Admittedly, there is a lot of edgyposting, hyperbole and venting on this forum, and a lot of CuckTears mistakes that for how everyone here feels 100% of the time and acts when interacting with people. "Even if you don't say misogynistic things IRL, cuz you say them online, you must feel them, thus you must display them unknowingly when outside. I know how you behave better than you do!" etc. There are some basement-dweller theories here, some bad anatomy posts, overgeneralizations and lot of latching onto an idea and running with it and denying events that don't agree with your adopted world view, e.g. "Since women only want chads, any woman dating a subchad is cucking him with alphas on the side derp derp derp".
All that aside, when you break the looks redpill and our knowledge of women down to their base elements, it's generally true what we say:
- Women deny and downplay how much looks play a part in their mate-selection because they respond to our arguments emotionally or with their personal anecdotes rather than looking at the general trend/biology.
- Women generally fuck around with goodlooking guys in their youth and then maybe settle for a safe beta guy when it becomes clear that Chad doesn't commit.
- Women can date up and date a lot of guys due to the male sexdrive, hypergamy, supply-and-demand.
- Being an ugly man and trying to date women is life on max_difficulty mode.
- Women find it harder to pairbond if they have been promiscuous in their past.
- The dating market is skewed in women's favour (Tinder, male thirst, sexual harrassment laws, feminism), etc.
And more.
All of that is based on facts, biology, observable reality, and the consensus of so many men. We know this. We are not bluepilled. We are not controlled opposition. And cucktears and women hate this. They would not have a problem with us if we were discussing which coffeeshops to take women to on dates, which compliments to pay women, which classes to join to get access to women. No. What they hate is us having women SUSSED, FIGURED OUT, UNDERSTOOD. It's like we've exposed their true nature. We have unzipped the "tall man" suit to discover it's actually two ugly midgets one standing on the other.
Women hate men discussing how to get better access to sex (that's PUA's goal although it fails pretty much) and what women's true nature is like (MGTOW, looks redpill). Now I didn't watch that Mel Gibson movie What Women Want, but my impression is that women generally liked it, thus, I guess that it was some bluepill about women just wanting a loving, caring guy. If the movie had shown how women will do anything for Chad, then women would feel exposed and would have hated it. if it showed "cheatcodes" to get women into bed (so they can lie there having orgasms), they would have found it misogynistic.
And because women can't for them life of them logic, they can't counterargue our fundamental points. They instead pick out the edgy posts and strawman the whole community to death with their emotional posting and basic sarcasm.
TLDR: Women wouldn't hate this place so much if our theories were wrong, bluepilled and painted them in a better light. They need to get fucked right in the pussy.
All that aside, when you break the looks redpill and our knowledge of women down to their base elements, it's generally true what we say:
- Women deny and downplay how much looks play a part in their mate-selection because they respond to our arguments emotionally or with their personal anecdotes rather than looking at the general trend/biology.
- Women generally fuck around with goodlooking guys in their youth and then maybe settle for a safe beta guy when it becomes clear that Chad doesn't commit.
- Women can date up and date a lot of guys due to the male sexdrive, hypergamy, supply-and-demand.
- Being an ugly man and trying to date women is life on max_difficulty mode.
- Women find it harder to pairbond if they have been promiscuous in their past.
- The dating market is skewed in women's favour (Tinder, male thirst, sexual harrassment laws, feminism), etc.
And more.
All of that is based on facts, biology, observable reality, and the consensus of so many men. We know this. We are not bluepilled. We are not controlled opposition. And cucktears and women hate this. They would not have a problem with us if we were discussing which coffeeshops to take women to on dates, which compliments to pay women, which classes to join to get access to women. No. What they hate is us having women SUSSED, FIGURED OUT, UNDERSTOOD. It's like we've exposed their true nature. We have unzipped the "tall man" suit to discover it's actually two ugly midgets one standing on the other.
Women hate men discussing how to get better access to sex (that's PUA's goal although it fails pretty much) and what women's true nature is like (MGTOW, looks redpill). Now I didn't watch that Mel Gibson movie What Women Want, but my impression is that women generally liked it, thus, I guess that it was some bluepill about women just wanting a loving, caring guy. If the movie had shown how women will do anything for Chad, then women would feel exposed and would have hated it. if it showed "cheatcodes" to get women into bed (so they can lie there having orgasms), they would have found it misogynistic.
And because women can't for them life of them logic, they can't counterargue our fundamental points. They instead pick out the edgy posts and strawman the whole community to death with their emotional posting and basic sarcasm.
TLDR: Women wouldn't hate this place so much if our theories were wrong, bluepilled and painted them in a better light. They need to get fucked right in the pussy.
