This is why they hate 95% of men... but love animals and other women
How did nature create such a defective creature? How can nature make a being who's sole purpose seems to be to bring every members of their species down, destroy any hope for life and ruin any chance of a decent society?
Then why do foids flood their panties when they see shirtless Chad.
I do believe its mostly white women though (since the study was made in Canada) and I always had the impression that white women are more asexual when it comes to men compared to other races. No wonder white birthrates are so pathetic.
Nature is retarded and should be destroyed (in roblox)
White women have the highest standards for sure and they also can't stand the thought of having children unless they're super trashy.
That's an exaggeration, they find it fancy the same way they like when they see a nice shoe in a window shopper.
That means non-human pill legit?
At least the trashy ones are not genetic dead ends like the other ones. Who are too busy going on BLM rallies to have kids. At least we didn't do this to ourselves.
Nah there's defintely a difference, I think the results of the research you sent only applies to some women.
Y
How will Christian copers that talk about and believe how women and men were made for each other address this?
And clearly since Eve ate the apple before the fall it seems women were naturally inclined to disrespect the wishes of men and not have any consideration for them even before the world became fallen and corrupted
@Billowel @mänline @Mainländer
And clearly since Eve ate the apple before the fall it seems women were naturally inclined to disrespect the wishes of men and not have any consideration for them even before the world became fallen and corrupted
@Billowel @mänline @Mainländer
Last edited:
It mostly applies to white women since it was done in Canada.
I am pretty sure other races of women like men
I
When they say men don't care about women they find unfuckable, they're projecting.
He created men in his image. Women aren't human
Women are made for Chad
I
That's correct.
the shirtless dudes werent chads obviously
Y
Clearly Adam wasn't a chad then otherwise Eve wouldn't have been tempted by the serpent.
For them everything that doesn't ignite their emotion on an animalistic level is a duty.You have a strong personality and original ideas?Maybe they will talk to you but they will perceive you as a chore.You can read the fatigue in her eyes.The same fatigued eyes they will have when settling down to their 5.5/10 beta provider working 80 hours a day while she is st home doing jackshit.Then Chad just says "hello" and they feel like a volcano is exploding in their hearts.
female pleasure is irrelevant for the purpose of reproducing.(unlike men they can fulfill their reproducive role without feeling pleasure).
this is why concerning about females sexual pleasure is pointless,they're meant to have kids not orgasms...
T
fucking brutal shit man, how can you not hate women? The more I learn about women the more I hate them. They're disgusting beings.
Why don't copers just accept we live in a retarded world guided by natural selection which quite often produces and selects fucked up things like this. "Intelligent designer" jfl
God works in mysterious ways bro
Why don't copers just accept we live in a retarded world guided by natural selection which quite often produces and selects fucked up things like this. "Intelligent designer" jfl
Woman complement man but they are still the weaker gender.Two broken hammers are broken but a hammer who is 80% complete will always be better then a 50% complete hammer.If history(including the history of eve and adam) have told us anything is that women are by far the most incapable organism the world has ever seen.Woman need to be completely subservient to something,if the world is to function without problems.They have powers true(they are an extra pair of hands,have a womb,and can satisfy the lust of man) but their extra pair of hands is a joke compared to most man and their other good traits are necessary to the upkeep of society,but are still an incredibly small part of society at large.Woman complement man,but that is it.They are necessary,but to assume they are more then that is a mistake and look at where that brought us(look at feminism).Woman are incapable of upholding even a tenth of society by themselves,so it is hilarious to see them fail over and over again because they are too prideful to accept their position in society.
A female is completely dependent on male structures if she is to survive,and man needs woman to satisfy their desires and both need each other to follow one of god most important commandments,which is to give birth to saints.
"As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it." Genesis 9:7
It is true that i say women complement,but all you need to do is to look at this forum to see how necessary women are to the mental sanity of man.Man needs all his organs,and if just one is removed it is enough to kill the man.The removal of one small organ is enough to bring destruction.Much in the same manner man needs women and women needs man.
Both need each other for different reasons,but different reasons does not kill the fact that they need each other.
also what OP said is nothing surprising when you realize that dogs are kissed,hugged,cuddled,and sometimes fucked while most incels never once even got touched by the finger of a woman.
i might edit this post later,but now i am going to eat pizza so see you later
Last edited:
this, nature defenders are like stormtroopers.
People have to finally realize that "muh nature" does actual jackshit for us like god, we have to form our own world and abolish bullshit like natural selection etc.
There is nothing natural about what is going on now.
Cave men didn't have smartphones, women couldn't select a mate in a 50km radius among hundreds of local Chadrones
That they complement each other as a whole is not negated by this. And women's sexuality seems far less deep ingrained biological, but more societal influenced. When they get told from little age, that men are ugly and the devil and they the beauty princess it will make something in the perception of men I guess. For the last thing, it was a thread on girlsaskguys.
In his review, Baumeister found studies showing many ways in which women's sexual attitudes, practices, and desires were more influenced by their environment than men:
Women's attitudes toward (and willingness to perform) various sexual practices are more likely than men's to change over time.
Women who regularly attend church are less likely to have permissive attitudes about sex. Men do not show this connection between church attendance and sex attitudes.
Women are more influenced by the attitudes of their peer group in their decisions about sex.
Women with higher education levels were more likely to have performed a wider variety of sexual practices (such as oral sex); education made less of a difference with men.
Women were more likely than men to show inconsistency between their expressed values about sexual activities such as premarital sex and their actual behavior.
Why are women's sex drives seemingly weaker and more vulnerable to influence? Some have theorized it's related to the greater power of men in society, or differing sexual expectations of men when compared to women. Laumann prefers an explanation more closely tied to the world of sociobiology.
Men have every incentive to have sex to pass along their genetic material, Laumann says. By contrast, women may be hard-wired to choose their partners carefully, because they are the ones who can get pregnant and wind up taking care of the baby. They are likely to be more attuned to relationship quality because they want a partner who will stay around to help take care of the child. They're also more likely to choose a man with resources because of his greater ability to support a child.
Women's attitudes toward (and willingness to perform) various sexual practices are more likely than men's to change over time.
Women who regularly attend church are less likely to have permissive attitudes about sex. Men do not show this connection between church attendance and sex attitudes.
Women are more influenced by the attitudes of their peer group in their decisions about sex.
Women with higher education levels were more likely to have performed a wider variety of sexual practices (such as oral sex); education made less of a difference with men.
Women were more likely than men to show inconsistency between their expressed values about sexual activities such as premarital sex and their actual behavior.
Why are women's sex drives seemingly weaker and more vulnerable to influence? Some have theorized it's related to the greater power of men in society, or differing sexual expectations of men when compared to women. Laumann prefers an explanation more closely tied to the world of sociobiology.
Men have every incentive to have sex to pass along their genetic material, Laumann says. By contrast, women may be hard-wired to choose their partners carefully, because they are the ones who can get pregnant and wind up taking care of the baby. They are likely to be more attuned to relationship quality because they want a partner who will stay around to help take care of the child. They're also more likely to choose a man with resources because of his greater ability to support a child.
The other answers may also helpful for this: https://www.girlsaskguys.com/sexual-behavior/a28991-male-female-sex-drives-7-biological-differences
As I said in the other thread about women incapable of love: Women are to men like men are to God. We don't want God, but need him. Same with women. Women don't want men, but need him. Reversely men don't need women but wants them. Same like God to humans.
It was Adam, not Eve, who expresses his joy by saying: 1.Mo 2:23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” I will not go so far, that Eve was bored of and dissatisfied with Adam, and because of this, she started to lust after other things but yes, Eve was the one, who seemed to have a bigger psychological curse and change at least after fall because of her disobedience.
3 different translations of Genesis 3:16 of this:
Your desire shall be contrary to husband, but he shall rule over you
And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.'
Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.'
So I at least acknowledge that there were psychological changes after sinfall sex-relationship wise.
It is not a satisfactory answer, but a few suggestions.
D
Yes I have noticed this too.
foids still preferring chad over normie is indeed natural, back then they were just getting raped and killed lol
Goes back to the first woman, Eve. Everything was PERFECT in the Garden of Eden and she had to eat that fucking apple...
this is the foundation basis that women are NEVER satisfied with anything
That is not true at all. A feminist myth created by college feministards with blue hair
simple answer
women can afford to be vile subhumans who find chimps mating more arousing than male form
thats it
Our hearts and our flesh must not be trusted. They're fully contaminated by sin. Everyone is filled with wrong desires and inclinations. Women, as much as they feel like rejecting men, rebelling against men, getting out of their ways to make men's lives worse, etc, are supposed to fight against those desires and do what God commands them to do in 2nd Timothy, that is, obey men, support men, be modest, marry young, etc. Likewise, most men want to have sex with tons of women and not assume any responsibility for it but we must marry one woman and be responsible for her and the kids he has with her.
brootal. it is over for males and non chads
Theyre more aroused by watching a woman doing calisthenics. JFL.
Additionally, to the already said things, I want to say, that there are also studies, who have a bit different outcome. Not, that it will be good, but better.
The first hint is already in the original article of NYT, which isn't quoted by this misandrist Noelle:
What really matters to women, Dr. Chivers said, at least in the somewhat artificial setting of watching movies while intimately hooked up to a device called a photoplethysmograph, is not the gender of the actor, but the degree of sensuality. Even more than the naked exercisers, they were aroused by videos of masturbation, and more still by graphic videos of couples making love. Women with women, men with men, men with women: it did not seem to matter much to her female subjects, Dr. Chivers said.
“Women physically don’t seem to differentiate between genders in their sex responses, at least heterosexual women don’t,” she said. “For heterosexual women, gender didn’t matter. They responded to the level of activity.”
I don't find the original study, so IDK no the details, but maybe this yoga was less eroticized than calisthenics. Also, we don't know if there was eventually subjective arousal because it is not automatically congruent with genital arousal in females; quoted from the bigger study below.
Discrepancies between existing genital and subjective measures indicate that some women may report substantial subjective arousal without substantial genital arousal, and vice versa.
Now some other studies, the first is the most rehabilitating one probably.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
At first, they rated female nudes as neutral, as male nudes. IDK how you can rate something neutral when they say next that it induced an arousal, but we can notify, that both genders received the same rating.
Furthermore like just said, the nudes created arousal, which was subjectively reported equal for male and female nudes. Even more: the measured reaction in the brain was even higher to male nudes.
Another study of the contextual influence of women with maybe another reason for the exclusive arousal to female nude sports:
" Additionally, men generally prefer stimuli that allow objectification of the actor and projection of themselves into the scenario, while women are aroused primarily by stimuli allowing projection, although men also use the projection strategy which is positively associated with sexual arousal "
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
But tbh, IDK how they came to this conclusion after reading the whole study.
Next, bigger study:
Link to study (full text):
www.nature.com
First, in the introduction is stated, that it is shown often before that male stimuli create similar arousal like female stimuli (not zero, like OP article, suggest).
Results overall in response to gender-specific stimuli (greater male stimuli response on the positive spectrum):
Unfortunately, the study used also pictures of gay sex as "male erotic" stimuli, so these results where women slightly prefer male erotics could be interpreted as action-dependant, not gender-depandant, like the OP's study is better explained in the NYT quote some lines above.
But: this gay material must have been extraordinarily highly arousing relative to all other "female-erotic" if "male-erotic" stimuli were preferred overall if one wants to assume that simple naked men are zero arousing. I would strongly doubt this.
Furthermore, two linked studies from the discussion section of the last:
From the Abstract of the one named study of Ponseti: Contrary to our hypotheses, both women and men demonstrated gender-specific genital and subjective sexual arousal, such that sexual arousal was greatest to prepotent male and female stimuli, respectively. This is the first study to demonstrate gender-specific genital responding in heterosexual women.
Ok, "prepotent male stimuli" is an erect penis, not naked men. Nonetheless, the misandrist Bullshit of Noelle ("this is why we turn the lights off and think of something different while sex, you are ugly unappealing teehee") in OP is debunked.
Overall the sexual response for heterosexual women is mostly gender-unspecific at first, but get more gender-specific later
link.springer.com
For androphilic women, a more textured pattern is revealed. Androphilic women show gender nonspecificity in early stimulus processing, and more gender specificity in later stimulus processing.
When hate can rise up trough one study, maybe sympathy also: woman have more "faithful arousal":
The first hint is already in the original article of NYT, which isn't quoted by this misandrist Noelle:
What really matters to women, Dr. Chivers said, at least in the somewhat artificial setting of watching movies while intimately hooked up to a device called a photoplethysmograph, is not the gender of the actor, but the degree of sensuality. Even more than the naked exercisers, they were aroused by videos of masturbation, and more still by graphic videos of couples making love. Women with women, men with men, men with women: it did not seem to matter much to her female subjects, Dr. Chivers said.
“Women physically don’t seem to differentiate between genders in their sex responses, at least heterosexual women don’t,” she said. “For heterosexual women, gender didn’t matter. They responded to the level of activity.”
I don't find the original study, so IDK no the details, but maybe this yoga was less eroticized than calisthenics. Also, we don't know if there was eventually subjective arousal because it is not automatically congruent with genital arousal in females; quoted from the bigger study below.
Discrepancies between existing genital and subjective measures indicate that some women may report substantial subjective arousal without substantial genital arousal, and vice versa.
Now some other studies, the first is the most rehabilitating one probably.
Gender differences in response to pictures of nudes: a magnetoencephalographic study - PubMed
The magnetic equivalent of the contingent negative variation (CMV) and visual evoked magnetic fields (VEF) in anticipation of pictures of opposite-sex nude, same-sex nude, and neutral photographs has been recorded with whole-head MEG in 12 males and 12 females. Subjective ratings of valence...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
At first, they rated female nudes as neutral, as male nudes. IDK how you can rate something neutral when they say next that it induced an arousal, but we can notify, that both genders received the same rating.
Furthermore like just said, the nudes created arousal, which was subjectively reported equal for male and female nudes. Even more: the measured reaction in the brain was even higher to male nudes.
Another study of the contextual influence of women with maybe another reason for the exclusive arousal to female nude sports:
" Additionally, men generally prefer stimuli that allow objectification of the actor and projection of themselves into the scenario, while women are aroused primarily by stimuli allowing projection, although men also use the projection strategy which is positively associated with sexual arousal "
Sex Differences in Response to Visual Sexual Stimuli: A Review
This article reviews what is currently known about how men and women respond to the presentation of visual sexual stimuli. While the assumption that men respond more to visual sexual stimuli is generally empirically supported, previous reports of sex ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Next, bigger study:
Brain scan study: Bisexual and heterosexual women similarly aroused by male and female erotica
A new study provides more evidence that heterosexual women are just as likely to be aroused by erotic stimuli featuring men as erotic stimuli featuring
www.psypost.org
Neural Correlates of Sexual Orientation in Heterosexual, Bisexual, and Homosexual Women - Scientific Reports
We used fMRI to investigate neural correlates of responses to erotic pictures and videos in heterosexual (N = 26), bisexual (N = 26), and homosexual (N = 24) women, ages 25–50. We focused on the ventral striatum, an area of the brain associated with desire, extending previous findings from the...
www.nature.com
First, in the introduction is stated, that it is shown often before that male stimuli create similar arousal like female stimuli (not zero, like OP article, suggest).
Results overall in response to gender-specific stimuli (greater male stimuli response on the positive spectrum):
Unfortunately, the study used also pictures of gay sex as "male erotic" stimuli, so these results where women slightly prefer male erotics could be interpreted as action-dependant, not gender-depandant, like the OP's study is better explained in the NYT quote some lines above.
But: this gay material must have been extraordinarily highly arousing relative to all other "female-erotic" if "male-erotic" stimuli were preferred overall if one wants to assume that simple naked men are zero arousing. I would strongly doubt this.
Furthermore, two linked studies from the discussion section of the last:
From the Abstract of the one named study of Ponseti: Contrary to our hypotheses, both women and men demonstrated gender-specific genital and subjective sexual arousal, such that sexual arousal was greatest to prepotent male and female stimuli, respectively. This is the first study to demonstrate gender-specific genital responding in heterosexual women.
Ok, "prepotent male stimuli" is an erect penis, not naked men. Nonetheless, the misandrist Bullshit of Noelle ("this is why we turn the lights off and think of something different while sex, you are ugly unappealing teehee") in OP is debunked.
Overall the sexual response for heterosexual women is mostly gender-unspecific at first, but get more gender-specific later
The Specificity of Women’s Sexual Response and Its Relationship with Sexual Orientations: A Review and Ten Hypotheses - Archives of Sexual Behavior
Category-specific sexual response describes a pattern wherein the individual shows significantly greater responses to preferred versus nonpreferred categories of sexual stimuli; this pattern is described as gender specific for sexual orientation to gender, or gender nonspecific if lacking...
link.springer.com
When hate can rise up trough one study, maybe sympathy also: woman have more "faithful arousal":
What does that even mean
Oh, sorry, I read the thing and must have thought by quoting one bit, it must be clear to all. It is all bit puzzling, but when it comes to look for a sexual mate, there brains work heterosexual, that's my understanding. This excludes mastubation ("solitary desire").
early stimulus processing, genital response, autonomic responses, and responsive solitary sexual desire is gender-nonspecific, whereas their later stimulus processing, affective, and subjective responses, reward area activation, and responsive partnered desire are more gender-specific.
___
In a speeded task where women evaluated whether the image represented a potential sexual partner, androphilic women’s response latencies were greatest for male sexual stimuli, with effect sizes ranging from medium to large. This gender-specific effect demonstrates how task demands can influence outcomes in viewing time experiments; Imhoff et al. thus proposed that response times in the speeded task might more accurately reflect sexual attractions. In a fourth experiment displaying women’s and men’s faces, clear gender specificity was shown in women’s viewing times, an effect that was replicated in another study using a behavioral measure (a button-press task) to assess motivations to look at gendered facial stimuli (Hahn, Fisher, DeBruine, & Jones, 2015). These effects underscore how stimulus content (e.g., showing bodies with primary and secondary sexual characteristics versus faces only) and task demand effects can have a substantial influence on women’s sexual response, a consistent pattern that will be discussed in greater detail later in this review.
foids would rather fuck a dog over us. they dont want to allow sub-8 men to have the pleasure of sex. their job is to cull us from existence.
Similar threads
turbosperg
Users who are viewing this thread
