1. Low IQ men assume people think and feel in ways that align with their desires, this is why when horny indian men ask to rape women they chat with on omegle after asking "asl," they assume they would like it because it's something that they personally want. They believe consent is present even during a rape, which is ironically counter to the entire concept of consent, so a horny low IQ guy selectively interpret signs of consent (she was asking for it, she wore a short skirt) for no other reason than the fact that he automatically justifies anything just to fulfill their base desires. Having this psychological framework is like the horny male version of "live, laugh, love"
It's something along those lines, though I like and relate to all of them in a carnal kind of way, though tbh it must be wild to have this little neuroticism all the time. Reframing it vis-a-vis the solipsistic "live, laugh, love" mindset of basic bitches makes me understand low IQ females a bit more, as basic women can be the most perplexing to an overanalyzer like myself.
2. The social expectation that the consent of a woman is inherently a difficult thing to obtain sets up a dating culture where men must be confident and aggressive pursuers, and this has the effect of forcing loser type men to be confidently incorrect about their own perception of their SMV as well as their own skills of "social awareness"
For example, because most women expect certain things from a date: eg, that the man has a base level of hygiene, is 6' tall, punctual, witty, etc., then these betabuxxer type men study these preferences as a generality, and assume they already "pass" just because in their mind, they hurdled over these basics, and assume an advanced level of consent the actually didn't earn, because according to the 4th axiom of the mathematical proof framework of consent:
Consent is actually not a fixed thing. It's like the nightmare difficulty in DOOM where at all times, no how many demons you killed, they can spawn more at any given moment just to make things more difficult. So just because you pass "logically." Just because it "seems" the vibes were there and it was consentual at the time, dosen't mean a new "ICK" consent demon didn't spawn out of nowhere and killed you before you even realized it. Just thinking about it actually makes me relate a bit more to cocky MMA fighters that got knocked the fuck out, and make all kinds of fidgety excuses as to why they think it was a cheap shot, and it was an unfair loss. It's hard as an aggressive man to actually be objective about something you didn't perceive very clearly, as is the case with a flashy counter type KO. These same kind of fighters dont make as many excuses like this when they just get ground and pounded for 5 rounds. It's only these quick KO losses where this Dunning Kreuger bias happens.
This is the true and brutal nature of consent: it's as brutal as DOOM on nightmare difficulty.
3. For loser men, because they lose so constantly, their mind might start hallucinating wins as a coping mechanism. So in the context of dating and consent, they will hallucinate consent, even as the date is taking a nosedive, because they cannot psychologically afford to recognize another loss because doing so would mean confronting just how deep their failure runs. It's a survival mechanism against TOTAL DEFEAT. Red pill bias. This is something as simple as misinterpreting neutral interactions, or looks of disgust as a sign of interest. This is why redpillers are actually biggest losers than blackpillers. At least blackpillers dont delude themselves like this.
When you are a total loser, instead of recognizing reality objectively-- that YOU ARE INDEED A TOTAL UGLY LOSER THAT DESERVES NOTHING, you constantly rewrite events in your heads so it "feels" like a win. Therefore they will say to themselves things like "she was just playing hard to get."
No buddy, you are a 5'7 autistic mutt. Women don't want you.
If someone is starving, they will hallucinate insofar as making a crumb feel like a meal. If a person is starved for validation or intimacy, a small act of kindness or politeness can feel like flirtation or consent.
It all comes down to loser men feeling powerlessness amidst backwards redpill ideologies running counter to this, that assume success is ENTIRELY SELF-DRIVEN. It perplexes me that these fucking bluepillers want you to have hope and not be blackpilled pessimist, when just on axiomatic and feminist terms as outlined in my mathematical proof, if violates the safety axiom of consent. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are sub-6 you have to drink your loser smoothie.
Is it:
"lift, lust conquer"?
"bulk, bang, brag"?
"hustle, dominate, breed"?
"lift, lust conquer"?
"bulk, bang, brag"?
"hustle, dominate, breed"?
It's something along those lines, though I like and relate to all of them in a carnal kind of way, though tbh it must be wild to have this little neuroticism all the time. Reframing it vis-a-vis the solipsistic "live, laugh, love" mindset of basic bitches makes me understand low IQ females a bit more, as basic women can be the most perplexing to an overanalyzer like myself.
2. The social expectation that the consent of a woman is inherently a difficult thing to obtain sets up a dating culture where men must be confident and aggressive pursuers, and this has the effect of forcing loser type men to be confidently incorrect about their own perception of their SMV as well as their own skills of "social awareness"
For example, because most women expect certain things from a date: eg, that the man has a base level of hygiene, is 6' tall, punctual, witty, etc., then these betabuxxer type men study these preferences as a generality, and assume they already "pass" just because in their mind, they hurdled over these basics, and assume an advanced level of consent the actually didn't earn, because according to the 4th axiom of the mathematical proof framework of consent:
The Ongoing Nature of Consent:
C(t)⇒C(t+Δt)
Consent is not static; it must persist throughout the interaction and remain revocable at any time.
C(t)⇒C(t+Δt)
Consent is not static; it must persist throughout the interaction and remain revocable at any time.
Consent is actually not a fixed thing. It's like the nightmare difficulty in DOOM where at all times, no how many demons you killed, they can spawn more at any given moment just to make things more difficult. So just because you pass "logically." Just because it "seems" the vibes were there and it was consentual at the time, dosen't mean a new "ICK" consent demon didn't spawn out of nowhere and killed you before you even realized it. Just thinking about it actually makes me relate a bit more to cocky MMA fighters that got knocked the fuck out, and make all kinds of fidgety excuses as to why they think it was a cheap shot, and it was an unfair loss. It's hard as an aggressive man to actually be objective about something you didn't perceive very clearly, as is the case with a flashy counter type KO. These same kind of fighters dont make as many excuses like this when they just get ground and pounded for 5 rounds. It's only these quick KO losses where this Dunning Kreuger bias happens.
This is the true and brutal nature of consent: it's as brutal as DOOM on nightmare difficulty.
3. For loser men, because they lose so constantly, their mind might start hallucinating wins as a coping mechanism. So in the context of dating and consent, they will hallucinate consent, even as the date is taking a nosedive, because they cannot psychologically afford to recognize another loss because doing so would mean confronting just how deep their failure runs. It's a survival mechanism against TOTAL DEFEAT. Red pill bias. This is something as simple as misinterpreting neutral interactions, or looks of disgust as a sign of interest. This is why redpillers are actually biggest losers than blackpillers. At least blackpillers dont delude themselves like this.
When you are a total loser, instead of recognizing reality objectively-- that YOU ARE INDEED A TOTAL UGLY LOSER THAT DESERVES NOTHING, you constantly rewrite events in your heads so it "feels" like a win. Therefore they will say to themselves things like "she was just playing hard to get."
No buddy, you are a 5'7 autistic mutt. Women don't want you.
If someone is starving, they will hallucinate insofar as making a crumb feel like a meal. If a person is starved for validation or intimacy, a small act of kindness or politeness can feel like flirtation or consent.
It all comes down to loser men feeling powerlessness amidst backwards redpill ideologies running counter to this, that assume success is ENTIRELY SELF-DRIVEN. It perplexes me that these fucking bluepillers want you to have hope and not be blackpilled pessimist, when just on axiomatic and feminist terms as outlined in my mathematical proof, if violates the safety axiom of consent. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are sub-6 you have to drink your loser smoothie.
Last edited:
