The word ‘Roastie’ is cope

[Robtical]

Normies honestly wouldn’t want a monogamous society though. Part of the joy of being a normie is going out partying and having one night stands.

Only chads and chad lites get to do that, most normies don't unless it's with landwhales. Once they realize how cucked they are, and they're not much better off than incels, they will want to stop being cucks.

Even if there are blackpilled and anti-feminist normies they would still favour this system to the authoritarian and despotic one you’re suggesting.

It's not authoritarian, it's libertarian. That means the government can't fuck over men, or tax them then give the money to single mom whores. Plus if men are blackpilled on top of it, no woman passed the age 30 will be able to get married because men won't want used roast beef for a wife and mother of their kids.

Most people value freedom above all else in the 21st century and to believe they would eagerly return to a simpler time because you consider them a cuck is totally naïve.

You think this cucked environment is freedom for sub6 men? If femoids were treated like men I bet you wouldn't be calling it freedom for them.

You are forced to do something if you are shamed into doing it and your jb wife will resent you for having been forced to be with you despite finding you unattractive.

Men are shamed all the time, men can't even look at a bitch's ass without being called a creep, it's the femoid's turn to learn some dignity. Bitches need to get shamed like how catfishman shames them when they get caught going after men who are out their league, that's what I'd do to my daughter.

Women simply cannot feel attraction towards true bottom tier men

Bottom tier men for a femoid is anything sub6 in the west. But in SEA or mexico, a femoid would hop on an old wrinkled guy for 30 bucks in a second, because they aren't as stuck up and privileged as western whores.

 

[Angus13]

So what you are saying is we deserve to suffer? maybe you should post on inceltears, they'd like a pet sub-8 guy.

 

[ColdLightOfDay]

So what you are saying is we deserve to suffer? maybe you should post on inceltears, they'd like a pet sub-8 guy.

That is not what I’m saying saying at all. Ugly men are not at fault for the situation many find themselves in. All I’m saying is there is no cure-all solution that can be objectively morally justified.

 

[Angus13]

I don't see the problem with a soft patriarchy, this is how things have always worked. You can not have equality and chivalry because that isn't equal. I think the problem lies in the fact our society has trained people to think equal means sameness. People are biologically gynocentric, but we are not cave men anymore. This is why we need patriarchy to support a conscious effort to level the field for men, as it is mostly men who build and maintain societies... If they have no incentive to do so, they won't. Patriarchy is neither androcentric or gynocentric, just men and women have different privileges and different burdens.


Sure 3/10 women may initially bemoan having to settle for their looksmatch, boo fucking hoo. If all men unanimously only approached female models or rich women, regardless if the guy looked like a rotten sack of potatoes, these men would be called entitled misogynists. Am I supposed to believe Chad is entitled to a harem because monogamy is "oppressive," but in his place like, 10 other men can't EVEN get one, somehow that's less oppressive or less worth the effort for these guys?

 

[ColdLightOfDay]

I don't see the problem with a soft patriarchy, this is how things have always worked. You can not have equality and chivalry because that isn't equal. I think the problem lies in the fact our society has trained people to think equal means sameness. People are biologically gynocentric, but we are not cave men anymore. This is why we need patriarchy to support a conscious effort to level the field for men, as it is mostly men who build and maintain societies... If they have no incentive to do so, they won't. Patriarchy is neither androcentric or gynocentric, just men and women have different privileges and different burdens.


Sure 3/10 women may initially bemoan having to settle for their looksmatch, boo fucking hoo. If all men unanimously only approached female models or rich women, regardless if the guy looked like a rotten sack of potatoes, these men would be called entitled misogynists. Am I supposed to believe Chad is entitled to a harem because monogamy is "oppressive," but in his place like, 10 other men can't EVEN get one, somehow that's less oppressive or less worth the effort for these guys?

I’m wondering what kind of patriarchy you are advocating. If it involves barring women from the work force you will find there will be seismic economic repercussions. There are many women-only industries that if prohibited would massively dent world economies. If you are advocating for forced monogamy, as many on this forum do, then I’m afraid you have massively misunderstood what your problem is;

The notion that normies and Chads are dissatisfied with the current system is absolutely ludicrous. Just because you read a lot of posts by disgruntled men online does not mean that what you read is the society-wide male perception. - if you spent all day lurking in a body building forum you’d come out thinking that spending 3 nights a week in the gym was totally normal behaviour. Normies are satisfied with the status quo, they do not want to return to a time of forced monogamy, they enjoy parties, drinking and the occasional lay. It’s enough to sedate them, they know their life would be better if they were Chad but they have enough to not spend every day obsessing over it like the people in here. If you wish to enforce monogamy on a majority who are complicit in and content with the current system then you are an oppressor and your actions are not morally justifiable.

 

[DeepSea]

Also the only reason those with less partners cheat less is because they either have lower sexdrives or are more religious/conservative, they choose to have less partners. That doesn’t mean that if forced to the wider population would happily do the same.

Married men who have had many sex partners are significantly less likely to cheat or initiate divorce than married women who have had many sex partners. Do you really think that promiscuous men are more religious and have lower sex drives than promiscuous women?

Here is the chart for women

The same data for men:

%= married/married+formerly married.

(note that married figure includes remarriage)

Partners: %not divorced.
1 95%
2 70%
3-6 57%
7-14 48%
15+ 32%

The figures are based on the 2005 CDC report listed above. Given that it sampled 60,000+ men it's probably pretty spot on.

What's interesting here is that promiscuity does not seem to impair male bonding at the same rate as it does in women. A man has to sleep with over seven women before he becomes a statistically bad catch.

Perhaps the "double standard" has a biological basis. Reasonably sexually experienced men are still capable of bonding and are hence not that repulsive to the average woman, whereas the female promiscuity seems to generate stronger negative feelings.

Source

 

[UBERCEL]

>uses the word labia unironically
>Defends being a cuck
>R/badwomenanatomy references

Spotted the cuckqueer




@Ritalincel
Unload one of your pics boyo.

 

[Ritalincel]

@Ritalincel
Unload one of your pics boyo.

tbh

tbhq

 

[Deleted member 60]

[Soy]

 

[UBERCEL]

tbhq

Noticed it later lmao.

[Soy]

 

[Ritalincel]

[Soy]

@Facade

 

[Angus13]

Let me say this again:

"Sure 3/10 women may initially bemoan having to settle for their looksmatch, boo fucking hoo. If all men unanimously only approached female models or rich women, regardless if the guy looked like a rotten sack of potatoes, these men would be called entitled misogynists. Am I supposed to believe Chad is entitled to a harem because monogamy is "oppressive," but in his place like, 10 other men can't EVEN get one, somehow that's less oppressive or less worth the effort for these guys?"

Also, hypergamy grows, there are already more incel men now (by FAR) than there were 20 yrs ago. Again I don't understand how limiting chad to one woman is "oppressive" when this means a growing number of men CAN'T EVEN get one. At this point you've already admitted sex and intimacy are a basic need, otherwise it wouldn't be "oppressive" for chad to have to stick with one woman. Somehow it's less oppressive if a growing number of sub-8 men can't EVEN get one? How is that not blatant favoritism?

Also, you don't understand how this problem got here, how hypergamy works. Yeah that's "nature" too, those are MUTABLE laws of nature. But to mute them you've got to do those things you are against, women already had other privileges. The privilege to choose a man (within their own league of attractiveness) who would dedicate his life to taking care of her, financially, and risking his life to protect hers. From this perspective, SHE holds the power. So her burden is she doesn't vote and, within the bounds of a marriage, she doesn't work outside the home or control the resources. Women are (generally) not biologically cut out to be leaders because, due to womb theory, they have always been a protected class going back to pre-civ, and this is still largely written in their genetic code.

The only even options are patriarchy, or, chivalry must die and women must be made to sign for the draft too. Women would have to choose to work dangerous jobs as men do. Problem with that is, you can't put women on the front lines because either they would be easily over-powered by enemy male units (in case of all female battallions) or, they'd get men killed trying to protect them, and men competing against their fellow man for them (in the case of coed units). Not to mention the last thing we need is to keep promoting more androgeny, I know the governments love androgeny (which is another subject I don't even think you are nearly ready for).

I’m wondering what kind of patriarchy you are advocating. If it involves barring women from the work force you will find there will be seismic economic repercussions. There are many women-only industries that if prohibited would massively dent world economies. If you are advocating for forced monogamy, as many on this forum do, then I’m afraid you have massively misunderstood what your problem is;

The notion that normies and Chads are dissatisfied with the current system is absolutely ludicrous. Just because you read a lot of posts by disgruntled men online does not mean that what you read is the society-wide male perception. - if you spent all day lurking in a body building forum you’d come out thinking that spending 3 nights a week in the gym was totally normal behaviour. Normies are satisfied with the status quo, they do not want to return to a time of forced monogamy, they enjoy parties, drinking and the occasional lay. It’s enough to sedate them, they know their life would be better if they were Chad but they have enough to not spend every day obsessing over it like the people in here. If you wish to enforce monogamy on a majority who are complicit in and content with the current system then you are an oppressor and your actions are not morally justifiable.

Yeah but promiscuous men also help create this problem by fucking below their leagues. Whenever chad fucks a 3/10 fem, that fem thinks she is an 8/10 and won't give her looks match the time of day. There is a reason monogamy was socially reinforced on both genders.

Married men who have had many sex partners are significantly less likely to cheat or initiate divorce than married women who have had many sex partners. Do you really think that promiscuous men are more religious and have lower sex drives than promiscuous women?

Here is the chart for women
View attachment 36050

The same data for men:

 

[Ritalincel]

Let me say this again:

"Sure 3/10 women may initially bemoan having to settle for their looksmatch, boo fucking hoo. If all men unanimously only approached female models or rich women, regardless if the guy looked like a rotten sack of potatoes, these men would be called entitled misogynists. Am I supposed to believe Chad is entitled to a harem because monogamy is "oppressive," but in his place like, 10 other men can't EVEN get one, somehow that's less oppressive or less worth the effort for these guys?"

Also, hypergamy grows, there are already more incel men now (by FAR) than there were 20 yrs ago. Again I don't understand how limiting chad to one woman is "oppressive" when this means a growing number of men CAN'T EVEN get one. At this point you've already admitted sex and intimacy are a basic need, otherwise it wouldn't be "oppressive" for chad to have to stick with one woman. Somehow it's less oppressive if a growing number of sub-8 men can't EVEN get one? How is that not blatant favoritism?

Also, you don't understand how this problem got here, how hypergamy works. Yeah that's "nature" too, those are MUTABLE laws of nature. But to mute them you've got to do those things you are against, women already had other privileges. The privilege to choose a man (within their own league of attractiveness) who would dedicate his life to taking care of her, financially, and risking his life to protect hers. From this perspective, SHE holds the power. So her burden is she doesn't vote and, within the bounds of a marriage, she doesn't work outside the home or control the resources. Women are (generally) not biologically cut out to be leaders because, due to womb theory, they have always been a protected class going back to pre-civ, and this is still largely written in their genetic code.

The only even options are patriarchy, or, chivalry must die and women must be made to sign for the draft too. Women would have to choose to work dangerous jobs as men do. Problem with that is, you can't put women on the front lines because either they would be easily over-powered by enemy male units (in case of all female battallions) or, they'd get men killed trying to protect them, and men competing against their fellow man for them (in the case of coed units). Not to mention the last thing we need is to keep promoting more androgeny, I know the governments love androgeny (which is another subject I don't even think you are nearly ready for).






Yeah but promiscuous men also help create this problem by fucking below their leagues. Whenever chad fucks a 3/10 fem, that fem thinks she is an 8/10 and won't give her looks match the time of day. There is a reason monogamy was socially reinforced on both genders.

 

[UBERCEL]

 

[Angus13]

If reading a few paragraphs is too much for you, you are signifying a low IQ. You've probably never sat down and read a book.