular retailers selling such products,[9] is the 18,622nd most popular site in the United States and 33,328th most popular website worldwide in terms of online traffic.[10] Although most retailers covertly market their animalistic dildos as "fantasy sex toys" to appeal to a wider demographic (and potentially avoid suspicion), the difference between fantasy and reality is up for debate in some cases, especially when certain dildos being sold appear to be lifelike replicas of real dog penises. More specifically, dog dildos are usually modeled after great Danes, German shepherds, and Alaskan malamutes, all three of which are breeds that are known for having the largest penises in the domesticated dog family.[11][12] Corroborating this, studies have documented that women gain sexual gratification from inserting all kinds of objects - sometimes as large as soda cans - into their bodies.[13] It is not out of the ordinary for women to experiment with a wide variety of non-humanoid objects, hence why animalistic sex toys are commonplace.
Additionally, data from Google Trends suggests that there is a roughly equivalent search volume for 'dog dildo' as there is for 'realistic dildo'[14] from 2004 to the present. Furthermore, one of the related queries displayed by Google when searching for 'dog dildo' is 'large dog breeds'. This suggests a potential correlation between people who may be searching for canine dildos and those who might be interested in 'practicing for the real thing'.

Arousal

Edit​

​

More evidence for the dogpill may be that women's genitals are naturally stimulated by zoophilic pornography, whereas men's genitals are not. Meredith Chivers, PhD., an assistant professor of psychology at Queens University in Kingston, conducted an experiment proving that women were aroused by all images of animal coupling they were exposed to: including e.g., Bonobos.[15] Though, it has been argued that this may represent an evolutionary adaption for women to produce vaginal secretions readily in response to sexual stimuli, to prevent tissue damage from coerced sex, etc.
As for male dogs, their arousal is unaffected by heat cycles and is only hindered by social anxiety or frightening stimuli. It is for this reason that professional dog breeders ensure the males are sheltered from such distractions. Otherwise, they are unlikely to develop an erection or show interest around female dogs.[16] However, when considering the casual lifestyle of many women who own male dogs, this may be the desired result, as it ensures a pattern of behavior is instilled in the dog's mind to associate all instincts of loyalty and libido with the female owner and no one else.

Psychological Theories for Dogpilling

Edit​

​

MemeAnalysis once made a video[17] proclaiming that slime toys and sponges are made to replace absence of tactile play and erotic reality in the digitized, post-modern era (with slime representing wetness and sponges representing breasts). In the same vein, it could be said that a large portion of women have missed out on actual intimacy and are compensating with sex toys and animals. Perhaps even the "maggotpill" (see "BlowFly Girl"[18]) could be cited as an extreme example. Slavoj Zizek gave similar ideas in The Desert of the Real[19] that ultimately, post-modernism itself (specifically with regards to feminists' detachment from men) will make people commit acts of controlled self-harm to return to pre-modern times, making bestiality seem more palatable. To demonstrate the validity of these claims, one can check the historical rate of sexual proactiveness and sexual access of males compared to the present and the correlation between bestiality, other forms of sexual deviancy, and their ties to either socio-economic status or adverse childhood events.

Surveys

Edit​

​

Alfred Kinsey, a well-known human sexuality researcher, conducted a survey in the 1950s that examined the prevalence of bestiality. It was found that 3.6% of adult females sampled confessed to having engaged in such sexual acts after their adolescent period.[20] The 50s were more socially conservative, and thus an even higher figure may be expected in the contemporary, sexually liberated west. Dog ownership has also increased since the 50s.[21] Moreover, self-reported surveys attempting to determine the prevalence of zoophilic sexual activities most likely suffer from a severe bias in that respondents underreport such deviant sexual behavior.
A subsequent study of "highly intelligent women" conducted in 1974 by psychologist Manfred F. DeMartino found that 7% of the sample admitted to having engaged in various forms of sexual activity with animals, primarily with dogs.[22] The author concluded that due to the figure being higher than in the previous study by Kinsey et al. (1953), more intelligent women may be more prone to engaging in such acts This is presumably due to how openness to new experiences correlates with IQ.
WSU research showed that across 144 cultures, dogs that interacted with women were 220% more likely to be treated like people, with women more likely to have a dog "sleeping alongside them" than men.[23] further challenges the notion of dogs being "man's best friend" among younger generations
Miletski (2002) reported that 87% of males and 100% of females who reported any sexual contacts with animals reported dogs as their non-human sexual partner. Further, both Beetz (cited in Beetz 2005) and Williams and Weinberg (2003) reported dogs as the most common recurring animals.[24] This may, in part, be explained by the fact that most other pet animals' sexual organs are incompatible in dimensions and how dogs engage in mounting behavior more often than other pets.
Although most studies regarding the subject have found that men admit to engaging in zoophilic acts more often than women,[25] It is not unheard of for women to be more prone to lie about their sexual behavior and underreport numbers of past sexual partners.[26] In fact, throughout human history and across cultures, one observes the tendency for women's sexual behavior to be heavily controlled to ensure their paternity, so women are likely still under social pressures encouraging chastity and obedience in women which may cause such a bias. By admitting to deviant sexuality, women also risk being subject to fierce gossip by other women.[27] Moreover, it can be argued that men frequently perform zoophilic acts out of desperation (because of males having much higher libido). Conversely, due to women's lower libido on average as compared to men and their typical ease of finding a willing sexual partner, it can be argued that women perform these acts more often solely due to zoophilic preferences.
Even though these figures might sound low, people have, on average, 600 acquaintances,[28] meaning it is quite possible that everyone has encountered at least one woman who has had sexual intercourse with a dog. Since only 44% of U.S. citizens own a dog,[29] the prevalence of such sex acts is likely around twice as high among dog owners.

Secret language

Edit​

​

Many zoophiles use coded language to describe sexual acts with dogs. For example, "K9" is oftentimes used as shorthand for when women copulate with male dogs. Various double entendres along the lines of "69" or "doggystyle" as covert references to bestiality are commonplace on zoophile websites.
More specifically, descriptions such as "knotting" or "taking the knot" (when said of a woman) may be used to signify penetrative sex with a male dog, as the canine penis features the bulbus glandis (nicknamed the "knot") at its base, which swells upon arousal and inflates to full size during ejaculation, causing it to become locked (or "tied") inside its recipient for an extended period of time to ensure the proper deposition of semen into the female during copulation. According to many self-proclaimed female zoophiles, this is said to provide a very pleasurable sensation when fully inserted into the vagina, as it rests firmly against the woman's g-spot, leading to intense orgasms. Many people have also described becoming aroused by merely reading about such accounts, perhaps adding more validity to its apparent prevalence in casual language online. Homonym-related puns such as "knotty" instead of "naughty" or "knot" instead of "not" are surprisingly commonplace in certain contexts, although they usually derive from members of the furry fandom making sex jokes about anthropomorphic canine characters rather than zoophiles describing bestiality.
Some dogpill theorists have also speculated that certain women who decorate themselves with tattoos depicting dog paw prints may be using it as a secret code to communicate openness toward bestiality to fellow zoophiles (similar to the "ace of spades" brand used by coalburners.) If one is perceptive, one can see that they often have such tattoos near the waist, which is where a male dog's forepaws would latch on and grip during sexual intercourse. However, the validity of this hypothesis is still up for debate.

Origin

Edit​

​

Pre-modernity

Edit​

​

It could be argued that the first dogpill theorist was the Ancient Greek historian Herodotus, who wrote at length in his famous "histories" about the supposed penchant of Pharaonic Egyptian women for engaging in acts of bestiality with a menagerie of animals, including dogs. The Qing dynasty era Chinese author Pu Songling wrote a book about the subject, with the English translation of the title of the book being "The Fornicating Dog". In the work, a traveling businessman is cuckolded and (eventually) murdered by the family dog. After word of the wife's scandalous relationship with the animal spreads, she and the dog are sentenced to death by lingchi (slow slicing, or the infamous 'death by a thousand cuts'), but not before the couple is forced to copulate in public.[30]

Modern era to current age

Edit​

​

Otto Weininger, in his opus "Sex and Character" claimed that zoophilia in women was explained by them being existentially closer to animals than men are, stating: "As a matter of fact, women are sisters of the flowers, and are in close relationship with the animals. Many of their sexual perversities and affections for animals indicate this."
The idea of the "dogpill" was popularised in the incelosphere by famous hapa troll and author of the redpill comics, Eurasian Tiger, who promoted the concept on sluthate.com and r/incels.
A Hollywood film has been produced on the subject.[31]
The concept has leaked into the popular consciousness in recent years. It is difficult to determine how or why the dogpill grew in notoriety outside of the incelosphere, but the popularity of the concept on semi-fringe internet spaces that often influence mainstream internet culture, such as 4chan, is likely one of the primary reasons. The prominent 'breadtuber', VaushV, wrote an essay on the topic.[32]

Dogpill gallery​

White Girls Fuck Dogs​

Timeline​

External links​

See also​

References​

Categories:

• Beastpills
• Blackpill
• Theories
• Science
• Hypergamy
• Chads
• A-class articles

Last edited 3 days ago by Altmark22
Incel Wiki

• Privacy policy
  
• Desktop

 

[Pajeetsingh]

Read what I posted you will never be able to refute any of it(I need evidence not unsubstantiated ramblings and speculation like that jaygoptri fag does.)

 

[K9Otaku]

Most of the dogpill is based on anecdotal evidence and does not have sufficient scientific and statistical support to determine this sexual deviation as a generalized fact in the foid population. It's like talking about a "lesbianpill" where the foids become lesbians because they can't find a Chad to rip their pussy in two. Absurd at an evolutionary and statistically representative level.

Any supposed blackpill that does not have a scientific study behind it is a bluepill in disguise and a potential cope.

I heartily agree. In the past, I have called this the "brown pill" (brown like shit) ie. stuff that masquerades as the blackpill but is in fact trash.

The brown pill (brown like shit) - the mockery of the blackpill that 99% of incels believe in (mostly youngcels)

I will start with one example: Stormfrontcels worshiping the Nazis. Incels worshiping failures who worshiped blond chads. And yes, they had brown shirts. Please contribute your favorite brownpill topic below.

incels.is

 

[Moroccancel]

The most persuasive evidence for the dogpill comes from online forums. There are, in fact, more forums with women fantasizing about sex with dogs

3.6% of adult females sampled confessed to having engaged in such sexual acts

reported that 87% of males and 100% of females who reported any sexual contacts with animals reported dogs as their non-human sexual partner.

Anecdotal evidence and a statistical minority. It is more sensible to speak of a lesbianpill as the most relevant evidence and not to use the dogpill as what is proposed: "prefer a dog over an incel", that is, as if a Stacy having sex with her dog doesn't have access to a Chad.

It wants to be elevated to the category of pill as a character of female representation as a tendency of foids to bestiality with dogs, when the only evidence is a statistical minority and anecdotal evidence as construction of a more generalist pill.

 

[nice_try]

Why are bluepilled cucks like OP even allowed here
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Plenty of official reports about the dogpill:

Mississippi woman, 19, accused of sex with dog was seen with others

Denise Frazier, 19, was caught on a video that had spread around via Snapchat depicting her engaging in sex with the male canine, it is claimed. She could face up to ten years in prison.

www.dailymail.co.uk

https://www.cbs17.com/news/ohio-woman-arrested-on-bestiality-charges-after-tv-station-forwards-video-to-police/

Woman before court accused of bestiality

Sexual act alleged to have taken place with mixed breed dog that was part Rottweiler

www.irishtimes.com

https://whnt.com/news/albertville-woman-faces-sentencing-on-bestiality-charges/

PD: Woman records sexual encounter with dog

A Tempe woman is arrested after video recording her sexual encounter with the family dog.

www.abc15.com

Quebec City woman facing animal cruelty, bestiality charges after videos on social media

A Quebec City woman is facing animal cruelty charges after being denounced for videos posted on social media.

www.ctvnews.ca

The list goes on indefinitly.
And these are only the REPORTED cases. Most of it goes unnoticed.
Dogpill is blackpill 101.
I reported you for being bluepilled and denying blackpill facts.



The fact that there are dildos SHAPED LIKE DOG PENISES is just another dead giveaway. Those things wouldn't be produced if there were no women who will buy them.

 

[Pajeetsingh]

Anecdotal evidence and a statistical minority. It is more sensible to speak of a lesbianpill as the most relevant evidence and not to use the dogpill as what is proposed: "prefer a dog over an incel", that is, as if a Stacy having sex with her dog doesn't have access to a Chad.

It wants to be elevated to the category of pill as a character of female representation as a tendency of foids to bestiality with dogs, when the only evidence is a statistical minority and anecdotal evidence as construction of a more generalist pill.

A subsequent study of "highly intelligent women" conducted in 1974 by psychologist Manfred F. DeMartino found that 7% of the sample admitted to having engaged in various forms of sexual activity with animals, primarily with dogs
WSU research showed that across 144 cultures, dogs that interacted with women were 220% more likely to be treated like people, with women more likely to have a dog "sleeping alongside them" than men
just because you think 3-7% of foids is a " statistical minority " doesn't make it one. You need to take into consideration the number of people who own pets , then the percentage of those owners being foids, and then the percentage of them owning a dog.

 

[Moroccancel]

@nice_try

The dogpill is a blackpilled theory that suggests that human females prefer sex with dogs or other Canids over sex with incels.

Your line of argument is as follows:

1. There are women who have relationships with dogs.
2. There is news that supports it.
3. As there is news that supports it, it is shown that a foid prefers a dog to an incel.

- Let's convert the statements into formal symbolic logic:

1. Let W(x) represent "x is a woman" and R(x, y) represent "x has a relationship with y." The statement "There are women who have relationships with dogs" can be symbolized as:
∃x (W(x) ∧ R(x, dog))

2. Let N represent "There is news that supports it." The statement "There is news that supports it" can be symbolized as:
N

3. Let F(x) represent "x is a foid" and I(x) represent "x is an incel." The statement "It is shown that a foid prefers a dog to an incel" can be symbolized as:
∃x (F(x) → (R(x, dog) ∧ ¬∃y(I(y) ∧ R(x, y))))

Combining the three symbolic representations, the entire set of statements can be written as:

∃x (W(x) ∧ R(x, dog))
N
∃x (F(x) → (R(x, dog) ∧ ¬∃y(I(y) ∧ R(x, y))))

Adding that a hypothetical "lesbianpill" could be created and determined that:

1. Lesbians prefer to be with a woman before an incel.
Let L(x) represent "x is a lesbian" and P(x, y) represent "x prefers to be with y." The statement "Lesbians prefer to be with a woman before an incel" can be symbolized as:
∀x (L(x) → (P(x, woman) ∧ ¬P(x, incel)))

2. All the lesbians only do cop because they can't be with a Chad.
Let C(x) represent "x does cop" and H(x) represent "x is a Chad." The statement "All the lesbians only do cop because they can't be with a Chad" can be symbolized as:
∀x (L(x) → (C(x) ∧ ¬∃y(H(y) ∧ P(x, y))))

3. Therefore, lesbians are not sexual deviants, like foids dogsexhaving.
Let D(x) represent "x is a sexual deviant" and F(x) represent "x is a foid". The statement "Therefore, lesbians are not sexual deviants, like foids dogsexhaving" can be symbolized as:
¬(∃x (L(x) ∧ D(x)) ∧ ∃x (F(x) ∧ ∃y (R(x, y) ∧ y = dog)))

Combining the three symbolic representations, the entire set of statements can be written as:

∀x (L(x) → (P(x, woman) ∧ ¬P(x, incel)))
∀x (L(x) → (C(x) ∧ ¬∃y(H(y) ∧ P(x, y))))
¬(∃x (L(x) ∧ D(x)) ∧ ∃x (F(x) ∧ ∃y (R(x, y) ∧ y = dog)))

1. Lesbians prefer to be with a woman before an incel.
2. All the lesbians only do cop because they can't be with a Chad.
3. Therefore, lesbians are not sexual deviants, like foids dogsexhaving.

To which is meant that if a minority of foids statistically reported having this type of sexual deviations, one wants to conclude that all women tend bestialist tendencies and that therefore, a foid will choose a dog before an incel, and what's more, before a Chad because it is supposed that the foid gives exclusivity to the dog.

Combining all line of logic, we conclude that a foid will choose a dog over a Chad:

¬(∃x (L(x) ∧ D(x)) ∧ ∃x (F(x) ∧ ∃y (R(x, y) ∧ y = dog))) ∧ ∀x (L(x) → (P(x, woman) ∧ ¬P(x, incel))) ∧ ∀x (L(x) → (C(x) ∧ ¬∃y(H(y) ∧ P(x, y))))

 

[based_meme]

The fact that there are dildos SHAPED LIKE DOG PENISES is just another dead giveaway. Those things wouldn't be produced if there were no women who will buy them.

If nothing else, this should give pause to any blue pilled dog pill denier.

 

[Qeasi Cou]

Why are bluepilled cucks like OP even allowed here
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Plenty of official reports about the dogpill:

Mississippi woman, 19, accused of sex with dog was seen with others

Denise Frazier, 19, was caught on a video that had spread around via Snapchat depicting her engaging in sex with the male canine, it is claimed. She could face up to ten years in prison.

www.dailymail.co.uk

https://www.cbs17.com/news/ohio-woman-arrested-on-bestiality-charges-after-tv-station-forwards-video-to-police/

Woman before court accused of bestiality

Sexual act alleged to have taken place with mixed breed dog that was part Rottweiler

www.irishtimes.com

https://whnt.com/news/albertville-woman-faces-sentencing-on-bestiality-charges/

PD: Woman records sexual encounter with dog

A Tempe woman is arrested after video recording her sexual encounter with the family dog.

www.abc15.com

Quebec City woman facing animal cruelty, bestiality charges after videos on social media

A Quebec City woman is facing animal cruelty charges after being denounced for videos posted on social media.

www.ctvnews.ca

The list goes on indefinitly.
And these are only the REPORTED cases. Most of it goes unnoticed.
Dogpill is blackpill 101.
I reported you for being bluepilled and denying blackpill facts.



The fact that there are dildos SHAPED LIKE DOG PENISES is just another dead giveaway. Those things wouldn't be produced if there were no women who will buy them.

This.

 

[Moroccancel]

just because you think 3-7% of foids is a " statistical minority " doesn't make it one. You need to take into consideration the number of people who own pets , then the percentage of those owners being foids, and then the percentage of them owning a dog.

A statistical minority does it because the probability, taking the highest variance of 7%, would make this a very small number of women. Bearing in mind and assuming that the researchers took the statistical deviation of 7% being the highest, we are still talking about an extreme minority, while the opposite (that foids tend to be bestial) has not been shown to have a measurable basis, therefore, a bluepill.

To calculate the number of foids who have relationships with their dogs in a population of 150 million foids inhabitant (US, as a base) we need to follow these steps:

1. The number of people who own dogs:
- 40% of the population owns dogs, so we calculate: 40% * 150 million = 0.4 * 150,000,000 = 60,000,000.

2. To calculate the number of dog owners who have relationships with their dogs:
- 7% of the foid owners have relationships with their dogs, so we calculate: 7% * 60,000,000 = 0.07 * 60,000,000 = 4,200,000.

Therefore, in a population of 150 million foids, approximately 4.2 million people would have relationships with their dogs.

With a much higher reported lesbian population, therefore, the dogpill is not a pill but a sexual deviation like any other, being even more common exclusive lesbianism than this dogpill shit.

 

[Qeasi Cou]

@nice_try



Your line of argument is as follows:

1. There are women who have relationships with dogs.
2. There is news that supports it.
3. As there is news that supports it, it is shown that a foid prefers a dog to an incel.

- Let's convert the statements into formal symbolic logic:

1. Let W(x) represent "x is a woman" and R(x, y) represent "x has a relationship with y." The statement "There are women who have relationships with dogs" can be symbolized as:
∃x (W(x) ∧ R(x, dog))

2. Let N represent "There is news that supports it." The statement "There is news that supports it" can be symbolized as:
N

3. Let F(x) represent "x is a foid" and I(x) represent "x is an incel." The statement "It is shown that a foid prefers a dog to an incel" can be symbolized as:
∃x (F(x) → (R(x, dog) ∧ ¬∃y(I(y) ∧ R(x, y))))

Combining the three symbolic representations, the entire set of statements can be written as:

∃x (W(x) ∧ R(x, dog))
N
∃x (F(x) → (R(x, dog) ∧ ¬∃y(I(y) ∧ R(x, y))))

Adding that a hypothetical "lesbianpill" could be created and determined that:

1. Lesbians prefer to be with a woman before an incel.
Let L(x) represent "x is a lesbian" and P(x, y) represent "x prefers to be with y." The statement "Lesbians prefer to be with a woman before an incel" can be symbolized as:
∀x (L(x) → (P(x, woman) ∧ ¬P(x, incel)))

2. All the lesbians only do cop because they can't be with a Chad.
Let C(x) represent "x does cop" and H(x) represent "x is a Chad." The statement "All the lesbians only do cop because they can't be with a Chad" can be symbolized as:
∀x (L(x) → (C(x) ∧ ¬∃y(H(y) ∧ P(x, y))))

3. Therefore, lesbians are not sexual deviants, like foids dogsexhaving.
Let D(x) represent "x is a sexual deviant" and F(x) represent "x is a foid". The statement "Therefore, lesbians are not sexual deviants, like foids dogsexhaving" can be symbolized as:
¬(∃x (L(x) ∧ D(x)) ∧ ∃x (F(x) ∧ ∃y (R(x, y) ∧ y = dog)))

Combining the three symbolic representations, the entire set of statements can be written as:

∀x (L(x) → (P(x, woman) ∧ ¬P(x, incel)))
∀x (L(x) → (C(x) ∧ ¬∃y(H(y) ∧ P(x, y))))
¬(∃x (L(x) ∧ D(x)) ∧ ∃x (F(x) ∧ ∃y (R(x, y) ∧ y = dog)))

1. Lesbians prefer to be with a woman before an incel.
2. All the lesbians only do cop because they can't be with a Chad.
3. Therefore, lesbians are not sexual deviants, like foids dogsexhaving.

To which is meant that if a minority of foids statistically reported having this type of sexual deviations, one wants to conclude that all women tend bestialist tendencies and that therefore, a foid will choose a dog before an incel, and what's more, before a Chad because it is supposed that the foid gives exclusivity to the dog.

Combining all line of logic, we conclude that a foid will choose a dog over a Chad:

¬(∃x (L(x) ∧ D(x)) ∧ ∃x (F(x) ∧ ∃y (R(x, y) ∧ y = dog))) ∧ ∀x (L(x) → (P(x, woman) ∧ ¬P(x, incel))) ∧ ∀x (L(x) → (C(x) ∧ ¬∃y(H(y) ∧ P(x, y))))

Okay, So how far do you have to go for the dogpill to be established? Because more and more cases are coming out (and of women pedophiles, although it is not the case now).

 

[Epedaphic]

The significance of the percentage also depends on the extremeness of the act. So for 7%, think about it this way - in a room with 14 average women, one would have sex with a dog.

Sure it's not the same as saying in a room of 14 women, one is a vegetarian. Who cares about that? But something like bestiality? One in 14 is ridiculously high.

 

[Moroccancel]

If nothing else, this should give pause to any blue pilled dog pill denier.

The fact that there are dildos SHAPED LIKE DOG PENISES is just another dead giveaway. Those things wouldn't be produced if there were no women who will buy them.

It follows the same logical line that if there are women who buy vibrators they are going to want to have sex with the vibrator rather than with a Chad.

 

[Moroccancel]

The significance of the population also depends on the extremeness of the act. So for 7%, think about it this way - in a room with 14 average women, one would have sex with a dog.

Or 1 every 210,000 foids in a population of 3.5 billion foids.

 

[Epedaphic]

Or 1 every 210,000 foids in a population of 3.5 billion foids.

I got the 7% figure from your last post.

 

[Moroccancel]

Okay, So how far do you have to go for the dogpill to be established? Because more and more cases are coming out (and of women pedophiles, although it is not the case now).

It is stated that:

1. Women prefer a dog to an incel on the sexual plane.
2. It is established that 7% is a significant number to talk about this.
3. If a woman does get the sexual pleasure of a dog, the first premise would be wrong, since foids would prefer dogs over any human man.

I got the 7% figure from your last post.

Yes. The ratio of women who have had sexual intercourse in a statistical sample of 100 women would be 7 at the highest statistical deviation, 3% to the lowest numbers, or 3 women. A ridiculous statistical minority to make her a pill of mainstream female behavior.

 

[nice_try]

@nice_try



Your line of argument is as follows:

1. There are women who have relationships with dogs.
2. There is news that supports it.
3. As there is news that supports it, it is shown that a foid prefers a dog to an incel.

- Let's convert the statements into formal symbolic logic:

1. Let W(x) represent "x is a woman" and R(x, y) represent "x has a relationship with y." The statement "There are women who have relationships with dogs" can be symbolized as:
∃x (W(x) ∧ R(x, dog))

2. Let N represent "There is news that supports it." The statement "There is news that supports it" can be symbolized as:
N

3. Let F(x) represent "x is a foid" and I(x) represent "x is an incel." The statement "It is shown that a foid prefers a dog to an incel" can be symbolized as:
∃x (F(x) → (R(x, dog) ∧ ¬∃y(I(y) ∧ R(x, y))))

Combining the three symbolic representations, the entire set of statements can be written as:

∃x (W(x) ∧ R(x, dog))
N
∃x (F(x) → (R(x, dog) ∧ ¬∃y(I(y) ∧ R(x, y))))

Adding that a hypothetical "lesbianpill" could be created and determined that:

1. Lesbians prefer to be with a woman before an incel.
Let L(x) represent "x is a lesbian" and P(x, y) represent "x prefers to be with y." The statement "Lesbians prefer to be with a woman before an incel" can be symbolized as:
∀x (L(x) → (P(x, woman) ∧ ¬P(x, incel)))

2. All the lesbians only do cop because they can't be with a Chad.
Let C(x) represent "x does cop" and H(x) represent "x is a Chad." The statement "All the lesbians only do cop because they can't be with a Chad" can be symbolized as:
∀x (L(x) → (C(x) ∧ ¬∃y(H(y) ∧ P(x, y))))

3. Therefore, lesbians are not sexual deviants, like foids dogsexhaving.
Let D(x) represent "x is a sexual deviant" and F(x) represent "x is a foid". The statement "Therefore, lesbians are not sexual deviants, like foids dogsexhaving" can be symbolized as:
¬(∃x (L(x) ∧ D(x)) ∧ ∃x (F(x) ∧ ∃y (R(x, y) ∧ y = dog)))

Combining the three symbolic representations, the entire set of statements can be written as:

∀x (L(x) → (P(x, woman) ∧ ¬P(x, incel)))
∀x (L(x) → (C(x) ∧ ¬∃y(H(y) ∧ P(x, y))))
¬(∃x (L(x) ∧ D(x)) ∧ ∃x (F(x) ∧ ∃y (R(x, y) ∧ y = dog)))

1. Lesbians prefer to be with a woman before an incel.
2. All the lesbians only do cop because they can't be with a Chad.
3. Therefore, lesbians are not sexual deviants, like foids dogsexhaving.

To which is meant that if a minority of foids statistically reported having this type of sexual deviations, one wants to conclude that all women tend bestialist tendencies and that therefore, a foid will choose a dog before an incel, and what's more, before a Chad because it is supposed that the foid gives exclusivity to the dog.

Combining all line of logic, we conclude that a foid will choose a dog over a Chad:

¬(∃x (L(x) ∧ D(x)) ∧ ∃x (F(x) ∧ ∃y (R(x, y) ∧ y = dog))) ∧ ∀x (L(x) → (P(x, woman) ∧ ¬P(x, incel))) ∧ ∀x (L(x) → (C(x) ∧ ¬∃y(H(y) ∧ P(x, y))))

I know you're trying to sound smart, but you just look like a clown overcomplicating the simple fact that some women have sexual fantasies and sexual intimacy with dogs.

It follows the same logical line that if there are women who buy vibrators they are going to want to have sex with the vibrator rather than with a Chad.

No, it doesn't follow the same logical line at all.
There are dildos shaped like dog penises, that alone is proof that women have sexual fantasies about dogs, because these dildos wouldn't exist if they hadn't.

 

[Moroccancel]

I know you're trying to sound smart, but you just look like a clown overcomplicating the simple fact that some women have sexual fantasies and sexual intimacy with dogs.

Since the only way to determine the veracity of the arguments is through logical deduction, either formal or informal, it is clearly demonstrated that the dogpill starts from an epistemological problem, that their statements represent a statistical minority and that they do not in fact prove that foids would have sex with a dog first with an incel, but rather imply that a foid would have sex with an animal rather than with a human being (Chad included). This not only contravenes the blackpill, but it would include the lesbianpill within the blackpill, and any pill that with certain minority statistical evidence you want to think of.

What's more, from this epistemological fallacy, you could also assume the dildopill, the clitorisrubbingpill and all kinds of absurd pills.

There are also women who are or have been able to be with incels objectively and that does not make it evidence, but an elementary statistical deviation, and not a binder. The dogpill seeks to assume that foids have a tendency to bestiality and this is false.

No, it doesn't follow the same logical line at all.
There are dildos shaped like dog penises, that alone is proof that women have sexual fantasies about dogs, because these dildos wouldn't exist if they hadn't.

There are also prostate and penis base stimulators for men. By that same logical inference, we'll assume that all incels are potentially gay in the absence of foids. Nonsense.

 

[nice_try]

What's more, from this epistemological fallacy, you could also assume the dildopill, the clitorisrubbingpill and all kinds of absurd pills.

The reason why dogpill is a pill while dildopill or lesbianpill isn't is that bestiality is outstandingly fucked up behavior and therefore worth acknowledging.

There are also prostate and penis base stimulators for men. By that same logical inference, we'll assume that all incels are potentially gay in the absence of foids. Nonsense.

Penis base or prostate stimulation isn't gay. Being sexually attracted to men is gay.
But are you seriously trying to compare masturbation with bestaility? Wtf is wrong with you?

 

[Newton the 2nd]

A statistical minority does it because the probability, taking the highest variance of 7%, would make this a very small number of women. Bearing in mind and assuming that the researchers took the statistical deviation of 7% being the highest, we are still talking about an extreme minority, while the opposite (that foids tend to be bestial) has not been shown to have a measurable basis, therefore, a bluepill.

To calculate the number of foids who have relationships with their dogs in a population of 150 million foids inhabitant (US, as a base) we need to follow these steps:

1. The number of people who own dogs:
- 40% of the population owns dogs, so we calculate: 40% * 150 million = 0.4 * 150,000,000 = 60,000,000.

2. To calculate the number of dog owners who have relationships with their dogs:
- 7% of the foid owners have relationships with their dogs, so we calculate: 7% * 60,000,000 = 0.07 * 60,000,000 = 4,200,000.

Therefore, in a population of 150 million foids, approximately 4.2 million people would have relationships with their dogs.

With a much higher reported lesbian population, therefore, the dogpill is not a pill but a sexual deviation like any other, being even more common exclusive lesbianism than this dogpill shit.

Based high iq mathcel

 

[Moroccancel]

The reason why dogpill is a pill while dildopill or lesbianpill isn't is that bestiality is outstandingly fucked up behavior and therefore worth acknowledging.

That makes no sense. The definitional basis of the blackpill and the dogpill both assume that foids prefer deviant sexual behaviors and not that a foid is objectively proven wanting to have sex with an animal instead of a human based on lookism. Therefore, it makes no sense either as a pill or as a blackpill by themselves. For this reason, we do not take lesbians as a subject of study within the blackpill because their object of sexual attraction is not the man, but their own sex and for this reason it is assumed, on the other hand, that there is no gaycels or calling them fakecels.

Penis base or prostate stimulation isn't gay. Being sexually attracted to men is gay.
But are you seriously trying to compare masturbation with fucking bestaility? Wtf is wrong with you?

On what grounds are they not? The basis of passive homosexual sex is the stimulation of the prostate with a human penis.

I compare both prostate masturbators and bestiality both as meaningless within the blackpill, based on the argument that if there are dildos in the shape of dogs, it is a conclusion that women, basically, in general and by the Wiki's own consensus definition that women prefer a dog over a human being. Thus, following the same logical line, every man is a potential gay because he can enjoy prostate stimulation and ejaculate, which is the same as saying that every woman is a potential bestialist because dog-shaped dildos are sold or because 7% of women have had sex with their dogs.

 

[nice_try]

That makes no sense.

It does.

The definitional basis of the blackpill and the dogpill both assume that foids prefer deviant sexual behaviors and not that a foid is objectively proven wanting to have sex with an animal instead of a human based on lookism.

False.

The basis of passive homosexual sex is the stimulation of the prostate with a human penis.

Many heterosexual couples do prostate stimulation as a source of additional pleasure, it doesn't make the man gay. Being gay means being sexually attracted to men.

I compare both prostate masturbators and bestiality both as meaningless within the blackpill, based on the argument that if there are dildos in the shape of dogs, it is a conclusion that women, basically, in general and by the Wiki's own consensus definition that women prefer a dog over a human being.

Nobody said that the existence of dildos in the shape of dog penises concludes that women in general prefer dogs over human beings.
You didn't understand the argument, then.

Thus, following the same logical line, every man is a potential gay because he can enjoy prostate stimulation and ejaculate, which is the same as saying that every woman is a potential bestialist because dog-shaped dildos are sold or because 7% of women have had sex with their dogs.

As I said, nobody said that, you didn't understand the argument.

 

[Moroccancel]

It does

Nope.

False

We take the Wiki as a frame of reference. If you don't, we would be facing a subjectivist debate that is not going to lead anywhere. The blackpill and the dogpill contradict each other epistemologically by definition.

Many heterosexual couples do prostate stimulation as a source of additional pleasure, it doesn't make the man gay. Being gay means being sexually attracted to men.

Ergo, bisexual. By the same line of reasoning, being attracted to a tranny is not gay because a tranny imitates women very well and therefore it is normal to be attracted to a tranny. The trannypill, you may define in your subjectivity.

Nobody said that the existence of dildos in the shape of dog penises concludes that women in general prefer dogs over human beings.
You didn't understand the argument, then.

Again, the absolute definition of the dogpill is based on the fact that a foid prefers a dog to an incel or even a dog to a Chad, that is, to the best of the male gender in terms of statistical terms. Based on a logical deduction you can also assume that the lesbianpill is another equally valid pill under this line of thought. Again: a statistical deviation does not conform to a blackpill like women being with a manlet and feeling genuine attraction to a manlet makes this a pill or other rarer fetishes.

As I said, nobody said that, you didn't understand the argument.

And I repeat. Your argument pivots from a statistical deviation to creating a blackpill.

 

[nice_try]

Ergo, bisexual. By the same line of reasoning, being attracted to a tranny is not gay because a tranny imitates women very well and therefore it is normal to be attracted to a tranny. The trannypill, you may define in your subjectivity.

No, heterosexual.
And yes, by the same (perfectly logical) line of reasoning being attracted to a tranny isn't gay as long as you don't know that it's a tranny.
Saying someone is gay because he's attracted to something what he thinks is a woman because it perfectly looks like a woman doesn't make sense at all.

Btw I noticed you're trying very hard to sound smart by using all these complex words which are completely unneccessary to make your intellectually rather shallow points, while knowing that I'm not a native English speaker. I find this quite disingenuous and annoying to be honest.

And I repeat. Your argument pivots from a statistical deviation to creating a blackpill.

It is what it is, facts are facts, some women have sexual fantasies and intimacy with dogs that's just how it is. I don't care about the statistics, it exists and that is bad enough, even if it's just a minority.

 

[Moroccancel]

No, heterosexual

No, because he is receiving stimulation like another gay man would, and he will even be able to use toys that resemble a phallus. The same line of argument follows if we put a heterosexual man who wants anal stimulation and uses a man for that purpose or an incel taking a man's ass to satisfy his sexual instinct without being sexually attracted to men and you will continue to argue that this is not gay. Absurd.

as you don't know that it's a tranny.

The attraction will still be according to your line of argument. The tranny that imitates the female sex very well can only be identified in these extreme cases by their genitals; So the attraction of its "femenine features" it will pretty much go by, again, your line of argument that being attracted to a tranny is itself heterosexual. Another absurd.

It is what it is, facts are facts, some women have sexual fantasies and intimacy with dogs that's just how it is. I don't care about the statistics, it exists and that is bad enough, even if it's just a minority.

The only proven fact is that there is a statistical minority of women who have relationships with their dogs. Therefore, a blackpill cannot be created based on minorities because it is irrelevant to the heterosexual sexual market, that is, the object of study of the blackpill.

 

[nice_try]

No, because he is receiving stimulation like another gay man would, and he will even be able to use toys that resemble a phallus. The same line of argument follows if we put a heterosexual man who wants anal stimulation and uses a man for that purpose or an incel taking a man's ass to satisfy his sexual instinct without being sexually attracted to men and you will continue to argue that this is not gay. Absurd.

You're following no logic, it actually hurts my brain.
Just because you receive stimulation like xyz would, that doesn't make you xyz.
Do you even know what heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual even means??? It's a description of what gender you're attracted to, not what kind of stimulation you enjoy ...

The attraction will still be according to your line of argument. The tranny that imitates the female sex very well can only be identified in these extreme cases by their genitals; So the attraction of its "femenine features" it will pretty much go by, again, your line of argument that being attracted to a tranny is itself heterosexual. Another absurd.

In which world is a man who is attracted to something that resembles a human female of breeding age not heterosexual?
You're doing mental gymnastics to avoid simple truths, confusing yourself in the process.

The only proven fact is that there is a statistical minority of women who have relationships with their dogs.

Boom. There it is. The dogpill.

a blackpill cannot be created based on minorities because it is irrelevant to the heterosexual sexual market, that is, the object of study of the blackpill.

useless mind gymnastics. It's part of the blackpill, always has been and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Moroccancel]

Do you even know what heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual even means??? It's a description of what gender you're attracted to, not what kind of stimulation you enjoy ...

Therefore, fucking a man or a tranny as objects of seminal discharge with no obvious attraction is not gay according to your segments.

In which world is a man who is attracted to something that resembles a human female of breeding age not heterosexual?

Therefore, fucking a tranny according to your argument is normal, not gay. You will even say that if a tranny creates an artificial vagina for himself and you fuck him, he is not gay. All clear.

You're doing mental gymnastics to avoid simple truths, confusing yourself in the process.

No, you are.

Boom. There it is. The dogpill

Lesbianpill, dildopill, doorknobpill... Pure retardation. The dogpill will never be a blackpill by its own definition: "foids fuck dogs" "foids are lesbian" "foids use other animals to stretch their vagina like snakes or frogs". Kek. Know your facts and definition, do not be a fool.

useless mind gymnastics. It's part of the blackpill, always has been and there's nothing wrong with that.

Yes, it is part of the blackpill because in your conception of the blackpill, every statistical deviation is a blackpill: irrelevant in the mainstream heterosexual sexual market.

 

[nice_try]

Therefore, fucking a man or a tranny as objects of seminal discharge with no obvious attraction is not gay according to your segments.

Seminal discharge requires sexual arousal. This arousal wouldn't happen for a heterosexual man when trying to have sex with another man or a tranny, so the example you gave doesn't even happen, it's absurd.

Therefore, fucking a tranny according to your argument is normal, not gay.

You didn't read what I was saying. It would be gay because for sex to happen the tranny would have to reveal that he's infact not a real female which would immediatly drop any heterosexual mans' sexual arousal to zero.

You will even say that if a tranny creates an artificial vagina for himself and you fuck him, he is not gay. All clear.

No, that's not what I said. Quite the opposite.

Lesbianpill, dildopill, doorknobpill... Pure retardation. The dogpill will never be a blackpill by its own definition: "foids fuck dogs" "foids are lesbian" "foids use other animals to stretch their vagina like snakes or frogs". Kek. Know your facts and definition, do not be a fool.

If you don't like the blackpill, feel free to leave.

Yes, it is part of the blackpill because in your conception of the blackpill, every statistical deviation is a blackpill: irrelevant in the mainstream heterosexual sexual market.

Wrong again, you didn't read. Not every statistical deviation is a blackpill, but something as fucked up as bestiality with dogs surely is worth a pill.

 

[Moroccancel]

Seminal discharge requires sexual arousal. This arousal wouldn't occure for a heterosexual man when thinking of having sex with another man or a tranny, so the example you gave doesn't even happen, it's absurd.

Nonsense. By your line of argument, a man can be aroused by seeing another man's ass naked and on all fours. In the same way that if the fact of being penetrated and oppressed the prostate will make you have an erection regardless of whether or not you feel attracted to the man and even have ejaculations without touching himself. And according to all this argument, it would not be necessary to be attracted to the masculine in order to have a sexual drive.

It would be gay because for sex the tranny would have to reveal that he's infact not a real female which would immediatly drop any heterosexual mans' sexual arousal to zero.

Same thing, according to your line of argument. The TRANNYMAXXED man will imitate a foid in having fake breasts and a silicone ass and that will continue to turn him on. So, in your rationale, if a tranny was fucked by a man under those assumptions, they wouldn't be gay. But technically it is.


Either that or you're saying that everyone is bisexual. Boooom, bisexual pill.

Absurd.

If you don't like the blackpill, feel free to leave.

To represent the contradictions symbolically, let's assign the following symbols:

P: Physical attractiveness is the most critical factor in men's dating success.
M: Money, status, and social skills are secondary factors in men's dating success.
G: Men's dating and life outcomes rely on genetically determined traits.
S: Men's dating issues require systematic solutions.
R: Redpill philosophy promotes self-improvement and dating tricks as the solution.
I: Incels and low-status men's attitudes are to blame for their lack of mating success.
D: Women prefer sex with dogs or Canids over sex with incels.
C: Women prefer sex with dogs over sex with human chads.

Now, let's analyze the contradictions:

Paragraph 1 (Blackpill Philosophy):
- P ∧ ¬M ∧ ¬G ∧ S
- The paragraph argues that physical attractiveness is critical (P), while money, status, and social skills are of secondary importance (¬M). It also claims that men's dating and life outcomes rely on genetically determined traits (¬G) and that systematic solutions are required for men's dating issues (S).

Paragraph 2 (Dogpill Theory):
- D ∧ C
- The paragraph suggests that women prefer sex with dogs or Canids over sex with incels (D). Some extreme dogpillers claim that women would prefer sex with a dog over even human chads (C).

Contradictions:
- P ∧ D (Physical attractiveness is critical in men's dating success vs. Women prefer sex with dogs over incels)
- M ∨ G ∨ ¬S ∧ ¬R ∨ I (Money, status, and social skills are secondary vs. Redpill philosophy promotes self-improvement and blames incels and low-status men's attitudes)
- ¬G ∨ C (Genetically determined traits influence men's dating outcomes vs. Women prefer sex with dogs over human chads)

These contradictions highlight the opposing views between the blackpill and the dogpill.

Wrong again, you didn't read. Not every statistical deviation is a blackpill, but something as fucked up as bestiality with dogs surely is worth a pill.

Subjectivism. You are creating your own definition of pill without any reference definition.

 

[turbosperg]

cope

There are more foids fucking dogs than there are foids fucking you, or all incels combined.

This is the dogpill.

 

[Moroccancel]

There are more foids fucking dogs than there are foids fucking you, or all incels combined.

This is the dogpill.

There are more women fucking each other than fucking me. The lesbianpill. From a statistical deviation, we create a pill and we want to associate it to the blackpill by definition incompatible.

There are also fags fucking each other more than I fuck a foid, and that doesn't make me a volcel.

 

[turbosperg]

There are more women fucking each other than fucking me. The lesbianpill. From a statistical deviation, we create a pill and we want to associate it to the blackpill by definition incompatible.

There are also fags fucking each other more than I fuck a foid, and that doesn't make me a volcel.

That your smv is lower than a foid's is already known.

The dogpill is realizing your smv is lower than a dog's. In fact all incels' SMVs combined is lower than a single dog's SMV. This is the dogpill.

 

[Moroccancel]

The dogpill is realizing your smv is lower than a dog's. In fact all incels' SMVs combined is lower than a single dog's SMV.

No, the dogpill fails to demonstrate how to create an interanimal SMV to determine sexual competition between animals and humans. It just creates the duality between women who would have sex with animals as opposed to sex with humans, in general.

 

[Moroccancel]

Can't swallow the dogpill? Tough. White women love that shit, degenerate scum they are

In fact, I do not deny that there are women who do not have relationships with their dogs. What I debate is that you want to raise a sexual deviation as something relevant to intrasexual competition, as if it is relevant for heterosexual men that a woman is fully lesbian (it is not), since the dogpill fails to demonstrate factual competition between dogs and humans except for the dickpill reference.

 

[Diddy]

@nice_try



Your line of argument is as follows:

1. There are women who have relationships with dogs.
2. There is news that supports it.
3. As there is news that supports it, it is shown that a foid prefers a dog to an incel.

- Let's convert the statements into formal symbolic logic:

1. Let W(x) represent "x is a woman" and R(x, y) represent "x has a relationship with y." The statement "There are women who have relationships with dogs" can be symbolized as:
∃x (W(x) ∧ R(x, dog))

2. Let N represent "There is news that supports it." The statement "There is news that supports it" can be symbolized as:
N

3. Let F(x) represent "x is a foid" and I(x) represent "x is an incel." The statement "It is shown that a foid prefers a dog to an incel" can be symbolized as:
∃x (F(x) → (R(x, dog) ∧ ¬∃y(I(y) ∧ R(x, y))))

Combining the three symbolic representations, the entire set of statements can be written as:

∃x (W(x) ∧ R(x, dog))
N
∃x (F(x) → (R(x, dog) ∧ ¬∃y(I(y) ∧ R(x, y))))

Adding that a hypothetical "lesbianpill" could be created and determined that:

1. Lesbians prefer to be with a woman before an incel.
Let L(x) represent "x is a lesbian" and P(x, y) represent "x prefers to be with y." The statement "Lesbians prefer to be with a woman before an incel" can be symbolized as:
∀x (L(x) → (P(x, woman) ∧ ¬P(x, incel)))

2. All the lesbians only do cop because they can't be with a Chad.
Let C(x) represent "x does cop" and H(x) represent "x is a Chad." The statement "All the lesbians only do cop because they can't be with a Chad" can be symbolized as:
∀x (L(x) → (C(x) ∧ ¬∃y(H(y) ∧ P(x, y))))

3. Therefore, lesbians are not sexual deviants, like foids dogsexhaving.
Let D(x) represent "x is a sexual deviant" and F(x) represent "x is a foid". The statement "Therefore, lesbians are not sexual deviants, like foids dogsexhaving" can be symbolized as:
¬(∃x (L(x) ∧ D(x)) ∧ ∃x (F(x) ∧ ∃y (R(x, y) ∧ y = dog)))

Combining the three symbolic representations, the entire set of statements can be written as:

∀x (L(x) → (P(x, woman) ∧ ¬P(x, incel)))
∀x (L(x) → (C(x) ∧ ¬∃y(H(y) ∧ P(x, y))))
¬(∃x (L(x) ∧ D(x)) ∧ ∃x (F(x) ∧ ∃y (R(x, y) ∧ y = dog)))

1. Lesbians prefer to be with a woman before an incel.
2. All the lesbians only do cop because they can't be with a Chad.
3. Therefore, lesbians are not sexual deviants, like foids dogsexhaving.

To which is meant that if a minority of foids statistically reported having this type of sexual deviations, one wants to conclude that all women tend bestialist tendencies and that therefore, a foid will choose a dog before an incel, and what's more, before a Chad because it is supposed that the foid gives exclusivity to the dog.

Combining all line of logic, we conclude that a foid will choose a dog over a Chad:

¬(∃x (L(x) ∧ D(x)) ∧ ∃x (F(x) ∧ ∃y (R(x, y) ∧ y = dog))) ∧ ∀x (L(x) → (P(x, woman) ∧ ¬P(x, incel))) ∧ ∀x (L(x) → (C(x) ∧ ¬∃y(H(y) ∧ P(x, y))))

There's a flaw in your proof. Lesbians are sexual deviants, like any other foid.

 

[turbosperg]

No, the dogpill fails to demonstrate how to create an interanimal SMV to determine sexual competition between animals and humans. Just create the duality between women who would have sex with animals as opposed to sex with humans, in general.

Of all foids,
The number of foids who would have sex with a dog
> > is larger than > >
The number of foids who would have sex with an inkwell.

This is the entire dogpill.

The dogpill is not staked against any need to defend a claim that X amount foids do have sex with dogs for any X whatsoever. It is sufficient to demonstrate that dogs have more access to pussy than inkwells. That's all.

 

[nice_try]

By your line of argument, a man can be aroused by seeing another man's ass naked and on all fours.

You didn't understand my line of argument then, because I said the exact opposite.

Same thing, according to your line of argument. The TRANNYMAXXED man will imitate a foid in having fake breasts and a silicone ass and that will continue to turn him on. So, in your rationale, if a tranny was fucked by a man under those assumptions, they wouldn't be gay. But technically it is.

You didn't understand my line of argument then, because I said the exact opposite. I said a heterosexual man wouldn't fuck a tranny because that would require him to know that the tranny isn't a biological female and that would kill all sexual arousal if he truly was heterosexual.

It's getting tiresome to talk to you because you don't understand a word I say and keep twisting things.

To represent the contradictions symbolically, let's assign the following symbols:

P: Physical attractiveness is the most critical factor in men's dating success.
M: Money, status, and social skills are secondary factors in men's dating success.
G: Men's dating and life outcomes rely on genetically determined traits.
S: Men's dating issues require systematic solutions.
R: Redpill philosophy promotes self-improvement and dating tricks as the solution.
I: Incels and low-status men's attitudes are to blame for their lack of mating success.
D: Women prefer sex with dogs or Canids over sex with incels.
C: Women prefer sex with dogs over sex with human chads.

Now, let's analyze the contradictions:

Paragraph 1 (Blackpill Philosophy):
- P ∧ ¬M ∧ ¬G ∧ S
- The paragraph argues that physical attractiveness is critical (P), while money, status, and social skills are of secondary importance (¬M). It also claims that men's dating and life outcomes rely on genetically determined traits (¬G) and that systematic solutions are required for men's dating issues (S).

Paragraph 2 (Dogpill Theory):
- D ∧ C
- The paragraph suggests that women prefer sex with dogs or Canids over sex with incels (D). Some extreme dogpillers claim that women would prefer sex with a dog over even human chads (C).

Contradictions:
- P ∧ D (Physical attractiveness is critical in men's dating success vs. Women prefer sex with dogs over incels)
- M ∨ G ∨ ¬S ∧ ¬R ∨ I (Money, status, and social skills are secondary vs. Redpill philosophy promotes self-improvement and blames incels and low-status men's attitudes)
- ¬G ∨ C (Genetically determined traits influence men's dating outcomes vs. Women prefer sex with dogs over human chads)

These contradictions highlight the opposing views between the blackpill and the dogpill.

Dnr that nonsense.
Spare us with the wanabe intellectual logical connectives which are basic first semester computer science bullshit , you're not even using them correctly.

Subjectivism. You are creating your own definition of pill without any reference definition.

Can you give me the reference definition of a pill?
As far as I know there is none.
The whole "pill" lingo developed from internet autists referencing The Matrix, there never has been a real definition to it.

 

[Moroccancel]

Of all foids,
The number of foids who would have sex with a dog
> > is larger than > >
The number of foids who would have sex with an inkwell.

There is proof that there are more women who would have sex with a dog than with an incel, however, there is no interrelational evidence that there is competition between the two. In fact, it is also defined that there are foids that would have sex exclusively with their dogs than with human chads. Which is still marking the redundancy that there will be lesbians and doorknob fuckers.

The dogpill is not staked against any need to defend a claim that X amount foids do have sex with dogs for any X whatsoever. It is sufficient to demonstrate that dogs have more access to pussy than inkwells. That's all.

Any animate or inanimate object would become a pill, which lacks epistemological sense.

 

[Moroccancel]

There's a flaw in your proof. Lesbians are sexual deviants, like any other foid.

So are foids dogsexhavers.

 

[Moroccancel]

isn't a biological female and that would kill all sexual arousal if he truly was heterosexual.

This is independent of arousal, according to your argument line. The heterosexual man would be attracted to factors that turn him on, regardless of whether he knows that he is a man or not. That's what you are saying.

Spare us with the wanabe intellectual logical connectives which are basic first semester computer science bullshit , you're not even using them correctly.

And yet you have neither refuted it nor have you said where it is wrong.

Can you give me the reference definition of a pill?
As far as I know there is none.
The whole "pill" lingo developed from internet autists referencing The Matrix, there never has been a real definition to it.

Our Wiki.

 

[Diddy]

So are foids dogsexhavers.

Not literally, but if they had a choice they would.

 

[Moroccancel]

Not literally, but if they had a choice they would.

And here is the fact of the matter, any speculation that is not supported by evidence beyond anecdotal evidence falls into the camp of the subjectivist bluepill.

 

[Diddy]

And here is the fact of the matter, any speculation that is not supported by evidence beyond anecdotal evidence falls into the camp of the subjectivist bluepill.

There is evidence that supports the dogpill, but of course it's not always true. Same thing with the blackpill, it can be disproven by using a counterexample of showing a white Stacy with a chinless curry. There is no pill that is the absolute truth, unless you want to make the everythingpill.

 

[nice_try]

This is independent of arousal, according to your argument line. The heterosexual man would be attracted to factors that turn him on, regardless of whether he knows that he is a man or not. That's what you are saying.

Stop saying "according to your argument line" when you clearly didn't understand a thing of my argument line.
I said that a heterosexual man is attracted to females and everything that can trick him into believing that it's a female.
A heterosexual man will be attracted to a tranny when the tranny can make him believe that he's a female.
As soon as it comes to sex and the tranny has to reveal that he isn't a female, the attraction is gone because the heterosexual male is attracted to females, not trannies. A cock or neo-vagina shows that the tranny isn't female, that's why the heterosexual man loses attraction as soon as he knows that the tranny has that and isn't a female (which he is attracted to)

Our Wiki.

Our wiki doesn't define what a "pill" is, that's why I'm asking.

 

[Moroccancel]

There is evidence that supports the dogpill, but of course it's not always true. Same thing with the blackpill, it can be disproven by using a counterexample of showing a white Stacy with a chinless curry. There is no pill that is the absolute truth, unless you want to make the everythingpill.

The only statistical evidence we have is that there is a predilection of foids for having sex with animals from 3 to 7% of these according to the studies reported on the Wiki. The fact that there is no evidence regarding competition between dogs and humans for SMV is what determines that the dogpill is a speculation regarding the decision factor of a foid between a man with a very low SMV (incel, for statistical purposes) and a dog. The fact that some dogpill theorists assume that a foid will prefer a dog to a human Chad makes us understand that it is a matter of choice between a human and a dog, and not between a SMV and a dog. That's why we don't make pills from dildos, lesbians, doorknobs or snakes inserted into the vagina.

 

[Moroccancel]

Stop saying "according to your argument line" when you clearly didn't understand a thing of my argument line.

Because it is so, brocel. You assume that the attraction to an imitation of the feminine is going to stop, according to your line of argument that a man can be attracted to a meat masturbator regardless of his sex and that would not make him gay.

Our wiki doesn't define what a "pill" is, that's why I'm asking.

So you haven't searched well.

Pill jargon

The pill jargon are all the terms with "pill" in them that are widely used in the incelosphere, manosphere and in other non-mainstream parts of the internet culture...

incels.wiki

The blackpill and the dogpill have been used comparatively to create a logical definition and to establish the contradictions between the dogpill and the blackpill based on their agreed definitions.