I've been seeing some people worship normies, saying how when they see couples they feel inferior to the guy, they feel the guy is some sort of confident semi-chad who conquered his way into sexual success.
This logic would make sense if we lived in a pre-historic time or ancient society. Factually that is simply not the case -- At least in Western societies, there are no 'Rape of the Sabine Women' type things going on.
Sexual insecurity is the default for most men. Women chose men, men don't take women, not anymore. When a guy tell you a story of how they got their woman, that's mostly ego driven post-facto rationalization.
Your level of attractiveness represents your odds, but with any odds, you have to roll the dice.
What do you mean by rolling the dice? Do you mean going out and doing cold approaches?
No.
Most normies are insecure and pining for mid women all the time. They just eventually get lucky because they are bluepilled/sheep minded, they naturally fret about fashion trends, concerts and basement beer parties, who likes who etc. etc.. They develop social proof through their normie relations, instagram, social media accounts.
They meet girls and simp enough until they "get lucky" with a woman who's ready to give them a chance, and eventually settle down if they warm up to the guy after 5 years together. Many women are sexually unsatisfied (see: most women never cum from sex) but they are willing to sacrifice that for a predictable normie guy, to save their own status by avoiding becoming a single old hag, they pick a guy for his social proof (status) and submission to them.
Many incels are not NT (Neuro Typical), are introverted, asocial, contemplative, steadfast in odd beliefs and way of thinking, react unexpectedly in social interactions (thus missing invitations etc.) and thus lack social proof (no instagram or normie friend groups).
Sure, good looks could easily make up for (and surpass) most of these, but most men are ugly/mid (see: women think 80% of men are ugly) so realistically we are not missing chad looks, we are missing normie NT-ness.
This logic would make sense if we lived in a pre-historic time or ancient society. Factually that is simply not the case -- At least in Western societies, there are no 'Rape of the Sabine Women' type things going on.
Sexual insecurity is the default for most men. Women chose men, men don't take women, not anymore. When a guy tell you a story of how they got their woman, that's mostly ego driven post-facto rationalization.
Your level of attractiveness represents your odds, but with any odds, you have to roll the dice.
What do you mean by rolling the dice? Do you mean going out and doing cold approaches?
No.
Most normies are insecure and pining for mid women all the time. They just eventually get lucky because they are bluepilled/sheep minded, they naturally fret about fashion trends, concerts and basement beer parties, who likes who etc. etc.. They develop social proof through their normie relations, instagram, social media accounts.
They meet girls and simp enough until they "get lucky" with a woman who's ready to give them a chance, and eventually settle down if they warm up to the guy after 5 years together. Many women are sexually unsatisfied (see: most women never cum from sex) but they are willing to sacrifice that for a predictable normie guy, to save their own status by avoiding becoming a single old hag, they pick a guy for his social proof (status) and submission to them.
Many incels are not NT (Neuro Typical), are introverted, asocial, contemplative, steadfast in odd beliefs and way of thinking, react unexpectedly in social interactions (thus missing invitations etc.) and thus lack social proof (no instagram or normie friend groups).
Sure, good looks could easily make up for (and surpass) most of these, but most men are ugly/mid (see: women think 80% of men are ugly) so realistically we are not missing chad looks, we are missing normie NT-ness.
