Basically the oofy doofy theory asserts that foids go for feminized men in order to control them.
I think this present a serious consideration of the blackpill as a whole, and this theory should be re-integrated in our semantic constellation of concepts, with the benefit that it allows for a more eloquent and fluid idea of human relations against the otherwise anti-dynamic theories often embraced by the the interpretative framework of blackpill orthodoxy.
It is possible to understand the oofy doofy theory within the model of the "dual mating strategy", i.e., "beta bucks, and alpha fucks," but I´m uninterested in this. The way to go, I think, is that the oofy doofy theory applies almost exclusively to certain groups of foids: leftist-feminist and "tradcaths". Both of them consists of over-socialized females that tend to be annoyingly moralistic about existence, they hold normativity in such high regard that they simply become humorless beings.
They want a men that submits to their normative standards of existence which involves total castration and the complete abolition of masculine self-hood. They all want a "protective-wholesome" man akin to a little and cute hobbit, one that is extremely agreeable and lacks sexual assertiveness. The sexual aspect is important to take into consideration because some people understand leftists women to be "hedonistic freaks," which is far from the truth. Both the feminist hr-deparment type and tradcath wants to completely annihilate the negativity (death) from sex, one through the rules and norms of consent culture, the other through the sexual restraint of religiously informed sexually. What they share in common is the explicit disciplinary nature of their world-views: they want to control men.
The chad is by no means a "chadcel," this is not what I´m arguing for. The chad, who should serve as a model, exists in the hedonic realm of non-commitment: they fuck but they don´t want to settle, because grounding yourself implies being a subject to foid´s normative whims. Simultaneously, if they effectively manage to get into a monogamous relation, they often indulge in cheating and escapism, although it might be plausible for him to find a foid that is not a moral-cop or a feminist priest.
In this regard, I think that the over-socialized genre of foid still wants the chad but resents him because they can´t control them, while feeling guilt due to the nature of their sexual desire that contradicts their morality and ethics: this devolves into self-hatred. On the contrary, normal woeman that are not oversocialized by silly religious doctrine or administratively enforced feminism, are the ones that truly put the traditionally understood blackpill to practice
Going to back to the Chad question and its connection to inceldom, I assert the sentiment that being a "chadcel" is simply a logical impossibility. They have no ontic consistency beyond mere appearance, the so-called chadcel should put aside this moralizing search for monogamy and embrace the hedonic nature of an informal polygamous existence. Regarding incels: they do indeed exists and the oofy doofy theory does not implies the theoretical negation of inceldom, as I previously argued.
These are images the demonstrate the oofy doofy theory:
.
I think this present a serious consideration of the blackpill as a whole, and this theory should be re-integrated in our semantic constellation of concepts, with the benefit that it allows for a more eloquent and fluid idea of human relations against the otherwise anti-dynamic theories often embraced by the the interpretative framework of blackpill orthodoxy.
It is possible to understand the oofy doofy theory within the model of the "dual mating strategy", i.e., "beta bucks, and alpha fucks," but I´m uninterested in this. The way to go, I think, is that the oofy doofy theory applies almost exclusively to certain groups of foids: leftist-feminist and "tradcaths". Both of them consists of over-socialized females that tend to be annoyingly moralistic about existence, they hold normativity in such high regard that they simply become humorless beings.
They want a men that submits to their normative standards of existence which involves total castration and the complete abolition of masculine self-hood. They all want a "protective-wholesome" man akin to a little and cute hobbit, one that is extremely agreeable and lacks sexual assertiveness. The sexual aspect is important to take into consideration because some people understand leftists women to be "hedonistic freaks," which is far from the truth. Both the feminist hr-deparment type and tradcath wants to completely annihilate the negativity (death) from sex, one through the rules and norms of consent culture, the other through the sexual restraint of religiously informed sexually. What they share in common is the explicit disciplinary nature of their world-views: they want to control men.
The chad is by no means a "chadcel," this is not what I´m arguing for. The chad, who should serve as a model, exists in the hedonic realm of non-commitment: they fuck but they don´t want to settle, because grounding yourself implies being a subject to foid´s normative whims. Simultaneously, if they effectively manage to get into a monogamous relation, they often indulge in cheating and escapism, although it might be plausible for him to find a foid that is not a moral-cop or a feminist priest.
In this regard, I think that the over-socialized genre of foid still wants the chad but resents him because they can´t control them, while feeling guilt due to the nature of their sexual desire that contradicts their morality and ethics: this devolves into self-hatred. On the contrary, normal woeman that are not oversocialized by silly religious doctrine or administratively enforced feminism, are the ones that truly put the traditionally understood blackpill to practice
Going to back to the Chad question and its connection to inceldom, I assert the sentiment that being a "chadcel" is simply a logical impossibility. They have no ontic consistency beyond mere appearance, the so-called chadcel should put aside this moralizing search for monogamy and embrace the hedonic nature of an informal polygamous existence. Regarding incels: they do indeed exists and the oofy doofy theory does not implies the theoretical negation of inceldom, as I previously argued.
These are images the demonstrate the oofy doofy theory:
.
