Females don't care dude

i dont think there are that many girls lurking on this subreddit. it's a very odd place to seek female attention. very.

Are you kidding? There's a shit load of girls lurking this place

It's true. I come here daily to mock you.

Hm, from an outsider's perspective, it seems you guys get a wave of women whenever this place is linked. Women don't really lurk so much as they wander in sporadically, and it doesn't seem to be the same women at all. Bit of a crapshoot if there's a woman here at any given time, considering how vitriolic this place is towards women the ones that wander in don't stay.

Thank St.BlackOps2cel people like you don't stay here.

half a dozen

You are still whining for their validation like a dog.

Atleast die with a straight spine.

Don't be a validation whore, go jerk off, take a walk.

Nothing more pathetic to a female than a male showing weakness.

Truth, I learned that years ago first hand.

When a low-quality man speaks, they only hear static.

Women want us dead

Fuck you nigger

LMAOOOO what if he is fakefakecel?

get him bro

Why should it be the responsibility of women to give you a reason to live?

you arent entitled to life bro

You're entitle to life but you can't put the responsibility for your existence on the vague concept of women. That's fucking stupid.

Why?

Shit, nigga, I'm lonely too. Loneliness isn't something that is magically alleviated by having a girlfriend. And it isn't the duty of women to alleviate your loneliness. Why should being a certain gender mean that you're inextricably locked into a role that you don't want to perform?

Get a dog, it works, my loneliness is gone, im still a loser but my life has more meaning now

beats crying on reddit

Dog fucker confirmed

Yup

Happy cake day man

Loneliness isn't something that is magically alleviated by having a girlfriend

What? Yes it is.

People can be lonely with a girlfriend just like how people can be malnourished and hungry even though they're fat and rich, but nevertheless I'd rather be fat, malnourished and hungry than be hungry, malnourished and look like I'm a Somali in the 80's

Why should being a certain gender mean that you're inextricably locked into a role that you don't want to perform?

That's true for both genders, so long as there are standards for men to live up to imposed by women, there should be some imposed upon women by men.

Ahhhh so the standard for men is what exactly?

Loneliness isn't something that is magically alleviated by having a girlfriend.

So why the fuck else would you feel lonely?

Because you don't have a genuine emotional connection with another person.

So why the fuck are you with them in the first place?

I wouldn't be just for the sake of it

[removed]

Helperdroid and its creator love you, here's some people that can help:

https://pastebin.com/iAhaF92s

source | contact

Thank you, Former-Incel-User, for voting on theHelperdroid.

This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. You can view results here.

^{Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!}

There has to be something that you do that can be social.

You can step out a bit. How old are you?

Being social will not help him.

But “painfully lonely” is not the same as “no girl wants to fuck me.”

You can be really lonely with someone in the same bed as you. Likewise, you can be happy and fulfilled without having sex.

[removed]

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to the person who wanted to blame women for why he wanted to kill himself.

What you said still doesn’t make any sense tard.

If a person wants to kill themselves because they think that all women will reject them that's on them.

That's their choice to throw their life away based on a false assumption probably caused by fear.

It is a stupid choice, but it is still on them. They are responsible.

Nobody wants to kill themselves just because they want to die. There’s such a thing called cause and effect.

There is cause and effect.

But it branches. They whole idea that woman are to blame for a person making that choice is totally wrong.

I could have made that choice. I didn't get laid till I was 23. I made different choices. And that lead to different things happening. Funny how that works.

If the OP here wants to kill himself, he will. That is his choice. That's on him.

No you don’t. It’s not women’s fault that you want to die. That is such a fucked up sentiment.

I’m sorry you want to die. Depression is really hard. But if you seek help for depression, I’m about 95% sure the therapist won’t say, “oh, sorry, but there’s nothing I can do about it you’re ugly.”

You’ve mentioned trying to seek surgery to fix your position. Why don’t you seek therapy in the meantime? There are literally millions of ways you can improve you happiness that don’t involve putting your penis in a vagina.

vague concept of women

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman here you go bro

That's just you're own self hatred. Stop being a giant fag.

In what respect am I a cuck? I just don't think women have the responsibility to give your life meaning.

trying to guilt trip women into fucking you by threatening suicide is the most passive aggressive beta thing I can think of.

Also most men would rather have women than never have them at all. Fucker

This is one of your problems. Women aren't objects to be collected. Women are people, just like yourself. You can't "have" a woman. Even if you did possess a woman in the way you imagine, it wouldn't be true happiness.

I never said posess a woman like a slave you cunt

Neither did I. Maybe your true intentions are showing through. The truth is, you'll never have romantic affection from anyone because you're miserable and self loathing. You even admit that you're ugly and low status. So why would a woman want to be with you?

What do you offer a woman in the loving romantic relationship you envision? How can you be that partner if you don't even think of women as people? Do you see how this is a self fulfilling prophecy?

While ugly and low status women can get boyfriends and sex easy?

What is it, romantic affection or sex? Do you really think those women are happy?

My karma on this sub is killing me. Keep getting hit with the post timer.

Do you think they're happy though. Are they happy in the way you imagine you would be happy if you found your sweetheat from the ground up?

weew scum

Stacies want us to die, they don't give a crap out sub8 men. Don't let them win.

Don't you mean beckies? Stacies are too busy getting railed by Chad and Tyrone to think about sub 8 men

They Want u to do it. They don't have empathy for lower value lower caste men.

lower caste men

In a matriarchal society, lower-caste men would be hunted like dogs. It's no coincidence that any community of romantically unsuccessful men is majority ETHNICC

In a matriarchal society, lower-caste men would be hunted like dogs.

Nope, they'd be forced labour. Why kill something you can exploit for benefit?

More fun?

Hmmm and it just so happens that prisons are filled with mostly...ethnic men. Imagine moi shock.

Voids would cream their axe wounds if you roped.

axe wounds

That's a new one.

No it isn't, it's just usually used to describe a post on tranny. Those are literally wounds

I've never heard it b4. Usually it's called shotgun wound

How does that make any sense? Shotguns fire a bunch of pellets to create multiple wounds. An ax/tranny wound is a slice down their pelvic region.

I have never heard shotgun wound used to describe trannies before, and I know why:. It's stupid as hell

Not trannies, women vags up close are a little wider than just slice with an axe

They'd love if you did that. They just won't admit to it

because being attractive to females isn't the only fucking point of living?

lmao yujukiab level cope

haha same, annoying as fuck with his "femoids hate me but I am so happy pls give me attention cucktears" bullshit

RIKUDO COPE LMAO

I'm not saying it doesn't suck to be lonely or you can just stop wanting female company, but ffs who sounds more like a pathetic faggot? "waaaa literally without female validation there's *no reason to live" Really dude?

He has a point, tho. You can live to be a doctor and save people's lives, be a soldier, give momey to charity and make children happy, and so on.

But yeah, its still quite sad to not be found atractive, so I see your point of view.

just become a soldier and go die for your country which barely gives a fuck about you, bro

Just go kill some children for Israel, bro. The self-validation will just come naturally with the job, bro.

What, the fuck, are you saying with as catchy title like that? Chad, is half the man you are. i know, I'm better than Chad. I look in the mirror everyday, and I know she, Isn't there for a reason.

Special people, are not guy or girl. That's pretty much how Stacies have it. We slay them, when it's all over. Take heart dude.

What?

He said some crazy weird shit in a thread of mine too

its okay i love episodecels

Yeah that nigga is bugging out

[removed]

They don’t care if we die. One less sub8 cluttering their prospects.

This

That.

Just find a hobby that will overwrite your base instict that is the entire point of your existence and which took millions of years to evolve, tee hee

Because, is whether the female would fuck you the ONLY measure of whether life is worth living? You state this question as if the question of whether or not a girl will fuck your is literally the only thing that exists in the universe. The universe is just a binary equation, fuck, not fuck, or death.

Hey whatup, woman who's wandered in here. Gonna answer your question seriously.

1. Starting with the idea that's going to get me the most downvotes in this forum: "Chad" is a construct. Specifically, the idea of a "Chad" being a monolithic image of a man all women are attracted to with certain unalienable characteristics (tall, handsome, big cock, lots of money) is an idea made and created within certain forums that spread outwards because it's a comforting fallacy. It's an intentional too-high standard that most people can never meet, so if anyone feels rejected they can latch onto the idea of Chads. Elliot Rodgers would have fit the definition of a Chad, but he was able to cling to the notion of Chad's being different from him by adding on the intersectionality of race. The fluidity of the construction of a Chad is important to how it's spread and why so many guys swallow that line. I'm going to let you in on a secret- Chad doesn't exist. Chang and Eng Bunker were conjoined twins and both found wives. How is this possible? Surely they are the farthest thing from a Chad in the Civil War American South? Answer: there's billions of women on this Earth and they all like different things in men. Therefore your assumption that you'll never be attractive to any woman on Earth is false.
2. Being in a physical relationship is not the only thing worthwhile on this Earth. People find it important, hell yes. If you're not asexual or aromantic it's hard as fuck to be without a partner. But it's not the only art of life worth living. Would you prefer to die having been either a detriment to history, or to have made a positive impact?
3. Killing yourself only means you remove any chance of finding someone to bond with. And again, you're not doomed to be without a relationship forever. Someone is going to be attracted to you, and you widen your pool by giving off the air that you're genuinely interested in bonding with another person as an equal.
4. A woman will not be able to fill the void within you. Only you can achieve self completion. Having a person standing by you is very helpful to the human psyche- but rich, brilliant, successful people with loving partners kill themselves every day. You only need to look at Hollywood tabloids and the suicide rates of doctors and millionaires to see that. Ensure you are comfortable with yourself, or no external factor will ever be enough.

Elliot Rodger did not fit the profile of Chad, he was a 5'6 Asian manlet.

There we go see- he was rich with a great face and muscles, an excellent education, and in the perfect spot in the country to meet women. But he was so obsessed with the idea of a "Chad" he sunk himself.

He thought that Chad's had women throwing themselves at them (a sentiment I see posted all the time in forums like this), so he sat outside in expensive suits and watches and got frustrated no one came up to him. He made an assumption that because he was part Asian and under 6 feet tall that he would forever be shut out of being a Chad. And he became obsessed with that idea, and so bitter and full of rage.

Guess what was in his manifesto? Rants about white women going out with "full blooded" Asian men. Because couldn't they see that him being half white was better? Asian's weren't Chads in his mind. Short men weren't Chads. So why were women dating them?

He was so close to the truth- there are no Chads.

he was none of those things. Chris hemsworth is rich, and has a great face. Elliot was a manlet twink with a small chin

Ok, it always feels strange to me that every time Rodger's gets brought up it devolves into an argument about how hot or not he is, considering he gunned down people. It gives me the creeps to pull up his face and have an argument about if his chin was normal or small, so I'm just going to say our own personal opinions don't negate the fact there are multiple blogs about him specifically fetishizing his physical appearance.

I wish it wasn't so. I wish people would let him be buried and never speak his name, as it's clear he's inspired copycats. But it's inarguable that people do find him attractive. And it's clear there's lots of women who would have had sex with him- but they didn't because of his attitude, not his physical appearance.

wtf did Rodgers inspire? Literally only one person who committed violence has ever identified with the term 'incel', and that was some Armenian Canadian guy who mowed people over with a van.

He inspired copy cat killers such as the Umpqua Community College shooting and the van murders you mentioned. Both strongly identified sexual frustration as a motivator.

Since when is Umpfaggot an incel? Fuck off with your normie bullshit. Never once has an actual incel from this subreddit or the old one, nor one from incels.me actually gone out and killed anyone. Vancel was literally the only 'incel mass murderer' who even mentioned inceldom and he wasn't even active in any of the aforementioned communities.

Fuck off.

they are just going to always change the goal posts so that they are right.

The whole chad idea always comes with the magical excuse for why their life is messed up. It is never about their choices. Something always out of their power must be to blame.

You make good points, imo.

Oh look, a pseudo-intellectual normie, how cute.

Yes, ER did not get laid "because of his attitude". But the reason why he HAD to have said attitude is because he wasn't Chad. Chad doesn't need attitude. Yes, they literally have women throwing themselves at them. I know you cannot fathom this because of your ego("Incels say Chads have women throw themselves at them, but it never happened to ME, so it's lies!") but it's reality.

Men who are not Chads only have a chance with women as betabux. Being betabux is basically at the level of being a roommate(actually that's top level of betabuxing) only you occassionally - whenever the female "gets in the mood" i.e. once a week or less - have sex. And as with all roommates, this is where personality("attitude") becomes important. You wouldn't want a roommate who is a dick, doesn't clean after himself, doesn't consider your decisions, etc.

Because 80% of men are below average in eyes of women, but at the same time we live in enforced monogamy, "roommate boyfriend" becomes the "norm". "Norm" as in "it happens to most people in the society", not in the objective sense of normal, if such a thing even exists. And then we have fucktards like you, who know less than zero about human sexuality and relationships, live their entire life in this new "norm", lecture us about how "wrong" we are because "no one does that".

Ahhh, I don't know why I even bother. You're a normtard incapable of basic logic and accepting any fact that violates your fallacious bubble, and I don't even give a damn about ER who always struck me as a tool. I guess I just wanted to explain that the blackpill model and "most men do get laid anyway, checkmate INCELS" are not mutually exclusive at all. Well, as long as monogamy is a thing, at least. Then it's over for betas like you.

Ohhhhhh k. So, since people aren’t Chads, they have to be betabux. And betabux get sex even if it’s only gasp once a week.

Why is it a bad thing to be a betabux if sex with women is what you crave so badly? Or are you incapable of becoming betabux because of your vitriolic personality?

Also, you never addressed the guys point about finding something other than a relationship to find fulfillment in life.

You criticized his logic, but I find yours pretty faulty as well.

Consider "Why not just try collecting stamps instead of worrying about not being able the literally only thing you exist for that nature evolved you to do over millions of years" a valid argument that needs to be "addressed"

Accuse others of faulty logic

And I already regret wasting my precious time writing that post

this is why you normshits only deserve insults and memes

Well you still never answered my questions about the betabux.

Sorry for wasting your precious time trying to get you to explain your point of view better. Guess I shouldn’t have wasted my precious time trying to understand you.

this is why you incels only deserve insults and memes.

Well you still never answered my questions about the betabux.

LOL what is there to answer? Being a betabux dog some used-up cunt settled on, who has to provide for her shitty lifestyle and in free time also be a waiter and a handyman, so that maybe on saturday you can spend few free hours in your "mancave"(read: filthy garage) that the "love of your life" gracefully allowed you to own in your house?

That is worse than being an incel, yes.

But you guys are involuntary celibates. If you choose not to have sex with women because it requires commitments like providing for each other and maintaining a job, that’s not involuntary. That’s your choice. You are the one choosing not to have sex because you don’t like the amount of effort you have to put into it.

So how is that the women’s fault? Because she has standards? (Usually the standards aren’t as high as having someone work two jobs to provide for a shifty lifestyle while you kick them out to the garage). If those were the standards of most women, I think a lot of people would opt out of sex.

And, please— incels can’t do memes or insults any better.

Whether they opt out of sex is one thing, but people do demonstrably opt out of committed relationships such as marriage, and for good reason.

There was a breakdown in the division of labor over the last century. Certain psychologically important roles have been neglected. Namely, parenting and supporting men sexually. A stream of propaganda meant to make all people more dependent on networked governments and corporations convinced women to see their role as something less valuable than that of mens'. They were convinced to buy razors, smoke cigerettes, drink cocktails, surrender their children to institutions, and deny their supportive spouses sexual comfort. They were convinced to trade their most supportive qualities for the very worst qualities of men. Men have had issues, but these haven't been treated, they have widened in scope with a, "if you can't beat them, join them" rationale, and driven by PR that only served the purpose of doubling the market for vices and doubling the work force at the expense of supporting children.

Just like women need comfort in many ways, so do men. It's a temporary contrivance that in modern feminist relationships, women's needs are met and generally seen as mandatory and virtuous, and men's needs are seen as depraved or privileged. A blowjob is no more or less respectable and important than pouring labor and resources into pieces of flair. If they make a person feel good, they matter and they are virtuous and respectable pursuits. If women were committed to these roles as much as men have stayed committed to shoveling manure, inhaling brake dust, and doing whatever it takes to be valuable to the subjective inclinations of women, then marriage would still be a thing.

I am not an incel, and I have found that many women, despite popular and contemporary education, do understand mutualism and the need to be relevant to the people in their life rather than to projections and ideological expectations. Women have been mislead to want something unnatural and possibly unsustainable. Many, many women still do understand that men and women's values are equally important and that the importance of behavioral equality is redundant and a myth because complementarity and acceptance is the basis of mutualism.

I think a lot of people on both sides of this normie-incel banter need to recognize and appreciate this so that humankind can move forward. I don't idealize the past, but I do think men and women should once again find value in their gender roles and restore the commitments to each other that benefit men and women alike. A giant caveat is that many people don't fall directly into a gender, and they can find unique, mutualistic relationships, as well. This is actually great moment in history for those margins of the population, but a repressive dark age for the majority, and marriage statistics support that.

“If they make a person feel good, they matter and they are virtuous and respectable pursuits.”

So the women that you talked about in the first paragraph, the ones that like to smoke cigs and drink cocktails....those things make a person feel good. So they are virtuous and respectable pursuits. Why you knocking them?

That they are harmful to the health of men and women. Huge campaigns to widen the market to women took place at the same moment in history when it was medically clear they were harmful.

“find value in gender roles and restore the commitments to each other that benefit men and women alike.”

If I’m a woman, and I don’t feel like giving a blowjob, but I have to because my husband wants one, how does that benefit me? Because my man will do something of equal or greater value for me? Like take out the trash? (I can handle that). Like fix the TV? (I can probably do that). It’s not worth losing your dignity to do something you don’t want to do to get someone else to do something you want done. You can just do it yourself.

I’m not sure if I’m entirely grasping your point here, but you didn’t call me a “cunt” or “Stacy” so I’m actually interested in what you have to say.

You perceive lost dignity because of a social construct. Particularly that mens' bodies are inherently aberrant or repulsive. I love eating pussy and there is no construct that convinces me of any lost dignity because current western culture celebrates womens' bodies. I know I do.

The mutualism of giving sex even if you aren't in the mood stems from the willingness of men for all of history to spend all day toiling at dangerous and harmful tasks that they aren't in the mood for purely so that they have value to women and family. It's not a myth that men end up called upon more often in emergencies and many of them jump at the opportunity. Women certainly can too, it just isn't as common.

If you see value in a man, you can have about 8-10 hours of his labor per day forever in exchange for overcoming moods and showing sexual willingness in those moments on a daily basis. Most men would be glad to literally support you even if you didn't feel like working full time. You absolutely shouldn't be forced into that deal, and that's a feminist success, but the idea that it is inherently a bad or degrading deal, I think is debateable, a far-flung pendulum, and women I know in person agree, even if pop culture currently portrays it as some betrayal of women's values.

There's really nothing at all wrong with women side stepping the traditional opportunity and working 8 hours per day as well to support themselves. The corporations and governments have successfully served enough markets that today, it is possible to do that. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that choice. If you can put in the paid hours, a random stranger can come and do whatever you can't do yourself, so that's an option, just as much as men can be single, live alone, and hire escorts.

Since families, child rearing and the maintenance of a comfortable home is also important to many people, ideally women should seek out men that would prefer to adopt historically female roles so that a mutual and sustaining environment to live a life and raise kids is maintained. Alternately, they could have no man at all, which divorce rates would suggest is a popular outcome. I prefer not to be lonely, so I work hard for a woman that works hard for me. I never turn down any of my responsibilities and she would never turn me down sexually. We have a strong relationship.

I only object to the idea that the traditional gender roles are degrading. They are a viable way of living and they don't have to be associated with anything abusive or degrading. Men really don't feel degraded when they are doing the dirty jobs they do to be valuable, and women shouldn't either. I don't personally condone anyone abusing or mistreating anyone else.

I'm posting in reply to you, but I skimmed many comments and happened to decide to write a reply to your post. I appreciate your politeness and that you asked some qualifying questions.

Right. I think what you say is fair, and contrary to what you suggest, I think a lot of feminists would agree with you. (At least I am a feminist and agree with you.) There does need to be a balance in a relationship and especially in a family. Both parents can’t work and leave the children lonely. And of course one parent has to work to make money. Whoever assumes the role of “worker” and “home cater” doesn’t matter. And it shouldn’t degrade anyone.

I think maybe I disagree with you a little on how you associate sexual favors with the female/home carer role. Like, I can understand that someone has to have the role of maintaining and educating the children and keeping the house. But saying “yes” to sex even when you don’t feel like having sex shouldn’t be the role of anyone (unless they are a porn star or prostitute and it is literally their job).

I can see where you’re coming from with the “loss of dignity” point. But I think it’s less about how “repulsive and aberrant” men’s bodies are. And more about how abstaining and purity are worshipped in women. And also—I still really disagree that giving a blowjob when you aren’t in the mood for it is necessary at all for a happy relationship. Sometimes you just don’t wanna suck no dick, naimsayin?

I accept your point of view. It wouldn't work for me, because my mood generally has no bearing on whether or not I follow through with things that family members need or think they need, and I kind of expect the same in return. Not every relationship needs to work that way. I put myself second when it comes to so many things, and my wife puts herself second when I come around acting sexually needy. I should say that it's not like I see every moment as an appropriate time for a sexual advance. That works for us. I adore her for it.

I ultimately don't know why the average relationship fails, but I often suspect it has to do with the way we categorize wants and needs and disregard men's sex drive as a want and not a need. It's also why I feel for the people that post in this sub, although I'm not quite sure what can be done, because you can't force people to find value in every single person out there, even if that's a sad reality.

Sometimes you don't wanna suck no dick, and sometimes maybe your guy isn't going to want to do something important to you. Maybe it's fine to let each other down a bit. There can probably an acceptable amount of that in a healthy relationship. We are more absolute in terms of these kinds of commitments. I know I don't have all the answers. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, though.

The world isn't divided in to three perfectly neat categories that describe all human relationships. There are a lot of options other than Chad, Betabux, Incel.

Incel's just want the world to be that simple and easy to systematize because...complexity is confusing? If your failure isn't because of your innate category then you might have to take a hard look at yourself, your behavior, and your beliefs.

Best to just cling to an absolutely juvenile simplification than to grow up and see the world with some nuance.

I don’t think it’s so much that complexity is confusing, it’s that complexity would force them to see that their lack of intimacy isn’t solely due to things beyond their control.

Nuance isn't going to help save 42 million for my dad's meds or get any sense of intimacy

Nuance isn't going to help save 42 million for my dad's meds

No idea what that has to do with anything.

or get any sense of intimacy

Having a realistic and not insanely distorted view of the behavior of everyone around you would be more productive than clinging to incel delusions.

No idea what that has to do with anything.

The benefits of nuance don't carry anything to the physical world, lack of benefit means i won't waste energy doing such a thing.

Having a realistic and not insanely distorted view of the behavior of everyone around you would be more productive than clinging to incel delusions.

The only thing that makes us more productive is the constant release of oxicotin, which cannot be obtained by telling myself to have the "correct views" people want to enforce on me. Again nuance is useless

I know you cannot fathom this because of your ego("Incels say Chads have women throw themselves at them, but it never happened to ME, so it's lies!") but it's reality.

Well it wouldn't happen to me...because as previously stated I'm a woman. Some women absolutely will make the first move and ask a guy for his number. Most women will not approach an unknown man sitting out in the middle of the day just because he's wearing a nice watch.

Men who are not Chads only have a chance with women as betabux.

I reject the notion of betabux. I would love to see your sociological studies that verify your presupposition that such a thing exists. If it is so hard coded into the human experience there must be tons of literature on the subject.

Ie once a week or less

You may be surprised to learn that once a week is the average for the American household. Hardly a pity bone at all, it's the average amount most people like to have sex.

Because 80% of men are below average in eyes of women, but at the same time we live in enforced monogamy, "roommate boyfriend" becomes the "norm".

Again, that statistic is an error in charting. To quote myself from a couple comments "Women have a much broader range collectively of what they deem to be physically attractive than men. You ever wonder why those studies everyone here likes to quote so much have women rating only 20% of the men on dating sites attractive? Individually, women rated roughly 50% of the men as "average to above average". But because there's such a broad spectrum of what women are physically interested in, they all had different answers. It's the same tallying that leads political science charts to label Trump as a "moderate". He has extreme positions on either sides, and they cancel each other out. Error in charting."

And then we have fucktards like you, who know less than zero about human sexuality and relationships, live their entire life in this new "norm", lecture us about how "wrong" we are because "no one does that".

Minor in human sexuality here. (Yes I've heard the jokes on the name.) It's not really used in my professional field, but I keep up with the literature in my personal time because it interests me.

Ahhh, I don't know why I even bother.

If I had to guess, it's because you deeply feel these things are real. You feel everyone else just doesn't get it, and that you've found the truth. Maybe you should consider what kind of information you've been nodding along to and why- I'd wager it's because it sounds sensible to you. It sounds easy. It sounds like it's not something within your control, and that's liberating in its own way. But the sense of liberation only lasts so long before the anger sets in. Before you get to that point, maybe take a step back, look around and say "is this really matching up?"

What about people shorter then ER? Uglier face? Less wealthy? Even skinnier frame? Why cant u retarded foids just admit that some people got genetically screwed....

chad doesn't exist

The problem of people like you is using the exception as a rule. For instance: height. Height is very important for a woman. The majority of women want a taller man.

but I know a short guy that...

Indeed. Some woman will be OK dating short man. They are the exception, not the rule. There are more short man than woman excepting to date short men.

ER was a minority and short. Would he be able to get a girlfriend if he wasn't autistic? Probably. Let's not put aside the fact that:

A- Interracial relationships are not common. He would be rejected for the fact of looking like a asian man. B- He looked more asian than white, therefore, he would have trouble even dating asian woman as well. C- You don't know how GL the asian guys were.

>The problem of people like you is using the exception as a rule. For instance: height. Height is very important for a woman. The majority of women want a taller man.

Here's the most insidious trap of the idea of Chads. This idea loves to predicate itself on factors that cannot be changed, so people can cling to it while throwing up their hands. I can list short men people drool over all day, and I can point out all the relationships in the world with different sized partners, and you'll throw up your hands and declare your point inviolable because "it's just biology". It's not biology, or at least, not in the way you think. Most women are with men taller than them because the average spread of heights has the male chart begin with a 20cm increase in height and an almost identical spread in averages. Meaning the average man is almost 10cm taller than the average woman, and that ratio tracks. The bottom 5% of men are on average 10cm taller than the bottom 5% of women, etc etc.

>A- Interracial relationships are not common. He would be rejected for the fact of looking like a asian man.

Within his own manifesto he ranted about how many interracial relationships he saw with "inferior" (aka less white) men. In the town he lived in, international relationships are extremely common.

>B- He looked more asian than white, therefore, he would have trouble even dating asian woman as well.

Or so he assumed. Please refer back to my previous point for this as well. His issue with asian women is that he both fetishized and rejected them at the same time. His issues on race were a complex example of intersectionality gone awry.

>C- You don't know how GL the asian guys were.

I'm not familiar with the term, but I assume it stands for "good looking". I have no idea what the men Rodgers ranted about looked like. But I do know it's a fact in America and in the world that there are "ugly" people in interracial partnerships all the time. This sub has an unrealism standard of male beauty and assumes women operate as a monolith. Then when people demonstrably prove those theories false, they reject them as not counting.

I can list short men people drool over all day

Height was only one example of it. It's a clear one. Yes, a short man can be attractive. On average, they aren't. Like most people. Average face + short height = problems dating. Also: please, list them. Show me those 5'5 or under short men that people drool over. Men like Daniel Radcliffe? A guy who constantly uses lifts because even despite being good looking and famous he deep down knows how important height is?

there are plenty of women who date shorter than them

What's the problem of guys on /r/short? Are they all misogynistic retards like the incels here? Why is so hard for them to find those women? After all, there are "plenty" of them.

Elliot had zero muscles and was made a post implying he had a small dick

Where are you getting your info?

1. ER was a failed normie at best. He was nowhere close to being a Chad. Chang and Eng were able to find wives because there was no Tinder in 1800. They lived in the times where looks truly weren't the most important thing in attracting the opposite gender. Femoids weren't able to choose from a buffet of cuck like they can now. Status and money played a much bigger role than looks in 1800s.

2. The main goal of organisms is to reproduce. If you're not able to do that, why would you even want to live? You are the biggest failure if you're not able to pass on your genes...

3. Why would anyone ever be attracted to someone who looks like me? I'm honestly so ugly I'd not want to date myself. I don't see myself ever finding someone who is genuinely attracted to me.

4. There are plenty of incels who have ascended saying that the FHO did fill the void within them.

1. "Failed normie" yes he did fail at being normal when he shot up all those people because he bought into the idea of a Chad instead of talking to people. As for the lack of Tinder in 1800, if you think for one moment that people were in any way different than they are now I have a medical textbook to sell you. Tinder does not replace the bond that forms a lifelong marriage. Tinder is helpful for meeting new people, but that buffet of cock that you're picturing isn't as plentiful or as useful as you might be imagining. From the other side, Tinder is an abysmal hellscape desolate of true connection. They have a huge problem of women just shutting it off within the first 2 weeks. Women have a much broader range collectively of what they deem to be physically attractive than men. You ever wonder why those studies everyone here likes to quote so much have women rating only 20% of the men on dating sites attractive? Individually, women rated roughly 50% of the men as "average to above average". But because there's such a broad spectrum of what women are physically interested in, they all had different answers. It's the same tallying that leads political science charts to label Trump as a "moderate". He has extreme positions on either sides, and they cancel each other out. Error in charting.
2. Was Tesla a failure? Was George Washington a failure? Neither of them had kids, and millions more in history. I'd say they were incredibly worthwhile even without reproducing. However, if you'd like to believe that propagating genes is the most important thing, they produced things that were beneficial to the species at large. This ensures that humanity itself- the genes to which we are all related to- continues to thrive.
3. Here's another secret- most people wouldn't want to date themselves. I wouldn't look twice if I walked by myself on the street. But here's the great thing; the person who is attracted to you is a fully formed person with their own tastes. It's like music, or food, or tv, or anything subjective. Just because you might hate the sound of dubstep bagpipes doesn't mean there isn't a literal entire genre of them.
4. I'm glad they found fulfillment of their void. But I have to ask, did the other person fill the void, or did them now finally silencing the nagging voice that told them they weren't good enough fill the void? I would certainly argue the latter.

You just had to mention Trump lmao. I can already sense you're a libcuck femoid.

Thanks for your advice tho. I'll try to become Tesla and then die alone after being sad my whole life. You want all ugly males to go extinct after all.

I figured he'd be the best example of a inconvenient data spread everyone's aware of. A bit more esoteric than bringing up other data spreads, but I can dive if you'd like. My speciality lies in Senatorial races, but I'm occasionally called to track non political figures.

As an aside, do you think "libcuck femoid" will dismiss what I've said? In what way am I wrong?

Tesla died quite happy with his accomplishments, although he did feel cheated by Eddison that has everything to do with business and nothing to do with him personally. He was quite comfortable with himself.

Where on earth did you get the idea that I personally want ugly males extinct? I'm not the strawman of echoes that bounces around in a void. I'm here behind this screen a fully formed person with my own ideas- none of which include having "ugly" males go extinct.

You're not wrong, Walter, you're just an asshole.

Bad bot

become tesla and then die alone after being sad my whole life

Lmfao fuck thaaat Kendrick voice pass me the rope

Good news! Tesla wasn't sad his whole life. Every year he'd have a large birthday party and fuck with reporters about new forms of limitless energy. He constantly had well wishers write to him. He had a pension and his rent paid in his latter years because he spent all his cash on helping pigeons and his friends at his former business wanted to make sure he was comfortable even if he was an 80 year old man who hadn't invented in decades with an obsession with pigeons. He had people who loved him, and people who admired him, and he didn't commit suicide and he died peacefully in his sleep at 86 having never had sex.

Just be famous scientist bro

Just produce anything, and people will rally around you. Produce smiles, produce charitable acts, produce a sense of physical security, produce art, produce science, produce anything you want. No matter how small it may seem to you, others will appreciate it.

But if you take, if you drain, if you do nothing but produce misery, anger, loathing, then no one will appreciate you.

I produce a bit of a pungent smell after rotting in front of a computer today

I believe that falls under the last line- "producing loathing"

That's a very close minded way of looking at it. I'm sure there's some carrion creature that loves the smell and loves that I'm predeceasing myself

But if you take, if you drain, if you do nothing but produce misery, anger, loathing, then no one will appreciate you.

What about when you don't do that and you still get treated like shit in general?

Well, the opposite of love isn't hate. And the opposite of hate isn't love. The opposites to both is apathy. If you create nothing negative, no one will care. But if you create nothing positive, no one will care.

This applies to all humans. And again, creating doesn't have to be anything tangible, it can be as simple as creating a smile. So many people, when they get to their lowest, look around and say "What am I doing?" And they crumble when they realize the answer is nothing.

What do you produce?

What do you produce?

Expressions of visual disturbance in others before they even interact with me, a pattern consistently shown before and after PS, mostly.

I'd like to be treated with indifference in general or be able to create something positive for more than just the few people who look past my mug and actually get to know me, but as it stands that's a rather pointless uphill battle given my track record.

I don't even blame the people considering I look like a goddamn school shooter.

That tells me how other people react to you. Not what you do. Not what you actively work on creating. Whatever you create, you will find yourself surrounded by people who find it worthwhile. For example, this sub. By creating posts, moderating, and putting forth effort into this sub, you are consciously surrounding yourself and being surrounded by people who are interested in this sub. If your ultimate goal is to move beyond being surrounded by self-selected incels, this method of creation will not accomplish that. If your ultimate goal is to continue to surround yourself with self-selected incels, your path will achieve that goal. If you put in more creation, you will even find yourself further surrounded by the people who follow this sub. What you create returns to you.

To address your point, if you know you look like a school shooter, do you know why? Is it the way you dress, the way you carry yourself, the way you groom yourself? Because school shooter is a very ill-defined look nowadays. What that term says to me instead of anything physical, is that you are giving off an attitude of malcontent that is simmering into something dangerous.

Not what you do.

I do my best to be a decent person within the moral framework I established for myself.

To address your point, if you know you look like a school shooter, do you know why? Is it the way you dress, the way you carry yourself, the way you groom yourself?

That's why I said “my mug“. Been told multiple times that it's my face by multiple people, the combination of very deep set, dead looking and menacing eyes on a very slim face with dark features specifically. I adressed the other points before getting plastic surgery since my lazy eye and deformed jaw back in the day didn't help, and the reactions remained mostly the same.

Why do the underestimate how fucked up we look? Or they underestimate the prevalence of lookism?

Why do they spew bullshit without getting to know us? Is it just to make them feel good? Is it to make us feel more inadequate than we already feel?

Full disclosure, this is pure conjecture.

Why do the underestimate how fucked up we look? Or they underestimate the prevalence of lookism?

Most likely because the reality of things is depressing as fuck. People don't like feeling bad.

Is it just to make them feel good?

Probably this, since they got to help.

I'd like it if they got to know me at least, before they try to belittle me or condescendingly tell me to be a famous scientist, but that's asking a lot i guess

I do my best to be a decent person to those I happen to come across irl within the moral framework I established for myself through the years.

Now see, my curiosity is piqued by the phrase of a moral framework you established yourself. Because that tells me well...nothing. In fact, it tells me you have deliberately created a moral framework you see as distinct and separate from conventional morality, but the degree to which you have done so is completely obscured.

That's why I said “my mug“. Been told multiple times that it's my face by multiple people, the combination of very deep set, dead looking and menacing eyes on a very slim face with dark features specifically.

I adressed the other points before getting plastic surgery since my lazy eye and deformed jaw back in the day didn't help (also medical issues so the risk factor pretty much went out the window), and the reactions remained mostly the same with a slight decrease in magnitude.

I'm glad you took care of your health by ensuring your surgeries addressed medical issues. I believe you when you describe your features. I also believe that people react negatively to you from them. But I worry you take their initial reactions and internalize that rejection to the point where you preemptively shield yourself- drawing away, shrink down, glare back, that prevents you from being able to identify those that would either change their mind or have a less averse reaction in the first place.

I'm going to digress back into personal experiences again, but I've known people who give off a "terrifying ax murderer", "probably owns a skin suit" sort of vibe who have completely changed everything while watching a puppy video. It was like watching an actor shed a character fluidly. They weren't focused on closing themselves off to prevent pain, they just enjoyed something and smiled.

The most immediate transformation I personally witnessed firsthand was a skinny dishwasher with multiple missing teeth who would watch everyone like a hawk. He fidgeted, he was clean from meth but you could tell his brain would never be the same. I saw him watching some insipid youtube video and watched him transform his aura from someone even the hardened cooks would shy away from into good old country boy would never hurt a fly who goes fishing on sundays and who joyfully shouts puns. It had a lot to do with his looks, but everyone to do with how nervously and guardedly he carried himself.

In fact, it tells me you have deliberately created a moral framework you see as distinct and separate from conventional morality, but the degree to which you have done so is completely obscured.

No?

Just what I personally think is right, wrong, whatever based on the lived experiences I've had so far. The concept will most certainly differ from me to the next guy, because people just so happen to have different opinions on things.

But I worry you take their initial reactions and internalize that rejection to the point where you preemptively shield yourself- drawing away, shrink down, glare back, that prevents you from being able to identify those that would either change their mind or have a less averse reaction in the first place.

Thats sort of the problem. I don't do anything outside of thinking to myself "another one", plus many people just take to avoiding me after their first visual impression (never actually interacting with me at all).

Women have a much broader range collectively of what they deem to be physically attractive than men.

please show me proof of that

Sure! Here's a link, it's rather long but I think the part you'll be most interested is found on the results page. They discovered the mean consensus correlation for males was .62, and for females is dropped to .44

You ever wonder why those studies everyone here likes to quote so much have women rating only 20% of the men on dating sites attractive? Individually, women rated roughly 50% of the men as "average to above average". But because there's such a broad spectrum of what women are physically interested in, they all had different answers. It's the same tallying that leads political science charts to label Trump as a "moderate". He has extreme positions on either sides, and they cancel each other out. Error in charting.

I've always hoped that that study was flawed but could never find a real flaw in it besides biased sample. And while it gets a lot of flak all the time, I never saw an explanation as to why it was wrong aside from "it just is". Yours is the first attempt to explain the result. Could you maybe give me an ELI5 on it?

Absolutely! Just so we're clear, we're discussing the study based of OkCupid's rating. Bear in mind I'm remembering their methods, because they caught such flack from the data science community that they deleted it entirely. I can't pull up how they specifically collected or analyzed their data as they have removed it, or I'd be happy to go into breaking it down. Here's what I remember the study being set up as:

What the data really tells us isn't that women as a monolithic group only consider 20% of men to be average on an attractiveness. What the date tells us is using a 5 star system women vary WILDLY on how they report attraction, to the point that they only have a 20% agreement rate. Let's give a group of 10 women, each viewing the same man.

3 think he is the most handsome man they've ever seen. 5/5

4 think he's above average to average and they'd go on a date with him. Two rate him 4/5 and two rate him 3/5.

2 think he's average but they feel no spark. 0/5

1 thinks he's disgusting. 0/5

You now have a range like this:

5 3

4 2

3 2

0 3

That gives him a score of 2.9 and yet, only one woman thought he was ugly. The ratings they gave however, canceled each other out. Run this a few hundred times, and the women will continue to disagree on men. At the end of the day, you have maybe a 20% consensus on solidly rating "above average". But a high percentage of those men got 5s and 4s, the data just doesn't reflect that because they're only looking for the overlap. To the men seeking dates, the overlap doesn't matter. All that matters to those men is that the women who rated them 5/5 are going on dates with them. But to men looking from the outside in the numbers look dismal.

OK Cupid also got strong results that "polarizing" profiles were really successful. I forget the exact methodology, but their conclusion was that you'll have more luck if a smaller number of people find you really attractive than if a bigger number think you are just cute.

Thanks for your reply!
I didn't really get it right away but it helped me to create an example for myself that illustrated the problem. I posted the results in this sub and tagged you in it in case you want to read it.

As for the lack of Tinder in 1800, if you think for one moment that people were in any way different than they are now

Yes because society was different

Was Tesla a failure? Was George Washington a failure?

From an evolutionary aspect one could argue yes

You ever wonder why those studies everyone here likes to quote so much have women rating only 20% of the men on dating sites attractive? Individually, women rated roughly 50% of the men as "average to above average". But because there's such a broad spectrum of what women are physically interested in, they all had different answers.

And now you're just talking out of your ass. Anybody can walk over to r/ladyboners and see the guys they fawn over all look the same (square faced, broad shoulders, hunter eyes, etc). The average man is ugly to the average woman, you cannot argue otherwise on this okcupid test results show exactly this.

Yes because society was different

Not so radically different it changed breeding patterns.

From an evolutionary aspect one could argue yes

What organs were different in them. How in less than 300 years has our species so radically evolved.

The average man is ugly to the average woman, you cannot argue otherwise on this okcupid test results show exactly this.

Can and will. Mentioned in another post how skewed that study is, due to poor charting. Quoting myself from an earlier post in this thread:

Women have a much broader range collectively of what they deem to be physically attractive than men. You ever wonder why those studies everyone here likes to quote so much have women rating only 20% of the men on dating sites attractive? Individually, women rated roughly 50% of the men as "average to above average". But because there's such a broad spectrum of what women are physically interested in, they all had different answers. It's the same tallying that leads political science charts to label Trump as a "moderate". He has extreme positions on either sides, and they cancel each other out. Error in charting.

Not so radically different it changed breeding patterns.

yes it was, the notion of marrying someone for love was nearly non-existant for most and women did not have the choice of choosing their husbands

What organs were different in them. How in less than 300 years has our species so radically evolved.

With this logic we were exactly the same as when we were hunter-gatherers.

Since you're retarded though I'll spell it out for you: SOCIETY AND CULTURE WAS DIFFERENT NOT OUR BIOLOGICAL STRUCTURE

Mentioned in another post how skewed that study is, due to poor charting.

Nothing about those tests showed "bad charting" lol

Quoting myself from an earlier post in this thread: Women have a much broader range collectively of what they deem to be physically attractive than men.

And this is false. Plenty of men like short women, fat women, big boobs, small boobs, big butt, no butt, etc etc

Women? Tall, Broad shouldered, Square-faced, defined features

yes it was, the notion of marrying someone for love was nearly non-existant for most and women did not have the choice of choosing their husbands

/CRASHES IN LIKE A WRECKING BALL

DO I GET TO TALK ABOUT MY FAVORITE SUBJECT OF ALL TIME, THE 1800S?

I get super excited about this time period haha, you can check my other ramblings in my history, but the jist is BUCKLE UP.

Ok let's define our terms! Let's narrow our focus to three groups: French, British, Colonialists on the "Western" front (Barbados, 13 colonies, Canada)

1. The French were known for having arranged marriages and high rates of marital dissatisfaction and cheating on both sides. Marriages among the upper class were mostly arranged pre-puberty and specifically are tied to alliances between houses.
2. The British had matchmaking for their class system run by the parents, but the individuals themselves had a high range of choice once they were presented during the Season. As long as they stuck to their class, they could choose who they wanted. The issues arose when class lines (even the difference between the middle class and the upper middle class) were attempted to be crossed. At this point parental figures would often step in and forbid those marriages. Women and men within their class system were expected to find matches before the middle of their 20s.
3. The COLONIES. Bless those underpopulated bastards, there was class mixtures all over the place. Age differences, nation of origin differences, language differences, race differences, throw it in the pot and let's see what happens! Most marriages within this time were actually matches of love and pragmatism. Which blew Europe's mind! The fluidity cannot be overstated. Martha Washington married George when he was essentially penniless, although he came from a family of good standing. Benjamin Franklin married for love, although that turned out disastrously because Franklin was a flagrant cheater. Alexander Hamilton came from illegitimate birth, absolutely penniless, came in with only a college scholarship that was stolen by his guardian, and within two years of immigration became Washington's right hand man and married Elizabeth Schuyler (daughter of one of THE WEALTHIEST MEN in the north) within less than a decade- because Elizabeth chose HIM! Women had a lot of choice within the 1800s in the colonies because the death rates for new colonists had been so high and women immigrants were so low. The French King sent hundreds of prostitutes from France to Canada, and they were called "The Daughters of the King". Those women willingly signed up to make the dangerous journey for the freedom to choose their husbands that it gave them. Marriages for love were on the rise since the 1600s in the colonies!

With this logic we were exactly the same as when we were hunter-gatherers. Since you're retarded though I'll spell it out for you: SOCIETY AND CULTURE WAS DIFFERENT NOT OUR BIOLOGICAL STRUCTURE

And our biological structure is a strong influence on what we're attracted to- although of course we can't rule out strong cultural influences! But even within those cultural influences and within those biological markers there is a wide range of attraction.

Nothing about those tests showed "bad charting" lol

I find it interesting you mention "tests", as far as I was aware the 20% number came from a deleted poorly run study by OkCupid. Do you have a second source?

And this is false. Plenty of men like short women, fat women, big boobs, small boobs, big butt, no butt, etc etc Women? Tall, Broad shouldered, Square-faced, defined features

So close...you're so close. You can see other men have different preferences, please see that women are people too and have the exact same capacity for range. Look at the sections of porn designed for women, look at the fandoms that feature a sexual interest, look at how many women will flock around wildly different looking men and YKINMATO (Your kink is not my kink and that's ok) the choices of other women.

Hey, Hereibe, just a quick heads-up:
jist is actually spelled gist. You can remember it by begins with g-.
Have a nice day!

^{The parent commenter can reply with 'delete' to delete this comment.}

Good bot

/CRASHES IN LIKE A WRECKING BALL

Cringed

I regret nothing.

r/ladyboners

I mean, I just did. Current top ten are: Tom Hiddleston Ben Mudge Chris Evans Tom Hardy Marshall Price Jason Segal Ben Feldman Adam Driver Cillian Murphy

All hot famous white guys but... lotta dudes with puppy dog eyes and pointy chins on there. I don't even know HOW you classify Adam Driver's face shape.

bought into the idea of a Chad instead of talking to people.

You never read Elliot's manifesto or his emails didn't you? Dude was fucked over by his own brain.

I unfortunately have had the dubious experience of reading his manifesto. I would agree he was fucked over by his own brain, but I'd also like to note he obsessively latched on to existing discourses about inceldom.

Great post. I wish they would read it!

Incels don't respond well to logic, I'm surprised you didn't get a "Fuck outta here Stacy" or "Im gonna kill myself regardless" or "If lifes so fair, why do roses have thorns" or some other bullshit. You're a woman so every one of these Incels fears you because humans have a natural tendency to fear the unknown. You're visiting this sub on an alien spaceship and your vagina is from a far away galaxy, and incels would rather retreat in fear than truly face their fears.

Hm, I don't know about all that. I sometimes pop into subreddits like this to answer questions from OPs that genuinely seem lost and hurt, and I have more rational conversations than you'd think. Comment on any of the meme images, and you get belittlement and hate-filled PMs. But if you go into the discussion posts, often times there's people reading and lurking who are on the fence.

I think most people on these forums aren't afraid of women, they're afraid of being inadequate. They're afraid every nasty voice inside their head is right.

The real problem comes when the people who do hate women tell that first group that the nasty little voices they hear in the night are named "Society" and "Stacy".

Hereibe is doing the Lords work

I agree with you. I'm one of those people. I don't want to be here but find it impossible to leave. And the more the general talking points here go unchallenged, the harder I find it to dismiss them. You're one of those users who help people like me to not get completely lost.

You're a fucking cuck. Falling for this slut's feelgood bullshit pop psychology. Get the fuck out of here and find happiness and contentment on r/IncelTears.

IT is a cesspool of hate, I'd rather not set foot in there.

So instead you act like the bluepilled beta fucker that you are and roll over for a fucking whore the minute she starts spouting cogent word vomit? Fucking idiots like you are so susceptible to bullshit, as long as it sounds convincing. At least blackpill has actual STUDIES and EMPIRICAL DATA to back it up.

STUDIES and EMPIRICAL DATA to back it up.

I'd love to read them and their methodology.

They're the top linked posts on the sub. There's also r/BlackPillScience.

Educate yourself.

Hm, popped in there and didn't see much credible science. I saw a lot of outright falsehoods with no data to back them up, small sample sizes, and misconstrued analysis.

More like you saw what you wanted to see, slut. Go back to sucking Chad's dick.

I mean.... bro. It's not like I hang out or post there, but it doesn't seem any worse than here.

I mean, yea, there's a lot of hate here as well. But at least this sub doesn't explicitly target people who are feeling vulnerable anyway?

I appreciate your comment. <3

I believe you can leave, as you already have the desire to leave. You're looking around and seeing something's not right- go out and challenge them more. If you find it easier to dismiss these concepts when someone stands up to them, go seek out those that challenge them. If they're correct, they'll stand up to challenge. But I think you know these ideas aren't strong enough to face an honest challenge.

I believe you can leave, as you already have the desire to leave.

That's not entirely accurate though. I want to leave but I also want a place where I feel people understand my situation...

You're looking around and seeing something's not right- go out and challenge them more.

It's not as easy. Some things I know from experience aren't true. But others I find difficult to dismiss. Like...I don't know...as a hypothetical example, a tweet by a woman claiming that she only wants to be hit on by attractive guys. It's like...okay, a woman said it. How am I supposed to argue against it? It makes me feel helpless...

a woman said it.

It's right there in your sentence, "a woman." One singular woman. In this sub- in this very thread- there are singular men saying pretty awful stuff about women. If I thought all men really thought that way about women, I'd be incredibly depressed! But I know it's just a few people, and there are lots of men who think differently.

To make the analogy more exact, a while back this subreddit had a thread on requirements for a girlfriend. Some posters said they would accept anybody, but some said things like "a virgin" or "not fat" or "at least seven out of ten." Should a fat woman who isn't a virgin or a 7/10 look at such a post and think "Well, even a dude who is an incel won't date me, I should rope"? Or should she think "that's one dude" and stay mentally open to counter-examples?

What else is hard for you to argue against?

Granted, those are just single women. But I think the difference between those posts and the threads in this sub is that this sub is pretty small. Nobody could credibly argue that a majority of men assemble here. But some of the tweets that get screenshotted and posted here have tens of thousands of retweets and likes, suggesting a certain resonance and agreement...

There are lots of horrifying tweets that get a lot of likes. It still doesn't mean they are representative of absolutely everyone.

Articles and tweets about how women want a man who is kind/caring/intelligent/does dishes without being explicitly asked go viral all the time. It doesn't mean they are universally true either, but....

Hereibe has more courage than I do! I could never respond to one of these general posts in here because I couldn't deal with all the hate and name-calling she's getting.

Starting with the idea that's going to get me the most downvotes in this forum: "Chad" is a construct. Specifically, the idea of a "Chad" being a monolithic image of a man all women are attracted to with certain unalienable characteristics (tall, handsome, big cock, lots of money) is an idea made and created within certain forums that spread outwards because it's a comforting fallacy.

ALL WOMEN ARE ATTRACTED TO THAT.

This is the only guy they fantasize about when they masturbate, this is the only guy they would get if they could. It's just that most women cannot get that so they settle for guys below that in order to have companionship and someone to give them attention and care about them. These Chads simply are too unreliable, because they can get every woman they want, but that's about it.

This is definitely not a contrast, what you are right is incels thinking only such guys get some, which is of course not true. But if you are a man you need to cope with the fact that a guy like that is going to be better than you 100% of the time.

Am female. Do not masturbate to Chad just FYI.

/r/dirtypenpals

I was kind of wondering where you got your knowledge about what girls masturbate to from, so I did look at dirtypenpals.

I reviewed the first ten f4 posts. Most did not physically describe the men in any way. One specified young guys (for a MILF role-play) one specified white guys (for a white/asian raceplay). Frame, height and face were not described.

Also after my brief review I strongly suspect that not all of these f4 posts were written by women.

I don't agree with everything you said but I think this was a very thoughtful and fair answer.

Inane platitudes. The truth is I am being asked to give up on my dream.

My whole teenage/adult life my dream has been to get married and start a family (my own kids, or we adopt them together..... Not doing the cucked stepfather bullshit) while I am young enough to enjoy it. I am approaching 40 now and the only women who have been interested in me are single mom hoes whonsee me as little more than a welfare check to pay for their little bastards.

Maybe I will meet someone later..... Who gives a fuck? It will be too late. There is no point if I am gonna be too old to enjoy having kids, and I dont wanna be stressing about college tuition and my retirement at the same time. And that's assuming she was faithful to me, which is highly unlikely with modern women.

So yeah, for people like OP and me, death is best. It's just a question of how and when.

No one is saying to give up on your dreams. It seems you aren't focused on sex so much as you are on children, and you're in a difficult but not impossible situation yet.

So you're in a difficult dating pool if you are seeing women who haven't had children yet. As I'm sure you're aware, women don't have the luxury of waiting until their 40s assured of fertility. Broadening out your range to early 30s you have a dating pool of perhaps 25% of women in America without children if you forgive the rounding. Of those women I'm positive a large percentage is childless because they choose to be, and therefore will not be interested in starting a family.

There are 22.22 million women 30-39 in America, which using our 25% childless estimation leads to a pool of 5,555,000 women for you to choose from. Assuming half of them are childless by choice and are not interested in children (an estimation I freely admit I am pulling from absolutely nowhere but a guess) that leaves you with a pool of 2,777,500 women in America to attempt to match with.

Your best bet is to be upfront with what you want to let women self select you into or out of their pool. A wider net is always better, so I strongly recommend as many dating sites as you can. If you know of any matchmaking services, those are also helpful. Since you're on a time crunch, I'd suggest being as proactive as possible. Best of luck!

Nice

Would you prefer to die having been either a detriment to history, or to have made a positive impact?

Massa, i'll be a good house nigger, yes massa whateva yu says.

Surgerymax your way up. It’s what Im gonna do

Surgerymax

For real, that's my new hope, after that either i slay or rope. I'll probably just find a new cope.

Alright going to be sincere here, but you have value for just being you. Seeking validation from anyone is liable to get you hurt. Honestly? I'm not attracted to very many people. Seriously looks don't do it for me. It's not until I get to know a person that I've ever had romantic inclinations or put more effort into a stronger friendship.

I like people for who they are. I don't know who this mystical chad you're talking about is, and I don't know what an inferior man would be. I like people, and enjoy spending time with them. Know that I want sincere connection with everyone I meet. Like to live the Fred Rogers way and I really do believe every person has something unique about them that can be a benefit to everyone around them.

You have worth. At least from my perspective, and the world would be less without what good you could give it.

Hear that 5'2" Indian janitors? Unicorn here. I'll love you like I would Chad if you have a good personality^TM

Nice try

What do you mean by nice try? I love people. You're not less of a person if you're Indian, short, or working a job some look down on. Not sure what your point is.

Look, my point was that, even if you are a mythical unicorn that isn't seen in reality, the rest of the women wont date a sub 3 or 4 (all true incels). No matter how good their personality is. They actually can't fall in love with them without "good enough" physical attraction.

Statistically speaking, there aren't even that many true incels out there. You might have never even interacted with one before. That being said, the people on this board aren't just sitting in some basement since graduating high school. They've gone to college, they work, they have friends. Most importantly, they actively try to date. And they're always rejected. Always. This is with their looks-match; bottom of the barrel material. Not normal girls much less Stacy, as is often implied.

I have no problem believing that you believe what you say. I'd imagine all women whom are good people do. You can either try your best to understand what it's like to be seen as genetic trash by half the population on sight (Once more, this isn't a conscious effort on the part of women, it's merely a biological reaction) or you can go back to never knowing incels exist and living a life without undue cognitive dissonance.

Sorry for the wall of text btw

[removed]

I guess it depends on your standards for women. There are a lot of women that couldn’t get a “Chad” and understand that, at least on some level, so they date someone thats in their league. Less than average women exist, and really unattractive women exist, so you definitely could find someone that is on a similar level to you if you consider yourself to be so unattractive.

If you’re looking for women that you are sure won’t be attracted to you, whether or not it’s true it will come through in your attitude and your actions. I’m not going to say that you definitely will find someone but there’s a ton of women in this world; finding someone isn’t completely impossible.

They can't get Chad so they go for a Chadlite or a normie, not ugly men. It's over.

Make money, get surgery if you think it's the only point of living. When you're born unattractive you have 3 options, fight, cope or rope. But don't go thinking anybody gives a shit if you rope. I'm gonna be real with you here, nobody gives a shit about your life but you, there are plenty of things you can enjoy in life besides female companionship, attention and sex, and if you refuse to go your entire existence without it as I said you can get surgery. But if you're thinking of roping, the issue isn't the lack of female attention, it's more likely to be depression, social anxiety and isolation.

You probably have other things to live for: family, friends, goals, etc.

If not, get some friends, goals, hobbies, etc. Might not get you laid, but it'll help you live for yourself and hopefully like yourself a little more.

Don't know you, but hope the best for you.

[removed]

Homeboy, don’t bother asking for women. If there is one thing women are good at, and there is only one thing they are good at, women can break people, really easily.

Think about it. How many white women do you think convinced their men that the little nigger boy was looking at her funny?

I know that’s an extreme example, but it’s from another time, also we can relate. Bitches lie about rape like hell, and we know it.

In India, if women really wanted, they could destroy the caste system of the Hindus. But no, women like comfort and they would never undo what brings home the meat.

They are not the caring, gentler sex that they purport. Look to their actions. Not their words.

I know of one young black man was lynched for whistling at a white woman. Whistling! Emet Till. Then the fuckers that lynched him wrote a book about it.

Again, example is rather extreme. But it serves its purpose. Not all women are like this, but would you rather wait on what is 1/10,000 or prepare yourself for the inevitable?

Helperdroid and its creator love you, here's some people that can help:

https://pastebin.com/iAhaF92s

source | contact

😂😂😂

Also, who gives a shit? All I’ve learned from my daily incursions into the manosphere is that women are literally useless. They will do to men, exactly what men did to them. If women could gang up, and start selling men as sex slaves to other women, they would.

Which is why we need to maintain our grip on society. Because women in power, does not work. They are all tyrants. And they have no agency. They will just blame men for everything.

If a man is a tyrant, he will own up to it.

As Genghis khan put it (and then Arnold as Conan): The Greatest Happiness is to scatter your enemy and drive him before you. To see his cities reduced to ashes. To see those who love him shrouded and in tears. And to gather to your bosom his wives and daughters.

Move to a different nation. I know you were born here but, try joining some other culture. One where they value working with your hands and women that serve.

Hope is something you give yourself. You must never give in to despair. God knows I have and I regret it every day.

I personally would travel to Mongolia and join some nomads. Permanently. I mean, I don’t have any other home anyway.

Try religion.

Perhaps you’re looking at things the wrong way.

Mevlana Rumi said, “the wound is where the light enters you.” In business, everything is seen as an opportunity. There are no mistakes.

I’ve been through what you are going through. It’s all a matter of perspective. Of course, Love is a need. But, life gets us all. Sometimes, you’re dead by the time you are born.

I wouldn’t disregard God or suffering if I were you. Pain is the best teacher.

I do honestly, wish I could say something to help you. But I’m trying times, one must be patient. Patience is bitter and it gets stuck on the way down from your throat to your gut. But in the end, you’ll taste sweetness.

You’re just switching gears.

Get a good job and save up money for plastic surgery. If you're fat, lose weight and tone up. Both of those can make any uggo bangable.

[removed]

They are showing this to their chad boyfriends while getting the dragon from him.

I genuinely lold....god this is one funny and sad sub.

Reading your replies below, maybe you ought to - just don't take anyone else with you.

Seriously, you're a miserable person. That's why you're not getting any women. I see fat and ugly dudes with chicks all the time. I even occasionally see a fat dude with a hot chick that should be well out of his league. Why? A myriad of reasons; personality, education, status, funny, responsible, caring, on and on. Chicks are actually much more likely to date someone below their grade than dudes are because they find a wider array of things attractive than men do, who typically judge more based on looks and physique.

This 'incel' thing is a self fulfilling prophecy. The more you think you can't get a woman, the more you put them up on a mantle, the more you degrade yourself and act like a complete beta cuck, the more likely it is to come true. Are some dudes ('Chads' as you would say) inherently more attractive and fit than others? Of course. Is it easier getting women? Obviously. But that doesn't mean you can't get one too. There's billions of women on this planet. Put yourself out there, work to better yourself, work on your personality, get in the gym, work on being comfortable around women and being more happy/kind, don't ever visit this sub again, and you'll find a woman.

Put yourself out there, work to better yourself, work on your personality, get in the gym, work on being comfortable around women and being more happy/kind, don't ever visit this sub again, and you'll find a woman.

This is exactly the reason why this sub has such weird appeal to me. It's not that I agree with most of the content here but I'm so sick and tired of hearing this exact advice over and over and over and over and over again. This place is the only place where I can express my dejection over my loneliness without someone recommending I "put myself out there and find a hobby". I tried all the stuff you so helpfully recommended for more than a year and had exactly zero success. I'm still completely invisible to women.

You're right, no hope for you - rope.

This reply was specifically to the OP, not you, and was based partially on the OP's replies.

I do still think this sub is bad for you tho, Syrus! :)

This reply was specifically to the OP, not you, and was based partially on the OP's replies.

Fair enough. But I too have heard the same advice countless times...

I do still think this sub is bad for you tho, Syrus! :)

I knoooooow. I basically complained about it to my therapist a few days ago but I still haven't found a way to really escape it... >.>

Do what you gotta do, my dude.

Self pity isn't attractive to anyone. Learn to love and value yourself, then other people will follow suit.

Not a female, but a good reason would be:

You don't know any of that for a fact. You are not psychic. You cannot tell what the future holds. You are obviously suffering from depressive thinking patterns and would be well advised to seek therapy and psychiatric medication to combat them.

Now, cue your excuses about why that's all a waste of time, it's impossible, etc.

Honestly I can see how some people are very superficial and only go for "chad" types, but I'm kinda confused, because when I go out in the world and look at couples and go to my school and look at couples I see ugly guys with average girls, ugly guys with hot girls, average girls with hot guys, average guys with average girls... I know people who are def. incel material but get with good looking girls anyway. Not sure where ya'll got the idea that all females only want one type of guy.

At least MGTOW respect themselves enough to realize there is more to life and fulfillment than getting your dick wet. Jesus Christ, get a hobby, start a business, do something greater than yourself you self pitying mong.

I'm just gonna answer this like it's real because I actually want some of you guys to see your worth. I'm sorry that you have been rejected throughout your life and you feel depressed and suicidal. I suggest that you work on yourself. Not physically, just work on your mental state. My mom told me that I have to love myself before I love anyone else. Its really good advice! Do things that make you feel good and practice saying to yourself every day "I am worthy of love. I love myself." And list the things about yourself that you love. It sounds corny but it really helps if you go into it open minded. Once you love yourself you won't base your worth on how females treat you, you will know that your worth comes from within and not from other people. No one decides what you are worth but you. You are worthy of love and you are worthy of a good life! I don't know how old you are, but you never know what or who the future will bring. Stay positive and remember to love and care for yourself more than anything else! Good luck man.

[removed]

you arent entitled to life bro

So why the fuck are you with them in the first place?

yes it was, the notion of marrying someone for love was nearly non-existant for most and women did not have the choice of choosing their husbands

/CRASHES IN LIKE A WRECKING BALL

DO I GET TO TALK ABOUT MY FAVORITE SUBJECT OF ALL TIME, THE 1800S?

I get super excited about this time period haha, you can check my other ramblings in my history, but the jist is BUCKLE UP.

Ok let's define our terms! Let's narrow our focus to three groups: French, British, Colonialists on the "Western" front (Barbados, 13 colonies, Canada)

1. The French were known for having arranged marriages and high rates of marital dissatisfaction and cheating on both sides. Marriages among the upper class were mostly arranged pre-puberty and specifically are tied to alliances between houses.
2. The British had matchmaking for their class system run by the parents, but the individuals themselves had a high range of choice once they were presented during the Season. As long as they stuck to their class, they could choose who they wanted. The issues arose when class lines (even the difference between the middle class and the upper middle class) were attempted to be crossed. At this point parental figures would often step in and forbid those marriages. Women and men within their class system were expected to find matches before the middle of their 20s.
3. The COLONIES. Bless those underpopulated bastards, there was class mixtures all over the place. Age differences, nation of origin differences, language differences, race differences, throw it in the pot and let's see what happens! Most marriages within this time were actually matches of love and pragmatism. Which blew Europe's mind! The fluidity cannot be overstated. Martha Washington married George when he was essentially penniless, although he came from a family of good standing. Benjamin Franklin married for love, although that turned out disastrously because Franklin was a flagrant cheater. Alexander Hamilton came from illegitimate birth, absolutely penniless, came in with only a college scholarship that was stolen by his guardian, and within two years of immigration became Washington's right hand man and married Elizabeth Schuyler (daughter of one of THE WEALTHIEST MEN in the north) within less than a decade- because Elizabeth chose HIM! Women had a lot of choice within the 1800s in the colonies because the death rates for new colonists had been so high and women immigrants were so low. The French King sent hundreds of prostitutes from France to Canada, and they were called "The Daughters of the King". Those women willingly signed up to make the dangerous journey for the freedom to choose their husbands that it gave them. Marriages for love were on the rise since the 1600s in the colonies!

With this logic we were exactly the same as when we were hunter-gatherers. Since you're retarded though I'll spell it out for you: SOCIETY AND CULTURE WAS DIFFERENT NOT OUR BIOLOGICAL STRUCTURE

And our biological structure is a strong influence on what we're attracted to- although of course we can't rule out strong cultural influences! But even within those cultural influences and within those biological markers there is a wide range of attraction.

Nothing about those tests showed "bad charting" lol

I find it interesting you mention "tests", as far as I was aware the 20% number came from a deleted poorly run study by OkCupid. Do you have a second source?

And this is false. Plenty of men like short women, fat women, big boobs, small boobs, big butt, no butt, etc etc Women? Tall, Broad shouldered, Square-faced, defined features

So close...you're so close. You can see other men have different preferences, please see that women are people too and have the exact same capacity for range. Look at the sections of porn designed for women, look at the fandoms that feature a sexual interest, look at how many women will flock around wildly different looking men and YKINMATO (Your kink is not my kink and that's ok) the choices of other women.

This reply was specifically to the OP, not you, and was based partially on the OP's replies.

Fair enough. But I too have heard the same advice countless times...

I do still think this sub is bad for you tho, Syrus! :)

I knoooooow. I basically complained about it to my therapist a few days ago but I still haven't found a way to really escape it... >.>

Try religion.

Perhaps you’re looking at things the wrong way.

Mevlana Rumi said, “the wound is where the light enters you.” In business, everything is seen as an opportunity. There are no mistakes.

I’ve been through what you are going through. It’s all a matter of perspective. Of course, Love is a need. But, life gets us all. Sometimes, you’re dead by the time you are born.

I wouldn’t disregard God or suffering if I were you. Pain is the best teacher.

I do honestly, wish I could say something to help you. But I’m trying times, one must be patient. Patience is bitter and it gets stuck on the way down from your throat to your gut. But in the end, you’ll taste sweetness.