RageFuel Why is this bluepilled reddit soy feminist faggot allowed to post here? In fact, he was banned twice for faggotposting!
@Fat Link and @Master I'm disappointed that you allow such faggots to spread their corrupting influence on here. Low IQ cels with poor critical thinking skills and abilities read their """high IQ" posts and shower them with praise not realizing that they're spreading bluepilled feminist propaganda.
N
What is wrong with geckobus?
Read the highlighted portions and then read this post he made:
@Seahorsecel
the book i looked into is this
File on MEGA
mega.nz
Some interesting quotes.
On Testosterone and sex drive:
And on how testosterone and muscle building ability do not connect.
Example: Women build muscle at the same proportional rate as as men, despite having way less testosterone:
There is also no link between testosterone and aggression and competition. Tradcons like to justify "gender roles" - something that hardly existed in history like they imagine - by appealing to men's "innate aggression and drive to compete, fueled by higher testosterone." There is no evidence for this.
I always mention worldviews in my posts and how data is not neutral. Everyone has a bias, everyone has a worldview. And like an ink-blot test, where one sees his mom drowning in the bathtub, and another sees a picnic in hyde park, however people interpret the data reveals more about them than the data.
When people look at what we say about women, and yes, this may sound crazy, even violent posts here, and they automatically interpret that as threatening to women, they are instantly revealing their bias.
Let's say someone posts on here "GOD IM SO HORNY I WANT TO FUCK A WOMAN IN THE ASS, EVERY TIME I SEE A HOT WOMAN OUTSIDE, I JUST WANT TO CUM IN HER TIGHT PUSSY."
This is just polemic of course, but even statements like this have no inherent moral implication. It could be a joke, it could be an AI generated text on a porn site, it could be a woman trying to bait people etc. The actual intent and message is not inherent to the sentence, which acts as a kind of blank symbol as a whole. We could reduce the whole sentence to something like the "@" symbol. All and every interpretation of that sentence will be biased, even our own.
When it comes to research, we are dealing with philosophically illiterate tradcons interpreting the claims of equally philosophically illiterate scientists who are also operating under misandric biases etc. The result is logically fallacious thinking on a mass level.
Take this simple set of claims.
1. men want sex more than women
2. therefore men must have a higher sex drive than women.
How does 2 follow from 1? It does not at all. And if we asked people that make this claim, so how do we actually know that men have a higher sex drive, they would respond with, "because they want more sex than women" - thus completing the circular argument for us.
In science, there should always be a null-hypothesis, shouldnt there? Going after Popper, shouldnt we seek to falsify our own hypothesis?
So, ask them, what is the alternative explanation to men wanting more sex subjectively.
99% of them have never thought about this.
I can think of countless reasons in my head instantly.
1. women controlling the sexual economy on purpose, as a power move see this article "the sex war:" LINK
As the article points out
- women are the biggest anti-porn group
- women actively raised age of consent
- women slut-shame each other, thus demonizing sexuality for women
Women also got sex doll brothels for men banned.
Further driving this ideological divide is that men are inversely indoctrinated to think of themselves as horny beasts. If you are not horny, you are broken. You should wake up with a raging boner every morning, or you are not "healthy." Having sex = manly. It is interesting that these gender dynamics are again enforced moreso by women than by men.
Mothers Push Gender Stereotypes More Than Fathers, Study Reveals
The gender stereotype that says “boys don’t cry” is being perpetuated implicitly by mothers more than fathers, a new University of Guelph study has revealed. Prof. Kristel Thomassin found mothers may…news.uoguelph.ca
So there is a huge cultural thing going on here.
For example, as an anecdote, i once saw an interview, this foid from south america says, in SA women want sex daily. They demand it. But when she went to the US, women were fridgid, only wanted sex maybe once a week.
48:42
View: https://youtu.be/png3WKqY0IE?t=2922
Another thing people will point to is self-reported masturbation rate, like here:
However again, let us be philosophically anal here. To go from what that says to "men have a higher sex drive" is logically fallacious and a non-sequitur. The reported findings only support the hypothesis of higher male sex drive if you already think men have a higher sex drive to begin with. We can pose alternative hypothesis for this easily:
- there are cultural reasons, like female in-group preference automatically increasing male on male competition and social exclusion. Men want female validation but cant get it. Porn is all about foid validation. If you watch porn, most of it is a foid experiencing pleasure. The guy in the porn is just a dildo. Porn is a simulation of pleasing a woman. So to reduce the whole thing to "sex drive" is insane. Especially considering that most men would rather chase a woman to be rewarded with sex after effort, rather than to just pay for it. This indicates again, that female validation literally trumps the male sex drive.
The reason the two are conflated though is simply because there is a deliberate misconstruement between female validation and sex with a woman. A woman giving you free sex = highest validation she can give basically. However, if society admitted that men literally worship female validation to this extend, that we are collectively obsessed with women to the point of mass psychosis... well that is not what people want to hear, is it?
Does not quite sound like the usualy "men strong, men oppress women, men just want to fuck and see women as objects" type of rethoric.
I also want to throw another thing into the mix here, a general tidbit on how humans form habits and addictions:
File on MEGA
TDLR
- the vast majority of drug addicts never end up in rehab and quit on their own
- the people that end up in rehab are a subset that has additional issues, like history of abues or health issues
- drugs are not inherently addictive as claimed in the "substance-addiction-disease" model, rather it is environmental circumstances that keep people trapped in habitually negative patterns
- this is proved because as the research shows, the 80% of people that quit drugs do it mostly because of things like getting married, returning from warzone (to home environment), etc
(side note: it is hilarious that female validation, as in marriage and relationships, can literally outcompete shit like heroin, to the point where men quit heroin and crack in order to maintain the good will of a woman, holy shit)
- this is not limited to drugs but extends to all human activity. The male sex drive could easily be part of that. For most of history women were viewed as more sexual than men, not vice versa. Stressed men with worse lives resort to more high risk behaviors, sexually, drugs, alcohol, fast driving. That does not mean they have a higher sex drive, maybe their life is just way worse than womens, so they cope with masturbation more.
It is interesting that people admit this connection between stress/trauma and increased sexuality when it comes to women, but not men. We always hear that sluts or promiscuous women are "damaged good" etc. Society readily tells us that women with mental issues are more sexual to cope, but fails to make the association between mens lives being harder, and men coping more as a result (with drugs, alcohol, sex etc).
Again, I am not saying this is necessarily true, I am just demonstrating that there are countless ways to approach human behavior and gender-specific patterns, none of which necessarily require biological reductionism to be explained.
2. abundance mindset vs deprivation mindset.
When you can get sex freely, you dont value it as much and you take only offers from the highest bidder. This is basic market economics. Women giving less sex or only conditional sex to most men and then inferring this is because women have lower sex drive, is like saying your local supermarket sets prices for bread because the store owner is less hungry than normal people.
3. Female lesbian pill.
Women in studies are attracted to other women in general, in spite of self-reported sexual orientation - see research my meredith chivers on this.
Further supporting this is the evidence for female in-group bias, which is exists only among women - women support each other, fetishsize each other, not men.
Lets do the math here, hope this is not retarded, cuz im bad at math.
Society is 50/50 men/women.
Women are all basically lesbian in studies. So now we get a huge amount of foid-foid attraction.
Factor in chads.
20% of men are chads + most women can get sex from other women.
This leaves a minority group of men who have restricted or no access to women, like 30% of society essentially. Lifelong incels are a giga minority in this crude model, because we have to remove buxxers from the 30% of men too. And men that go to prostitutes. And homosexuals and animal fuckers.
This kinda explains threads like this:
When you get to your late 20s, early 30s as virgin, you might stay that way your whole life (especially if it's not by choice).
I looked at CDC data from 2006-2008 (before the average of virginity rised a little). Of men ages 25-29, 3.8% have never engaged in any sexual contact with the opposite sex, compared to 3.1% of men ages 30-34, 1.3% of men ages 35-39, and 1.2% of men ages 40-44. This means 92.3% of men who never...
At the end of life, only a single digit number of men and women will still be virgins.
Going back to my point, Women fucking each other and dogs over men could of course deprive men of sexual release as a whole.
Another dimension I have touched on but not really elabed is that sex drive is not necessarily triggered by hormones, but can also come about socially, which nobody ever talks about. Yes, sex drive can be a sort of "social construct" - let me give you an idea. Boobs.
In tons of countries around the world, boobs are not seen as sexual. I am not clowning, even in europe in the middle ages and beyond, noble women had themselves depicted with their boobies out:
View attachment 1234029
@Stupid Clown - you mentioned this in your video on why porn sucks now, you showed an image of mid-riffs as sexual. Again, nothing is new under the sun.
Cleavage (breasts) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Cleavage (breasts) - Wikipedia
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ah0fj9/are_genitalia_sexualized_differently_in_cultures/
So we see from this that sex-drive and attraction to certain things can be purely cultural. So why not the male sex drive? Men are encouraged to masturbate and be sexual, that is the predominant stereotype pushed on men in our time. They keep us in a classic double bind - if you are not sexual you are worthless, but if you flaunt your sexuality you are a subhuman brute, controlled by raging hormones.
And inversly, women are encouraged to not be sexual by other women and signal high value by rejecting men. Rejection = I am high status enough to reject a man. Supporting evidence for this is that women pick and reject partners collectively:
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPillScience/comments/gfsa5k/women_not_only_copy_the_mate_choice_of_other/
And also that women are more promiscious when travelling, when the social pressure to signal high-status is reduced (nobody knows what you did on vacation and women love to travel):
Study: Women more likely to experiment, take sexual risks while traveling
The "I like to travel, teeheee", like many memes, is based in reality and cold hard fact. There's a reason why so many young, and even married, women love to 'travel" so much without their betabuxx cucks. They enjoy "girls' trips" becasue they can engage in infidelity and experiment with men...
So again, evidence for cultural pressure having influence on self-reported and actual sexual expression. This could disort data in self reported studies massively.
4. prostitutes and wives
- how do they get wet? Nobody ever asks this, if women can not get sexually aroused by average men, how exactly does betabuxxing (maintenance sex) and prostitution work? Again, this posts more to "abundance mindset" being the reason why women seem less horny, not an actual lower drive. If you had access to every food ever, you would not come off as hungy either. But you can still get hungry for a cheeseburger, in spite of aving access to kaviar no shit. The human drive to eat is indiscriminatory towards food. If you are hungry, anything will do.
Anyway, I am just throwing this at the wall and letting my thoughts run here. I dont like biological reductionism arguments and claims that are made like the conclusion is just obvious.
Probably a foid in disguise not gonna lie.
Yeah I was thinking the same thing.
Just look at that avi. Looks like a kids show popular with foidlets, might as well make it "Powerpuff Foidlets" at this point.
Well I’m not exactly thrilled with him having made a huge retarded thread in the past about me claiming how I am a supposedly a narcissist on Cuckpill club but other than that I get along with him just fine and most of our userbase seems to like him and his posts and threads so I’m not sure what to tell ya?
Though if you can convince enough users with this post evidence of yours that he is a Foid or an enemy soy and should be removed from the site perhaps he will be but probably only after conferring with the mod team first and even having a site vote by longterm members only of a certain join date and no GrAYs.
Though if you can convince enough users with this post evidence of yours that he is a Foid or an enemy soy and should be removed from the site perhaps he will be but probably only after conferring with the mod team first and even having a site vote by longterm members only of a certain join date and no GrAYs.
Last edited:
Thanks for posting this out. This """guy""" is most likely a foid. Only a foid can choose such an avi:
Understandable appraisal but hardcore Christians like I believe he is can often be over empathic and come across like broads even if they are guys so just saying.
You should remove him. You have absolute power.
It's just the classic philosophical debate about "what is" vs "what ought to be", aka "moral facts don't exist" etc. There's no logical implication from one to the other, yet most people don't care.
what is Cuckpill club?Well I’m not exactly thrilled with him having made a huge retarded thread in the past about me claiming how I am a supposedly a narcissist on Cuckpill club but other than that I get along with him just fine and most of our userbase seems to like him and his posts and threads so I’m not sure what to tell ya?
Though if you can convince enough users with this post evidence of yours that he is a Foid or an enemy soy and should be removed from the site perhaps he will be but probably only after conferring with the mod team first and even having a site vote by longterm members only of a certain join date and no GrAYs.
It’s the place where imbeciles go that can’t bother to follow the rules here and or learn when to shut the fuck up and not be trolls.
So basically our trash ends up there.
yes ive talked about the is/ought issue tons of times here
I brought it up in a thread that was put in must-read, why normies cant be blackpilled. Ideological commitments taint how information is interpreted, accepted and rejected. Unless they drop their ideological biases, we will never come to terms. Also, they support our claims about them being biased by interpreting what we say through the lens of things like "institutionalized misogyny." The proof is in the pudding as they say. I don't need to repeat myself for the umpthteen times here, since you seem to get it. Most incels suffer from ideological baggage as much as the people they critique, irrespective of the blackpill being true or not. It is purely descriptive, not prescriptive.
This is also why I got hate here for pointing out that certain double standards on this forum make no sense. Moderation and the userbase are much more lenient towards lesbian porn for example, than homosexual male porn. I made a thread about this and just got a bunch of replies in the vein of, "it is unnatural" or "there surely must be some evolutionary reason why we like lesbians over gay men" etc.
All fallacious non-arguments of course. And yet, I was labeled as supporting homosexuality (kek) and my thread was moved to the sewers.
Most incels still act out exactly the type of behaviors they supposedly oppose: They value female validation above all, they act out the typical male-vs-male competitive aggression that society expects them to have, which magically only benefits women. There will never be unity among men. Half this forum is teenagers that will later get laid and forget about all this. They don't see the historical pattern. I've been online since 2009 and I have seen every single male community fall to this. Male vs Male in-fighting, purity spiraling, splintering into multiple forums etc.
Nobody here remembers when the mgtow community fractured and they began categorizing each other into "pure" mgtow and "reddit mgtow" and so forth. Nobody remembers when the biggest mgtow forum, mgtow.com, was taken down admist a side-wide civil war. Multiple new forums emerged, like goingyourownway.com. I tried to join that site years ago and they rejected my account because they googled my username and saw I posted on r/mgtow, which they considered "impure."
I have made threads explaining how it makes no sense to break down "feminity" with the blackpill, making 1000s of threads on how "le empathetic gender" is actually capable of crime and cruelty etc. but then to fail to attack "masculinity" in the same breath. People want to keep what they positively identify with I guess.
If women are not inherently virtuous, caring, conflict-avoidant and so forth, does that not bring up the question if men are actually inately driven to be self-sacrifical, comitted, dutiful, competitive etc.? I have spoken of this countless times but few get the message. Maybe these female "virtues" are like a tool women use to socially create the opposing behavior in men - i.e. if a woman is weak, the man has to be strong. Women would profit from pretending to be dumber and weaker than they are, while promoting traits as "male" that serve them. Hence, I have posted research on that:
Mothers Push Gender Stereotypes More Than Fathers, Study Reveals
The gender stereotype that says “boys don’t cry” is being perpetuated implicitly by mothers more than fathers, a new University of Guelph study has revealed. Prof. Kristel Thomassin found mothers may…
news.uoguelph.ca
Maybe it is also the implication that scares people. When we strip all the social pretense away, all the fallacious reasoning and appeals to nature, "traditionalism" (whatever that means, roman traditionalism? greek? persian? what time period?), we are left with higher order questions only - raw teleology, metaphysics, ethics and epistemology. I don't believe in the christian god for no reason. In the christian worldview, I actually have a basis for "masculinity" or rather, for what any good human should be, which also avoids gender specific double standards: "So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’ ” (lk 10:27, nkjv)
However, I will get attacked again by people saying, "you can not be blackpilled and believe in morality." A contradiction of course, since if morality does not exist, why is it bad to believe in it? Even if I grant the claim that morality does not exist, why should I not hold false beliefs? What if they benefit me?
The only options here are to assert moral realism and to then justify it, or to assert moral relativism and stop debating altogether, since there will be no basis for debate anymore. If there is no objective moral standards, why be truthful? By is the truth a virtue? Why expect the other person to acknowledge your claims or listen to you at all? They are under no obligation to do so. Why expect women or normies to listen to us? Why call your own situation bad if you have no standard for good/bad?
You know all of this already, of course, and I don't know your position on these questions. Maybe you have resigned yourself to being a moral relativist, which would at least be an honest position (not that honesty would matter to you). I am also prepared to face the charge of hypocrisy based on my post history. I constantly engage in fallacious reasoning, but since nobody engages critically with my posts, I never get FLAK for it. I am basically just alert-farming at this point. I don't even know why I am still here. I wanted to be an oil painter. When I get to the bottom of it, I don't know why I care at all, I have no logical justifaction, I can not give any justifable account of my feelings, which are in contradiction to my logical beliefs.
Just like everyone here, I am a walking case example of "rent free." Or "sour grapes." I obsess over women, which I have continously tried to reduce to cattle for the last three years. I deeply crave female attention and validation, but I don't know why and how to stop it. Even my profile picture is evidence of this. I deliberately chose a neotenous depiction of a woman without much thought, similar to how many here deliberately choose ugly or heroic looking men as profile pictures, which amounts to the same bias, just inversed. Almost nobody has an inanimate object or symbol as their profile picture.
It reminds me of the apostle paul when he says it is sin that lives in him, like a disease he can not overcome, in spite of better knowledge. This is my issue. If I could let go and just move on from this shit, I would tomorrow. I would make a final thread, say goodbye and just leave. But something anchors me here and idk what. Maybe it's because I have autism, and this is an obsession.
In the christian view, maybe it is a result of the fall. A good instinct gone awry. Women are neotenous, so are children. We were supposed to have kids and raise them. To that end, neoteny, child like features make us treat them like children, with priviliges we don't grant adults. But women became neotenous too, which was not supposed to happen. Or maybe we were not supposed to have instincts at all, just pure self-control. I don't know though ultimately, that is just a narrative I imagine could be behind this whole issue.
thought you meant sociallystupid for a sec tbh
Now that’s one user I think we all can agree should be banned
whitefemanineboy too
I disagree with the philosophies and religious views of @GeckoBus, but he’s right. It’s not appropriate to use “biology” to rationalize moral claims, unless their whole moral framework revolves around the justification of “biological” consequences (e.g., might is right, you’re genetically defective, therefore evil; women don’t want you, therefore you deserve to be neglected and deprived of female companionship). But I wonder if these so-called “tradcons” dutifully believe in the “righteousness” of natural consequences. If one day a bunch men decided they will obtain female companionship by any means, went outside and successfully mass kidnapped thousands of women and forced into marital slavery, I guess they’ll have to maintain that stance and say it was the righteous outcome, since it’s the natural order that prevails
I also agree with this. You have to separate moralist opinion from the topic of sexuality to be impartial. The studies all point towards the same explanation. Femailes are the most sexually volatile creatures. They don’t have a firm sexual identity; they’re unstable. Females more likely to orgasm from rape than orgasm from consensual sex. That’s should tell you what’s worth knowing about female sexual biology - There is a major disorder or instability in their sexual nature
I also agree that sexual indicators can be socially constructed. How cleavage was not considered a central symbol of foid sexuality in Middle Ages, is not the only example. Even having wide hips and bubble butt, this only became a central symbol of foid sexuality among non-sheboon foids in recent years. Back in the 1990s and early 2000s, having a bubble butt and wide hips was not considered a central symbol of foid sexuality among white foids & noodles, and it was actually frowned upon by some noodle societies (e.g., Korea & Japan). The ideal body image among white & noodle foids used to be slim and curvy from the waist down. It was only in the past 10 to 15 years that the ideal body image became “thick and robust” thanks to mainstream media rap nigga music pushed by jew-owned media & record label companies
www.cosmopolitan.com
www.bustle.com
There are various historical examples that indicates @GeckoBus has made accurate observations about the influence of social constructs in foid sexuality. It seems to be the case that women often didn’t decide which part of their body is the most central aspect of their sexuality. Sometimes, central symbols of foid sexuality were decided by the social construct (influenced by male preference), with the most recent example being the symbol of “thickness / robustness” that was previously considered as unattractive body type across the demographic of non-black women only 20 years ago
Foid sexuality is fluid and adaptive. It doesn’t maintain a stable, solid stance, and I think this is potentially because of some evolutionary female survival trait that impels them to adapt to any changes in the fetishes / body preferences of heterosexual males in order for the female to increase odds of survival
@Seahorsecel
the book i looked into is this
File on MEGA
Some interesting quotes.
On Testosterone and sex drive:
And on how testosterone and muscle building ability do not connect.
Example: Women build muscle at the same proportional rate as as men, despite having way less testosterone:
There is also no link between testosterone and aggression and competition. Tradcons like to justify "gender roles" - something that hardly existed in history like they imagine - by appealing to men's "innate aggression and drive to compete, fueled by higher testosterone." There is no evidence for this.
I always mention worldviews in my posts and how data is not neutral. Everyone has a bias, everyone has a worldview. And like an ink-blot test, where one sees his mom drowning in the bathtub, and another sees a picnic in hyde park, however people interpret the data reveals more about them than the data.
When people look at what we say about women, and yes, this may sound crazy, even violent posts here, and they automatically interpret that as threatening to women, they are instantly revealing their bias.
Let's say someone posts on here "GOD IM SO HORNY I WANT TO FUCK A WOMAN IN THE ASS, EVERY TIME I SEE A HOT WOMAN OUTSIDE, I JUST WANT TO CUM IN HER TIGHT PUSSY."
This is just polemic of course, but even statements like this have no inherent moral implication. It could be a joke, it could be an AI generated text on a porn site, it could be a woman trying to bait people etc. The actual intent and message is not inherent to the sentence, which acts as a kind of blank symbol as a whole. We could reduce the whole sentence to something like the "@" symbol. All and every interpretation of that sentence will be biased, even our own.
When it comes to research, we are dealing with philosophically illiterate tradcons interpreting the claims of equally philosophically illiterate scientists who are also operating under misandric biases etc. The result is logically fallacious thinking on a mass level.
Take this simple set of claims.
1. men want sex more than women
2. therefore men must have a higher sex drive than women.
How does 2 follow from 1? It does not at all. And if we asked people that make this claim, so how do we actually know that men have a higher sex drive, they would respond with, "because they want more sex than women" - thus completing the circular argument for us.
In science, there should always be a null-hypothesis, shouldnt there? Going after Popper, shouldnt we seek to falsify our own hypothesis?
So, ask them, what is the alternative explanation to men wanting more sex subjectively.
99% of them have never thought about this.
I can think of countless reasons in my head instantly.
1. women controlling the sexual economy on purpose, as a power move see this article "the sex war:" LINK
As the article points out
- women are the biggest anti-porn group
- women actively raised age of consent
- women slut-shame each other, thus demonizing sexuality for women
Women also got sex doll brothels for men banned.
Further driving this ideological divide is that men are inversely indoctrinated to think of themselves as horny beasts. If you are not horny, you are broken. You should wake up with a raging boner every morning, or you are not "healthy." Having sex = manly. It is interesting that these gender dynamics are again enforced moreso by women than by men.
Mothers Push Gender Stereotypes More Than Fathers, Study Reveals
The gender stereotype that says “boys don’t cry” is being perpetuated implicitly by mothers more than fathers, a new University of Guelph study has revealed. Prof. Kristel Thomassin found mothers may…
So there is a huge cultural thing going on here.
For example, as an anecdote, i once saw an interview, this foid from south america says, in SA women want sex daily. They demand it. But when she went to the US, women were fridgid, only wanted sex maybe once a week.
48:42
View: https://youtu.be/png3WKqY0IE?t=2922
Another thing people will point to is self-reported masturbation rate, like here:
However again, let us be philosophically anal here. To go from what that says to "men have a higher sex drive" is logically fallacious and a non-sequitur. The reported findings only support the hypothesis of higher male sex drive if you already think men have a higher sex drive to begin with. We can pose alternative hypothesis for this easily:
- there are cultural reasons, like female in-group preference automatically increasing male on male competition and social exclusion. Men want female validation but cant get it. Porn is all about foid validation. If you watch porn, most of it is a foid experiencing pleasure. The guy in the porn is just a dildo. Porn is a simulation of pleasing a woman. So to reduce the whole thing to "sex drive" is insane. Especially considering that most men would rather chase a woman to be rewarded with sex after effort, rather than to just pay for it. This indicates again, that female validation literally trumps the male sex drive.
The reason the two are conflated though is simply because there is a deliberate misconstruement between female validation and sex with a woman. A woman giving you free sex = highest validation she can give basically. However, if society admitted that men literally worship female validation to this extend, that we are collectively obsessed with women to the point of mass psychosis... well that is not what people want to hear, is it?
Does not quite sound like the usualy "men strong, men oppress women, men just want to fuck and see women as objects" type of rethoric.
I also want to throw another thing into the mix here, a general tidbit on how humans form habits and addictions:
File on MEGA
TDLR
- the vast majority of drug addicts never end up in rehab and quit on their own
- the people that end up in rehab are a subset that has additional issues, like history of abues or health issues
- drugs are not inherently addictive as claimed in the "substance-addiction-disease" model, rather it is environmental circumstances that keep people trapped in habitually negative patterns
- this is proved because as the research shows, the 80% of people that quit drugs do it mostly because of things like getting married, returning from warzone (to home environment), etc
(side note: it is hilarious that female validation, as in marriage and relationships, can literally outcompete shit like heroin, to the point where men quit heroin and crack in order to maintain the good will of a woman, holy shit)
- this is not limited to drugs but extends to all human activity. The male sex drive could easily be part of that. For most of history women were viewed as more sexual than men, not vice versa. Stressed men with worse lives resort to more high risk behaviors, sexually, drugs, alcohol, fast driving. That does not mean they have a higher sex drive, maybe their life is just way worse than womens, so they cope with masturbation more.
It is interesting that people admit this connection between stress/trauma and increased sexuality when it comes to women, but not men. We always hear that sluts or promiscuous women are "damaged good" etc. Society readily tells us that women with mental issues are more sexual to cope, but fails to make the association between mens lives being harder, and men coping more as a result (with drugs, alcohol, sex etc).
Again, I am not saying this is necessarily true, I am just demonstrating that there are countless ways to approach human behavior and gender-specific patterns, none of which necessarily require biological reductionism to be explained.
2. abundance mindset vs deprivation mindset.
When you can get sex freely, you dont value it as much and you take only offers from the highest bidder. This is basic market economics. Women giving less sex or only conditional sex to most men and then inferring this is because women have lower sex drive, is like saying your local supermarket sets prices for bread because the store owner is less hungry than normal people.
3. Female lesbian pill.
Women in studies are attracted to other women in general, in spite of self-reported sexual orientation - see research my meredith chivers on this.
Further supporting this is the evidence for female in-group bias, which is exists only among women - women support each other, fetishsize each other, not men.
Lets do the math here, hope this is not retarded, cuz im bad at math.
Society is 50/50 men/women.
Women are all basically lesbian in studies. So now we get a huge amount of foid-foid attraction.
Factor in chads.
20% of men are chads + most women can get sex from other women.
This leaves a minority group of men who have restricted or no access to women, like 30% of society essentially. Lifelong incels are a giga minority in this crude model, because we have to remove buxxers from the 30% of men too. And men that go to prostitutes. And homosexuals and animal fuckers.
This kinda explains threads like this:
When you get to your late 20s, early 30s as virgin, you might stay that way your whole life (especially if it's not by choice).
I looked at CDC data from 2006-2008 (before the average of virginity rised a little). Of men ages 25-29, 3.8% have never engaged in any sexual contact with the opposite sex, compared to 3.1% of men ages 30-34, 1.3% of men ages 35-39, and 1.2% of men ages 40-44. This means 92.3% of men who never...
At the end of life, only a single digit number of men and women will still be virgins.
Going back to my point, Women fucking each other and dogs over men could of course deprive men of sexual release as a whole.
Another dimension I have touched on but not really elabed is that sex drive is not necessarily triggered by hormones, but can also come about socially, which nobody ever talks about. Yes, sex drive can be a sort of "social construct" - let me give you an idea. Boobs.
In tons of countries around the world, boobs are not seen as sexual. I am not clowning, even in europe in the middle ages and beyond, noble women had themselves depicted with their boobies out:
View attachment 1234029
@Stupid Clown - you mentioned this in your video on why porn sucks now, you showed an image of mid-riffs as sexual. Again, nothing is new under the sun.Cleavage (breasts) - Wikipedia
Cleavage (breasts) - Wikipedia
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ah0fj9/are_genitalia_sexualized_differently_in_cultures/
So we see from this that sex-drive and attraction to certain things can be purely cultural. So why not the male sex drive? Men are encouraged to masturbate and be sexual, that is the predominant stereotype pushed on men in our time. They keep us in a classic double bind - if you are not sexual you are worthless, but if you flaunt your sexuality you are a subhuman brute, controlled by raging hormones.
And inversly, women are encouraged to not be sexual by other women and signal high value by rejecting men. Rejection = I am high status enough to reject a man. Supporting evidence for this is that women pick and reject partners collectively:
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPillScience/comments/gfsa5k/women_not_only_copy_the_mate_choice_of_other/
And also that women are more promiscious when travelling, when the social pressure to signal high-status is reduced (nobody knows what you did on vacation and women love to travel):
Study: Women more likely to experiment, take sexual risks while traveling
The "I like to travel, teeheee", like many memes, is based in reality and cold hard fact. There's a reason why so many young, and even married, women love to 'travel" so much without their betabuxx cucks. They enjoy "girls' trips" becasue they can engage in infidelity and experiment with men...
So again, evidence for cultural pressure having influence on self-reported and actual sexual expression. This could disort data in self reported studies massively.
4. prostitutes and wives
- how do they get wet? Nobody ever asks this, if women can not get sexually aroused by average men, how exactly does betabuxxing (maintenance sex) and prostitution work? Again, this posts more to "abundance mindset" being the reason why women seem less horny, not an actual lower drive. If you had access to every food ever, you would not come off as hungy either. But you can still get hungry for a cheeseburger, in spite of aving access to kaviar no shit. The human drive to eat is indiscriminatory towards food. If you are hungry, anything will do.
Anyway, I am just throwing this at the wall and letting my thoughts run here. I dont like biological reductionism arguments and claims that are made like the conclusion is just obvious.
I also agree with this. You have to separate moralist opinion from the topic of sexuality to be impartial. The studies all point towards the same explanation. Femailes are the most sexually volatile creatures. They don’t have a firm sexual identity; they’re unstable. Females more likely to orgasm from rape than orgasm from consensual sex. That’s should tell you what’s worth knowing about female sexual biology - There is a major disorder or instability in their sexual nature
I also agree that sexual indicators can be socially constructed. How cleavage was not considered a central symbol of foid sexuality in Middle Ages, is not the only example. Even having wide hips and bubble butt, this only became a central symbol of foid sexuality among non-sheboon foids in recent years. Back in the 1990s and early 2000s, having a bubble butt and wide hips was not considered a central symbol of foid sexuality among white foids & noodles, and it was actually frowned upon by some noodle societies (e.g., Korea & Japan). The ideal body image among white & noodle foids used to be slim and curvy from the waist down. It was only in the past 10 to 15 years that the ideal body image became “thick and robust” thanks to mainstream media rap nigga music pushed by jew-owned media & record label companies
How the "ideal" body shape has changed over the last 100 years
These thought-provoking images remind us just how important it is to love and accept what we have
How America's "Ideal" Butt Has Changed Over The Last Century
You've heard the saying: "Girls always want the body type they don't have." Today, this phrase could easily be changed to, "girls always want the booty type they don't have." With the rise of Kim Kardashian and Nicki Minaj, the "ideal" butt has…
There are various historical examples that indicates @GeckoBus has made accurate observations about the influence of social constructs in foid sexuality. It seems to be the case that women often didn’t decide which part of their body is the most central aspect of their sexuality. Sometimes, central symbols of foid sexuality were decided by the social construct (influenced by male preference), with the most recent example being the symbol of “thickness / robustness” that was previously considered as unattractive body type across the demographic of non-black women only 20 years ago
Foid sexuality is fluid and adaptive. It doesn’t maintain a stable, solid stance, and I think this is potentially because of some evolutionary female survival trait that impels them to adapt to any changes in the fetishes / body preferences of heterosexual males in order for the female to increase odds of survival
Last edited:
if they were consistent with the "natural" as justification paradigm, then they would be hardpressed to find anything that is not natural. Any behavior would be permissible. Weapons are natural, any technology actually. Worse even, is the current state of affairs not simply "natural?" To even say something is unnatural, there would have to be a standard external to nature to define that. But their standard is nature and in their view all IS nature. Aside from this view being totally unfalsifiable and completely retarded, it is only applied to men, never to women.
Women are natural but men are somehow unnatural to them, like we are abominations from another dimension that invaded this one and now have to assimilate or die. Like Orks invading the peaceful abode of the puritan wood elves (women).
On the sex drive thing, my reply was the usual geckobus schizo strudel. The whole thing basically boils down sexually being modulated by a mix of environmental factors, which even impact hormone levels (stress can lower testosterone, sports can raise it temporarily etc). Our current culture may simply make men out to be more horny, thus creating a self-fullfilling prophecy of sorts. I also point out that women have cultural incentives to downplay their own sexuality, and how this is not as prevalent in other cultures. Overall, there is a tendency towards gender sex-drive symmetry. I have a study that documents this emerging trend in research here:
File on MEGA
As culture becomes more promiscuous and accepting of female sexuality, women may begin to match men in sexual intensity more and more. Some studies in must-read also show this, i.e. female partner count steadily rising in the last 20 years, sometimes even surpassing mens in self-report (see fake lie detector test studies done years apart thread).
An Old Thread Revisited (Women's body count doubles on fake lie-detectors)
The thread: https://incels.is/threads/womens-partner-count-doubled-when-they-thought-they-were-hooked-up-to-a-lie-detector.209222/ The Study it refers to: https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/239672/original/Alexander+%26+Fisher+%282003%29.pdf The Articles linked in the thread: a) Article about...
incels.is
tldr?
I need one also
He said Anglos are shit and Slavs are the most supreme whites
Do you think attraction to lighter features like fair skin is innate or just conditioning? What are your thots on the doll experiments?
Like I've said before, Slavs are based & are brothERs.
But jfl thinking they mog Anglos. Only ones who maybe mog Anglos -in terms of historical achievements at least- are maybe Germans.
None of them mog the other IMO. Anglos, Germans, Slavs, and Meds are all uber-based.
They have lower divorce rates, have limitations on abortions and most importantly hate fags and don't troon out by castrating their own children. They don't have government funded pedo troon organizations. Germans have the Highest percent of troons in the world. Also Slavic USSR raped "Aryan" Germany
Achievements don't matter, it's the equvilaent of "Muh Dick". Slavs have more self-preservation and spine, all of their problems are because of shitty economies. Otherwise they would have mogged you hard
Well yes, they all are based & have many great achievements which mog all other races.
Plenty of Slavic nations up there; Russia also had the second biggest White Empire in history.
Also phenotypically, you cannot deny Anglos or at least Nordic-pheno Germanics such as the Hallstatt one mog hard on average.
True, true. I think Nordic-pheno peoples mog most people. A lot of depictions of the Aryan Man are either Anglo, Nord-adjacent, or Germanic-adjacent.
Ok, I'll bite then:
Well, unless fucked up somehow, men are attracted to women only, period. Sure, they tend to obsess over masculine looking men, but that's just sort of "I wish that was me" admiration that partially stems from "male gaze", it's not really sexual in nature.
On the other hand - womans sexuality is a lot more "fluid", (offtopic - I just had a though that maybe all this tranny-adjacent shit with being gender fluid etc. is effect of female-dominated culture adopting female way of seeing sexuality), women find other women attractive, maybe even as much as men do, every women is lesbo in that sense (but at the same time none of them are - save for extreme cases there isn't a single lesbo that is attracted to women only, "lesbian" as in woman only attracted to other women virtually doesn't exist).
Man lusting over other men is rare (well, was rare
), woman being attracted to other women is commonplace.From evolutionary perspective, any man that would have as strong disgust towards female homosexuals as he has towards male ones would noticeably lower his mating options because of that, hence why this "blindspot" for female homosexual behaviours formed.
Personally I don't like women that claim to be "lesbian" because they're all unpleasant cunts
i think its a pedophile
tunnel visioned cucks
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
