Topic: Manosphere is kinda gay
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 weeks ago #134,354
I get that some men want to prove to everyone that they’re really masculine so they’ll say sexist stuff to try and degrade women like femininity is inferior to masculinity. But after a certain point when you listen to a man go on and on an on about how much he thinks women are stupid and inferior and skills and go on and on and on about how men are stronger, smarter, better looking, etc. it really starts sounding like a sexual preference.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 57 seconds later[^] [v] #1,430,662
Like I thought being straight meant you like women, right? So if you don’t like women, how can you like woman? You can’t that’s a contradiction, either you like women or you don’t.
boof joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,666
those guys are fags
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,670
100%. It’s the hypermasculinity of the insecure. The kind that you see with “totally straight” frat boys initiating someone with totally gay stuff, Clavicular endlessly praising a gay actor as the perfection standard, and the old Nazi statues of burly, muscled, naked guys holding hands.
Anonymous C double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 21 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,675
Workout, raise your family, fulfill obligations, honor your word. It’s not that hard, though often tedious.
These guys who have to run their mouths about what being a man is are insecure and sociopathic grifters. It’s also obvious they have no concept - leased cars and rapper homes, pay to play social media “influencer” “girlfriends.”
These are the guys who walk into a gym or dojo running their mouths but always avoid getting tuned up.
I’ve known actual hard cases and they’re strangely quiet. They have nothing to prove and no need for validation.
These guys who have to run their mouths about what being a man is are insecure and sociopathic grifters. It’s also obvious they have no concept - leased cars and rapper homes, pay to play social media “influencer” “girlfriends.”
These are the guys who walk into a gym or dojo running their mouths but always avoid getting tuned up.
I’ve known actual hard cases and they’re strangely quiet. They have nothing to prove and no need for validation.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 27 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,676
@1,430,662 (A)
It's really not complicated. You can be attracted to women, and still know that as long as women are emotional and delusional it's the man's job to lead.
It's really not complicated. You can be attracted to women, and still know that as long as women are emotional and delusional it's the man's job to lead.
A black guy pointing stuff out joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,695
@1,430,675 (C)
> These guys who have to run their mouths about what being a man is are insecure and sociopathic grifters.
Ngl I always thought the concept of needing somebody to "teach" you how to be a man was weird. Especially on the internet. Like, if you’re really a man why would you be confused about how to be a man? I don’t get how people sell courses on this stuff. I saw one video of a guy explaining how to sit in a chair like an alpha and it was completely unironic. It literally makes no sense!
> These guys who have to run their mouths about what being a man is are insecure and sociopathic grifters.
Ngl I always thought the concept of needing somebody to "teach" you how to be a man was weird. Especially on the internet. Like, if you’re really a man why would you be confused about how to be a man? I don’t get how people sell courses on this stuff. I saw one video of a guy explaining how to sit in a chair like an alpha and it was completely unironic. It literally makes no sense!
A black guy pointing stuff out double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,696
I just wonder who’s out there thinking "people think I look like a girl when I sit down in a chair" and then they google "how to sit down in a chair like an alpha male" and then they watch the video. Who’s doing that?
Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 52 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,707
boof replied with this 3 weeks ago, 7 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,710
it's like a child's view of some dubious concept of man-fulfillment
really should focus on practical skills that anyone should know
what's a man-specific skill? checking the balls for tumouars
really should focus on practical skills that anyone should know
what's a man-specific skill? checking the balls for tumouars
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 41 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,714
@1,430,695 (A black guy pointing stuff out)
> > These guys who have to run their mouths about what being a man is are insecure and sociopathic grifters.
>
> Ngl I always thought the concept of needing somebody to "teach" you how to be a man was weird. Especially on the internet. Like, if you’re really a man why would you be confused about how to be a man? I don’t get how people sell courses on this stuff. I saw one video of a guy explaining how to sit in a chair like an alpha and it was completely unironic. It literally makes no sense!
Sad boys in need of an Internet daddy, a magical guy who has all the hacks for getting chicks, working out, getting rich, and buying the right crypto.
> > These guys who have to run their mouths about what being a man is are insecure and sociopathic grifters.
>
> Ngl I always thought the concept of needing somebody to "teach" you how to be a man was weird. Especially on the internet. Like, if you’re really a man why would you be confused about how to be a man? I don’t get how people sell courses on this stuff. I saw one video of a guy explaining how to sit in a chair like an alpha and it was completely unironic. It literally makes no sense!
Sad boys in need of an Internet daddy, a magical guy who has all the hacks for getting chicks, working out, getting rich, and buying the right crypto.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,717
@1,430,695 (A black guy pointing stuff out)
For Brotherhood/Camaraderie I suppose but its used in the wrong lens sadly. Probably why the manosphere/incel culture exists in the first place. as long you have others who relate to you and don't invalidate your personal experience then they dont see it as wrong.
Considering between the lack of male mentor/father-figures/older brothers I'm not really surprised.
For Brotherhood/Camaraderie I suppose but its used in the wrong lens sadly. Probably why the manosphere/incel culture exists in the first place. as long you have others who relate to you and don't invalidate your personal experience then they dont see it as wrong.
Considering between the lack of male mentor/father-figures/older brothers I'm not really surprised.
Anonymous H double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,718
@1,430,714 (G)
Sad boys just need to make friends with other boys. if they remove the "alleged hacks for getting chicks" snakeoil from the equitation then im pretty sure they'll be fine.
Sad boys just need to make friends with other boys. if they remove the "alleged hacks for getting chicks" snakeoil from the equitation then im pretty sure they'll be fine.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,722
@1,430,717 (H)
Having a good male role model doesn't change the underlying dynamics.
There's more men looking for a partner than women. No amount of self-improvement changes the ratio.
Women will share a high status man rather than take a monogamous looksmatch. Women will become dykes or troon to fit into the queer fad. Straight women will refuse to date anyone because they got chad to use them for a night when they were young, and think that's their league.
Most men are cooked no matter what they do.
Having a good male role model doesn't change the underlying dynamics.
There's more men looking for a partner than women. No amount of self-improvement changes the ratio.
Women will share a high status man rather than take a monogamous looksmatch. Women will become dykes or troon to fit into the queer fad. Straight women will refuse to date anyone because they got chad to use them for a night when they were young, and think that's their league.
Most men are cooked no matter what they do.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,725
Anonymous I replied with this 3 weeks ago, 19 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,729
@previous (J)
So you have to believe in a 1:1 gender ratio in dating or you're an incel?
No mammals pair off 1:1, and humans are even more skewed. By your definition of incel, knowing basic biology makes someone an incel.
So you have to believe in a 1:1 gender ratio in dating or you're an incel?
No mammals pair off 1:1, and humans are even more skewed. By your definition of incel, knowing basic biology makes someone an incel.
Anonymous J replied with this 3 weeks ago, 24 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,732
@previous (I)
You said it spot on. We're long term pairers and not ideally setup in the best method like Indians dl
You said it spot on. We're long term pairers and not ideally setup in the best method like Indians dl
A black guy pointing stuff out joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,734
@1,430,729 (I)
Human are serially monogamous and apes have a diverse set of mating systems despite there only being a very small number of ape species. For example, chimpanzees and bonobos are both about equally closely related to humans, but in chimpanzees, the males are dominant, in bonobos, the females are dominant, and they aren’t really sure which of the two is the original trait from our common ancestor, so making these comparisons about humans and mother mammals is sort of meaningless. We are different from other mammals in certain ways, and our mating system is a big difference. All hominin species (there’s only one left alive, us) have feminized canine teeth and low sexual dimorphism in body size because humans have low male competition for mates because we’re serially monogamous.
Human are serially monogamous and apes have a diverse set of mating systems despite there only being a very small number of ape species. For example, chimpanzees and bonobos are both about equally closely related to humans, but in chimpanzees, the males are dominant, in bonobos, the females are dominant, and they aren’t really sure which of the two is the original trait from our common ancestor, so making these comparisons about humans and mother mammals is sort of meaningless. We are different from other mammals in certain ways, and our mating system is a big difference. All hominin species (there’s only one left alive, us) have feminized canine teeth and low sexual dimorphism in body size because humans have low male competition for mates because we’re serially monogamous.
A black guy pointing stuff out double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,735
Now humans are sexually dimorphic, but for example male gorillas are about twice as large as female gorillas. Male humans are bigger than female humans, we’re not twice as big, because we have a totally different mating system. Male gorillas tend to not even live in the same groups because they have such violent competition over mates
A black guy pointing stuff out triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 26 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,738
Also in general, this doesn’t apply to humans, but in the context of other apes, most other ape species are polygynous so one dominant male will mate with multiple females, so usually the males have more sexual partners than the females, so that part of what you said doesn’t make sense.
A black guy pointing stuff out quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 51 seconds later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,739
When one woman is with multiple men that’s called polyandry but it’s really rare in primates.
Anonymous I replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,758
@1,430,738 (A black guy pointing stuff out)
Think about the math here.
How can every man have multiple sex partners?
No matter how it happens, heterosexual partner count is even because theres always a man and woman having sex.
It works because only a few men have multiple sexual partners, which is exactly what I said. Women are hypergamous and share top men.
Think about the math here.
How can every man have multiple sex partners?
No matter how it happens, heterosexual partner count is even because theres always a man and woman having sex.
It works because only a few men have multiple sexual partners, which is exactly what I said. Women are hypergamous and share top men.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 13 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,759
They are as gay as the "as you should" girls.
A black guy pointing stuff out joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 21 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,763
A black guy pointing stuff out double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 31 seconds later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,764
Anonymous I replied with this 3 weeks ago, 16 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,768
A black guy pointing stuff out joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,769
@previous (I)
So what you’re saying is women who have sex with a lot of men have sex with men who have sex with a lot of women.
So what you’re saying is women who have sex with a lot of men have sex with men who have sex with a lot of women.
A black guy pointing stuff out double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,770
So if you don’t want a woman who has sex with a lot of guys, then just don’t have sex with a lot of women.
A black guy pointing stuff out triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,772
…it’s almost like hominins solved this problem millions of years ago when females evolved concealed ovulation and sexually selected male partners with smaller canine teeth to reduce male aggression which is why unlike gorillas we have societies where multiple males can cooperate with each other without getting violently territorial and can form societies.
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
A black guy pointing stuff out quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,773
That’s the other thing that’s dumb about this alpha stuff. Humans are apes. Look at every other ape, then look at us. We’re not strong, we’re smart. We’re a physically weak species.
A black guy pointing stuff out quintuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,774
I mean, just look at a female chimp without fur, chimpanzees spend most of the time lying around and the females look shredded like human male body builders.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous I replied with this 3 weeks ago, 44 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,788
@1,430,770 (A black guy pointing stuff out)
> So if you don’t want a woman who has sex with a lot of guys, then just don’t have sex with a lot of women.
That's not how any of this works. Choosing to wait until marriage doesn't magically stop women from being hypergamous sluts.
> So if you don’t want a woman who has sex with a lot of guys, then just don’t have sex with a lot of women.
That's not how any of this works. Choosing to wait until marriage doesn't magically stop women from being hypergamous sluts.
A black guy pointing stuff out joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,790
@previous (I)
I didn’t say wait until marriage, I said if you don’t act like a hypergamous manslut you’re less likely to wind up with hypergamous womanslut.
I didn’t say wait until marriage, I said if you don’t act like a hypergamous manslut you’re less likely to wind up with hypergamous womanslut.
A black guy pointing stuff out double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 55 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,791
And if you really hate women so much because they’re so terrible, then maybe you shouldn’t date women. I like women I don’t have any complaints about women.
Anonymous I replied with this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,792
@1,430,790 (A black guy pointing stuff out)
That's still not how it works.
Women are going to act like that regardless of what you choose to do. You can only stop yourself, not all the chads looking for fun.
If you do go for one of the women that have a low bodycount you'll be competing with a lot of other men regardless of your past and bodycount.
That's still not how it works.
Women are going to act like that regardless of what you choose to do. You can only stop yourself, not all the chads looking for fun.
If you do go for one of the women that have a low bodycount you'll be competing with a lot of other men regardless of your past and bodycount.
Anonymous I double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 26 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,794
@1,430,791 (A black guy pointing stuff out)
You keep using that word, "hate", but you don't seem to know what it means.
You keep using that word, "hate", but you don't seem to know what it means.
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,795
Anonymous I replied with this 3 weeks ago, 20 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,796
A black guy pointing stuff out replied with this 3 weeks ago, 12 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,800
@1,430,792 (I)
> Women are going to act like that regardless of what you choose to do. You can only stop yourself, not all the chads looking for fun.
What in the inferiority complex?
> Women are going to act like that regardless of what you choose to do. You can only stop yourself, not all the chads looking for fun.
What in the inferiority complex?
A black guy pointing stuff out double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,802
Like what do you want me to say exactly? Do you want me to tell you you’re ugly and you’ll never be able to keep a girl because more attractive men will always steal them from you and this is a biological reality you can do nothing about? Is that what you want me to say?
A black guy pointing stuff out triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,803
And it’s like, you say all this crap about women, but you’re acting like you’re inferior to women while saying you’re superior to them. Why does it matter if women don’t want to be with you? I don’t care about women who don’t want to be with me at all. They’re somebody else’s problem. Not every woman on the planet is sexually promiscuous, there are a lot of women out there who are shy and don’t really talk to guys, they’re all over the place.
Anonymous I replied with this 3 weeks ago, 10 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,807
@1,430,800 (A black guy pointing stuff out)
> > Women are going to act like that regardless of what you choose to do. You can only stop yourself, not all the chads looking for fun.
>
> What in the inferiority complex?
How is it an inferiority complex to say you can't control what other men do?
> > Women are going to act like that regardless of what you choose to do. You can only stop yourself, not all the chads looking for fun.
>
> What in the inferiority complex?
How is it an inferiority complex to say you can't control what other men do?
A black guy pointing stuff out replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,809
@previous (I)
In that quote you didn’t say you can’t control what other men do you said you can’t control what your own woman does.
In that quote you didn’t say you can’t control what other men do you said you can’t control what your own woman does.
Anonymous I replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,810
@1,430,802 (A black guy pointing stuff out)
I'd like you to actually read the posts you're replying to.
Can you explain how it's an "inferiority complex" to say that the behavior of other men is not up to yourself?
I'd like you to actually read the posts you're replying to.
Can you explain how it's an "inferiority complex" to say that the behavior of other men is not up to yourself?
A black guy pointing stuff out replied with this 3 weeks ago, 27 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,811
And I’m not saying you should control women I’m just saying, maybe have a spine?
Anonymous I replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,812
@1,430,809 (A black guy pointing stuff out)
No, I said you can't control what chads and women do.
Understanding other people have agency isn't an inferiority complex.
No, I said you can't control what chads and women do.
Understanding other people have agency isn't an inferiority complex.
Anonymous I double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 44 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,813
@1,430,811 (A black guy pointing stuff out)
"Having a spine" doesn't change the fact that women choose to be hypergamous.
"Having a spine" doesn't change the fact that women choose to be hypergamous.
A black guy pointing stuff out replied with this 3 weeks ago, 15 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,814
@1,430,812 (I)
It’s kind of an inferiority complex if you assume literally every woman in existence will cheat on you because you think you’re not a "chad."
It’s kind of an inferiority complex if you assume literally every woman in existence will cheat on you because you think you’re not a "chad."
Anonymous L replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,815
@1,430,764 (A black guy pointing stuff out)
You know, the man-hating women who demand so much from men yet have nothing to offer them. They also hate having relationships with men and sex with them.
You know, the man-hating women who demand so much from men yet have nothing to offer them. They also hate having relationships with men and sex with them.
A black guy pointing stuff out replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,816
Ngl I feel like some people just wanna be victims in their own story.
Anonymous I replied with this 3 weeks ago, 20 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,817
@1,430,803 (A black guy pointing stuff out)
> you’re acting like you’re inferior to women while saying you’re superior to them.
I didn't say any of that, as usual you made something up in your head and made a strawman instead of responding to any of the actual words I wrote.
> Why does it matter if women don’t want to be with you? I don’t care about women who don’t want to be with me at all. They’re somebody else’s problem.
I stated how the dynamics worked, that's all.
> Not every woman on the planet is sexually promiscuous, there are a lot of women out there who are shy and don’t really talk to guys, they’re all over the place.
It doesn't need to be every woman to affect the dynamics for the rest.
If most women act like this, and most men want one that doesn't, there will be multiple men going for the same women. The natural consequence is that women will see they have a lot of options and obviously go for the best. All the other men lose.
You can attach any judgments to that you want, but the facts are that no matter what choices men make, most will lose out because of the simple math of it. Multiple men competing for each woman, they can't all win because there's more men than women in that arena.
> you’re acting like you’re inferior to women while saying you’re superior to them.
I didn't say any of that, as usual you made something up in your head and made a strawman instead of responding to any of the actual words I wrote.
> Why does it matter if women don’t want to be with you? I don’t care about women who don’t want to be with me at all. They’re somebody else’s problem.
I stated how the dynamics worked, that's all.
> Not every woman on the planet is sexually promiscuous, there are a lot of women out there who are shy and don’t really talk to guys, they’re all over the place.
It doesn't need to be every woman to affect the dynamics for the rest.
If most women act like this, and most men want one that doesn't, there will be multiple men going for the same women. The natural consequence is that women will see they have a lot of options and obviously go for the best. All the other men lose.
You can attach any judgments to that you want, but the facts are that no matter what choices men make, most will lose out because of the simple math of it. Multiple men competing for each woman, they can't all win because there's more men than women in that arena.
A black guy pointing stuff out replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,818
@previous (I)
The absurdity that you’re trying to debate me and your stance is that you can’t get laid because other men are hotter than you and women like them more than you.
The absurdity that you’re trying to debate me and your stance is that you can’t get laid because other men are hotter than you and women like them more than you.
A black guy pointing stuff out double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 20 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,819
Like dude just be normal.
A black guy pointing stuff out triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,820
Republican senators have wives okay. Have you seen a republican senators face before? It’s not pretty. I don’t think this chad obsession you have. Chad is just a country in Africa, Chads don’t want your girl!
Anonymous I replied with this 3 weeks ago, 14 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,821
@1,430,816 (A black guy pointing stuff out)
> Ngl I feel like some people just wanna be victims in their own story.
It's not about me or my story, because even if I am in the top 10% these dynamics are still true.
If you know that most women share the top men (because wombs are scarce and sperm is not), and you can understand the simple math that the remaining women are outnumbered by the remaining men, then women can be picky and demanding, and many men will necessarily lose no matter what they do.
You can call it good or bad, but the simple facts are undeniable.
> Ngl I feel like some people just wanna be victims in their own story.
It's not about me or my story, because even if I am in the top 10% these dynamics are still true.
If you know that most women share the top men (because wombs are scarce and sperm is not), and you can understand the simple math that the remaining women are outnumbered by the remaining men, then women can be picky and demanding, and many men will necessarily lose no matter what they do.
You can call it good or bad, but the simple facts are undeniable.
Anonymous I double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,823
@1,430,818 (A black guy pointing stuff out)
> The absurdity that you’re trying to debate me and your stance is that you can’t get laid because other men are hotter than you and women like them more than you.
You're making up a strawman for a cheap personal attack.
My argument is that it doesn't matter how good or bad I do, the underlying dynamics are that most men will not do well simply because of sexual dynamics.
> The absurdity that you’re trying to debate me and your stance is that you can’t get laid because other men are hotter than you and women like them more than you.
You're making up a strawman for a cheap personal attack.
My argument is that it doesn't matter how good or bad I do, the underlying dynamics are that most men will not do well simply because of sexual dynamics.
(Edited 10 seconds later.)
Anonymous I triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,824
@1,430,820 (A black guy pointing stuff out)
Senators are in the 1% of the 1% in power, so of course they will have a partner.
If some random loser looksmaxxes and wins a senate seat he might change his lot, but the underlying dynamics stay the same.
Senators are in the 1% of the 1% in power, so of course they will have a partner.
If some random loser looksmaxxes and wins a senate seat he might change his lot, but the underlying dynamics stay the same.
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,831
@1,430,722 (I)
> Having a good male role model doesn't change the underlying dynamics.
Has that been proven? How do you know it doesn’t change the dynamics? In fact what does “underlying dynamics” have anything to do with having good male role models?
> There's more men looking for a partner than women. No amount of self-improvement changes the ratio.
Again similar question to the first statement. Also does self improvement really need to equate to women/finding a partner?
> Women will share a high status man rather than take a monogamous looksmatch. Women will become dykes or troon to fit into the queer fad. Straight women will refuse to date anyone because they got chad to use them for a night when they were young, and think that's their league.
Sounds more like preferences than anything else really. Thats the norm.
> Most men are cooked no matter what they do.
Not only subjective but self defeating imo
> Having a good male role model doesn't change the underlying dynamics.
Has that been proven? How do you know it doesn’t change the dynamics? In fact what does “underlying dynamics” have anything to do with having good male role models?
> There's more men looking for a partner than women. No amount of self-improvement changes the ratio.
Again similar question to the first statement. Also does self improvement really need to equate to women/finding a partner?
> Women will share a high status man rather than take a monogamous looksmatch. Women will become dykes or troon to fit into the queer fad. Straight women will refuse to date anyone because they got chad to use them for a night when they were young, and think that's their league.
Sounds more like preferences than anything else really. Thats the norm.
> Most men are cooked no matter what they do.
Not only subjective but self defeating imo
Anonymous I replied with this 3 weeks ago, 26 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,834
@previous (Q)
> > Having a good male role model doesn't change the underlying dynamics.
>
> Has that been proven? How do you know it doesn’t change the dynamics?
Do you need proof that if a boy grows up with good male role model the basic reality that women are limited in reproduction and men aren't stays the same?
Evolutionary pressures mean that men and women are attracted to different traits based on the differences inherent in their sex.
> In fact what does “underlying dynamics” have anything to do with having good male role models?
Good male role models are great, but we can't pretend that the incel problem will go away if men just change their behavior for the better.
It's always been the case that more women reproduce then men. A few men can impregnate multiple women.
>
> > There's more men looking for a partner than women. No amount of self-improvement changes the ratio.
>
> Again similar question to the first statement. Also does self improvement really need to equate to women/finding a partner?
I'm not the one suggesting that self-improvement is the answer to it.
You should try to be better regardless, but I'm responding to the false notion that if incels changed their behavior they'd have nornal monogamous relationships. That's false because of the imbalance, simple arithmatic shows that this isn't possible.
>
>
> > Women will share a high status man rather than take a monogamous looksmatch. Women will become dykes or troon to fit into the queer fad. Straight women will refuse to date anyone because they got chad to use them for a night when they were young, and think that's their league.
>
> Sounds more like preferences than anything else really. Thats the norm.
Yes, it's preferences and the norm, which is why I mentioned those as part of the underlying dynamic.
> > Most men are cooked no matter what they do.
> Not only subjective but self defeating imo
It's not subjective, because biological limitations and arithmatic are not subjective.
Calling it self-defeating also misses the point. There are married men, successful promiscuous men, and men who don't want to get married in the first place who can acknowledge the facts.
Whatever your outcomes, you can choose to be better and have a good attitude. That doesn't mean you need to deny biological and mathematical realities.
> > Having a good male role model doesn't change the underlying dynamics.
>
> Has that been proven? How do you know it doesn’t change the dynamics?
Do you need proof that if a boy grows up with good male role model the basic reality that women are limited in reproduction and men aren't stays the same?
Evolutionary pressures mean that men and women are attracted to different traits based on the differences inherent in their sex.
> In fact what does “underlying dynamics” have anything to do with having good male role models?
Good male role models are great, but we can't pretend that the incel problem will go away if men just change their behavior for the better.
It's always been the case that more women reproduce then men. A few men can impregnate multiple women.
>
> > There's more men looking for a partner than women. No amount of self-improvement changes the ratio.
>
> Again similar question to the first statement. Also does self improvement really need to equate to women/finding a partner?
I'm not the one suggesting that self-improvement is the answer to it.
You should try to be better regardless, but I'm responding to the false notion that if incels changed their behavior they'd have nornal monogamous relationships. That's false because of the imbalance, simple arithmatic shows that this isn't possible.
>
>
> > Women will share a high status man rather than take a monogamous looksmatch. Women will become dykes or troon to fit into the queer fad. Straight women will refuse to date anyone because they got chad to use them for a night when they were young, and think that's their league.
>
> Sounds more like preferences than anything else really. Thats the norm.
Yes, it's preferences and the norm, which is why I mentioned those as part of the underlying dynamic.
> > Most men are cooked no matter what they do.
> Not only subjective but self defeating imo
It's not subjective, because biological limitations and arithmatic are not subjective.
Calling it self-defeating also misses the point. There are married men, successful promiscuous men, and men who don't want to get married in the first place who can acknowledge the facts.
Whatever your outcomes, you can choose to be better and have a good attitude. That doesn't mean you need to deny biological and mathematical realities.
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
A black guy pointing stuff out joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 6 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,860
@1,430,831 (Q)
> > Having a good male role model doesn't change the underlying dynamics.
>
> Has that been proven? How do you know it doesn’t change the dynamics? In fact what does “underlying dynamics” have anything to do with having good male role models?
The male role model thing never made sense to me, it seems to be a big thing in black Protestant communities where they blame men’s life outcomes on their fathers and completely ignore the influence of the mother. I’m Catholic so I never really grew up in that culture, but it always struck me as weird. I never needed a male role model, I never needed a role model in general to look up to. I have goals, I don’t need to copy somebody I think is better than me. Especially not to "understand" how to be a man.
> > Having a good male role model doesn't change the underlying dynamics.
>
> Has that been proven? How do you know it doesn’t change the dynamics? In fact what does “underlying dynamics” have anything to do with having good male role models?
The male role model thing never made sense to me, it seems to be a big thing in black Protestant communities where they blame men’s life outcomes on their fathers and completely ignore the influence of the mother. I’m Catholic so I never really grew up in that culture, but it always struck me as weird. I never needed a male role model, I never needed a role model in general to look up to. I have goals, I don’t need to copy somebody I think is better than me. Especially not to "understand" how to be a man.
A black guy pointing stuff out double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,861
It might seem weird that I’m mentioning religion, but I do think it has an origin in religion even if it’s obfuscated by secularism. In Catholicism, we venerate Mary, but Protestants have this attitude that Jesus deserves all praise and they accuse us of "worshipping" Mary (even though if you ask a Catholic they’ll never say we worship Mary because we don’t). In more conservative Protestant culture there’s a devaluing of the role of women in Christianity, and I think that spills over into other things. Which is ironic because Catholicism is kinda patriarchal in other ways, but in some ways it’s not as patriarchal as evangelical Christianity.
A black guy pointing stuff out triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,862
Or to elaborate on that further, Catholics believe in the immaculate conception which is the idea that Mary was born perfect without sin, and that the only two humans who never sinned were Mary and Jesus. Protestants reject this. There’s a cultural idea that somehow women are morally impure. But in Catholicism, Mary is considered to be a completely perfect person in terms of morality, so there’s a concept that men and women are both flawed, but there is also an ideal of moral perfection for both men and women.
Anonymous I replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,870
@1,430,860 (A black guy pointing stuff out)
@1,430,861 (A black guy pointing stuff out)
@previous (A black guy pointing stuff out)
That seems about right, but you're leaving out something important.
Catholicism requires monogamy, which solves the underlying problem in the dynamics.
If everyone pairs off 1-to-1 then men and women end up getting paired with someone who is similar in the value they bring to a relationship, whether that is personality, looks, resources, or whatever else.
When the population secularizes the imbalance reemerges and creates a large class of men who have no reason to be civil, and every reason to take big risks and seek war.
@1,430,861 (A black guy pointing stuff out)
@previous (A black guy pointing stuff out)
That seems about right, but you're leaving out something important.
Catholicism requires monogamy, which solves the underlying problem in the dynamics.
If everyone pairs off 1-to-1 then men and women end up getting paired with someone who is similar in the value they bring to a relationship, whether that is personality, looks, resources, or whatever else.
When the population secularizes the imbalance reemerges and creates a large class of men who have no reason to be civil, and every reason to take big risks and seek war.
Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 50 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,883
@1,430,813 (I)
> "Having a spine" doesn't change the fact that women choose to be hypergamous.
Not all women have that choice. This is over applied from women with top-tier looks ages 20-30. Those options aren’t eternal. Many women just want a partner. Plenty of guys who aren’t “Chad and Tyrone” get married and get laid.
Female entitlement and annoying behaviors often are a separate issue. The answer is over promising and story telling to avoid the snare.
> "Having a spine" doesn't change the fact that women choose to be hypergamous.
Not all women have that choice. This is over applied from women with top-tier looks ages 20-30. Those options aren’t eternal. Many women just want a partner. Plenty of guys who aren’t “Chad and Tyrone” get married and get laid.
Female entitlement and annoying behaviors often are a separate issue. The answer is over promising and story telling to avoid the snare.
A black guy pointing stuff out joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,888
@1,430,870 (I)
I think there are pros and cons to religion, but just from a biological perspective, humans are usually serially monogamous as a species, it’s the most common way most individuals have partners in most cultures. There are exceptions, but the average man or woman in China, the US, or Kenya is only with one partner at a time regardless of faith or lack thereof. For example, in China, there are more men than women due to selective abortions during the one child policy, but men that can’t find partners usually don’t turn to violent means and in general (obviously no society is perfect), Chinese society seems to stay together in spite of that. So I don’t agree that secularization will lead to men committing acts of violence. Although, there is some evidence to suggest that religion can be good for mental health. For example, if you compare black Americans and white Americans, black Americans have worse outcomes in almost everything, in terms of their net worth, blood pressure, life expectancy, but the one surprising thing is they have a much lower suicide rate than white Americans, and the only explanation for that is black Americans tend to be more religious than white Americans so they have more community support and are less likely to follow through with suicide even though they suffer from similar rates of depression to whites.
I think there are pros and cons to religion, but just from a biological perspective, humans are usually serially monogamous as a species, it’s the most common way most individuals have partners in most cultures. There are exceptions, but the average man or woman in China, the US, or Kenya is only with one partner at a time regardless of faith or lack thereof. For example, in China, there are more men than women due to selective abortions during the one child policy, but men that can’t find partners usually don’t turn to violent means and in general (obviously no society is perfect), Chinese society seems to stay together in spite of that. So I don’t agree that secularization will lead to men committing acts of violence. Although, there is some evidence to suggest that religion can be good for mental health. For example, if you compare black Americans and white Americans, black Americans have worse outcomes in almost everything, in terms of their net worth, blood pressure, life expectancy, but the one surprising thing is they have a much lower suicide rate than white Americans, and the only explanation for that is black Americans tend to be more religious than white Americans so they have more community support and are less likely to follow through with suicide even though they suffer from similar rates of depression to whites.
A black guy pointing stuff out double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,889
And I mean, the thing about being male is, generally when men are really desperate for finding a partner it’s from social pressure from other males. But as a male, there isn’t actually that much urgency to find a partner. You can be evolutionarily successful and have children at any point in your life, we don’t go through menopause. There are men who have children in their sixties. Generally, the older you are, the more mature you’ll be, the higher your net worth will be, there’s no rational reason why you need to be chasing after women and trying to have as much sex as possible in your 20s.
A black guy pointing stuff out triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,890
And sex isn’t everything. Just being hot isn’t good enough, it might be good enough to hook up with people or whatever, but in a long term relationship, you’d probably want to spend decades with someone who’s average or a bit above average looking who’s smart, funny, has a good personality, who cares about you rather than a supermodel who’s shallow and doesn’t have a brain.
(Edited 21 seconds later.)
A black guy pointing stuff out quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,891
This also applies to women too if you’re of a certain economic status. We have the technology now where women can freeze their eggs and have children later in life.
Anonymous I replied with this 3 weeks ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,892
@1,430,888 (A black guy pointing stuff out)
There are studies that show that many fewer men than women have reproduced based on analysis of DNA. Y-chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA are only passed down by one sex so this can be studied.
@1,430,889 (A black guy pointing stuff out)
> And I mean, the thing about being male is, generally when men are really desperate for finding a partner it’s from social pressure from other males.
This completely contradicts evolution, which states that creatures have a natural instinct to reproduce their genes. Not reproducing is equivalent to dying when it comes to natural selection.
Do you not believe in evolution?
@1,430,890 (A black guy pointing stuff out)
How is this relevant to anything I said?
I never said every man needs a hot wife, I just pointed out that most men are going to have a much harder time getting a partner and that by the math of it many will fail.
Once again you're responding to made up arguments in your head, not the actual text posted here.
There are studies that show that many fewer men than women have reproduced based on analysis of DNA. Y-chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA are only passed down by one sex so this can be studied.
@1,430,889 (A black guy pointing stuff out)
> And I mean, the thing about being male is, generally when men are really desperate for finding a partner it’s from social pressure from other males.
This completely contradicts evolution, which states that creatures have a natural instinct to reproduce their genes. Not reproducing is equivalent to dying when it comes to natural selection.
Do you not believe in evolution?
@1,430,890 (A black guy pointing stuff out)
How is this relevant to anything I said?
I never said every man needs a hot wife, I just pointed out that most men are going to have a much harder time getting a partner and that by the math of it many will fail.
Once again you're responding to made up arguments in your head, not the actual text posted here.
Anonymous I double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,894
@1,430,883 (S)
> > "Having a spine" doesn't change the fact that women choose to be hypergamous.
>
> Not all women have that choice. This is over applied from women with top-tier looks ages 20-30. Those options aren’t eternal. Many women just want a partner.
Obviously no more than 10% of woman could have a monogamous relationship with the top 10% of men.
Some women don't care and will share, but I agree that not all women can be a top-tier man's mistress either.
That said, if you are an average woman who can't get a top-tier guy in either way, you still benefit from a lopsided dating environment where there are many more men looking for a partner than women. Because of that, even these average women can get a man who is above average because of the competition from these men to get any woman at all.
It's basic market dynamics, and it applies to dating just as much as it applies to commodities or services.
> Plenty of guys who aren’t “Chad and Tyrone” get married and get laid.
I never said otherwise. What I actually said was that some men have to fail based on the math of it.
Yes, average men find partners. No, not all men can succeed in finding a monogamous relationship based on simple arithmatic. My claim is not complicated.
>
> Female entitlement and annoying behaviors often are a separate issue. The answer is over promising and story telling to avoid the snare.
It's not a separate issue, it's a direct result of the dynamics. If there are many more men than women trying to find a partner, then women can act that way without worrying because if one man walks away there is a line of men ready to take his place. If an average man tries to act that way, his woman can replace him easily and he is likely to be single for an extended period of time trying to find a replacement.
> > "Having a spine" doesn't change the fact that women choose to be hypergamous.
>
> Not all women have that choice. This is over applied from women with top-tier looks ages 20-30. Those options aren’t eternal. Many women just want a partner.
Obviously no more than 10% of woman could have a monogamous relationship with the top 10% of men.
Some women don't care and will share, but I agree that not all women can be a top-tier man's mistress either.
That said, if you are an average woman who can't get a top-tier guy in either way, you still benefit from a lopsided dating environment where there are many more men looking for a partner than women. Because of that, even these average women can get a man who is above average because of the competition from these men to get any woman at all.
It's basic market dynamics, and it applies to dating just as much as it applies to commodities or services.
> Plenty of guys who aren’t “Chad and Tyrone” get married and get laid.
I never said otherwise. What I actually said was that some men have to fail based on the math of it.
Yes, average men find partners. No, not all men can succeed in finding a monogamous relationship based on simple arithmatic. My claim is not complicated.
>
> Female entitlement and annoying behaviors often are a separate issue. The answer is over promising and story telling to avoid the snare.
It's not a separate issue, it's a direct result of the dynamics. If there are many more men than women trying to find a partner, then women can act that way without worrying because if one man walks away there is a line of men ready to take his place. If an average man tries to act that way, his woman can replace him easily and he is likely to be single for an extended period of time trying to find a replacement.
A black guy pointing stuff out replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,895
@1,430,892 (I)
It doesn’t contradict evolution. We live twice as long as chimpanzees and we are serially monogamous. Having children is expensive. People who have a lot of sex almost never do it because they want to have a lot of children. Humans are mammals and mammals are K type strategists. Fish and insects have as many offspring as physically possible, most of them die, but some of them reach adulthood. Humans have very altricial newborns who can’t survive on their own because we’re born with very underdeveloped brains. Human women usually only have one child at a time (on rare occasions two).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
It doesn’t contradict evolution. We live twice as long as chimpanzees and we are serially monogamous. Having children is expensive. People who have a lot of sex almost never do it because they want to have a lot of children. Humans are mammals and mammals are K type strategists. Fish and insects have as many offspring as physically possible, most of them die, but some of them reach adulthood. Humans have very altricial newborns who can’t survive on their own because we’re born with very underdeveloped brains. Human women usually only have one child at a time (on rare occasions two).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
A black guy pointing stuff out double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,896
Generally in primates (humans are apes and all apes are primates), species that are less intelligent have more precocial offspring, and species that are more intelligent have more altricial offspring. Humans are the most intelligent species of primate so we have the most altricial offspring, newborn babies can’t even drink water. This is because since we have such large brains it takes a really long time for us to mature. By the time we consider someone an adult at 18, if they were a chimpanzee they’d be middle aged. But their brain is still developing even in their 20s. That requires a high parental investment in raising children, so it’s actually not evolutionarily logical for humans to try and have as many children as possible.
Anonymous I replied with this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,897
@1,430,895 (A black guy pointing stuff out)
Then why do DNA analyses show that more women reproduce than men?
You completely ignored the point I made.
Explaining R/K doesnt explain why there's more variance in mitochondrial DNA.
Then why do DNA analyses show that more women reproduce than men?
You completely ignored the point I made.
Explaining R/K doesnt explain why there's more variance in mitochondrial DNA.
(Edited 42 seconds later.)
A black guy pointing stuff out replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,898
@previous (I)
If women reproduce more than men, it doesn’t logically follow that humans try to have as many children as possible.
If women reproduce more than men, it doesn’t logically follow that humans try to have as many children as possible.
Anonymous I replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,902
@previous (A black guy pointing stuff out)
That's a strawman, once again.
Why don't you just stop before you post and ask yourself "did he actually say the thing I'm arguing against?" and try to find an actual quote.
If you did that, you could immediately refute any claim of strawmanning by posting the quote.
That's a strawman, once again.
Why don't you just stop before you post and ask yourself "did he actually say the thing I'm arguing against?" and try to find an actual quote.
If you did that, you could immediately refute any claim of strawmanning by posting the quote.
A black guy pointing stuff out replied with this 3 weeks ago, 40 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,903
Anonymous I replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,905
@previous (A black guy pointing stuff out)
It's not my job to defend the made up arguments you create in your head.
I never said humans try to have as many children as possible, but you decided to pretend I did.
If you don't see the problem with that, you're incapable of having a conversation
It's not my job to defend the made up arguments you create in your head.
I never said humans try to have as many children as possible, but you decided to pretend I did.
If you don't see the problem with that, you're incapable of having a conversation
(Edited 10 seconds later.)
A black guy pointing stuff out replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,907
@previous (I)
You’re just mad because you accused me of not understanding evolution, I pointed out why what I said doesn’t contradict evolution, so you used a non sequitur as a retort, I pointed out your non sequitur is a non sequitur, and now you’re doing your usual bullshit of pretending nobody understands anything you ever say.
You’re just mad because you accused me of not understanding evolution, I pointed out why what I said doesn’t contradict evolution, so you used a non sequitur as a retort, I pointed out your non sequitur is a non sequitur, and now you’re doing your usual bullshit of pretending nobody understands anything you ever say.
Anonymous I replied with this 3 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,909
@previous (A black guy pointing stuff out)
No, you ignored my point about more women reproducing than men because you have no way to refute it.
Then you said "it doesn’t logically follow that humans try to have as many children as possible" even though I never made that claim.
If you ignore the claim I did make, and argue against a claim I never made, then you are strawmanning.
It's the same fallacy you resort to every time you start losing the debate. It's like you hope no one will notice, even though I point it out every time.
You said humans are monogamous, but DNA analysis shows that is not true. If you want to refute my point, go ahead. However I'm not defending the strawman argument "humans try to have as many children as possible" because I never made that claim.
No, you ignored my point about more women reproducing than men because you have no way to refute it.
Then you said "it doesn’t logically follow that humans try to have as many children as possible" even though I never made that claim.
If you ignore the claim I did make, and argue against a claim I never made, then you are strawmanning.
It's the same fallacy you resort to every time you start losing the debate. It's like you hope no one will notice, even though I point it out every time.
You said humans are monogamous, but DNA analysis shows that is not true. If you want to refute my point, go ahead. However I'm not defending the strawman argument "humans try to have as many children as possible" because I never made that claim.
(Edited 9 seconds later.)
A black guy pointing stuff out replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,910
If I said humans have altricial newborns therefore it doesn’t make sense for human to try and have as many children as possible because parenthood is expensive and time consuming, then you say, that can’t explain why women have more children than men, and then I say that it’s a non sequitur that women having more children than men implies humans don’t have altricial newborns, that isn’t a strawman. That’s using logic to point out that you’re using a non sequitur as a counter argument. You can’t use the fact that women have more children than men as a counter argument to my statement that newborn babies are altricial if women having more children than men doesn’t imply that newborn babies are precocial. It doesn’t make any sense to try to use that as a counter argument.
A black guy pointing stuff out double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,912
@1,430,909 (I)
I did a control F search in this page, I pointed out that humans are serially monogamous four times.
I did a control F search in this page, I pointed out that humans are serially monogamous four times.
A black guy pointing stuff out triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,913
If you have a girlfriend, you break up with your girlfriend, then you get another girlfriend, you’re not polygamous, you’re still monogamous, it’s a type of monogamy called serial monogamy. A woman can have multiple children with multiple men without ever cheating on any of her partners.
Anonymous I replied with this 3 weeks ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,916
@1,430,912 (A black guy pointing stuff out)
If you agree that serially monogamous means more women reproduce than men, then we aren't disagreeing.
Yes, some men remarry, and have children with multiple women.
At the end of the day, fewer men will reproduce than women.
If you agree that serially monogamous means more women reproduce than men, then we aren't disagreeing.
Yes, some men remarry, and have children with multiple women.
At the end of the day, fewer men will reproduce than women.
A black guy pointing stuff out replied with this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,918
@previous (I)
I disagree with the all the incel stuff. That doesn’t have anything to do with women being worse people than men, it’s just because most of the biological burden of having children is placed on women, not on men. A woman has to go through pregnancy and childbirth and then nurse the child once they’re born. A man doesn’t have to do any of that. So it’s natural a man would be more willing to have children with multiple women than for a woman to have children with multiple men. It’s not really about morality.
I disagree with the all the incel stuff. That doesn’t have anything to do with women being worse people than men, it’s just because most of the biological burden of having children is placed on women, not on men. A woman has to go through pregnancy and childbirth and then nurse the child once they’re born. A man doesn’t have to do any of that. So it’s natural a man would be more willing to have children with multiple women than for a woman to have children with multiple men. It’s not really about morality.
A black guy pointing stuff out double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,919
Maybe there are some instances where women doing what’s in their self interest doesn’t work out for men in some way. But we also act in our own self interest so how can we judge and say it’s a moral issue?
Anonymous I replied with this 3 weeks ago, 23 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,920
@1,430,918 (A black guy pointing stuff out)
> I disagree with the all the incel stuff.
So you are refusing to actually quote what I said you disagree with?
"Incel stuff" is vague, because you can't actually quote anything specific.
> That doesn’t have anything to do with women being worse people than men
Once again, you are making a strawman.
I said men and women act differently, I never said women are worse than men.
You can't refute anything I actually said, ao you are lying to avoid responding to the things I actually said.
Once again, if you weren't strawmanning you could quote where I said women were worse than men. You can't do that, because I never said it.
> it’s just because most of the biological burden of having children is placed on women, not on men. A woman has to go through pregnancy and childbirth and then nurse the child once they’re born. A man doesn’t have to do any of that. So it’s natural a man would be more willing to have children with multiple women than for a woman to have children with multiple men. It’s not really about morality.
I know that already. You're arguing against a strawman you made up.
@previous (A black guy pointing stuff out)
Ask your church why they consider monogamy a moral issue.
Since you keep strawmanning, and are completely unable to quote where I said those things, O'm done.
If you were honest, you would be able to use quotes. You always resort to the same lame tactic, bye.
> I disagree with the all the incel stuff.
So you are refusing to actually quote what I said you disagree with?
"Incel stuff" is vague, because you can't actually quote anything specific.
> That doesn’t have anything to do with women being worse people than men
Once again, you are making a strawman.
I said men and women act differently, I never said women are worse than men.
You can't refute anything I actually said, ao you are lying to avoid responding to the things I actually said.
Once again, if you weren't strawmanning you could quote where I said women were worse than men. You can't do that, because I never said it.
> it’s just because most of the biological burden of having children is placed on women, not on men. A woman has to go through pregnancy and childbirth and then nurse the child once they’re born. A man doesn’t have to do any of that. So it’s natural a man would be more willing to have children with multiple women than for a woman to have children with multiple men. It’s not really about morality.
I know that already. You're arguing against a strawman you made up.
@previous (A black guy pointing stuff out)
Ask your church why they consider monogamy a moral issue.
Since you keep strawmanning, and are completely unable to quote where I said those things, O'm done.
If you were honest, you would be able to use quotes. You always resort to the same lame tactic, bye.
A black guy pointing stuff out joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 34 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,923
@previous (I)
You win the debate. I accept your opinion that no woman will ever be loyal to you. The rest of us are good though.
You win the debate. I accept your opinion that no woman will ever be loyal to you. The rest of us are good though.
Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,934
A black guy pointing stuff out joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,430,962
Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU replied with this 3 weeks ago, 7 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,032
Anonymous H replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 day later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,403
@1,430,802 (A black guy pointing stuff out)
I think deep down that's what they wanna hear to justify not trying hard in life. These are the same people that want to acquire the most attractive, baddest woman with "zero body count" via being the good honest guy.
most guys were a fed a lie growing up and the lie began to wear out at the seams. Now they're trying to patch up the same lie in hopes that goes back to say the 50's where women rarely had a say in courtship.
I think deep down that's what they wanna hear to justify not trying hard in life. These are the same people that want to acquire the most attractive, baddest woman with "zero body count" via being the good honest guy.
most guys were a fed a lie growing up and the lie began to wear out at the seams. Now they're trying to patch up the same lie in hopes that goes back to say the 50's where women rarely had a say in courtship.
Anonymous W joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,406
@1,430,718 (H)
> Sad boys just need to make friends with other boys. if they remove the "alleged hacks for getting chicks" snakeoil from the equitation then im pretty sure they'll be fine.
Hacks for getting chicks:
- Be a drummer in a known rock band.
- Become a hedge fund manager.
- Inherit wealth.
Oh wait those take time, upper management experience, or luck. I guess I’ll listen to her ennui and nod along on a date.
> Sad boys just need to make friends with other boys. if they remove the "alleged hacks for getting chicks" snakeoil from the equitation then im pretty sure they'll be fine.
Hacks for getting chicks:
- Be a drummer in a known rock band.
- Become a hedge fund manager.
- Inherit wealth.
Oh wait those take time, upper management experience, or luck. I guess I’ll listen to her ennui and nod along on a date.
Anonymous X joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,438
A black guy pointing stuff out replied with this 2 weeks ago, 14 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,557
Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU replied with this 2 weeks ago, 12 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,694
@previous (A black guy pointing stuff out)
That's dubious, you can't even point to a debate where you have "thrashed" me, or even merely defeated me.
That's dubious, you can't even point to a debate where you have "thrashed" me, or even merely defeated me.
Anonymous Z-1 joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 1 day later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,903
Playing PRAGMATA makes you ....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbK1mQFz16Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf15HmxooMc