To elaborate, if somebody doesnt want to treat a woman equally to another person on the basis of gender, then that's their perrogative. That woman isn't entitled to "fair treatment". She shouldn't be allowed to force you to do something you don't want to do.
As far as human rights for every person. Then yes they do deserve that, as far as sex, or a job they're not qualified for, then of course not. Thats life. Not giving fair treatment because someone is a woman is fucking stupid and small minded, like my fucking cousin is more deserving than me or anybody else on this sub because of what she's been thru and still done with her life, so for you to say she isnt entitled to fair treatment like everybody else is fucking bullshit and I would bitchslap the fuck out of you for even suggesting that
Qualifications have nothing to do with it. If someone doesn't want to hire a woman because it will affect their level of happiness, then the woman is not 'owed' the position. She has no right to force him into hiring her.
as far as sex...of course not
Who made you the arbitrar of which aspects of humanity people are entitled to and which are not? Just lol. Intimacy and physical contact are necessary for social creatures. Rats kill themselves on drugs when isolated and leave the drugs alone when they have the ability to have little rat relationships with each other. Lack of personal affection has literally destroyed my life worse than any of the mile long list of other horrible shit I've been through. I'm like the living dead here. Depressed, disabled, and entirely demotivated. Sex and human-touch is as important for mental health as nutritious food is for the body.
Btw, you can apply a lot of the same shit you're saying such as small-mindedness and fair treatment right over to looks-discrimination. Just switch 'female' with 'ugly men'
Yeah, I’ll ducking be a help when you’re buying stuff and I won’t be a dick to you unless you’re a dick to me. And if you’re qualified for the job I’ll hire you over the woman cause let’s be honest nothings getting done in a engineering firm cause everyone including me is gonna try to fuck her and that’s a Human Resources issue, so you would come first unless you’re a shitty employee, and let’s disregard your shitty logic for one second in this so I can hire you. So now, what, am I supposed to give you a woman to be physical with? Fuck no. I have had so many years without even a hug, then I hop in a relationship and everything’s great. then we go long distance for more months, and I have no contact. Am I entitled to it, ofc not. Your aren’t either, and neither is that crazy bitch who kept asking me to fuck her after our first date and I broke it off with her cause she was absolutely crazy. So no man, fuck off and quit being a misogynistic cunt. You’re not standing up for yourself or any logic that works in a society of any kind, you are a sad excuse for a man who quite frankly, I would love to see my cousin beat your ass while I watch ringside.
It means you deserve sex simply for existing. No one in their right mind thinks anyone, attractive or not by any standard, gets sex by just being. You have to realize that interpersonal relationships are complicated and require work, and it's naive to think attractive people don't subscribe to that. To even think there's such a thing as a 1-10 scale anymore is pretty dumb, because while there are people who are considered conventionally attractive doesn't mean every girl and their mother wants to fuck them. People put more thought into their sexual partners than you give them credit.
This proves nothing. They say themselves that most studies on the subject matter are conflicting, and I think the design of their experiment doesn't really match up with reality all that well. It's worth thinking about, true, but it's obviously not the be all end all. Study on this is still in its infancy, I don't think we'll see conclusive evidence of either side for at least 50 years. The human brain is a fickle thing like that.
The only conclusive evidence are anecdotes by IncelTears members about how their 42 year old bald Indian janitor friend scored a Victoria’s secret model because of his personality.
Did you even read what I said? I'm not saying the study you posted is wrong, I'm just saying it's too early in this field of research to definitively say much of anything, not even mentioning your conclusions.
I think the major thing you're missing here is the number of messages sent. This could just be as simple as "men tend to cast a wider net than women". There's also a lot of uncontrolled variables, which is one of the many reasons why it's so hard to accurately study things like this, especially considering "attractiveness" is a strictly subjective thing that can change between cultures.
Please provide studies to back up your assertions. The blackpill is backed up heavily by science. Looks and/ or social status are minimum standards for attraction, which can only be supplemented by personality.
I'm not asserting anything. I'm basically just regurgitating what these studies you've provided me say in them. We don't know enough about the human brain to really have much of a consensus on any of this stuff. These studies say themselves that there's a ton of conflicting evidence, and to not see that nuance is throwing out a lot of data.
However, in real life, that's not how people seem to make these romantic decisions, Fugère told Live Science. For example, data from speed-dating research shows that a man's physical attractiveness has a strong impact on women's mate preferences, Fugère said.
I didn't link that article. Also I just read it and the evidence is pretty concrete. The conflicting part is that women claim to value personality, but the studies showed that they don't in practice. Can you read?
Also, false biases? Projection much? I have no horse in this race, I just can't stand you idiots proclaiming "it's over" when clearly the jury is still out in the psychology community.
The previous research consisted of surveys of female preferences. The article claims that the results of these surveys are skewed due to a lack of self awareness among women. The point of the article is to explain and resolve the conflicting evidence by citing a difference in what women claim to value in men (personality) and what they value in practice (attractiveness).
Please stop being dishonest. Obfuscating the source material by withholding context from your citations isn't going to help you get your point across.
Oh shut the fuck up about me being dishonest, don't try to smear me just to try to make yourself look good. Don't obfuscate from the argument at hand.
Let's cut the bullshit, yes the psychologist talks about how in other studies people said they cared more about personality than attractiveness, and this one called those others into question. Note: it didn't disprove those other surveys, it didn't invalidate previous research, it simply contradicted it. This can mean a great many things, from what you're arguing to one or both of the experiments being flawed. Personally, reading through their procedure, it seems a bit flawed. For instance, it's hard to control for "attractiveness", since that term is fairly vague and has no discernible objective scale. The 1/10 scale is a really terrible way to go about it, since those values are completely arbitrary. Some people consider 7 average, others 5, so it's hard to get a concrete scale. Plus, you have the added variable of cultures, since it's pretty obvious different cultures have different standards for beauty.
There's nothing conclusive about this study, about all it claims is that women might be more judgmental than they believe. But the simple fact of the matter is: surveys like this can't accurately simulate the complex interpersonal interactions that lead to relationships. They'll simulate tinder pretty well, but tinder isn't the only way to get into a relationship. Psychology has had this problem for years, it's why some people consider it a "fake" science, because it has trouble isolating variables. That's not a dig on psychology, quite the contrary, there's just so many things to control for that it's nearly impossible. That's why I said there wouldn't be conclusive proof for at least 50 years; until computer technology surpasses the human mind we won't be able to run some of the objective tests needed.
don't try to smear me just to try to make yourself look good.
You're smearing yourself by misinterpreting and misrepresenting scientific studies.
Let's cut the bullshit, yes the psychologist talks about how in other studies people said they cared more about personality than attractiveness, and this one called those others into question.
Thank you.
Note: it didn't disprove those other surveys, it didn't invalidate previous research, it simply contradicted it.
A contradiction denies the truth value of a statement. Disproving something and contradicting it are the same thing. The study in the article disproves the fact that women value personality over looks in practical dating environment. Quoting from the article "Results showed that a man's looks influenced both groups of women more strongly than his personality profile. This held true even if a man's profile was filled with highly desirable personal qualities, such as being respectful, honest and trustworthy."
For instance, it's hard to control for "attractiveness", since that term is fairly vague and has no discernible objective scale.
"We explored the relationship between these two estimators of attractiveness and a set of facial traits in a sample of 266 young Spanish women. These traits are: facial fluctuating asymmetry, facial averageness, facial sexual dimorphism, and facial maturity."
The study doesn't arbitrarily presuppose a fixed standard for attractiveness, it categorizes men who women agree are attractive into the category of "attractive men." It's pretty obvious what an attractive man looks like and what an unattractive man looks like. While there is cultural variation, modern urban societies share similar standards for male and female attractiveness.
The 1/10 scale is a really terrible way to go about it, since those values are completely arbitrary.
Who said anything about a 1-10 scale? The scientific literatures shows that certain facial and physical characteristics are generally favored by women. Obviously, there are exceptions to this trend, but not enough to dismantle the hypothesis that looks are extremely important in predicting one's ability to find a partner.
There's nothing conclusive about this study, about all it claims is that women might be more judgmental than they believe.
It also states that physical attractiveness is a stronger predictor of female attraction than personality.
But the simple fact of the matter is: surveys like this can't accurately simulate the complex interpersonal interactions that lead to relationships.
The article presents a scientific study looking for a statistical trend. Controlling for personality traits, it's obvious that females prefer males who look a certain way (referred to as attractive men) over others (referred to as ugly men).
Psychology has had this problem for years, it's why some people consider it a "fake" science, because it has trouble isolating variables.
By this logic psychology should tell us nothing, but that's not true, is it? Psychology tells us a lot about day-to-day life.
Nature doesn’t entitle him to jack shit except his opinion.
And I wouldn’t spread my legs for him because he’s not my husband. (And if I were single, I still wouldn’t because he barely looks old enough to vote.)
You are purposely missing the point that he is trying to make. Youre trying to shut down conversation by arguing semantics and it makes you look stupid. Sure no one is technically entitled to anything, he isn't saying that you're legally required to sleep with Chad, but that no matter what some people will get laid despite their personality. Their looks figuratively entitle them to sex and they are often aware of this fact.
No. If you get something any time you want, then you're lucky. Because if at any point you stop getting that thing, then there's nothing you can do but look back on the good times. There's nothing that says he has to get sex.
Has anyone ever said “you’re not entitled to sex” to a male model? Have you ever heard that here? Only ugly men get told that. Do you know why? Because you’re only emtitled to have sex if you’re good-looking.
I'm sure if male model expressed that he was entitled to sex, somebody would be there to refute it. However, I don't see any saying they deserve it. Nobody "deserves" sex just for existing, or being handsome, or whatever. That's a fact.
Your argument seems to be that good looking men get sex, therefore they're entitled to it, and that's backwards reasoning.
They get sex because they are good looking, and charming, and high status. However, they are not entitled to it. There is a stark difference here. If he demands sex with a certain woman, she is under no obligation to give it to him if she doesn't want to.
No worries, thanks for the civilized chat. We just have fundamental disagreements on this matter that I don’t think can be resolved in a reddit exchange.
Of course he’s entitled to have sex, he’s good-looking, and by nature’s laws, he will find multiple partners. Ugly people don’t have such privileges, hence they’re not entitled to have sex.
He may find sexual partners but that does not mean he's entitled to sex. Having something is different than being entitled to it. Take access to posting on this subreddit for example: you have access but you are not entitled to it. The mods can choose to take away that ability.
Good example. I’m entitled to post on this subreddit as long as I don’t go against Reddit ToS and subreddit rules. I’m entitled to my freedom as long as I don’t commit a crime for which I’m sentenced to prison. He is entitled to have sex with women as long as he’s good-looking.
Legally you are free until you’re found guilty of a crime and sent to prison (This is a simplistic definition I know). He is not legally entitled to sex at any point it’s just not how the word is used or understood.
You're working with a faulty definition of entitlement. Incels may need sex, but they don't have a right to it. Sex isn't a human right just as candy isn't a human right.
The person on the right is just guaranteed sex while the person on the left wouldn't get laid in a million years.
Seen guys with a "face like that" (weak chin and whatnot) still being perceived as hot and getting dates - of course it could be that he's uggo from the front, but merely judging by this picture, he could be quite alright if he dropped that stupid face expression and got some high energy.
No one is entitled to sex. Not the world's saintliest hero nor the buffest of bros. Aside from masturbation, sex is a gift someone shares with you, and if there's no one who wants to share it with you then you don't get to have it. The end.
Not a single person in the world is entitled to sex, male or female.
Neither one. Geez, you're slow man, did you even read what I read above? If no one is entitled to it, then one person can't be "more" entitled. For all you know, both of those guys are married and are going to get laid tonight regardless of your weird-ass judgement on how they look.
Also the guy on the left looks like a younger version of my brother-in-law, who's been married to my sister for like 20 years and they have 3 kids, so absolutely guys like that get laid all the time.
What I'd like to know is if man 'a' is entitled to sex (as he gets it) but man 'b' isn't - then what does the latter have to do in order to be treated in the same, humane manner as man 'a'? We listen to advice, but the advice never works. We point this out and low and behold, we're deemed to have 'entitlement issues'.
In short, we're scapegoated as being the problem when the truth is that the stigmatisation we face is a very real societal problem that needs tackling.
118 comments
1 showercel 2018-05-08
I can feel the personality radiating off the right.
1 GaymasterNacelle 2018-05-08
The left one is going out of the way to appear without any personality, with that sleepy drugged up face expression of his - so "this but ironically".
1 BRAHMINDEEPSTATE 2018-05-08
So much misogyny from the birdcel on the left
1 bengalsturntup5532 2018-05-08
The one on the right !!! Teehee
1 IamtheShiznitt 2018-05-08
Neither one of them are entitled to sex.
I’ll repeat that.
Neither one of them are entitled to sex.
1 superman1145 2018-05-08
True.
https://imgur.com/a/FbmjCup minimum personality to be entitled to sex
1 IamtheShiznitt 2018-05-08
Nah. Nobody is entitled to sex.
1 Soiled_Bugman 2018-05-08
What does being entitled to sex mean?
1 Mr-Mercedes- 2018-05-08
Literally nothing because what we suffer is so much worse than most cases of getting screwed out of some "entitlement".
But remember, females aren't entitled to anything either, so pretty much the whole base of feminism can be flushed down the drain.
1 Mr-Mercedes- 2018-05-08
To elaborate, if somebody doesnt want to treat a woman equally to another person on the basis of gender, then that's their perrogative. That woman isn't entitled to "fair treatment". She shouldn't be allowed to force you to do something you don't want to do.
That's life. It's unfair. Get over it.
1 Cobyp999 2018-05-08
As far as human rights for every person. Then yes they do deserve that, as far as sex, or a job they're not qualified for, then of course not. Thats life. Not giving fair treatment because someone is a woman is fucking stupid and small minded, like my fucking cousin is more deserving than me or anybody else on this sub because of what she's been thru and still done with her life, so for you to say she isnt entitled to fair treatment like everybody else is fucking bullshit and I would bitchslap the fuck out of you for even suggesting that
1 Mr-Mercedes- 2018-05-08
Qualifications have nothing to do with it. If someone doesn't want to hire a woman because it will affect their level of happiness, then the woman is not 'owed' the position. She has no right to force him into hiring her.
Who made you the arbitrar of which aspects of humanity people are entitled to and which are not? Just lol. Intimacy and physical contact are necessary for social creatures. Rats kill themselves on drugs when isolated and leave the drugs alone when they have the ability to have little rat relationships with each other. Lack of personal affection has literally destroyed my life worse than any of the mile long list of other horrible shit I've been through. I'm like the living dead here. Depressed, disabled, and entirely demotivated. Sex and human-touch is as important for mental health as nutritious food is for the body.
Btw, you can apply a lot of the same shit you're saying such as small-mindedness and fair treatment right over to looks-discrimination. Just switch 'female' with 'ugly men'
1 Cobyp999 2018-05-08
Yeah, I’ll ducking be a help when you’re buying stuff and I won’t be a dick to you unless you’re a dick to me. And if you’re qualified for the job I’ll hire you over the woman cause let’s be honest nothings getting done in a engineering firm cause everyone including me is gonna try to fuck her and that’s a Human Resources issue, so you would come first unless you’re a shitty employee, and let’s disregard your shitty logic for one second in this so I can hire you. So now, what, am I supposed to give you a woman to be physical with? Fuck no. I have had so many years without even a hug, then I hop in a relationship and everything’s great. then we go long distance for more months, and I have no contact. Am I entitled to it, ofc not. Your aren’t either, and neither is that crazy bitch who kept asking me to fuck her after our first date and I broke it off with her cause she was absolutely crazy. So no man, fuck off and quit being a misogynistic cunt. You’re not standing up for yourself or any logic that works in a society of any kind, you are a sad excuse for a man who quite frankly, I would love to see my cousin beat your ass while I watch ringside.
1 Idk12344482305 2018-05-08
Threatening with violence, while being such a pussy that you don’t even want to do it yourself.
1 Cobyp999 2018-05-08
I don’t want to do it cause I would accidentally kill him, I got a foot and 140 pounds on her
1 Idk12344482305 2018-05-08
How about not threatening with violence at all?
1 Cobyp999 2018-05-08
I’m just telling him I wanna see it. If he’s talking shit about people I would LOVE to see him be bitchslapped into a weeklong coma.
1 GaymasterNacelle 2018-05-08
Pay for hooker.
1 MozzerDozzer 2018-05-08
Human rights is an arbitrary concept that society agreed on to have order and keep low-classes in check.
You're not entitled to your human rights.
1 kaanfight 2018-05-08
It means you deserve sex simply for existing. No one in their right mind thinks anyone, attractive or not by any standard, gets sex by just being. You have to realize that interpersonal relationships are complicated and require work, and it's naive to think attractive people don't subscribe to that. To even think there's such a thing as a 1-10 scale anymore is pretty dumb, because while there are people who are considered conventionally attractive doesn't mean every girl and their mother wants to fuck them. People put more thought into their sexual partners than you give them credit.
1 Idk12344482305 2018-05-08
Since you mentioned that
http://www.livescience.com/58607-mens-looks-may-matter-more-than-personality.html
1 kaanfight 2018-05-08
This proves nothing. They say themselves that most studies on the subject matter are conflicting, and I think the design of their experiment doesn't really match up with reality all that well. It's worth thinking about, true, but it's obviously not the be all end all. Study on this is still in its infancy, I don't think we'll see conclusive evidence of either side for at least 50 years. The human brain is a fickle thing like that.
1 Idk12344482305 2018-05-08
The only conclusive evidence are anecdotes by IncelTears members about how their 42 year old bald Indian janitor friend scored a Victoria’s secret model because of his personality.
1 kaanfight 2018-05-08
Did you even read what I said? I'm not saying the study you posted is wrong, I'm just saying it's too early in this field of research to definitively say much of anything, not even mentioning your conclusions.
1 Idk12344482305 2018-05-08
Women have very uniform tastes in men.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPillScience/comments/8csgjw/looks_ratings_101_nearly_all_studies_show_a/?st=JGXDMRWL&sh=abcaa1a5
1 kaanfight 2018-05-08
I think the major thing you're missing here is the number of messages sent. This could just be as simple as "men tend to cast a wider net than women". There's also a lot of uncontrolled variables, which is one of the many reasons why it's so hard to accurately study things like this, especially considering "attractiveness" is a strictly subjective thing that can change between cultures.
1 blackwingsreef 2018-05-08
Please provide studies to back up your assertions. The blackpill is backed up heavily by science. Looks and/ or social status are minimum standards for attraction, which can only be supplemented by personality.
1 kaanfight 2018-05-08
I'm not asserting anything. I'm basically just regurgitating what these studies you've provided me say in them. We don't know enough about the human brain to really have much of a consensus on any of this stuff. These studies say themselves that there's a ton of conflicting evidence, and to not see that nuance is throwing out a lot of data.
1 blackwingsreef 2018-05-08
I didn't link that article. Also I just read it and the evidence is pretty concrete. The conflicting part is that women claim to value personality, but the studies showed that they don't in practice. Can you read?
1 kaanfight 2018-05-08
Literally the sentence before that
Also, false biases? Projection much? I have no horse in this race, I just can't stand you idiots proclaiming "it's over" when clearly the jury is still out in the psychology community.
1 blackwingsreef 2018-05-08
The previous research consisted of surveys of female preferences. The article claims that the results of these surveys are skewed due to a lack of self awareness among women. The point of the article is to explain and resolve the conflicting evidence by citing a difference in what women claim to value in men (personality) and what they value in practice (attractiveness).
Please stop being dishonest. Obfuscating the source material by withholding context from your citations isn't going to help you get your point across.
1 kaanfight 2018-05-08
Oh shut the fuck up about me being dishonest, don't try to smear me just to try to make yourself look good. Don't obfuscate from the argument at hand.
Let's cut the bullshit, yes the psychologist talks about how in other studies people said they cared more about personality than attractiveness, and this one called those others into question. Note: it didn't disprove those other surveys, it didn't invalidate previous research, it simply contradicted it. This can mean a great many things, from what you're arguing to one or both of the experiments being flawed. Personally, reading through their procedure, it seems a bit flawed. For instance, it's hard to control for "attractiveness", since that term is fairly vague and has no discernible objective scale. The 1/10 scale is a really terrible way to go about it, since those values are completely arbitrary. Some people consider 7 average, others 5, so it's hard to get a concrete scale. Plus, you have the added variable of cultures, since it's pretty obvious different cultures have different standards for beauty.
There's nothing conclusive about this study, about all it claims is that women might be more judgmental than they believe. But the simple fact of the matter is: surveys like this can't accurately simulate the complex interpersonal interactions that lead to relationships. They'll simulate tinder pretty well, but tinder isn't the only way to get into a relationship. Psychology has had this problem for years, it's why some people consider it a "fake" science, because it has trouble isolating variables. That's not a dig on psychology, quite the contrary, there's just so many things to control for that it's nearly impossible. That's why I said there wouldn't be conclusive proof for at least 50 years; until computer technology surpasses the human mind we won't be able to run some of the objective tests needed.
1 blackwingsreef 2018-05-08
You're smearing yourself by misinterpreting and misrepresenting scientific studies.
Thank you.
A contradiction denies the truth value of a statement. Disproving something and contradicting it are the same thing. The study in the article disproves the fact that women value personality over looks in practical dating environment. Quoting from the article "Results showed that a man's looks influenced both groups of women more strongly than his personality profile. This held true even if a man's profile was filled with highly desirable personal qualities, such as being respectful, honest and trustworthy."
Defining "attractiveness" has been subject to meta-analyses. Take this study for example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4498779/
"We explored the relationship between these two estimators of attractiveness and a set of facial traits in a sample of 266 young Spanish women. These traits are: facial fluctuating asymmetry, facial averageness, facial sexual dimorphism, and facial maturity."
The study doesn't arbitrarily presuppose a fixed standard for attractiveness, it categorizes men who women agree are attractive into the category of "attractive men." It's pretty obvious what an attractive man looks like and what an unattractive man looks like. While there is cultural variation, modern urban societies share similar standards for male and female attractiveness.
Who said anything about a 1-10 scale? The scientific literatures shows that certain facial and physical characteristics are generally favored by women. Obviously, there are exceptions to this trend, but not enough to dismantle the hypothesis that looks are extremely important in predicting one's ability to find a partner.
It also states that physical attractiveness is a stronger predictor of female attraction than personality.
The article presents a scientific study looking for a statistical trend. Controlling for personality traits, it's obvious that females prefer males who look a certain way (referred to as attractive men) over others (referred to as ugly men).
By this logic psychology should tell us nothing, but that's not true, is it? Psychology tells us a lot about day-to-day life.
1 roflwhateven1 2018-05-08
it's a joke you fucking plonker
1 lonely_suicidal_cel 2018-05-08
No one is entitled to ANYTHING
1 Chaddite 2018-05-08
My swimming team captain looked a lot like that guy.
1 AbuIncelAlAustrali 2018-05-08
But the one on the left is less entitled
1 newbrutus 2018-05-08
True, but the right one lives in a world where he may as well be
1 Idk12344482305 2018-05-08
The right one is factually entitled to sex due to his looks. If he wants it, he will get it.
1 IamtheShiznitt 2018-05-08
No. He isn’t.
I’ll repeat this again. Nobody is entitled to sex. Nobody. Not men, not women, not anybody.
1 Idk12344482305 2018-05-08
He’s entitled by nature, if he wasn’t, then he wouldn’t get it automatically.
You would spread your legs to him in no time if he was there.
1 IamtheShiznitt 2018-05-08
Nature doesn’t entitle him to jack shit except his opinion.
And I wouldn’t spread my legs for him because he’s not my husband. (And if I were single, I still wouldn’t because he barely looks old enough to vote.)
1 Idk12344482305 2018-05-08
He’s entitled to sex because getting it is automatic for him.
I’m sorry such a simple concept is so complicated to you.
1 IamtheShiznitt 2018-05-08
Nobody is entitled to sex. Nobody. That’s the simple concept that you aren’t grasping. And that isn’t my problem. It’s yours.
1 Idk12344482305 2018-05-08
Women: Repeating a sentence over and over with zero evidence to support it.
1 IamtheShiznitt 2018-05-08
Incels: equating obtuseness for intelligence.
1 Idk12344482305 2018-05-08
Still waiting for your first argument
1 efeenes74 2018-05-08
The water is not wet.
I'll repeat that,
THE WATER IS NOT WET. Not. Wet.
1 MozzerDozzer 2018-05-08
But you've been the obtuse one so far.
1 zsiwpoprod 2018-05-08
You are purposely missing the point that he is trying to make. Youre trying to shut down conversation by arguing semantics and it makes you look stupid. Sure no one is technically entitled to anything, he isn't saying that you're legally required to sleep with Chad, but that no matter what some people will get laid despite their personality. Their looks figuratively entitle them to sex and they are often aware of this fact.
1 SweeterPickles 2018-05-08
There’s getting sex easily, and there’s being entitled to it.
He might very well get sex any time he wants, but he is still not entitled to it
1 Idk12344482305 2018-05-08
If you get something any time you want, then you’re entitled to that.
1 SweeterPickles 2018-05-08
No. If you get something any time you want, then you're lucky. Because if at any point you stop getting that thing, then there's nothing you can do but look back on the good times. There's nothing that says he has to get sex.
1 Idk12344482305 2018-05-08
Has anyone ever said “you’re not entitled to sex” to a male model? Have you ever heard that here? Only ugly men get told that. Do you know why? Because you’re only emtitled to have sex if you’re good-looking.
1 SweeterPickles 2018-05-08
I'm sure if male model expressed that he was entitled to sex, somebody would be there to refute it. However, I don't see any saying they deserve it. Nobody "deserves" sex just for existing, or being handsome, or whatever. That's a fact.
1 Idk12344482305 2018-05-08
Reality disagrees with you.
1 SweeterPickles 2018-05-08
Your argument seems to be that good looking men get sex, therefore they're entitled to it, and that's backwards reasoning.
They get sex because they are good looking, and charming, and high status. However, they are not entitled to it. There is a stark difference here. If he demands sex with a certain woman, she is under no obligation to give it to him if she doesn't want to.
1 Idk12344482305 2018-05-08
“If he demands sex with a certain woman, she is under no obligation to give it to him if she doesn't want to.”
There is no possible scenario where she doesnmt want to.
1 SweeterPickles 2018-05-08
There are plenty of scenarios where she doesn't, and if she doesn't, then she can just walk away.
That's the definition of him not being entitled.
1 Idk12344482305 2018-05-08
She won’t.
1 SweeterPickles 2018-05-08
Your argument relies on an absolute that is not ever guaranteed.
I’m sorry that you can’t see that, but I’m not going to convince you otherwise.
1 Idk12344482305 2018-05-08
No worries, thanks for the civilized chat. We just have fundamental disagreements on this matter that I don’t think can be resolved in a reddit exchange.
1 SweeterPickles 2018-05-08
No, it can’t. Happy to stay civilized.
Hope things get better for ya.
1 Namaha 2018-05-08
Some male models somewhere have been turned down for sex at some point in their lives. It may not happen often, but it absolutely does happen
And guess what? When a male model is turned down, they are not entitled to just take what they wanted anyway. That's called sexual assault/rape.
1 Idk12344482305 2018-05-08
Sexual assault/rape happens against your will, when you realize that the guy is ugly. Male models can’t rape anyone, that’s impossible.
1 Namaha 2018-05-08
Do you not read the news or something? Chads do in fact get accused/convicted of sexual assault/rape..
1 Idk12344482305 2018-05-08
Sure
1 Namaha 2018-05-08
The fact that some bitches are crazy doesn't mean there aren't sane women out there
1 hikobaby 2018-05-08
I wouldn't have sex with the guy on the right. He looks like a tool. Regardless of how he looks, he's also just not entitled to sex.
1 Idk12344482305 2018-05-08
Of course he’s entitled to have sex, he’s good-looking, and by nature’s laws, he will find multiple partners. Ugly people don’t have such privileges, hence they’re not entitled to have sex.
Very simple concept.
1 hikobaby 2018-05-08
He may find sexual partners but that does not mean he's entitled to sex. Having something is different than being entitled to it. Take access to posting on this subreddit for example: you have access but you are not entitled to it. The mods can choose to take away that ability.
1 Idk12344482305 2018-05-08
Good example. I’m entitled to post on this subreddit as long as I don’t go against Reddit ToS and subreddit rules. I’m entitled to my freedom as long as I don’t commit a crime for which I’m sentenced to prison. He is entitled to have sex with women as long as he’s good-looking.
Thanks for proving my point.
1 aMonument 2018-05-08
Legally you are free until you’re found guilty of a crime and sent to prison (This is a simplistic definition I know). He is not legally entitled to sex at any point it’s just not how the word is used or understood.
1 blackwingsreef 2018-05-08
You're working with a faulty definition of entitlement. Incels may need sex, but they don't have a right to it. Sex isn't a human right just as candy isn't a human right.
The person on the right is just guaranteed sex while the person on the left wouldn't get laid in a million years.
1 Tha_Crock 2018-05-08
Guess which one is a virgin?
That's right, the dude on the left, because he's a misogynist.
1 thisnameisunique123 2018-05-08
How could he not be with a face like that?
1 Bloody69Hell 2018-05-08
R/whoosh
1 HumbleCel 2018-05-08
Actuallly I think you got woooshed here
1 GaymasterNacelle 2018-05-08
Seen guys with a "face like that" (weak chin and whatnot) still being perceived as hot and getting dates - of course it could be that he's uggo from the front, but merely judging by this picture, he could be quite alright if he dropped that stupid face expression and got some high energy.
1 PM_ME_TENDIE_STORIES 2018-05-08
“Just get some high energy bro”
1 thisnameisunique123 2018-05-08
Just be confident bro. Ignore the 20 times it's failed miserably.
1 GaymasterNacelle 2018-05-08
Not in actual uggos' case, that wouldn't help no.
1 Tha_Crock 2018-05-08
It's not a stupid facial expression you idiot, his maxilla is recessed.
1 GaymasterNacelle 2018-05-08
I've no idea what a maxilla is, as I'm a low IQ nigger.
1 CountyMcCounterson 2018-05-08
Wow that guy on the left looks like he hates women
1 mrThesselrot 2018-05-08
Guy on the left is part of terror cell i.n.c.e.l
1 ThunderstormRTB 2018-05-08
Both of them. Stop crying already.
1 Bumbling-failure 2018-05-08
*Neither
Yeah, it's as if they think our standards don't apply to everyone.
1 EverythingIsSoSincur 2018-05-08
Akchulee I prefer the guy on the left, tee hee.
1 nopenope_noped 2018-05-08
No one is entitled to sex, get it through your head.
1 harambeazn 2018-05-08
leafy
1 favorthebold 2018-05-08
Neither one of them is entitled to sex.
1 superman1145 2018-05-08
Damn, how good does your personality have to be in order to be entitled to sex?
1 favorthebold 2018-05-08
No one is entitled to sex. Not the world's saintliest hero nor the buffest of bros. Aside from masturbation, sex is a gift someone shares with you, and if there's no one who wants to share it with you then you don't get to have it. The end.
Not a single person in the world is entitled to sex, male or female.
1 superman1145 2018-05-08
How about this.
Which of these two men is "less" entitled to sex?
1 favorthebold 2018-05-08
Neither one. Geez, you're slow man, did you even read what I read above? If no one is entitled to it, then one person can't be "more" entitled. For all you know, both of those guys are married and are going to get laid tonight regardless of your weird-ass judgement on how they look.
1 superman1145 2018-05-08
Lol, I guarantee you the guy on the left is currently shitposting online and the guy on the right is drowning in pussy
1 favorthebold 2018-05-08
Sorry, I know you guys get super pissed when you're contradicted, but trying to make me believe that you're Professor X is just going too far.
1 favorthebold 2018-05-08
Also the guy on the left looks like a younger version of my brother-in-law, who's been married to my sister for like 20 years and they have 3 kids, so absolutely guys like that get laid all the time.
1 bluedrowning 2018-05-08
That doesn't make either of them less or more entitled. Just because you have something doesn't mean it's a right.
1 The-Drapery-Falls 2018-05-08
Neither of them are. Look up the definition of "entitled" before posting dumb shit next time.
1 Trebuh 2018-05-08
The absolute idiots here seem to think "more likely to get" and "entitled” means the same thing.
Pick up a dictionary you fucking stupid virgins.
1 ToFapNoMorelsTheGoal 2018-05-08
Is the guy on the right FACEandLMS?
1 efeenes74 2018-05-08
No lmao if that chad were FACEandLMS he wouldn't fucking waste his time making 28 minute long demonetized videos about the blackpill
1 ToFapNoMorelsTheGoal 2018-05-08
Lmao, good point.
1 blackpillnormie 2018-05-08
he should monetize it, but maybe it's impossible because youtube is cucked.
1 efeenes74 2018-05-08
YouTube automatically demonetizes his videos I think.
1 Kevioli 2018-05-08
neither one
1 usernam028253954936 2018-05-08
Kylo Ren on the left
1 frostmonsters2 2018-05-08
Both of them. Nobody is entitled to anything, unless they earned it themselves.
1 Geleg456 2018-05-08
lol
1 Ihate25gaugeNeedles 2018-05-08
Both. No one is entitled to sex, sorry.
1 futmut 2018-05-08
"Looks dont matter", said every hypocrite peanut brain roastie ever
1 phoneticau 2018-05-08
That Brit BlackPilled FACEandLMS Youtuber has nailed it 100%
1 Westcoastincel 2018-05-08
the guy on the left isn't that attractive but he's not incel hes a normie
1 32ozbottle 2018-05-08
Cope that chin is a death sentence
1 escapetheinceldom 2018-05-08
Guess which one is a misogynist.
1 rzotten 2018-05-08
Both...?
1 circlingldn 2018-05-08
The rightvlooks like that gay serial killer
1 justforlulzandkeks 2018-05-08
1 haymansafc 2018-05-08
What I'd like to know is if man 'a' is entitled to sex (as he gets it) but man 'b' isn't - then what does the latter have to do in order to be treated in the same, humane manner as man 'a'? We listen to advice, but the advice never works. We point this out and low and behold, we're deemed to have 'entitlement issues'.
In short, we're scapegoated as being the problem when the truth is that the stigmatisation we face is a very real societal problem that needs tackling.
1 TheLethal0ne 2018-05-08
Why you gotta do my boy Leafy like that?
1 IamtheShiznitt 2018-05-08
Nobody is entitled to sex. Nobody. That’s the simple concept that you aren’t grasping. And that isn’t my problem. It’s yours.
1 Idk12344482305 2018-05-08
“If he demands sex with a certain woman, she is under no obligation to give it to him if she doesn't want to.”
There is no possible scenario where she doesnmt want to.