If women are only attracted to narcissistic badboys, does that mean that the only way to get a girlfriend is to be a betacuck provider whom she settle...

If women are only attracted to narcissistic badboys, does that mean that the only way to get a girlfriend is to be a betacuck provider whom she settles for when she wants stability?

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You don't want to date "women", you want to date someone who actually has interests similar to yours and clicks with you.
    "Women" is more than half the world population, and I don't think you want to date aunty Kate, who has woman beard and is covered in warts, that likes knitting all day.

    The pool of people you'd be able to date both by your own choice and her choice will always be small, but contained in a specific niche.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Just because you have similar interests doesn't mean that she will be attracted to you. I bet there's plenty of women dating men with little in common but she finds him physically & emotionally stimulating.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Just because you have similar interests doesn't mean that she will be attracted to you.
        Did you just miss the part where I said "The pool of people you'd be able to date both by your own choice and her choice"

        >I bet there's plenty of women dating men with little in common but she finds him physically & emotionally stimulating.
        Oh I'm sure those are very successful relationships huh. That shit either doesn't last or makes people miserable by the time they're living together.
        Not to say you have to align with the person completely, but you have to be compatible.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I'm not saying they're successful relationships. On the contrary, that's why women hop from one badboy dick to another, then complain that the right guy doesn't exist. I guess women can't help what they're attracted to.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Literally the same happens with men and constantly choosing mentally unstable women.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            For different reasons. A lot of men are desperate and do not have the luxury of picking and choosing which women they can date. The average woman has an embarrassment of options.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Excuses.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >If women are only attracted to narcissistic badboys
    Well they aren't. No matter how many hundreds of times you make this same homosexual fantasy thread over the years it won't change reality.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >ackshually women aren't attracted to badboys
      Ok anon

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You have never been on a date or kissed a girl. Why do you think you are an expert on what women want? You and other incels are narcissistic buttholes yet don't attract girls.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem
          Are you honestly going to sit there and deny that women love badboys? Is that the hill you want to die on, anon?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Have you considered smelling my butthole?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Are you honestly going to sit there and deny that women love badboys?
            Yes because it is the truth. You are a fricking liar. You have made this same lie thread hundreds of times. It won't change the truth.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You are willfully ignorant to the fact that you are a lying homosexual.

            I'm embarrassed for you, anon.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >You have never been on a date or kissed a girl. Why do you think you are an expert on what women want?
          Ooh! I can field this one!

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    not really, most of it comes from two people who click and find each other frickable, im not exactly a bad boy looking dude but I've got a good face and lift so my gf loves me, im also poor as frick and cannot provide so shes not exactly with me for that. I'm probably the complete opposite, blonde long hair, blue eyes, wears jumpers n shit. Shes with me because she simply likes who i am as a person.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >most of it comes from two people who click and find each other frickable
      Well yeah.... because a woman finds narcissistic, dark triad traits attractive, and the skinny meth-head look too (for some reason!)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        but im none of that, unless you count autistic as dark triad lmao. I look soft as frick and am soft as frick yet I have this gorgeous gf who cant even be using me as I have no resources to give so explain this

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Did you make this thread just to b***h about women? Can't you amount to anything more than being an /adv/ NPC?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He is an autist who createa this same thread almost every day.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's a valid question. I've noticed that some men are willfully ignorant to the fact that women love narcissistic badboys. Then when they constantly strike out, and see all the dirtbags getting laid, they lose their minds. I used to be one of those guys, but now I'm coming to terms with the blackpill.

      >does that mean that the only way to get a girlfriend is to be a betacuck provider whom she settles for when she wants stability?
      Yes, but even when it comes to choosing betacucks there is a lot of hoeflation going on. Women are getting choosier by the minute and will rather opt for singlehood than settle. This is what causes low birthrates in most developed nations.

      This guy gets it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        who is this "they" and how come "they" can organize so well to make your life hell if "they're" so supposedly stupid?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What are you talking about?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            (You) wrote

            It's a valid question. I've noticed that some men are willfully ignorant to the fact that women love narcissistic badboys. Then when they constantly strike out, and see all the dirtbags getting laid, they lose their minds. I used to be one of those guys, but now I'm coming to terms with the blackpill.
            [...]
            This guy gets it.

            "Then when they constantly strike out, and see all the dirtbags getting laid, they lose their minds."
            It all seems to indicate in that post that you're the poor little victim of these meanie poopoo heads, and apparently "they" all do this to make your life worse. So I was asking how come they're simultaneously stupid to choose the "wrong person" and so smart to specifically single (You) out?
            Sounds to me you're either truly a wrong person to be chosen for a relationship, or, the more likely, you're just a schyzo with a victim complex.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I still have no idea what you're talking about. Who's doing what to make my life worse? I'm simply stating that many men were once like me. They wondered how tf they couldn't find a gf, while all the scumbags prevailed. I've pretty much accepted now that women are attracted to narcissistic badboys and there's nothing we can do to change that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >They wondered how tf they couldn't find a gf, while all the scumbags prevailed.
            Don't you realize this is literally just victim complex? You're a schyzoid, my brother has the same issue as you. He's clinically paranoid and takes pills for that shit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You aren't intelligent enough to throw around terms like "victim complex" and "schyzoid (sic)"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're just trying to dismiss me but you know I'm right. It's easier to fall into shitty stories little manlets like Andrew tell you about women just functioning a certain way that makes it impossible to you to have a gf. When it would actually be more simple to realize the problem is you, and not 50% of billions of people that live on this earth.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >manlets like Andrew
            NTA but are you referring to Andrew Tate? He might not look like it, but he's actually quite tall (6'3").

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            choke on his wiener a little more won't you

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There is certainly no victim complex or paranoia here. You say that the "problem" is myself, but it's not my fault that women aren't attracted to me.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >it's not my fault that women aren't attracted to me.
            Uh... then whose fault is it?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Good question. It seems that women cannot help what they're attracted to, as they fall for the same type of guy every time. But it is frustrating when women complain that they cannot find a good guy while constantly dating dirtbags.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >they fall for the same type of guy every time.
            You are literally unable to make a single post without lying.
            >women complain that they cannot find a good guy while constantly dating dirtbags.
            Again this does not happen outside of your incel wank fantasies. You and incels are complete dirtbags so why aren't women dating you?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >women don't date badboys then complain "where have all the good men gone?"
            You're a disingenuous homosexual. Frick off.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Only you and other incels find "badboys" attractive. You are projecting your own homosexual lust on women. Every time.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're a closet homo. Stop projecting.
            Women have always lusted after badboys. It's a tale as old as time.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What is your definition of a "badboy"?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Narcissistic, psychopathic tendencies, arrogant, and emotionally unavailable.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Oh. And you think realistically 52% of the world population *only* likes these types of men?
            How do you explain all the marriages that don't involve "Narcissistic, psychopathic tendencies, arrogant, and emotionally unavailable" men?
            Is your answer just gonna be "those women are obviously cheating on them"?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >How do you explain all the marriages that don't involve "Narcissistic, psychopathic tendencies, arrogant, and emotionally unavailable" men?
            Some women will settle for certain 'safe' guys if they want some security and stability, but they are not aroused by them.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Wait, so women do date non-badboys, even in your fanfiction? Color me impressed. Why didn't they settle for you, OP?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, some women will settle for non-badboys but it's a loveless relationship and the sex is perfunctory.
            >Why didn't they settle for you, OP?
            You tell me.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >but it's a loveless relationship and the sex is perfunctory.
            And you would know this how? Do you have hidden cameras and microphones placed in people's bedrooms?
            Oh wait, let me guess...
            >STUDIES!!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >And you would know this how?
            A woman won't enjoy having sex with a man she's not aroused by. Remember, for women, sex is as much psychological as it is physical. Having sex with Mr NiceGuy doesn't get her motor running.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Having sex with Mr NiceGuy doesn't get her motor running.
            Again I ask...you know this how?
            I don't know enough about you from your private thoughts that you freely share, but you know enough about other purely hypothetical people to know what turns them on or even to derive if they're truly "nice" somehow?
            You don't know shit. You don't understand men, you *definitely* don't understand women, and I'd wager you don't even truly know and understand yourself.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            None of that refutes my argument. What I've said is a perfectly logical statement of fact.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You are too autistic to be saved.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You tell me.
            They obviously must not appreciate your wonderful personality and world-view enough lmao

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >They obviously must not appreciate your wonderful personality and world-view enough lmao
            What's wrong with my personality and worldview? At least I'm not deluded.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm not deluded.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            NTA but I'd argue that this is a nonsensical argument since most of the time guys like that don't even get to the point where they'd start discussing world views. People typically start from liberal premises and then develop such a world view 'because' they are unsuccessful, not the other way around.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            These can all be words used to seethe about the confident and bold from those looking on the outside in who lack these traits.

            You know nothing about me, silly goose.

            I know plenty about you from your posts. Or do you really think a person's anonymous unfiltered thoughts shed no light about the kind of person they are?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >These can all be words used to seethe about the confident and bold from those looking on the outside in who lack these traits.
            Wrong. These are men with dark triad personality traits. The studies back it up.
            >Or do you really think a person's anonymous unfiltered thoughts shed no light about the kind of person they are?
            You have insufficient data to make an accurate character assessment of me.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >LE STUDIES
            >LE DATA
            Fricking kek, we're entering full parody mode at this point.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Dark triad traits are successful when it comes to short-term mating but I've yet to see data which confirms long-term success. Do you have something on your hands?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You literally described every incel there. That alone proves you totally wrong.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >But it is frustrating when women complain that they cannot find a good guy while constantly dating dirtbags.
            But you are also a dirtbag and not a "good guy", and you don't even have the looks to make up for it.
            For as much as you complain about the average guy who gets women being a bad option for them, you are even worse. So what is the injustice here exactly?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The injustice is that how dare things aren't just given to OP

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You know nothing about me, silly goose.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You are willfully ignorant to the fact that you are a lying homosexual.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What a lot of redpillers don't understand is however that it's not being a bad boy which makes them attractive. It's more that being a bad boy makes them more socially proactive but what 'actually' gets them laid is that they're handsome. A guy who acts like a bad boy but is ugly will just be considered an butthole by women or get the cops called on him.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >A guy who acts like a bad boy but is ugly will just be considered an butthole by women or get the cops called on him.
          Eh, I'm not sure about that anon. I've seen quite a few men who are neither goodlooking or good people but somehow have partners.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I've seen quite a few men who are neither goodlooking or good people but somehow have partners.
            Because they're betabux providers or otherwise exceptional, e.g. due to having fame, high status professions, etc.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nope. These are mfs with no money or status. Then again, what men consider attractive is not necessarily what women consider attractive. Maybe it's the "ugly hot" I've heard so much about?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It could be that you simply don't recognise their attractiveness but you also need to consider that when looking at "couples" outside, a lot of times it's some friendzoned guy who accompanies the girl he likes while she's actually fricking other guys. Women love cultivating these simps.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Listen to yourself. This is simply ludicruous cope. You live in a fantasy world that is nothing but an incel circlejerk pity fantasy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Attraction is not random but it's based on traits that are somehow positively correlated with survival. Why do you think those men who - as you say - have nothing going for them, are attractive to women if not for some invisible, social trait that you merely didn't perceive?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Attraction is not random but it's based on traits that are somehow positively correlated with survival.
            Yeah like, fricking take a shower, groom yourself and work with what you have in terms of clothes and hairstyle. "Oh no! What a high bar!"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Yeah like, fricking take a shower, groom yourself and work with what you have in terms of clothes and hairstyle.
            I think there is solid evidence that it takes a little more than that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Like what? Being socially adjusted and filling a role of caregiver? I do these things by existing. Carrying out a grocery bag even when I'm not asked to is not rocket science and an impossible standard to achieve.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Being socially adjusted and filling a role of caregiver?
            Yes, but not in terms of carrying grocery bags but in terms of an above average income, a high status job, educational attainment that exceeds the average, etc.

            Carrying grocery bags is a side-effect of the personality traits that typically come with the former.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Are you moronic? Tons of low in-come women get married to low-income men. It's not a money thing. Unless you mean "oh no I have to have a stable job? the horror"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Tons of low in-come women get married to low-income men.
            Low-income women typically get married to not-as-low-income men or men who are otherwise dominant, e.g. physically. There is actually research that to low income women, the physical component matters more than to high income women, which could be a facet of socialisation and different living conditions or possibly a result of the stratification of society and different genetic castes developing.

            This is also one of the reasons why you typically don't see these college nerds who can't find a girlfriend date low income girls. You'd expect their elevated status, employment prospects, etc. to somehow be attractive to them, but that typically isn't the case.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >tfw my gf of 10 years and I started dating when I had no job, was unemployed for a lot of our relationship and still today earns much more than me
            My personal experience would like to disagree with the fanfic you made up to convince yourself not to talk to women.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            First of all, the anecdote does not refute the statistic. Second, I don't see how that is even a counter-example to what I said. Do you make up for your lack of income by being a handsome guy? Are you otherwise capable and dominant? And you said makes more than you - but are you otherwise established, with a job of your own? If so, you have your answer.

            We do know that there is an elevated risk of women divorcing their husband if they have a greater income, but that does not mean that such relationships can't work.

            Did you perhaps intend to reply to someone else?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >First of all, the anecdote does not refute the statistic
            It doesn't have to, it agrees with statistics. It just means I found a really good woman, despite not being all that good looking, having crooked teeth, a unibrow that I have to shave often, and no job.
            You just fail to understand that even if 90% of people are horrible in this world, 10% of billions is still a gigantic number that allowed me to have a happy relationship in my life.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not even saying people are horrible. Where did you get that from? I'm merely saying that there are tendencies to what people are attracted to and even if you have crooked teeth and a unibrow (which you shave though, so I fail to see how that's an issue), you might still be above average in height, you might have a good voice, large hands, nice hair, a fancy degree, a title of nobility, whatever - there are plenty of other traits that make a man attractive. For some reason you were chosen over the other guys with crooked teeth, a unibrow and no job, right? And you need to consider that for the women who are willing to accept guys like you (if you really are as unsuccessful and ugly as you claim to be) there is quite the fierce competition, since it's not just ugly guys that are competing for them. It's a competitive market out there.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >statistic
            Which statistic are you talking about now?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That women typically care about income and expect their partners to make at least as much as they do.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But you said it's a statistic so can you link to the source of that statistic and how it was determined?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There are several, but I think this one is the most meaningful since it tracks temporal development and uses US census data:

            >Increasing pressure on US men for income in order to find a spouse

            >In contemporary societies, social status – especially income – is one of the most important determinants of ever marrying among men. Using U.S. census data, we estimated the importance of income for ever marrying among men and women, analyzing birth cohorts from 1890 to 1973. We examined individuals between the ages of 45 and 55, a total of 3.5 million men and 3.6 million women. We find that for men, the importance of income in predicting ever being married increased steadily over time. Income predicted only 2.5% of the variance in ever marrying for those born in 1890–1910, but about 20% for the 1973 cohort. For women, the opposite is true: the higher a woman’s income among those born between 1890 and 1910, the lower her odds of ever being married, explaining 6% of the variance, whereas today a woman’s income no longer plays a role in ever being married. Thus, our results provide evidence that income may represent a very recent selection pressure on men in the US, a pressure that has become increasingly stronger over time in the 20th and early 21st centuries.

            https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19485565.2023.2220950

            It basically confirms hoeflation with regard to income.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You might also want to consider these:

            >Unmarried women expect their future husbands to be 30% more likely to be employed and 19% more likely to have a college degree than the unmarried men available. Furthermore, unmarried women expect their future husbands to have an average income that is about 58% higher than that of the unmarried men available. This selectivity was particularly pronounced among highly educated white women, which suggests that growing social status among women amplifies their choosiness (https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12603).

            >When facing marriage market constraints, women would rather be single than marry a low-status man (https://doi.org/10.1177/019251395016004001).

            >A promotion to a top job in politics increases the divorce rate of women (but not for men), and women who become CEOs divorce faster than men who become CEOs. Women who divorce after scoring top promotions are less likely than men to remarry or have a serious relationship (http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/app.20180435).

            >71% of women who are financially secured still want a partner with a steady income (only 14% of men in that income bracket report the same preferences) (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.041).

            >Women may compromise when it comes to the level of education of their future husbands, but he has to make up for it in terms of income (https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12372).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >college nerds who can't find a girlfriend
            Don't exist. Incels have no jobs or education and pretend that moping in the basement all day long makes them the same as those "nerds". Those guys with elevated status and employment prospects have no problem attracting girls.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There are plenty of people doing CS or engineering degrees who can't find girlfriends.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >can't find
            >can't
            Could, but for one reason or another choose not to make the effort at that time.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Who are these men with nothing going for them who are attracting women?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You tell me.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You are completely wrong. You place the most importance on looks and project that on what women like. Women care more about non-physical attributes than men.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Women care more about non-physical attributes than men.
            Oh no, are you suggesting OP CHANGE his shitty attitude? Or worse, suggesting women actually tend to be less shallow than men?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Looks predict around 40% of the variance in partner choice - it's the largest single factor for both men and women. It's not all that matters but it's probably the most important factor for getting a foot in the door.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >does that mean that the only way to get a girlfriend is to be a betacuck provider whom she settles for when she wants stability?
    Yes, but even when it comes to choosing betacucks there is a lot of hoeflation going on. Women are getting choosier by the minute and will rather opt for singlehood than settle. This is what causes low birthrates in most developed nations.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >women would rather be alone than settle
      holy gigabased

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >> If women are only attracted to narcissistic badboys

    That's a false proposition. Women are not a monolith. Ironically, it's these kinds of "women are X" views you have that make you undateable.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Women are not a monolith.
      Most people are like most other people. The fact that outliers exist does not mean that there aren't tendencies.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        And what makes you think you'd want to date "most women" when "most women" are not in your dating pool?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I think you didn't understand the implication. If most women are like most other women it means that they'll have similar preferences.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You don't get it. You don't want to date "most women" because "most women" are either under 18 or over [insert acceptable age to date in your bracket].
            Even generations vary a lot from each other. The only opinions you should care about are people that you'd potentially date (assumigly are not ugly and are around your age).
            And even then you'll not want to create a relationship with every single one of them. Don't you see the point? It doesn't matter what "most" want, it only matters you look for someone you actually would want to live with, which is always a long harduous quest for *anyone* who actually wants to marry another person and dedicate their life to them.

            You're not thinking far enough.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I think when people talk about the patterns they describe, they're referring to the types of women they want to date and not grannies or children. And the statement that most people are like most people applies to these subsets as well.

            >You're not thinking far enough.
            And yet I'm still ahead of you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The thing is, nobody wants to date "most people". Nobody will find that average attractive, everyone has personal preferences and their own personality that could potentially or not be compatible with you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Nobody will find that average attractive
            I absolutely don't think so. I think the average man finds the average woman reasonably attractive. I don't think the same is true for women.

            >everyone has personal preferences and their own personality that could potentially or not be compatible with you
            Personal preferences are more common than they are diverse. And while peculiarities of ones personality obviously matter, they are secondary to other traits - in particular when looking at short term romance. For long term romance other traits begin to matter more but in order to get a long term romance you need a short term romance first.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I think the average man finds the average woman reasonably attractive.
            And I should stress: I am of course referring to the dating age population.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That too is completely false.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >If women are only attracted to narcissistic badboys

    Women are attracted to a boys with a spine. You dont necessary have to be a badboy.
    You have to show that you value yourself and have an opinion.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Narcissistic bad boys are more prone to exhibiting attractive behaviors like confidence and sexuality

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Two false premises in one go, impressive moronation here OP.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why do you dishonest homosexuals pretend that women aren't attracted to badboys?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Define "badboy". Because if you mean "just a dood who takes innitiative" then yes, they like "badboys".

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No one said they aren't. They're just not the ONLY men they are attracted to.

        What is your definition of a "badboy"?

        Probably a guy who actually had the balls to talk to a woman, something he's never done.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Thread started from an absolute L take has 100 replies
    Y'all ate that bait

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Women are drawn to men who will neglect them, disregard their needs, emotionally abuse them, but also frick them like dogs when the situation calls for it. They don't desire the loving, caring, supportive bf. He's just a fallback option if she decides to settle down, but even that's not a given. Some women will persist with one dirtbag after another.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Is your mom like that? Your grandma?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Actually, what women really want (the good ones, anyway) is a bf that will be loving and caring towards them AND frick them like dogs when the situation calls for it. They want someone who is confident and bold.
      Someone who takes no shit from the outside world, but who is kind and loving behind closed doors, towards THEM.
      Read that last bit again. The problem most of you incels have is you're the complete opposite of that. Someone who is a meek little b***h in public or around other men but wants to run your he-man woman-hater "where's my dinner b***h, suck my dick" larp towards them in your heads. Meanwhile you guys can't even hold a conversation with a woman irl or look one in the eye.
      Meanwhile, what is your definition of a "bad boy" or "butthole" exactly? From what I've seen here, if you're a normal, friendly, outgoing guy, you are exactly what these seething "nice guys" mean by an "butthole".

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's no wonder women are never happy.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Someone who is a meek little b***h in public or around other men but wants to run your he-man woman-hater "where's my dinner b***h, suck my dick" larp towards them in your heads.
        I don't think that's the case at all. In my experience the average incel is a complete egalitarian sóycuck who sincerely believed in the liberal blank slate propaganda and his hatred is merely an expression of disappointment. They want want to be the guy in the wife beater who chains his girlfriend to the kitchen, but they want an relationship between equals, sharing the same interests, etc.; the problem is: that's not what women want.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >They want want to be the guy in the wife beater who chains his girlfriend to the kitchen
          *They don't want want to be the guy in the wife beater

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >when she wants stability
    What? Most of these girls are more financially stable than most of you and the bad boy too

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I love that guys that say "Women do X" can't seem to understand why their world views may be affecting their chances with the opposite sex.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I find it amusing that guys that say "Women do X" even get to the point of discussing their world views with women. Not to mention that there are countless misogynist guys out there who have zero trouble getting laid. If a good personality was a prerequisite to find a girlfriend we wouldn't need women's shelters.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I find it amusing that guys that say "Women do X" even get to the point of discussing their world views with women.
      That was supposed to say: I find it amusing that you believe guys that say "Women do X" even get to the point of discussing their world view with women.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I didn't mean it in that. I don't think they go to women and say "You women do X all the time and it makes me mad"

        I think that their views on the opposite sex are so warped that I'm sulprised some of they can even (barely) function on polite society.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >I think that their views on the opposite sex are so warped that I'm sulprised some of they can even (barely) function on polite society
          Imagine thinking women are all prostitutes and having a female boss/supervisor.

          Imagine having to take orders from someone you consider subhuman everyday. The damage it must do to a men's mind. Crazy stuff.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >I think that their views on the opposite sex are so warped that I'm sulprised some of they can even (barely) function on polite society
          Imagine thinking women are all prostitutes and having a female boss/supervisor.

          Imagine having to take orders from someone you consider subhuman everyday. The damage it must do to a men's mind. Crazy stuff.

          Why did you jump straight to thinking women are subhuman? There is absolutely nothing wrong with recognizing patterns in human behavior.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If you think they are all prostitutes eho ride bad boy dick and manipulate lesser men ibto being providers you can't think very high of them. Can you?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Plenty of these women are perfectly nice people. That's what it makes it such a headfrick.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So the premiese is false.

            Not all women want to frick bad boys and settle for nice guys. That's a false narrative.

            Not that DOME women don't want to do that. I bet some do, but some also want to build together woth a loving parthner.

            The ideia that ALL WOMEN are X or Y is the issue since they are individuals.

            It's the same as saying ALL MEN are rapist or like football or drink beer.

            Some do and re but not all.

            Because we are individuals.

            Vut guys in this site operate based on stereotypes and archetypes as if one concept could encapsulate more than half of the human population.

            Which is nonsense.

            Meanwhile normal pe5iple are enjoying life, getting laid and/or building a family.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >So the premiese is false.
            Nope. Sadly, I've met women from all walks of life, and personality types, but the common denominator was that they dated scumbags. Sometimes the sweet, friendly guys are the worst culprits for that sorta thing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Sometimes the sweet, friendly guys
            *GIRLS

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You know some awful people. I know no woman who would have serially dated scumbags. You are either imagining things, or thinking that anyone who women date must be a scumbag because he is not YOU.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Sadly, I've met women from all walks of life, and personality types, but the common denominator was that they dated scumbags
            Maybe your views are just biased.

            I worked with a girl who was lovely and pretty. She could've had the world at her feet. Her bf was a bum, didn't work, leeched off her, covered in tatts, not goodlooking, but she refused to ditch him. It's all so tiresome.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            have you considered that you perceived her as nice just because she wasn't acertive, and would be seen as a "bitch" if she was acertive with what she wanted?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Sadly, I've met women from all walks of life, and personality types, but the common denominator was that they dated scumbags
            Maybe your views are just biased.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Scumbags have always preyed on the niceties of other people. This is not a dating thing, it's scumbags knowing how to find nice, low self-esteem people to prey on.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So because of that you think ALL or MOST women are like that? That makes zero sense. It's literally statistically improbable.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I'm sceptical of that. Plenty of people hold views some might deem horrible and they have no issue functioning in polite society. The fact that they discuss these ideas here does not mean they discuss them outside.
          Also, I can only repeat: I've met plenty of men who held genuinely misogynist (and racist) views and had little issues of voicing them even in public who had no issue finding partners who were willing to put up with it.
          Remember how butthurt people on twitter were when this lesbian made this webcomic illustration? It's because she struck a nerve. It's just like how all these female PoC activists are dating white guys.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Most of the homosexuals on here seem to operate on the misunderstanding that men are good judges of character and have perfect taste in men.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >men are good judges of character
            *women d'oh

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Thinking women should go to the kitchen and stay there is different than thinking women are manipulative devils who crave chad dick and beta guy income.

            Both are bad but one is functional. The other isn't. It's the same imo.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >It's the same imo.
            It's NOT the same imo*

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Thinking women should go to the kitchen and stay there is different than thinking women are manipulative devils who crave chad dick and beta guy income.
            I don't think people think of women as manipulative devils. They rather consider them instinct driven and unaware of those instincts, which makes them annoying to deal with, since their delusion clouds their minds. Men are much more straightforward and honest about what they like.

            Also, thinking women should go to the kitchen and stay there is arguable a much more harmful thought in the long run - especially because it comes with an imperative, opposed to the impotent whining of incels on the internet. But it only proves the point: you don't mind the guy who considers you subhuman and wants to enslave you, as long as he's handsome and dominant. You can't even judge the ideology clearly.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't think people think of women as manipulative devils. They rather consider them instinct driven and unaware of those instincts
            "I don't think women are manipulative devils, I think women are manipulative devils UNCONSCIOUSLY"

            Not really helping you case anon.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I honestly don't think there is a lot of manipulation going on there really.

            You seem to somehow have this idea that I think of women as somehow malevolent - but I don't. I don't hate women. I don't hate men either - who I think are actually a lot more manipulative than women are in many instances.

            I'm merely describing what they are like.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm merely describing what they are like.
            Is your mom like that too? Your Grandma?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So maybe you are just projecting your shitty relationship eith your mom to women at large.

            I hate Freud but sometimes you have to give it to the guy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What are you even talking about? I have a great relationship with my mom and my grandma as well. But being women they are subject to the same mechanisms.

            Everything bad that is true about men is also true about me to some extent. I don't consider myself special.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Everything bad that is true about men is also true about me to some extent.
            Like what?

            Also how can you trully go around and say your mom is a manipulative devil who wants chad wiener and settled with your das for incone and not swcond guess the madness of what youbare saying.

            Your own mom! Are your views so warped that you rather call your mom a prostitute than to admit your views are way too generalizing and maybe humans are individuals?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Also how can you trully go around and say your mom is a manipulative devil
            I think you are misrepresenting my position there, especially given the fact that I already responded to the issue of being manipulative.

            The fact that there are tendencies in behaviour does not mean that they need manifest, especially given the fact that older generations often didn't have the same amount of choice, or had to hide their escapades a little better at least.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What tendencies? Are those tendencies here with us? Stop being insane anon.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Tendencies we were discussing in this thread. Innate preferences for certain looks and behavioural traits for example.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Like what? Give exemples.

            Stuff like men liking sports? I don't like sports.

            Or big boobs.

            Or blonds.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You might not like sports, but you might be competitive in character. Maybe you like video games. Or maybe you're into history. And the fact that you'd get butthurt over arguments on the internet is also a pretty manly quality.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Maybe you like video games. Or maybe you're into history.
            What do these things have to do with anything?

            So maybe you don't like sports but *Proceeds to list a bunch of unrelated stuff*

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You don't think video games are a male dominated hobby and people who discuss their favourite generals and the intricacies of early medieval metallurgy are anything but male?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Not because of their genetics.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And you base this on what? Your gut feeling?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Hes just a dumb leftist stop losing your time brother

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Show me the "liking video game gene" and maybe we can cook.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think it will take long until we get to that point. Polygenic scoring is progressing and at some point you'll be able to pinpoint combinations that have a high likelihood associated with them to liking video games.

            Until then, you'll have to live with empiric research. I don't have a paper at hand which shows that men tend to be more into video games than women (especially if we further restrict the case to FPS for example), but I'm sure it shouldn't be too hard to find if you're actually interested in it rather than trying to waste my time for the purpose of sophistry.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But there are so many reasons for that.

            Like marketing. Lego used to be a neutral toy with statistics showing both boys andngirls bought a lot of lego, until they started doing some marketing changes to appeal to dads to and in that new marketing strategy lego became a boy toy so the statistics changed.

            Does that mean that boys inherently like legos? Because fhey love to buid or some crap.

            No.

            If the marketing didn't the change its quite possible grils and boys would still buy lego in equal %

            Same with anything. Like the colors blue and pink.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Lmao.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I know right. It's so ibvious that "women like pink gene" is not a thing and that it's a cumtural and social thing... It baffles me how some people still think genetics make boys like sofas or whatever.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I wont even bother at least you will probably never reproduce.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nice come back.

            You really showed him who is boss with facts and logic. KEK.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He is too busy trying to find the elusive "girls like to cook gene" to respond me. Hahahahahaha.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >maybe you're into history
            Wait are boys supposed to like history? You should tell that to my students kek.
            Maybe you are just confusing men with NSFFW?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe if you were teaching them about cool history stuff they'd be more into it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Bu aren't them intently interested? Most boys find it boring even when it's about empires and wars.

          • 1 month ago
            MKG

            >They rather consider them instinct driven and unaware of those instincts, which makes them annoying to deal with, since their delusion clouds their minds. Men are much more straightforward and honest about what they like.
            Heh

            >others are instinct driven and unaware of those instincts
            >since I see that in them, that means I am not instinct driven and unaware of those instincts
            Do tell.

            You are unaware of what instincts drive you too, anon.

            Men aren't more logical than women. It is just that women regard their emotions as real and men are taught to dismiss or suppress their emotions. That is it.

            Take any irrational woman's position and replace the phrase "I feel that" with "it is true that" and suddenly their position is more logical (varying skill level of logic notwithstanding)
            Accepting their emotions are true isn't delusional. It is sometimes dead accurate. That's where "women's intuition' comes from.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think men are generally more rational but when it comes being in touch with what they like and what drives them, I think men are more straightforward.

            I do however also think that men generally are more 'simplistic' in their attraction.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >chad dick and beta guy income
            A very homosexual fantasy there. Especially "beta guy income" is a myth, incel betas are NEETs and will not have a good income ever. Guys with a good income are smart enough to know how to attract women.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >incel betas are NEETs
            And I think all things are connected. Why would they go try to accomplish anything if the game is rigged is happiness is beyond reach?

            So they never improve which only reinforce their warped views. Quite sad to watch really.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            betas are NEETs
            I've been working consistently for years. Take care of myself, regularly workout, well-groomed, deal with customers on the phone etc. and I've never had a gf or a date. I'm still an incel.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Because you don't form relationships or even friendships just by existing, practicing basic hygene and being good looking, it actually involves developing a likeable personality and develop charm. Looks and smell are just the first step.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I think that he means. Most of them are.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Congrats about doing the minimum for a human being to function.

            Now how about that perdopersonality nality?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There are millions of babymamas with deadbeat fathers, perma-unemployed NEETs on welfare, drug addicts, homeless, etc. - this idea that a guy who clearly has a stable job and is well capable of supporting himself was the bottom of society only confirms the hoeflation - especially among the middle class.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Bottom of society

            By what metric? Because you don’t get laid?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >By what metric?
            By yours. Do you really need me to quote you?

            >the minimum for a human being to function

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            People won't date you if are the minimum. Companies won't hire you if you sre the minimum. You need to go an extra mile.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And yet you are alone. Maybe you are just a shitty whiny person?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There are plenty of shitty people who are getting laid on a daily basis. If being shitty excluded people from reproduction, the world would probably be a better place. But that is not the case. Morality does not come to mind when choosing partners - at least on the short term - and long-term, it's usually the shittiness of people fully manifesting with drives people apart rather than the conscious realisation that they're dealing with a bad person.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There are dofferent shades of shitty and your sure is a stinker.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're only confirming what I said: it has nothing to do with shittiness itself.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >men vary in quality
            >women don’t

            Bro who do you think these losers your complaining about are sleeping with?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What have you done to try to get a gf? Have you ever asked a girl out? Created a dating site account? What made you choose to identify as an incel?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What made you choose to identify as an incel?
            The complete lack of interest from women.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're not interested in women so why did you choose to identify as an incel?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >from

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I did not identify as an incel. Women made that decision for me when they decided to overlook me.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You decided to identify as an incel when you decided you never want to have a girlfriend.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'd love to have a gf. I can't help it if women aren't interested in me.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Then why have you actively done everything to avoid getting a gf?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I haven't.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How many girls have you asked out in the last year? How were their reactions? How many matches did you message on tinder?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >tinder

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Answer the question. What have you done to try to get a gf?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I've been looksmaxxing and gymmaxxing for years.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            what does that have to do with getting to know someone? you objectively didn't make a single move towards building a relationship with someone other than looking ok

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's a two-way street. Women need to be mutually attracted to you to form any relationship.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            While I understand that, you don't need to be at your peak looks to start talking to girls. In fact, the peak is hard maintenance and is not something you'll be able to stop investing time in, if you want to present that as one of your "main features".
            As long as you're not obese or anorexic, and you shower and style adequately it's fine. Most people in relationships I know are not really ripped from the gym or anything, they're all pretty average and normal looking.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And how many girls have you asked out? In the last year? How many girls have you messaged on tinder or other dating sites/apps?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >And how many girls have you asked out?
            Which girls am I asking out?
            >How many girls have you messaged on tinder or other dating sites/apps?
            See

            >tinder

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ok so you have never asked a girl out. You are a fricking filthy liar. You do not want a girlfriend.

            NTA but
            >tinder

            See [...].

            What does your gay psyops have to do with OP not wanting a girlfiend?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            NTA but
            >tinder

            See

            >Created a dating site account

            .

          • 1 month ago
            MKG

            Tinder swipe apps do suck

            >And how many girls have you asked out?
            Which girls am I asking out?
            >How many girls have you messaged on tinder or other dating sites/apps?
            See [...]

            >Which girls am I asking out?
            Any that you would like to know better and seem comfortable with you.
            Get in proximity with women.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Do you actually go around talk to girls or meet girls. That's important.

            I meet my wife from friends of a friends I made going out.

            And I was a huge nerd who spend my days playing AI tournaments in FFT for psp multiplayer.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Created a dating site account

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's a stupid argument. The reason men resort to this line of reasoning is specifically because they have learned how homogenous women are in their behaviors. Women exhibit faaaaaaaaar less variation than men.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I disagree.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is your mom like that?
    Did she seattle for your dad?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Is your mom

      Is your mom like that? Your grandma?

      >Is your grandma
      Yes, I know for a fact (most of It I saw with my eyes) both of them settled for a richer man after (or while) fricking badboys, both divorced and went back to badboys
      I can add my aunt and my sister too

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        So tgere you go.

        You had shitty women in your life and now you think all women are shitty.

        My mom was nkt a prostitute like your mom and always loved my dad and was loyal to him til death. Her literal last wish was to hold his hand.

        Because kf that I don't think women are evil and trash and I was able to have gfs and now I'm married.

        So yeah don't let your experiences with women while growing up blind you to the fact mkst women are nkt gold digger prostitutes.

        Some are but those are not even most women.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Listen dude
          I'm sure that Free Will does not exists and both women and men act only because of chemical reactions and nurtured behaviour
          Human reproduction follows the same laws that rule cattle
          homosexual Sapiens are just primates in captivity

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're not smarter just because you understand we're all limited by our own bodies.
            >body was made for eating
            >eating feels good
            >people tend to like eating because of this
            >whoooaaaa I'm so deep

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You're not smarter just because you understand we're all limited by our own bodies.
            And yet 99% of people think that "souls" exist and Free Will is real

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            stupid atheist

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nope
            Gnostic

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Do you think Free Will is not a thing just because we can only act by the limits of the bodies and genes we were given?
            Is it suddently not Free Will that I have to do pee and potty breaks from whatever activity I'm engaging in willfully? Or is rather simplt a limitation of my own existance in this body and environment?
            I know exactly what you mean with the free will shit, because you're gonna start talking about hormonal levels and how you're more likely to do X if you have X amount of X hormones in your body. But yet, people still benifit from their power of decision, despite being under the influence of said hormones and being stuck in their own bodies.
            Just because we need to shit, eat, drink, crave love and social affection from our group, it doesn't mean we're constricted by our circumstances beyond decisions. There is always a decision to be made, and that's how Free Will exists.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Read Shopenhauer

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nah, he just assumes none of us have true Free Will because we're limited to understand we don't have it. But that's not how it works. We're capable of thought beyond the bias of our own chemical motivations. You can be attracted to someone and not act on it, or separate attraction from your objective thinking. Or at least I'd like to think the rest of you don't let your penises ruin your lives just because you wanted a quick frick once.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're too stupid to understand

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I fail to see what does the fact tgat we have hormones and chrmicals change anything.

            You can control your mind and impulses. That what makes humans humans. But what dkes that has to do eith the point?

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Does the nuance of reality scare you, OP?

  16. 1 month ago
    MKG

    >If women are only attracted to narcissistic badboys, does that mean that the only way to get a girlfriend is to be a betacuck provider whom she settles for when she wants stability?
    That hypothetical scenario doesn't exist in reality. Women are not a monolith.

    For the women that *are* only attracted to those types, you would have to display worth greater than that of attraction to that specific woman. Being a provider of financial security is only one of several possible avenues.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Women are not a monolith.
      See

      >Women are not a monolith.
      Most people are like most other people. The fact that outliers exist does not mean that there aren't tendencies.

      .

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Just because you can draw an average that doesn't mean you can apply that cookiecutter mold to individuals, you insufferable mongoloid.
        Statistics only have interest when analyzing things as a whole, not on a 1 to 1 interaction.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You're not a special snowflake. In most regards you're 'probably' like most other people. And this is especially true for women (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And it still is not useful when you forcefully add the general to the individual. You can't walk into a 1 to 1 interaction using statistics as a certainty. It can only be used as possiblity, because wether you like it or not, until you fact check with the other person, you don't fricking know and it's an absolute incognita. The statistics don't help you in the way you think it does.
            This is why people say so often "just be yourself" because you tend to find people that actually click with you rather than trying to appeal to masses.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You can't walk into a 1 to 1 interaction using statistics as a certainty.
            I don't think anyone does that. When people cite these statistics they typically don't complain about individuals but about mass society.

            >you tend to find people that actually click with you rather than trying to appeal to masses
            If these people are too rare (if they exist at all - since this is by no means a given) you're very unlikely to find them and you're likely competing for them with lots of other people.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If these people are too rare (if they exist at all - since this is by no means a given) you're very unlikely to find them and you're likely competing for them with lots of other people.
            It's always been unlikely to find someone who clicks with you, no matter who you are. Even attractive people have a lot of trouble with this because they never know if anyone actually likes them or if it's just shallow attraction from people who want to use them.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I completely agree with that but I would argue it's a lot easier for attractive people to meet some of them since they won't be dismissed outright, resulting in more opportunity.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's a matter of being outside and percievable.
            A lot of people aren't attractive in the traditional sense but get a lot of attention because of their style (sometimes they're just loud). The key is to be percievable and approachable in the first place (and having people want to approach you). There's plenty of pretty mid-looking people who get attention just because they're very welcoming in conversations.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This.

            Truth to be told I just realised we should give up incels since they are not really worth. They are very shallow and vain and if they had what they wanted (money, looks and power) they would be horrible people and they don't want to improve and be humans they are just mad that they can't get away being horrible.

            So this thread made realise holding sympathy for them is pointless.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I think you're just responding with butthurt to getting told on the internet. Instead of coming to terms with the truthfulness of the arguments and that you've been rhetorically bested, you decide to 'threaten' people, arguing that if they don't cease their seditious rhetoric you would stop holding sympathy for them (did you really?).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            NTA but it doesn't sound butthurt, OP as an incel does sound shallow as frick, as all he cares about is appearances and not actual reasons for companionships. Not once has he mentioned the joy of connecting to another human being on a more personal level.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No. I'm just tired of wasting my time.

            And it's cute that you think you beat me.

            Like your argument that there is nk salvation for you and some peolle just can't date is the correct one when ugly and annoying people get matried all the time and it's just that you are not dating correctly is wrong.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I think you're projecting quite a bit there. I don't think there is no hope for people. I am not the guy who starts these types of arguments. I usually get dragged into them in the middle when someone makes a dumb, absolute claim about these tendencies not existing. I fully recognise that the other side is not much better in terms of making dumb claims - but they are my people. I think there is plenty of good evidence that the dating market has become more competitive and men are under greater pressure than fifty years ago.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Women are allowed to have standards and date who they want. That’s all you’re really complaining about

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If this makes things worse for men, I think it's completely legitimate to complain.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How is it worse for men?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            See

            There are several, but I think this one is the most meaningful since it tracks temporal development and uses US census data:

            >Increasing pressure on US men for income in order to find a spouse

            >In contemporary societies, social status – especially income – is one of the most important determinants of ever marrying among men. Using U.S. census data, we estimated the importance of income for ever marrying among men and women, analyzing birth cohorts from 1890 to 1973. We examined individuals between the ages of 45 and 55, a total of 3.5 million men and 3.6 million women. We find that for men, the importance of income in predicting ever being married increased steadily over time. Income predicted only 2.5% of the variance in ever marrying for those born in 1890–1910, but about 20% for the 1973 cohort. For women, the opposite is true: the higher a woman’s income among those born between 1890 and 1910, the lower her odds of ever being married, explaining 6% of the variance, whereas today a woman’s income no longer plays a role in ever being married. Thus, our results provide evidence that income may represent a very recent selection pressure on men in the US, a pressure that has become increasingly stronger over time in the 20th and early 21st centuries.

            https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19485565.2023.2220950

            It basically confirms hoeflation with regard to income.

            .

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Are you really gonna censor a woman who wants to get married to a man curating for someone who is capable of maintaining finantial stability? Do you not see that buying house and having kids doesn't fit with jobless (or unstable/low income) men?
            Because I don't blame a woman for trying to not get pregnant and form a family with someone she knows she can't rely on.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Genuinely have no idea what you’re saying

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Let me put it in terms you understand.
            >Oonga boonga, I can get preggers.
            >That man doesn't have oonga bucks to pay for baby or house

            >Uh oh, oonga will be homeless and a single mom if she not picky
            >Oonga will try her best and find boonga who has job and won't put our family in danger

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >under greater pressure than fifty years ago.
            That is not the topic tho.

            The topic is "If women are X" which is a huge and wrong generalization.

            Since women are humans and humans are not monoliths.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The topic is not static. We're no longer discussing the OP.

            >Since women are humans and humans are not monoliths.
            And that is another one of those dumb platitudes. See

            >Women are not a monolith.
            Most people are like most other people. The fact that outliers exist does not mean that there aren't tendencies.

            .

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Most peolle are like most people is so fake. We are all unique both biologically and mentally.

            We are LITERALLY snowflakes. No one will ever be like you ever again anon.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >dating market
            I hate this term and never in my life have I looked at people I've formed strong romantic bonds with this way. It's actually super dehumanizing and shallow to think of it that way.
            >and men are under greater pressure than fifty years ago
            >50 years ago
            >1974
            Yeah no shit, if you're talking about the US and UK, that was one of the periods of most sexual freedom, right after the late 60s.
            If you take a look at the 50s, 40s, 30s, and anything before you'll notice people had a much harder time dating, mostly because of all the societal stigma.
            And in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s, yeah people became more closed off but nothing compared to before.
            The "50 years ago" you referr to do not represent "good decent people who got married and had it good", they were years rampant with political feminist discourse, hippy mentality, punk mentality, against the machine type of deal. So I don't know what you're on about.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >It's a matter of being outside and percievable.
            What about that guy

            >Created a dating site account

            ? He's clearly putting himself out there.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Let’s see his account.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What about that guy

            >Created a dating site account? He's clearly putting himself out there.
            Apps dont' really function the same way in general, but the truth maintains about you need to have any sort of "gimmick" about you. A Reason for a person to be intrigued and talk to you rather than the other boring guy who is equal to you but prettier.

          • 1 month ago
            MKG

            It is about putting your positive traits out there and perceivable.
            Many people simply suck at this but it is a skill and can be developed.

            A dating profile can be a sad mess of red flags instead of something appealing, all without actually reflecting the person.

          • 1 month ago
            MKG

            >you're very unlikely to find them and you're likely competing for them with lots of other people
            Yup. That is dating. Compatibility is precious and difficult to find.
            Pic related

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Most peolle are not like other people.

        Lets use men as an exemple. What are most men like? I sure don't feel like the ideia of most men.

        And women too are such a vast oceon of peesonalities and values. You are insane for holding these views.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          See

          You're not a special snowflake. In most regards you're 'probably' like most other people. And this is especially true for women (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis).

          .

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That link doest work.

            Just say what you mean instead of regurgitating Wikipedia articles.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The variability hypothesis, also known as the greater male variability hypothesis, is the hypothesis that males generally display greater variability in traits than females do.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Well is there any evidence for that.

            People were pucnhing the hypothesis of all sort of dumb things lately. Doest make it true. It's just some dude's ideia.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There is evidence in the form that it applies to other sexually dimorphic species, there is a mathematical paper by Theodore Hill, which looks into the probabilistic circumstances associated, and in terms of empiric research it has been confirmed regarding a variety of traits, from IQ to non-cognitive traits.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            "Hill has attracted attention for a paper on the theory that men exhibit greater variability than women in genetically controlled traits that he wrote with Sergei Tabachnikov.[2] It was accepted but not published by The Mathematical Intelligencer; a later version authored by Hill alone was peer reviewed and accepted by The New York Journal of Mathematics and retracted after publication. A revised version, again authored by Hill alone, was subsequently peer reviewed again and published in the Journal of Interdisciplinary Mathematics."

            So he did one meme controversial hypothesis to get fame and none of his peers in the scientific community take him seriously. Interesting.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, you know how these journals work. Obviously people are not to eager to touch that kind of subject matter. And it's also telling that there was very little mathematical critique beyond "you can't say that!".

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Also, it should be added: the empirical side has been confirmed often enough and we see the same pattern in most other sexually dimorphic species.

            I don't see why we should assume anything BUT greater male variability.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't see any empirical data as well.

            How did he research that? How many subjects did he use?
            His research seems very half assed.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Hill did not do empiric research he wrote a mathematical paper where he explored the probabilistic circumstances of the variability hypothesis - which is yet another reason why this is nothing to get mad about, since he did not even talk about humans in particular. Also, you can simply look at the Wikipedia article and you'll be linked to a variety of empiric research.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Hill did not do empiric research
            So he did bullshit research, fubbled some numbers to make an absurd claim and called it a day.

            After being called out for his bad research he used the cintroverdial nature of his study to painthimself as victim and get shills like you?

            Tjis way he can say books or whatever tk butthurt incompetent men? Interesting.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >So he did bullshit research, fubbled some numbers to make an absurd claim and called it a day.
            I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.

            Hill talked about a sexually dimorphic species with two genders and looked into optimal reproductive strategies under an assumed difference in variability. The result was that less variability is optimally paired with greater choosiness. And this can be seen in the real world - not just in humans but also in animal species.

            But again: there is plenty of empirical data.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >there is plenty of empirical data
            There isn't thi. Not even on his own paper.

            It's just him guessing and making conjectures pn what he thinks that makes sense.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not talking about this paper in particular. I already told you that it's a mathematical paper. It does not deal with empirical data. It does not deal with human populations either. It deals with the probabilistic circumstances of the variability hypothesis.

            Clearly you don't understand what you are talking about.

      • 1 month ago
        MKG

        No.

        >Women are not a monolith.
        Most people are like most other people. The fact that outliers exist does not mean that there aren't tendencies.

        >Most people are like most other people. The fact that outliers exist does not mean that there aren't tendencies
        Yes, as in: many women prefer their man be taller than them.
        That doesn't mean ALL women require their man to be over 6 feet tall.

        Many women prefer men who display confidence. Women do not ALL prefer narcissistic bad boys.

        Holy frick stop trying to pretend dating is impossible so that you have an excuse to be alone. Try. Risk failure. Laugh at yourself. Get out of your comfortable zone and become comfortable and CONFIDENT in new things. Get out of your shell.
        Git gud.

        >inb4 argueanon just wants to waste their life arguing on the internet.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Holy frick stop trying to pretend dating is impossible
          Just because dating isn't impossible for someone else doesn't mean it isn't impossible for the likes of me. I'm not humiliating myself over and over again for no gain. What's the point?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >doesn't mean it isn't impossible for the likes of m
            oh. why? are you special? the main character of the world, to which all bad things happen?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >the main character of the world, to which all bad things happen?
            It certainly feels that way sometimes.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I think we can both agree that's just lack of self.esteem talking (or worst case scenario, paranoia).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You just need to change your strategy then? Like are doing always the same thing?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The fact most men fall ass-backwards into relationships just goes to show that it has nothing to do with strategy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It has to do with havi g positive traits besides the minimum and not feelings entitled.

          • 1 month ago
            MKG

            >Just because dating isn't impossible for someone else doesn't mean it isn't impossible for the likes of me.
            No, seriously. STOP PRETENDING IT IS IMPOSSIBLE JUST SO YOU HAVE AN EXCUSE NOT TO TRY. It is not impossible.

            >I'm not humiliating myself over and over again for no gain. What's the point?
            The point and the gain is twofold.
            One, you become inured to failure. You get used to trying to connect with someone and it not working out. It isn't humiliating and it stops feeling that way. The humiliation is in your mindset.

            The way fear and anxiety work is that if you avoid something because you are afraid of it, you survive and that strengthens the fear because your brain thinks the fear saved your life. If you do something you are scared of and survive, it teaches your brain that the fear was wrong and useless and the fear lessens.
            This is just how brains work.

            So if you avoid "humiliating" failure, you become frozen and terrified of trying anything that isn't certain. Successful people try new things all the time because if it doesn't work, you cut your losses and move on.

            And the second beneficial point of it is to *LEARN*. We learn from failure. Think of a video game. You explore, try things, see what works and what dorsn't, and you adapt. Learn and adapt.
            Try. Fail. Try again. Fail better.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't mind persisting with things if there's nothing to lose, and I feel there's a chance I could succeed. But this is one area where I have no hope whatsoever. I've never had a girlfriend, never had a date, never had any interest. All trying to find a gf ever does is reinforce that women aren't interested in me.

          • 1 month ago
            MKG

            >But this is one area where I have no hope whatsoever.
            The lack of feeling hope is the issue, not your actual future prospects.

            >I've never had a girlfriend
            Neither did I until I was 27. I changed and improved.

            >never had a date
            I had 6 dates in a decade. 6 years of which I was dedicately trying and looking.
            I changed and improved.

            >never had any interest.
            >women aren't interested in me.
            Getting a gf taught me that I had absolutely no idea how to recognize interest. It is more subtle than you might think. And just because a girl is interested, that doesn't mean she will act.

            Seriously. You don't know what you don't know.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The lack of feeling hope is the issue, not your actual future prospects.
            Nope. The hopelessness is a natural response to the complete lack of prospects.
            >Neither did I until I was 27. I changed and improved.
            lol. I'm older than that.
            >Getting a gf taught me that I had absolutely no idea how to recognize interest. It is more subtle than you might think. And just because a girl is interested, that doesn't mean she will act.
            I've seen women signal interest to my friends and other dudes. Women are not subtle when they like a guy. It's cope to pretend that women are all shy wallflowers who don't show interest.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Nope. The hopelessness is a natural response to the complete lack of prospects.
            You're the one perceiving there's a lack of prospects, you mongoloid. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. What do you fricking want lol? For a woman to fall on your lap without you ever having a single interaction?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
            Not really, because you can't miss a shot that you don't take 😉
            >What do you fricking want lol? For a woman to fall on your lap without you ever having a single interaction?
            I'd like a woman to be interested in me in the first place. That would be a starting point.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I'd like a woman to be interested in me in the first place. That would be a starting point.
            That has an easy solution. Be worthy of interest.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Be worthy of interest.
            How does one do that?

            >I'd like a woman to be interested in me in the first place.
            I wish i could take you to a bar and be your wingman.

            I wish I could show how it's not easy but it's a lot simpler than that.

            Alas...

            Don't repeat the mistake of assuming that getting women is simple for all men.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >>Be worthy of interest.
            >How does one do that?
            So many ways. Some people look at you because you're the crazy/loud guy in the streets. Some people look at you because you dress differently. Some people look at you because you play the guitar. Some people are funny and can make anyone in the room laugh. Some people are very good at capturing people's attentions with stories.
            You just need your gimmick. If you're just white t-shirt guy in the corner and don't really show yourself, yeah people won't really have a conversation starter with you, especially if you're just very plain looking.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Don't repeat the mistake of assuming that getting women is simple for all men
            I never said it was easy. But maybe you are over estimating how impossoble it is.

            We all want the same thing in the end. To be loved and seen.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >But maybe you are over estimating how impossoble it is.
            I don't think so, buddy. If it wasn't impossible, I would've had a gf by now.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ok.

          • 1 month ago
            MKG

            >If it wasn't impossible, I would've had a gf by now.
            Chopping a tree down isn't impossible but standing there holding a herring isn't going to yield success.
            You are standing next to the tree with a herring saying that if it weren't impossible for you to chop the tree down, it would would have already happened by now.

            No.
            You need to change your approach to find success.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're acting like finding a gf is an exact science. It's not.

          • 1 month ago
            MKG

            >You're acting like finding a gf is an exact science. It's not.
            There are countless ways to cut down a tree. That what you have tried hasn't worked doesn't mean it is impossible.

            Whether it is science or art, it is still possible.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Give up. He is too deep in hisnown misery. We can't help him and at this point we are only making things worst.

            He needs to cone with terms to reality on his own. We can't force that on him. It will make him dig himself further in the shit.

            It's over fkr him. At least for now. Disengage.

          • 1 month ago
            MKG

            Fair point. My gas pain has subsided. I might take a break.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I'd like a woman to be interested in me in the first place.
            I wish i could take you to a bar and be your wingman.

            I wish I could show how it's not easy but it's a lot simpler than that.

            Alas...

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There's no point in shooting if you dont even have a basketball. Women make it readily apparent when they find someone attractive. Even the most autistic mentally ill sperg can recognize when women like someone. Asking a woman out who isn't showing these signals is a fast-track to becoming a pariah. At an unlikely best you're wasting your time.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You don't need to make up fanfics about how you're very special for being unworthy, and that you specifcally are the special boy that is suffering from the condition of being unlovable. Just say you want to be alone.
            I've seen so many of my stupid-ass, ugly-ass, fatass friends getting long term gfs and all they had in common was that they were at least entertaining to be around and made people feel good around them.
            Go figure, if people already like being around you, it's likely someone will want to be romantically around you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Literally none of this applies. I improoved and got my relationships, albeit at a later time because I fell for bluepill and some redpill mumbo jumbo. The fact remains that women only like you if they like you. There's no build up. No amount of clownery, money or whatevermaxxing will make a women who doesn't like you like you. You have to wait for a woman to express interest if you want anything good to come out of it. Coming from a nerdy friend group I've seen too many guys push too hard under the belief of numbers game or "just gotta keep trying" only to get bitten in the ass for it. The key is letting women show their interest, or, if you're not getting any, try different things that might work out better. Asking out women who aren't signaling is a fool's errand that too many men have been duped into trying.

          • 1 month ago
            MKG

            >The hopelessness is a natural response to the complete lack of prospects.
            That is a lack that is only in your mind. You are responding to your own mind, not external reality. You haven't tried to date everyone yet.

            >I've seen women signal interest to my friends and other dudes. Women are not subtle when they like a guy.
            There are both overt AND subtle signals, you dingus. Women only use overt signals when they feel safe to do so, usually after they are comfortable with the guy. Young girls haven't learned subtlety or the need for it yet so they are often more obvious than more mature women.

            >inb4 "No, trust me bro, I understand women because I don't date."

            >It's cope to pretend that women are all shy wallflowers who don't show interest.
            Not what I said. In addition to women being overt with guys they are comfortable with, there is a correlation between some women who overtly express attraction to strangers and those same fun loving women not being attracted to men who withdraw from women because they are convinced no women are attracted to them.
            Women are countlessly varied.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >That is a lack that is only in your mind. You are responding to your own mind, not external reality. You haven't tried to date everyone yet.
            No, external reality determines your mindset. You keep getting things around the wrong way. None of us born this way. We develop our mentality from our experiences. Women are not interested in me despite the efforts I've made to improve myself.

          • 1 month ago
            MKG

            >external reality determines your mindset. You keep getting things around the wrong way.
            No I am not. Your perceptions are not objective reality.

            >None of us born this way. We develop our mentality from our experiences.
            Not every conclusion you come to is true just because you concluded it from things that actually happened. That would be extremely arrogant to believe.

            >Women are not interested in me despite the efforts I've made to improve myself.
            How do you know?
            How do you know if women are interested?
            How do you know what to improve?
            How do you know if you have improved?
            How do you know if you have improved?
            How many different ways are you improving?
            Are you aware that the level of effort expended is not necessarily equal to level of successful improvement?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Are you aware that the level of effort expended is not necessarily equal to level of successful improvement?
            This is the most pertinent point that you've made. I can spend inordinate amounts of time, money, and energy trying to improve myself, then some idiot will get a gf barely trying. That is how I know that it's a complete waste of time and some of us are simply not attractive to women no matter what.

          • 1 month ago
            MKG

            >That is how I know that it's a complete waste of time and some of us are simply not attractive to women no matter what.
            No.
            See this pic

            You are trying to dig a trench with a plastic spoon. There are better ways to go about digging the trench than giving up because other guys have better spoons.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You are trying to dig a trench with a plastic spoon. There are better ways to go about digging the trench than giving up because other guys have better spoons.
            Put this in real terms.

          • 1 month ago
            MKG

            You sren't as attractive as Chad. Chad has an easier time succeeding than you.
            But you can still succeed in countless other ways other than by riding good looks or wealth.
            You can develop social skills and stand out in positive ways while putting yourself in proximity with women. Life is extremely open ended and there are endless ways people have found partners. Many involve trying.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            More like, there is a shovel next to him, but he refuses to use it because according to him Chad's trench dug itself.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Hello I took a shower and went to work today, can I have my gf now?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I think it's telling that this kind of social respectability is no longer sufficient for finding a partner. Hoeflation is real.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >no longer sufficient
        It has never been sufficient. Ypu need to be a human to find love not a drone that does the bear minimum.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          maybe OP is reffering to how high society men would be married via arranged marriage? Because otherwise yeah it makes no sense, everyone has always had to put in effort.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Still no father would set up their baby girl with some drone who can just clean his ass and win minimum wage.

            It has never been like that you always even in ancient times had to work towards a good image.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's true, nobody wants to date/live with someone boring who is barely just human.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >If women are only attracted to narcissistic badboys
    >If
    youre a moronic homosexual

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >If women are only attracted to narcissistic badboys,
    False.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You can either be a narcissistic badboy larping as a betacuck provider, or you can be a betacuck provider larping as a narcissistic badboy.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I will just gently place this here.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, she's totally not using him for social media validation.

      • 1 month ago
        MKG

        I will just gently place this here.

        Everyone is someone else's exact fetish. Meeting them is far from guaranteed tho.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Everyone is someone else's exact fetish.
          I think that's a pretty bold assumption.

          • 1 month ago
            MKG

            I have yet to see it disproven.

            On this site "ugly" usually amounts to "I am overweight and my face is somewhat disproportionate. Truly I am hideous and unloveable forever."

            Meanwhile, I was literally born with facial deformity and never doubted I could get a partner because I grew up seeing couples around me and people obviously connect with all types. I just assumed I had to be charming and spent years before realizing that being funny alone wasn't enough. I also had to be competently social pleasant.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I have yet to see it disproven.
            I would respond that sexual selection is subject to natural selection and as such the traits people find themselves attracted to were positively correlated with reproduction and survival. It is not random but there is a pattern to what people 'tend' to like. And in that regard, the further you deviate from that pattern, the less likely it becomes that you will be attractive to someone.

            This is no proof (the concept of 'proof' itself only really exists in mathematics), but I'd say it's a good counter-argument.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yes I'm sure she made a life-long commitment for clout.
        I can just go outside and take pictures of random couples. Most people aren't models.

        • 1 month ago
          MKG

          >I can just go outside and take pictures of random couples. Most people aren't models.
          True enough.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I will say, for a board that focuses that much on how women are bad because they're choosing chad, people here are quite cruel and shallow with how they judge others. Beauty isn't just Instagram models and gigachad.
            Relationships last despite people growing old, they don't commit suicide or leave each other because they become "ugly".

          • 1 month ago
            MKG

            I definitely agree.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Truth.

            In a semse the project in the world their own shallowness.

            That's how THEY would behave if they were chad or a hot chick. Therefore...

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I feel bad for these nerds falling over fkr the wprst type kf women ever. Women they had no chance to be with mind you. And getting mad over it.

            Never experiencing actually feeling a connection a d building someone who you love and loves you back.

            No just marketplace and seeing women and themselves as objects.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >people here are quite cruel and shallow with how they judge others
            This is true, but I'd say it comes more from a position of being hurt than outright malevolence.

            There are men who are lonely and turn into bitter, hateful individuals - maybe some of them also were kind of mean before. But I don't think that's ultimately the reason why they're lonely. I don't think the world is that fair of a place where all the mean people are doomed to be lonely. There are plenty of mean people who were and still are quite popular. And I'm certain anyone who has ever sat foot in a classroom or has a moderately large circle of friends and acquaintances is fully aware of this truth.

            Pretending that the lonely people are all evil makes it easier to tolerate since it pins the blame on them, making them perpetrators rather than victims of fate.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >This is true, but I'd say it comes more from a position of being hurt than outright malevolence.
            Bs.

            Everyone is hurt in some way and not everyone goes around hating people because of it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            People are different and they cope with being hurt differently. Also, there are different kinds and different degrees of hurt.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >This is true, but I'd say it comes more from a position of being hurt than outright malevolence.
            I understand that. It's defensive. But it's also negative as frick. I've been bullied all my life and it wouldn't make me happy to tear others down like they did to me.

            >Pretending that the lonely people are all evil makes it easier to tolerate since it pins the blame on them, making them perpetrators rather than victims of fate.
            I haven't pretended people here deserve to be lonely because they're evil or vice versa. It was a genuine observation, people here can be very cruel on looks and relationships aren't built and maintained on appearances

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, but some people - men in particular - also respond to bullying by becoming more antisocial. You often see that in some men who were victims of bullying who are oddly tense, very defensive and always eager to "prove themselves", making them at times difficult to deal with and bad company.
            I don't think the incels are that different in that regard. They identify mass society as their enemy and they lash out.

            >people here can be very cruel on looks
            Yes, but often that's a sour grapes thing or an attempt to somehow still validate ones own perspective on life, coming up with stifling rationalisations why it's better to stay inside and not reach out to people. I would not take these things to heart but rather recognise them for what they are.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, but often that's a sour grapes thing or an attempt to somehow still validate ones own perspective on life, coming up with stifling rationalisations why it's better to stay inside and not reach out to people.
            absolutely this 100%

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >just win the lottery bro

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I have a friend who was badly burned as a child, 1/3 of his face and 1/3 of his torso burned and he still managed to find someone. This is why I can't take incels seriously.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What does that prove? Rare exceptions exist. Heck, if your friend is goodlooking but burned, that's an even bigger blackpills for the rest of us.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Negative Nancy syndrome

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Pessimistic people are far more grounded and logical than positive people.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Bullshit.

            Pessimistic people commit the same mistakes in acessing threats and danger than optimistic people.

            It's literally the base for phobias.
            No Becky that little butterfly doesn't hold the same threat lr demand the same reaction of a feral tiger let loose.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            A positive person's mindset is usually reality-denying. They believe that everything will be ok if they click their heels and think happy thoughts. They can be equally, if not more, toxic than negative people.

          • 1 month ago
            MKG

            >A positive person's mindset is usually reality-denying.
            So is a negative person's mindset. That is the point.

            It is just that delusional people think they are being realistic when they are not.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I think that's a very solipsist perspective to hold. There is empiric data which we can use to get a better idea of the world. And we do have two eyes and we can draw conclusions from observations. Plenty of people have done so in the past, before we were working empirically in many disciplines, and they are still being vindicated.

            A false understanding of reality will lead to conclusions that are only coincidentally true.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's true vut you are failling to see your veeybown views do not fit your own criteria. Your views are biased and you don't see to be able to see how biased they are.

            So you arive at false conclusion because your observstions where incorrect in the first place.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I will eagerly be proven wrong by arguments of reason and contradictory data. I won't be proven wrong by baseless accusations.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But your very own data is baseless. You want people to prove you that women are not vile succubus with phyco tendencies? The very premise is absurd.

            Even in the animal kingdom which is not tgat comparable to HUMANS some animals mate for life.

            You come here say a bunch of bullshit based on your fears and own biased experiences and want people tk prove you wrong?

            Just look around you,

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You want people to prove you that women are not vile succubus with phyco tendencies?
            Oh please. Not this shit again.

            >The very premise is absurd.
            Yes, I completely agree.

            I think you have a very wrong idea of what my beliefs are. You are arguing against a strawman.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So what are your beliefs?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            See

            I honestly don't think there is a lot of manipulation going on there really.

            You seem to somehow have this idea that I think of women as somehow malevolent - but I don't. I don't hate women. I don't hate men either - who I think are actually a lot more manipulative than women are in many instances.

            I'm merely describing what they are like.

            .

            But you are only providing a claim yourself. An absurd one.

            What exatally is your point?

            My claim is absurd? Absurd how? I believe my observations reflect themselves in empiric reality.

            What is YOUR point?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >See

            I honestly don't think there is a lot of manipulation going on there really.

            You seem to somehow have this idea that I think of women as somehow malevolent - but I don't. I don't hate women. I don't hate men either - who I think are actually a lot more manipulative than women are in many instances.

            I'm merely describing what they are like. #.
            That didn't clarify much. Juat spell it out.

            What's your point?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You accused me of viewing women as vile, manipulative succubi, and I pointed you to the post which addressed that accusation.

            That is my point.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But you never clarified your actual views.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I assume his views are what he posted in the OP post. "women are only attracted to narcissistic badboys"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            NTA but the view of "I'm just describing what women like" would always be wrong anyway, because "Women" aren't "Sarah" who likes blond hair and tan guys, or "Stacey" who does like abusive buttholes and it turns her on. Saying "Women" is making a blanket statement of half the entirety of humanity.

            You could then say "I meant that generally women like X, not all of them". Which is stupid in on itself because what you're claiming has no basis in science and the reasons and wants vary way too much from woman to woman.

            If you look at any poorer country, it's likely women will want a stable man. If you look into richer countries, women don't tend to select for people who could ensure their survival, because they can ensure their own survival. Gee what a fricking mystery.
            So even what a woman would look for in a partner is highly influenced by her circumstances. People in general, Men and Women, tend to select for familiarity. Someone who can mimmick the traits their parents exibited when showing affection, and even mimmick their own parents' love language. Suddently traumatized women going after psychopaths doesn't seem so fricking mysterious does it? Suddently more education oriented looking for education oriented men doesn't seem so mysterious either. It's really not fricking rocket science.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >NTA but the view of "I'm just describing what women like" would always be wrong anyway, because "Women" aren't "Sarah" who likes blond hair and tan guys, or "Stacey" who does like abusive buttholes and it turns her on. Saying "Women" is making a blanket statement of half the entirety of humanity.
            This was one of the earliest arguments I've addressed. Human behaviour is not random but it follows patterns. Most traits are normally distributed and most people are more 'like' each other than they are different. While a statement like "Women are X" is probably false because you'll be able to find a representative of Women for whom X does not apply, a statement like "Women tend to be X" or "There is a reasonable likelihood associated for women to be X", can be correct indeed.

            >If you look at any poorer country, it's likely women will want a stable man. If you look into richer countries, women don't tend to select for people who could ensure their survival, because they can ensure their own survival. Gee what a fricking mystery.
            This is measurably false. Even successful women - who are well capable of supporting an entire family on their own - express a strong preference for men who have a reasonable income of their own. And when it comes to selecting for people that express traits correlated with physical health, height, dominance in intrasexual competition, etc. - what is that if not selecting for people who could ensure their survival?

            >Men and Women, tend to select for familiarity. Someone who can mimmick the traits their parents exibited
            I don't find that questionable at all, but you'd have to control for whether they are selecting for 'familiarity' or whether they're merely selecting for the same traits that ended up making their mother attracted to their father.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Human behaviour is not random but it follows patterns.
            And factually the pattern isn't "Women tend to select badboys".
            /thread

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I think that's a little reductive. There is substantial data that certain psychopathologies make men more attractive as short-term partners.

            And is that actually surprising? That a manipulative, narcissist guy, who is very full of himself (if he can also back it up with reasonable looks), who is very dominant when interacting with others, etc. is a popular guy? Certainly his shittiness in behaviour eventually blows up around him, but to get a foot in the door, I'm certain that this is not the worst set of personality traits to have.

            OP might not be correct but he still has a point.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >There is substantial data that certain psychopathologies make men more attractive as short-term partners.
            Then that has nothing to do with partner selection, it's more about casual hook-ups. Men do the same shit with BPD women all the time.
            It's just that these people look like candy, and when you're in a "frick it" mentality where you don't actually are aiming to build a life with someone, you know go for the apparently shiny thing. This is not hard to understand. It also has no basis of comparison to selection of a partner for life.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Then that has nothing to do with partner selection, it's more about casual hook-ups. Men do the same shit with BPD women all the time.
            Yes, but that obviously still contributes to sexual 'success'. To a guy who can't even get a woman to talk to him on Tinder, the position of a guy who is capable of getting laid all the time obviously seems enviable to a degree.

            >It also has no basis of comparison to selection of a partner for life.
            I was specifically talking about short-term partners. But the point remains: to become a long-term partner you must become a short-term partner first.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, but that obviously still contributes to sexual 'success'.
            It's only success in a male perspective in a society like the US, because if a woman fricks outside of relationships/wedlock it's still seen as a bad thing by both her female and male peers.
            >To a guy who can't even get a woman to talk to him on Tinder, the position of a guy who is capable of getting laid all the time obviously seems enviable to a degree.
            Only greater enforces the view of men viewing sex as "scoring".
            When factually the actual win is to keep someone with you. Sex is shittier anyway if it's casual rather than someone who knows how to push your buttons.

            >But the point remains: to become a long-term partner you must become a short-term partner first.
            Not at all. Men would frick "the bawd" any time but wouldn't necessarily marry her. The motivation to frick (in men and women) is not the same as the motivation to create a family. This is especially true in your early 20s, most people want to just frick and don't worry a lot about family.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Only greater enforces the view of men viewing sex as "scoring".
            That might as well be the case but I can only repeat: a short-term romance is the door to a long-term romance. If you're incapable of having even one short-term romance, and you see a guy who clearly is a horrible person for various reasons, have one short-term romance after another, I can understand why it would make you lose faith in mankind a little.

            >Men would frick "the bawd" any time but wouldn't necessarily marry her.
            My point is not that a short-term romance necessarily leads to a long-term romance, but a long-term romance needs to start somewhere. And if you can't even get women to reply to you on Tinder, you're not going to get either.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >a short-term romance is the door to a long-term romance
            Ah. But sex, especially for men, at least from what men usually say, does not necessarily mean Romance though right? Or imply romantic feelings?
            A whirlwind/impulsive romance is something completely different from a hookup with the purpose of having sex with that person for a night.

            People don't tend to innitiate short-term romances because people don't want to be emotionally hurt. They either use the person sexually or actually try to have a serious relationship. When romance is short-lived it's usually because both people's motivations to be together didn't actually align.

            There's also the case where people maintain a current sexual relationship with someone but don't actually take it "seriously" (FWB situation, usually ends once one of the people finds someone they wanna be serious with; but also fits the "we're using each other" category, which is a little better than people naively falling for bad traits because they're shiny).

            >but a long-term romance needs to start somewhere.
            it absolutely does, yes. But usually the intention of both people is to take it seriously, it's not the norm that it happens as a casual hookup. It's more that people like taking it slow before calling each other official, but the intention usually very much is finding a serious relationship when you actually have one that lasts.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think people are always that clear about whether they're engaging in a short-term or long-term romance, especially if we're considering that manipulative men are involved.

            I can only repeat: I don't think the average incel wants the life of the gigolo, it is more that he sees himself being made the villain, asserted that his loneliness is grounded in his flawed character, and then he witnesses men who - for all intents and purposes - express much worse behaviour than the majority of incels, who might rant and insult people on the internet but aren't actually doing all that much to others in the real world, and see him get laid much, and that upsets them.

            It is somewhat similar to that article of Scott Alexander, for which he had gotten quite a bit of trouble, where told about the plights of some of his clients and shed some light on that perspective.

            Because psychology studies individuals?

            No, psychology studies patterns of behaviour. Psychologists deal with individuals, but even those individuals are like others in some regards, how else would you even diagnose someone? What would even a diagnosis be if everyone's behaviour is unique? No, I don't think you have thought this through to the end.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >No, psychology studies patterns of behaviour. Psychologists deal with individuals, but even those individuals are like others in some regards, how else would you even diagnose someone? What would even a diagnosis be if everyone's behaviour is unique? No, I don't think you have thought this through to the end.
            Those patterns are unique ti the individuals.

            Do you think every esqusofrenic person is the same and acts the same? They literally don't.

            Even still those patterns have little to do woth gender. You will never find a psychologist of respectable reputation saying Man are X and women are Y.

            And to close of psychology unlike other sciences vary anlot depending on the approach. The mkst scientific one CBT literally threats every case as it's own unique thing observing patterns on the person itself and not on people at large.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Those patterns are unique ti the individuals.
            Their expression may vary in the sense that not every variant assumes the same form and expresses the same phenomenology, but they still meet certain criteria; in fact they are diagnosed based on those. If there were no pattern to them, you wouldn't even have a catalogue which tells you which mental disorder expresses itself in what way.

            >You will never find a psychologist of respectable reputation saying Man are X and women are Y.
            I think I made myself clear in

            >NTA but the view of "I'm just describing what women like" would always be wrong anyway, because "Women" aren't "Sarah" who likes blond hair and tan guys, or "Stacey" who does like abusive buttholes and it turns her on. Saying "Women" is making a blanket statement of half the entirety of humanity.
            This was one of the earliest arguments I've addressed. Human behaviour is not random but it follows patterns. Most traits are normally distributed and most people are more 'like' each other than they are different. While a statement like "Women are X" is probably false because you'll be able to find a representative of Women for whom X does not apply, a statement like "Women tend to be X" or "There is a reasonable likelihood associated for women to be X", can be correct indeed.

            >If you look at any poorer country, it's likely women will want a stable man. If you look into richer countries, women don't tend to select for people who could ensure their survival, because they can ensure their own survival. Gee what a fricking mystery.
            This is measurably false. Even successful women - who are well capable of supporting an entire family on their own - express a strong preference for men who have a reasonable income of their own. And when it comes to selecting for people that express traits correlated with physical health, height, dominance in intrasexual competition, etc. - what is that if not selecting for people who could ensure their survival?

            >Men and Women, tend to select for familiarity. Someone who can mimmick the traits their parents exibited
            I don't find that questionable at all, but you'd have to control for whether they are selecting for 'familiarity' or whether they're merely selecting for the same traits that ended up making their mother attracted to their father.

            .

            >And to close of psychology unlike other sciences vary anlot depending on the approach.
            I am well aware of that fact.

            >The mkst scientific one CBT literally threats every case as it's own unique thing observing patterns on the person itself and not on people at large.
            And any CBT therapist will treat the very same disorders as any other therapist. They don't come up with new ones for every individual.

          • 1 month ago
            MKG

            >They don't come up with new ones for every individual.
            Do tell. Where did you get your training as a therapist?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't have training as a therapist but I had cognitive behavioural therapy. Did you?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So you know the bases of CBT is very individualistic.

            Focused on the person, their iwn thoughts, emotions, feelings and patterns.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, but you are still going to get a diagnosis of sorts and it will be based on commonalities with other people who manifest comparably pathological behaviour.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So you don't know anything about women AND humans AND phycolgy. Maybe you should read mkre about that and less dead old bitter philosophers who mostly rip off bhudism anyway.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Pro-tip: I am not the guy who mentioned Schopenhauer in this thread. In fact, I believe he misrepresented his position on free will, which is much more complicated than being mere denial, but I didn't want a two-front war at that point.

            In any case, I think your position is just ridiculous. I can only repeat: I was in cognitive behavioural therapy. At the university where I studied at the time nonetheless - so I would expect their methodology to be in line with academic standards. I had to fill out standardised questionnaires and I got a completely normal diagnose based on standardised criteria. The therapeutic concepts were based on text books written on the subject. While there is an individuality to people, at some point someone recognised that people are 'like' each other to some degree after all and developed therapies based on that notion. If people were individuals to the extent you seem to believe (and I don't think you do - I am more under the impression that you're not thinking things through), then how could you even postulate that an approach that works for one individual would also work for another? It certainly would not be a medically reasonable idea.

            Also, I think you should get yourself a functional keyboard.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Bullshit. People are nkt like each other at all in sphere.

            And I'm done wasting my time talking to you.

            We are all unique. Like snowflakes as the ither anon said earlier.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >And I'm done wasting my time talking to you.
            Thank god, I was worrying a little how long I had to endure this. This conversation was starting to hurt my head and your broken keyboard didn't help.

            >We are all unique.
            I think you are quite the special one. Me? I'm a little special too, but probably not that special, or differently special at least. But I have no doubts that there are others like me.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I think you are quite the special one. Me? I'm a little special too
            We are not special we are all unique. literall like even on a biological level.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >We are not special we are all unique. literall like even on a biological level.
            We are not snowflakes anon. There is nothing unique about that other people don't have.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            LOOK AT YPUR FINGERTIPS YOU ASSHAT!!!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What you mean? I don't get it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He's probrably pointing out the fact that everyone's fingerprints are unique and no one ever has the same. Kind of... In a way like a snowflake.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Damn... That's true. That's why they are used for security and stuff right.

            Damn... I guess we are unique in away.

          • 1 month ago
            MKG

            >I didn't have training as a therapist
            We know anon.

            >but I had cognitive behavioural therapy. Did you?
            A few individuals I have known have recieved it. How exactly did your having received your individual CBT treatment indicate to you that no therapist ever develops an individual treatment plan?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >A few individuals I have known have recieved it.
            But you are neither a CBT therapist nor someone who underwent therapy yet you are trying to lecture me on methodology on the basis of me lacking credentials?

            >no therapist ever develops an individual treatment plan
            What exactly is your intention here? To somehow question the notion that there are patterns to human behaviour - some of these patterns being documented as psychopathologies that therapists look for and diagnose based on specific criteria (and they have to, because insurance will look into their diagnoses) - based on the fact that a therapist will have to address the concrete issue at an individual basis? Of course there will be an individuality to people. An anxiety disorder can be very specific and it needs a specific therapy to address the specific issue. But that does not mean that there is no such thing as anxiety disorders and that there are commonalities between the specific anxiety disorder of that specific patient and others - there has to be for it to qualify as an anxiety disorder.

            Are you moronic?

          • 1 month ago
            MKG

            >What exactly is your intention here?
            To refute this:

            >Those patterns are unique ti the individuals.
            Their expression may vary in the sense that not every variant assumes the same form and expresses the same phenomenology, but they still meet certain criteria; in fact they are diagnosed based on those. If there were no pattern to them, you wouldn't even have a catalogue which tells you which mental disorder expresses itself in what way.

            >You will never find a psychologist of respectable reputation saying Man are X and women are Y.
            I think I made myself clear in [...].

            >And to close of psychology unlike other sciences vary anlot depending on the approach.
            I am well aware of that fact.

            >The mkst scientific one CBT literally threats every case as it's own unique thing observing patterns on the person itself and not on people at large.
            And any CBT therapist will treat the very same disorders as any other therapist. They don't come up with new ones for every individual.

            >any CBT therapist will treat the very same disorders as any other therapist. They don't come up with new ones for every individual.
            With this:

            >can be very specific and it needs a specific therapy to address the specific issue.

            Also, to go back to the source:

            >NTA but the view of "I'm just describing what women like" would always be wrong anyway, because "Women" aren't "Sarah" who likes blond hair and tan guys, or "Stacey" who does like abusive buttholes and it turns her on. Saying "Women" is making a blanket statement of half the entirety of humanity.
            This was one of the earliest arguments I've addressed. Human behaviour is not random but it follows patterns. Most traits are normally distributed and most people are more 'like' each other than they are different. While a statement like "Women are X" is probably false because you'll be able to find a representative of Women for whom X does not apply, a statement like "Women tend to be X" or "There is a reasonable likelihood associated for women to be X", can be correct indeed.

            >If you look at any poorer country, it's likely women will want a stable man. If you look into richer countries, women don't tend to select for people who could ensure their survival, because they can ensure their own survival. Gee what a fricking mystery.
            This is measurably false. Even successful women - who are well capable of supporting an entire family on their own - express a strong preference for men who have a reasonable income of their own. And when it comes to selecting for people that express traits correlated with physical health, height, dominance in intrasexual competition, etc. - what is that if not selecting for people who could ensure their survival?

            >Men and Women, tend to select for familiarity. Someone who can mimmick the traits their parents exibited
            I don't find that questionable at all, but you'd have to control for whether they are selecting for 'familiarity' or whether they're merely selecting for the same traits that ended up making their mother attracted to their father.

            >a statement like "Women tend to be X" or "There is a reasonable likelihood associated for women to be X", can be correct indeed.
            I can also be incorrect. There are a tremendous amount of factors and qualifiers involved.
            Generally speaking, speaking generally is generally unhelpful, pointless, and simply makes the speaker seem foolish. Especially with something as individual as psychology.

          • 1 month ago
            MKG

            >I can also be incorrect
            *It* can also be incorrect

            Heh that's funny

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >any CBT therapist will treat the very same disorders as any other therapist. They don't come up with new ones for every individual.

            What do you think does this sentence express? It does not mean that you won't have one patient who is afraid of spiders who needs a therapy for dealing with his spider phobia, and maybe he is a social guy, so you advise him to go group therapy, and rather than direct exposure, he's supposed to look at videos or something.

            No, it expresses that these therapists treat the very same 'classes' of disorders, i.e. social anxiety, schizoid personality disorder, avoidant personality disorder, bipolar disorder, depression, etc. etc. etc.

            And I can only stress again: they HAVE to classify their diagnoses since these disorders aren't just random things the therapist made up on the spot but they are specified in official manuals which list criteria that need to be manifested in the patient to be diagnosed. If the patient does not exhibit these, the therapist can't simply claim that the patient 'actually' has this or that, or some kind of 'new' disorder, since the patient's insurance company might refuse payment. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about because you are neither a therapist, nor someone who underwent therapy, nor someone who even bothered to look into the specifics. Why are you wasting my time, forcing me to educate you on something that you can look up yourself in a wikipedia article? It's not like this is a controversial subject - wikipedia is a reasonable source here.

            >Generally speaking, speaking generally is generally unhelpful, pointless, and simply makes the speaker seem foolish.
            Do you have any scientific background at all? I'm somehow suspecting you don't. Or rather: I hope you don't.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >just random things the therapist made up on the spot
            They were at some point.

            And new ones are made all the time since DSM books need ti be selling.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That might as well be the case but it's still something that happens along official pathways. It (hopefully) involves some kind of study. I'm actually not too certain what the specific methodology there is, with psychology being a bit wonky at times, but the point is: it's not just something along the lines of unique special snowflake definitions that only apply to this one specific patient but it is usually included with the expectation that there are more people 'like' that, so their issues can be diagnosed and treated.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Just these days people are comming up with maldapative day dreaming. Clearly a real thing that has no data or literature on it in the scientific sense.

            You are blinded by academia.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I think you're being a moron too because I'm not making a case in favour of academia. Their definitions might as well be bullshit - I don't care. My point is: they're not random and they're meant to represent general cases that are intended to be diagnosed in more than one person.

          • 1 month ago
            MKG

            >>any CBT therapist will treat the very same disorders as any other therapist. They don't come up with new ones for every individual.
            The term "new ones" here can be taken to mean "new treatments" not "new disorders".

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I am very sceptical whether the average therapist would attempt 'new' approaches. He might individualise the approach in the sense that a guy who's not good with people would get one-on-one sessions, or someone who's built robust enough might be able to endure some harsher exposure, but the general approaches would probably be based on established forms of therapy for the diagnosed issues. While psychotherapy can be a bit of a wonky field that is not as regulated as 'proper' medicine - as far as I know at least - I'd also be surprised if you could just attempt any bonkers approach without risking to lose your licence. This depends on the country of course.

          • 1 month ago
            MKG

            >I am very sceptical whether the average therapist would attempt 'new' approaches. He might individualise the approach
            >individuals you haven't met before are not "new"
            You are now tangenting into the semantics of the definition of "new".

            See

            >As I said: if you want to convince me that I'm delusional
            Read my post again.
            [...]
            >delusional people think they are being realistic when they are not

            That you posted words words words cope in response makes you transparent.
            If you think that I care about arguing with you, that proves you are delusional.

            >That you posted words words words cope in response makes you transparent.

            Good luck seeking further pointless arguments on the internet, argue anon.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You are now tangenting into the semantics of the definition of "new".
            No, not at all. I'm telling you that even if you're referring to new treatments you're still wrong and you're still not refuting the underlying concept of finding patterns in human behaviour upon which the entire field of psychology is built.

            >Good luck seeking further pointless arguments on the internet
            Why are you telling me? You're wasting my time - not the other way around.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >And any CBT therapist will treat the very same disorders as any other therapist. They don't come up with new ones for every individual.
            Hey doc you see I have problem with drinking... and I can't stop drinking...

            "Say no more. Since youbare female you have a higher chance of drinking wine so..."

            Sorry, not wine... Beer.

            "And as I was saying since patters are inherently and human beings have no free will..."

            Kek you would be a terrible psychologist.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I think you're misrepresenting my position or confusing me with someone else.

            The fact that essential traits are correlated with all sorts of things does not mean one has to view them as imperative. And recognising that people are not always in charge of their actions and most certainly not in charge of their desires, their emotions, etc. is a very solid basis that any good therapist would probably share.

            People who go to a therapist are obviously deviants, they don't represent the norm. But the fact that deviants exist does not mean that there aren't general patterns to human behaviour. In the end, people are more like each other than they are different.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >People who go to a therapist are obviously deviants
            No they aren't. Everyone can benefit from therapy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I think so too, but that does not refute my point.

            Most people - especially men - who end up in therapy probably ended up their since their deviant psychology results in them being at odds with the world. Few people are willing to afford an expensive talking session for no good reason.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Most people - especially men - who end up in therapy probably ended up their since their deviant psychology results in them being at odds with the world
            No they don't. Stop taking "facts" out of your ass specially if they are nonsense. Prove this. Prove this to me.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You don't think the price tag is a hurdle for people to get psychotherapy as a wellness treatment rather than to tackle an underlying psychopathology? I find it fascinating that we are even arguing this. And when it comes to men there is plenty of evidence that there are social stigma attached to undergoing therapy which would raise the hurdle for them. Take a look at this for example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212657023000296.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You don't think the price tag is a hurdle for people to get psychotherapy
            I dunno my country has free healthcare.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Even in countries with socialised healthcare (and I'm certain you pay for it somehow - or you will be paying if you get to a point where you're making money), you'll still have to motivate why you're taking up a therapist's time (who could be helping someone who needs it more than you) and why the general public should pay for your therapy.

            It's a big leap to say that because social stigma, only or mostly "deviants" go to therapy.

            I think you're nitpicking language here. I said myself that I'm one of those deviants. My point is: for a man to go to therapy, bad things need to happen first. And this is not a controversial thing to say, it's well backed by data.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Even in countries with socialised healthcare (and I'm certain you pay for it somehow - or you will be paying if you get to a point where you're making money), you'll still have to motivate why you're taking up a therapist's time (who could be helping someone who needs it more than you) and why the general public should pay for your therapy.
            You are moving the goal post.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What the frick are you even talking about? First of all: there are countries where you got to pay. Second of all, even in countries where you don't have to pay, there might be good reasons why you want private healthcare over public healthcare. For reasons of availability for example. I live in a comparably wealthy western European country and if you're trying to get therapy here, you might have to wait for over a year until you get therapy at a therapist that is officially licenced for public healthcare. That is why pretty much anyone who needs it and who can afford it will get private healthcare.

            You're clearly talking about something you have zero experience with.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >it's well backed by data.
            Show us. Show usbthe data where it says devianst men go to therapy while "normal" man dont.

            Show us. Those categories don't even exist. What even is normal kek.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Did you miss the part where I accused you of nitpicking language? I can only repeat: if you have issue with the term deviant, replace it with something less offensive in your mind. If you're not a moron you should be able to do that. Otherwise I point you to

            You don't think the price tag is a hurdle for people to get psychotherapy as a wellness treatment rather than to tackle an underlying psychopathology? I find it fascinating that we are even arguing this. And when it comes to men there is plenty of evidence that there are social stigma attached to undergoing therapy which would raise the hurdle for them. Take a look at this for example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212657023000296.

            . Click the link and educate yourself. Men being reluctant to get therapy is hardly a controversial thing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Did you miss the part where I accused you of nitpicking language? I
            Show us how only _____ men go to therapy. While _____ usualy dont.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If there is a higher hurdle for men to partake in therapy, what do you think helps them surmount those hurdles if not shit hitting the fan? Are you moronic as well?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If there is a higher hurdle for men to partake in therapy, what do you think helps them surmount those hurdles if not shit hitting the fan?
            There are thousand of other factors.

            I would argue that well adjusted men with a support group and loving oarents/family members would mlre often go to therapy since they are insentivisied to dk it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I would argue that well adjusted men with a support group and loving oarents/family members would mlre often go to therapy since they are insentivisied to dk it.
            Yes, quite possible.

            You really need to do something about that keyboard of yours.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, quite possible.
            So you were wrong. You were pulling favts out of your ass with no bases on reality and acting as if they were self evident.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >So you were wrong.
            No, one does not follow the other. The fact that well adjusted men with a support group, etc. are more likely to undergo therapy does not mean that they're not 'also' the cases who exhausted all other options.

            Besides - do you have any data for that? I'm certain you're guessing as much as I am.

            Not to mention: I'm talking from personal experience here since I am a man who went to therapy. While the anecdote does not refute the statistic, I'd say it's better than what you currently have.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >do you have any data for that? I'm certain you're guessing as much as I am.
            Ifnyou bullshit ass logic is ok do is mine. I think the argument is compelling enought.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Ifnyou bullshit ass logic is ok do is mine.
            Are you phoneposting with your feet or how does that happen all the time?

            >I think the argument is compelling enought.
            I'm not even in disagreement with you here. But I think my argument is compelling as well. Not to mention that they are not mutually exclusive. And I can only repeat: from personal experience I can tell you that I 'had' exhausted all other options before subjecting myself to therapy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Damn... I had never reflected om that. Weird. Uncanny even.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Click the link and educate yourself. Men being reluctant to get therapy is hardly a controversial thing.
            That study doesn't say that ____ men go more than ___ men.

            That's YOUR personal conjecture.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What do you think is the difference between the men who undergo therapy and those who don't if not a greater severity of the case? Certainly it also correlates with IQ, education, money (you need to be able to afford it), but I'd be surprised if severity was not a factor as well.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's a big leap to say that because social stigma, only or mostly "deviants" go to therapy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >And any CBT therapist will treat the very same disorders as any other therapist.
            Not really many therapists do away with diagnoses all together and focus on thwir emotion base stuff. It's quite interesting.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't find that questionable at all, but you'd have to control for whether they are selecting for 'familiarity' or whether they're merely selecting for the same traits that ended up making their mother attracted to their father.
            To clarify: what do adoption studies have to say about that? We do know that things like divorce or promiscuity are actually quite heritable. I don't see why that wouldn't apply to partner preference.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >a statement like "Women tend to be X" or "There is a reasonable likelihood associated for women to be X", can be correct indeed.
            This is bullshit. And you can't prove that's real.

            Human beings are all unique individuals with thwir own histories and experiences.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            People don't live that different lives given roughly comparable socio-economic backgrounds (and even then, the degree of want in first world countries is luckily limited) and to which extent lived experience affects our preferences is something that is not nearly as decided as you seem to think it is. In fact, I hold a fairly hereditarian position in that regard.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Bs.

            Burden of proof is on you. Peiple are just prople. We are all unique individuals, women do all sort of stuff so does men.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If there is no pattern to human behaviour, how come psychology is a thing?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Because psychology studies individuals?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Bs.

            Burden of proof is on you. Peiple are just prople. We are all unique individuals, women do all sort of stuff so does men.

            I understand where each of you is coming from but it's clear there's obvious patterns of behavior people fall into. People are predictable.
            That doesn't mean they're not complex though and

            Bs.

            Burden of proof is on you. Peiple are just prople. We are all unique individuals, women do all sort of stuff so does men.

            is right when he says that everyone is unique. Psychological patterns of behavior can only be predicted when you actuall have an actual well developed profile of the person (when you know them or are smart enough to make an assession with little information. even then, you're just making a prediction that doesn't use facts but rather probabilities).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >even then, you're just making a prediction that doesn't use facts but rather probabilities).
            I think I made the probabilistic nature of things crystal clear:

            As I said in

            >NTA but the view of "I'm just describing what women like" would always be wrong anyway, because "Women" aren't "Sarah" who likes blond hair and tan guys, or "Stacey" who does like abusive buttholes and it turns her on. Saying "Women" is making a blanket statement of half the entirety of humanity.
            This was one of the earliest arguments I've addressed. Human behaviour is not random but it follows patterns. Most traits are normally distributed and most people are more 'like' each other than they are different. While a statement like "Women are X" is probably false because you'll be able to find a representative of Women for whom X does not apply, a statement like "Women tend to be X" or "There is a reasonable likelihood associated for women to be X", can be correct indeed.

            >If you look at any poorer country, it's likely women will want a stable man. If you look into richer countries, women don't tend to select for people who could ensure their survival, because they can ensure their own survival. Gee what a fricking mystery.
            This is measurably false. Even successful women - who are well capable of supporting an entire family on their own - express a strong preference for men who have a reasonable income of their own. And when it comes to selecting for people that express traits correlated with physical health, height, dominance in intrasexual competition, etc. - what is that if not selecting for people who could ensure their survival?

            >Men and Women, tend to select for familiarity. Someone who can mimmick the traits their parents exibited
            I don't find that questionable at all, but you'd have to control for whether they are selecting for 'familiarity' or whether they're merely selecting for the same traits that ended up making their mother attracted to their father.

            >This was one of the earliest arguments I've addressed. Human behaviour is not random but it follows patterns. Most traits are normally distributed and most people are more 'like' each other than they are different. While a statement like "Women are X" is probably false because you'll be able to find a representative of Women for whom X does not apply, a statement like "Women tend to be X" or "There is a reasonable likelihood associated for women to be X", can be correct indeed.

            To argue I made deterministic statements is - and has always been - a misrepresentation of my position.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Tell us something men "tend" to do.

            And I will describe to you as it's probrably social and not organic or biological.

            And how just as the same women are not biologically predisposed to be... Whatever you say they are cause I can't quite recall at this point.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Tell us something men "tend" to do.

            >And I will describe to you as it's probrably social and not organic or biological.

            Commit more crime.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >traumatized women going after psychopaths doesn't seem so fricking mysterious does it
            I think it's more that dark triad trait men exhibit traits that are 'also' attractive in regular men, just to a pathological extent. I'm very sceptical whether this preference only exists in trauma victims and I'd like to see some evidence for it. That being said: I'm not OP, I'm not the guy who claimed women only go for bad people and I questioned OP in this very thread on his claims:

            Dark triad traits are successful when it comes to short-term mating but I've yet to see data which confirms long-term success. Do you have something on your hands?

            . I don't think psychopathological men are more successful sexually in terms of long-term relationships.

            >Suddently more education oriented looking for education oriented men doesn't seem so mysterious either.
            That too is something I'm somewhat sceptical about. I'm generally more inclined towards explanations of behavioural genetics and think they typically yield more convincing and reproducible results.

            Overall, I think I'm a lot more moderate in my positions than you think I am.

            But you never clarified your actual views.

            See

            >NTA but the view of "I'm just describing what women like" would always be wrong anyway, because "Women" aren't "Sarah" who likes blond hair and tan guys, or "Stacey" who does like abusive buttholes and it turns her on. Saying "Women" is making a blanket statement of half the entirety of humanity.
            This was one of the earliest arguments I've addressed. Human behaviour is not random but it follows patterns. Most traits are normally distributed and most people are more 'like' each other than they are different. While a statement like "Women are X" is probably false because you'll be able to find a representative of Women for whom X does not apply, a statement like "Women tend to be X" or "There is a reasonable likelihood associated for women to be X", can be correct indeed.

            >If you look at any poorer country, it's likely women will want a stable man. If you look into richer countries, women don't tend to select for people who could ensure their survival, because they can ensure their own survival. Gee what a fricking mystery.
            This is measurably false. Even successful women - who are well capable of supporting an entire family on their own - express a strong preference for men who have a reasonable income of their own. And when it comes to selecting for people that express traits correlated with physical health, height, dominance in intrasexual competition, etc. - what is that if not selecting for people who could ensure their survival?

            >Men and Women, tend to select for familiarity. Someone who can mimmick the traits their parents exibited
            I don't find that questionable at all, but you'd have to control for whether they are selecting for 'familiarity' or whether they're merely selecting for the same traits that ended up making their mother attracted to their father.

            and this post.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I think it's more that dark triad trait men exhibit traits that are 'also' attractive in regular men, just to a pathological extent. I'm very sceptical whether this preference only exists in trauma victims and I'd like to see some evidence for it.
            Women, like men, enjoy excitement. Selecting for someone who will role play rape with you, or dominating you isn't the same as actually letting yourself be victimized constantly by a new man. There's a difference between "play" and actually filling the role of an actual victim in a real situation. Every person who engages in BSDM seriously understands consent, therefore even if you find a Dom attractive that doesn't mean you want an actual master and you want to be a slave.
            It's just a form of chasing excitement.
            I also don't think most mentally stable men who'd love to see their wives/gfs in a submissive position in sexual contextes actually want them to be degraded unironically in front of other people.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't disagree with anything you said.

            My point is that dark triad men exhibit attractive traits which makes them seem exciting and attractive. I believe certain mental disorders also make women more attractive to men, since ultimately - these behaviours are also exhibited by healthy people, where they are often regarded as desirable. The pathological nature of these people only manifests over time.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            As I said in

            >There is substantial data that certain psychopathologies make men more attractive as short-term partners.
            Then that has nothing to do with partner selection, it's more about casual hook-ups. Men do the same shit with BPD women all the time.
            It's just that these people look like candy, and when you're in a "frick it" mentality where you don't actually are aiming to build a life with someone, you know go for the apparently shiny thing. This is not hard to understand. It also has no basis of comparison to selection of a partner for life.

            , there's certainly traits that are "candy-like" both for men and women.
            Naive men/women fall for this shit more easily, and usually happens in Highschool or Uni that people will fall for the BPD girl or the actual Psycho guy, They're not attracted to the abuse. They're attracted to for example a BDP girl feeling more "real" with her feelings, or a Psycho guy being more mysterious.
            When people select for life partners they're more cautious and have gathered enough experience by then to understand red flags. You see a lot in people who marry to young end up regretting it once their partner exhibits really bad behaviour (being an abusive butthole). People also tend to marry too young and too early when celibacy is a big part of their culture.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't disagree with you here either.

          • 1 month ago
            MKG

            >nah bro, muh delusions are all true

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            As I said: if you want to convince me that I'm delusional you'll have to provide a bit more than a mere claim.

          • 1 month ago
            MKG

            >As I said: if you want to convince me that I'm delusional
            Read my post again.

            >A positive person's mindset is usually reality-denying.
            So is a negative person's mindset. That is the point.

            It is just that delusional people think they are being realistic when they are not.

            >delusional people think they are being realistic when they are not

            That you posted words words words cope in response makes you transparent.
            If you think that I care about arguing with you, that proves you are delusional.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, not at all. You made a dumb argument and I refuted it with a good argument of reason.

            That you accuse me of coping is amusing given the fact that you're already recognising your lost position, trying to save face by claiming you didn't care about this argument you've been involved in, wasting literal hours of your precious time on this earth.

          • 1 month ago
            MKG

            >You made an argument
            Nope.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But you are only providing a claim yourself. An absurd one.

            What exatally is your point?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You are the biggest coping liar I have ever seen.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >A positive person's mindset is usually reality-denying. They believe that everything will be ok if they click their heels and think happy thoughts. They can be equally, if not more, toxic than negative people.
            Both are not accessing things PROPERLY the fact you can't see it is really funny and tragic.

            A negative person's mindset is usually reality-denying. They believe that everything will be terrible and hopeless if they click their heels and think sad and unhappy thoughts.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >300+ replies
    >23 posters
    Imagine if OP spent half the effort and time he does whining on the internet on actually improving himself.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Proving the point. You do not want a girlfriend. You only want excuses for validating your whining.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You don't own a home or car, you're not fit, you don't have a job, nobody likes you because you are an insufferable whiny c**t.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            seethe

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    modern women are GARBAGE.

    MAKE THEM SEETHE OP THEY HATE ACCOUNTABILITY.

    t. married

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How would you know how "modern women" are compared to the ones from previous generations?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If men are to believed, women have always been shit. We just used to not let them get away with it.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Women are individuals and not a collective.

    /thread.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *