Was I psyopped about women?

I got "blackpilled" about women a couple years ago with all those statistics and videos but I'm starting to wonder if this was just some sort of tunnelvision on one specific type of woman? I've lurked female dominated forums before and seen what they say about men which to me as a man sounds ridiculous since I'm nothing like that which means maybe a lot of women aren't like the blackpill? I'm just asking. Did I miss out on young love as a 19 year old or was there no point anyway? Genuinely asking.

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've psyopped yourself. the secret to getting women is to look presentable and to talk to them (most important part).
    100% of incels are guys who never bothered trying to talk to girls and get to know them and instead make excuses. Yes, the blackpill is scientifically real but women are emotional creatures so if you actually manage to capture their interest they will overlook even the reddest of flags

    >Did I miss out on young love as a 19 year old or was there no point anyway?
    young love is just a name for carefree love where you get to explore together. You can still have it at 19 if you find a girl who is as sexually inexperienced as you (they do exist but they exponentially decrease in numbers far faster than men)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >100% of incels are guys who never bothered trying to talk to girls and get to know them and instead make excuses.

      Don't listen to this moron, OP

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        But as I said in the OP it all seems like tunnelvision. Obviously that guy will have a very hard time dating but I don't look like that. But I've still been told that me, average, isn't enough and that all women want chad.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That's why I said be brave and approach one.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm scared of rejection and humiliation though

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Stop being a coward and find out.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >race mixing as the solution
            It really is over.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Get over it. Every man who has ever gotten laid has also been rejected.

            ?feature=shared

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >james white
            >isn't white

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >pic related is too ugly to talk to girls
        Dude facially has essentially the same skin and facial structure as Ronnie Coleman if Ronnie
        >didn't have an ounce of muscle on him.
        >had a chubby, un-exercised face that hid his jaw
        >badly needed a haircut
        >put zero effort into his drip or appearance
        Ronnie never went wanting for women despite being virtually unknown outside of bodybuilding circles, because after he put the time in, the full package was much more than just the face, and women were into it. Even for this guy, there is a route to success.

        I'm not going to pretend like this guy's route for success isn't substantially harderm but don't act like there isn't an element of self-sabotage at play either - if you look like the guy in your picture, you've still typically got a lot of elements in your control if you genuinely want to make getting laid a personal priority.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Man you cant put some random homie on the same level as Ronnie frickin Coleman

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The difference between him and Ronnie fricking coleman is that Ronnie fricking coleman put in Ronnie fricking Coleman levels of work, whereas he clearly hasn't even put one day in because he's still got that yee-yee-ass haircut despite having enough concerns about his appearance to post to /r/amiugly

            This [...] is what guys mean when they say dating is hard for some men. You have to dump thousands of hours into self improvement just to qualify for a mid b***h, if that.

            Getting laid is always work, it's only a question of how much, and it's definitely not thousands. For context, a THOUSAND hours of exercise over a year is 3 hours of time at the gym daily. Assuming you're eating right, 3 hours a day at the gym is an insane, life-changing amount of exercise - even Ronnie Coleman was only doing about 2 hours a day.

            For most incels, they're not even keeping to a sustainable routine like ONE hour, three times a week with good programming. A routine like that, kept consistently and eating right, generally means you're gonna have big shoulders, a six pack, and strong arms, which is a drastic appearance improvement. When someone is whining like "woe is me I can't get laid" and they're not even willing to put in 100 hours a year towards getting laid, ESPECIALLY when they spend like 20 hours a week on NSFFW or twitter or whatever, I don't have a lot of sympathy, they live in a hell of their own creation.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Ronnie fricking coleman put in Ronnie fricking Coleman levels of work
            He also roided.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            First, you don't get ronnie tier roid results without putting in ronnie tier levels of work - second, bodybuilders seek to push the boundaries of what's even physically achievable as a human, regardless of whether or not it could be done naturally. If your goal is

            >I just want to look substantially better in a bar or on a dating app pic
            You definitely don't need to roid to get there, and honestly, you probably wouldn't even want to if you could because most women just want "toned", not "freakishly strong looking" or "bodybuilder-huge"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Putting in Ronnie levels of work requires a Ronnie levels of personality and Ronnie levels of genetics in terms of being able to gain muscle as well as muscle aesthetics. All of these things are largely heritable. You don't 'become' Ronnie Coleman you are 'born' Ronnie Coleman.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Holy crap dude get your eyes checked they look nothing alike

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He's lecturing incels on the internet so he's probably a privileged white guy and black people all look the same to him.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That's why I said be brave and approach one.

        Nobody cares about Black folk and non whites frick off

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How do you talk to women?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >if you actually manage to capture their interest they will overlook even the reddest of flags
      This is completely true.

      But what do you think "captures their interest"?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        it's true but men do the same thing if the woman is extremely hot or their type

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Of course. The difference is: men are not in denial about it. Also, men are much less choosy, so you'll encounter fewer women who won't be able to find just anyone. Even the ugliest girls will find themselves desired by someone (even if they don't take them up on their offer because they too obviously want Chad).

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Put it to a test.
    Be brave, approach a woman, and put yourself out there. You'll either validate your preconceived notions or disprove them.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      how do i get this? not even the kissing part but just the running fingers through your hair like a mommy and telling you you're good enough

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        By getting her drunk

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Step 1: be attractive
        Step 2: don't be unattractive
        notice that I didn't say "good-looking".

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        have you tried being good enough? no, your height doesn't matter.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Blackpill is mostly bullshit anon, it's made by and for incels who have never had positive experiences with women. Instead of bettering themselves they choose to stew in negativity.
    I have pulled myself out of inceldom and had really beautiful experiences with women.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Blackpill is mostly bullshit anon
      Why is it matched most closely by empiric data then? Are those researchers incels?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I've seen a lot of the research, none of it supports the conclusions that blackpillers draw. The research provides trendlines and then blackpillers use that to say that it's over for average men.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >I've seen a lot of the research
          Is that so? Research on what? Why not be more specific?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Post empiric data so I can laugh at you more. Maybe go talk to a real woman instead of looking at spreadsheets about why you can’t get lead

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What kind of moron are you? Sure anyone can talk to women. But how a strange women will react to your flirting is a function of raw looks or lack of raw looks.

          Unless you’re Chad absolutely don’t approach random women expressing that you want to sex them up or date them. First off most attractive women are taken most of the time. Second when average men hit on woman randomly, women don’t like it.

          If you’re an average man you have to get a women after lots of rejection on OOL or from leads via your social circle in real life.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >if you’re an average man you have to get a women after lots of rejection on OOL or from leads via your social circle in real life.
            What’s wrong with this lol, this is the way most people meet and talk to women. the No one is doing pickup artist bs irl unless they are extremely good looking, it’s an abnormality. What point are you even trying to make here?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            anyone who listens to this is moronic. It's all about the vibe you bring. Be fun to be around and women will want to be around you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Be fun to be around and women will want to be around you.
            Being "fun" is a function of looks.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            We don't know if they have better personalities because they've been treated better all their life or if looks are all that matter.
            Probably both tbh

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I’ve always wondered this too. It’s entirely possible that a lifetime of adoration makes you a friendlier person.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's far more likely to make you an insane psychopath who gets away with astonshing amounts of abuse by looking good.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's far more likely to make you an insane psychopath who gets away with astonshing amounts of abuse by looking good.

            even if it doesn't make you friendlier, the extra social experience would make you better at hiding your flaws

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Pic related, on dating apps, being "fun" is almost exclusively a function of looks because that's how the environment is structured, not because that's how things actually work in real life. You can date outside these environments, and if you choose to date within them, if you know the game you're playing, the game is gameable.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you choose to date within them
            incels don't CHOOSE to use online dating, it's their only option

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's not true, incels can totally push through and ignore years of social rejection and ostracization and ignore all the signs of being at the bottom of the socio-sexual pecking order and confidently ask girls out and it's gonna go great!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So true. They really need to turn that frown upside down and just go outside !

            I never really understood the meme about people getting zero matches on dating apps being able to somehow charm women in person. If anything dating apps let unattractive men get rejected at a far higher rate than what could ever be achieved in person until they maybe hit the lottery with an ugly woman on one. It's the ultimate way to play the "number's game" PUA anons are always going on about.

            Well, if you are physically quite dull your personality could still help you IRL whereas you will never even get the chance to show your personality on dating apps because they won't match you.
            I think it's good advice for below-average normies but definitely not for incels. Even if they had a great personality (they don't), if they are too ugly it was over before the approach started.

            Why is that their only option?
            I get that they don't know women or have friends or go out or have a social life...but that was also their choice.

            Sorry I wasn't quite correct.
            Their only options are online dating OR cold approaching. Neither will work for an incel as they are too ugly and autistic for both.

            Do you seriously think incels choose to have no friends, know no women and never go out ?

            If you are ugly and weird/autistic, it doesn't matter what you want. Nobody wants to have anything to do with you, even as a child.
            If women think you're creepy and gross good luck having a social circle. Women will avoid you like the plague and the men will follow them.

            AT BEST, they have other incel autistic friends, in which case I definitely think they should try to go out and have fun as a group.

            I'm not saying all incels have it this bad, but there are definitely some unsalvageable ones.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > Even if they had a great personality (they don't), if they are too ugly it was over before the approach started.
            Ok, so if they have a bad personality they should perform even worse in person than on an app where it's impossible to know lol

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > Even if they had a great personality (they don't), if they are too ugly it was over before the approach started.
            Ok, so if they have a bad personality they should perform even worse in person than on an app where it's impossible to know lol

            Oh wait you were agreeing with my mb

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Neither will work for an incel as they are too ugly and autistic for both.
            Ok well if that's really the case then they probably *shouldn't* be dating then, so what's the problem?
            >Do you seriously think incels choose to have no friends, know no women and never go out ?
            Yes, I do. Unironically.
            To be sure, they might not even realize they're choosing not to have these things, but their actions (or lack thereof) says it all. And it's not about being ugly, or weird. Plenty of ugly and weird people have friends. These guys are a specific breed who can't make friends at all, not even with other weird ugly autists.
            What that tells me is it's not actually about being ugly or weird at all. It's about these guys being completely undersocialized and having one or more crippling personality flaws that, at least thus far in their lives, they have refused to address.
            >AT BEST, they have other incel autistic friends, in which case I definitely think they should try to go out and have fun as a group.
            Ok fair, I agree with that part. I was already wording my response before I got to this bit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Ok well if that's really the case then they probably *shouldn't* be dating then
            Anti-blackpiller accidentally discovers the blackpill ep. 482

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >what's the problem?
            There is no problem
            They are incels and they literally just cannot date.
            You were asking why online dating is their only option so I was simply describing their situation factually. Nobody is interested in them so the most they can do is create a profile or harass strangers in the street.

            >These guys are a specific breed who can't make friends at all, not even with other weird ugly autists.
            This is why I defend incels on /adv/ to be honest. I never had friends even though I'm neither ugly nor weird so I don't even want to imagine if I were.
            You don't just "address your issues". If you have no outside support whatsoever and you keep getting negative feedback you are not going to improve even if you want to.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >if that's really the case then they probably *shouldn't* be dating then

            >incels have successfully blackpilled the guy who came here to challenge them on blackpill ideology

            The black pill is too powerful.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            My friend, you either misconstrue my argument or that of the incels. I never said that some of these guys have any business dating at all.
            All I've said is I'd like them to, please, finally just shut the frick up about it and move on.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not your friend, buddy. And if you agree with the fact that heritable traits predict how attractive one appears to the opposite gender, meaning that it's over for those who don't manifest them to a sufficient degree, then I don't see what you're doing in this thread. If you don't want to be bothered, simply go elsewhere.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If you don't want to be bothered, simply go elsewhere.
            Ah yes, because incels are so prone to not invade every board and thread here and make it about them, right? Everything you guys do is just whining at best, recruiting for the cult at worst. That's why I step in, to try and save those would-be incels from you before you gays get your hooks into them and there's no going back.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And how are you going to do that if you can't even challenge the ideology and find yourself agreeing with them?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What ideology? That they're ugly?
            Why is that such a problem? You can still get women if you're ugly, albeit you might have to work harder and get luckier. But there are plenty of ugly guys with women out there. Again, a key tenant of incel philosophy is that women supposedly find *most* men ugly, and yet most men are still able to get women. Incels can never reconcile this, only cope and seethe about it.
            The reality is that most of them are completely worthless and irredeemable on multiple levels, and aren't good looking enough to make up for it and coast by doing nothing the way they'd like to.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >women supposedly find *most* men ugly, and yet most men are still able to get women
            Get women to what extent? Two thirds of young men are single, yet only one third of young women are. Obviously there are various levels of "ugly". Women will date truly average men (whether they love them and won't cheat/divcore is another question), but they generally will not go further down the ladder than that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You can still get women if you're ugly, albeit you might have to work harder and get luckier
            The ability to work hard and the talents that are required for your hard work to count are just as heritable as your good looks.

            >But there are plenty of ugly guys with women out there
            And you base this on what? Anecdotal evidence? The fact that a rich and famous Hollywood actor or accomplished writer has a hot wife?

            >women supposedly find *most* men ugly, and yet most men are still able to get women
            'most' could be anything, from 90% to 51% - what matters is that the part that doesn't is growing. Men are experiencing the dating market as growingly more competitive. The fact that Andrew Tate is the second most influential account on twitter, that dating podcasts top the charts is an expression of that. And there is plenty of data which supports that fact. Incels are merely the tip of the iceberg.

            >The reality is that most of them are completely worthless and irredeemable on multiple levels
            Yes. Women are getting choosier and incels are merely the guys who are the first to fall below the threshold. But that doesn't mean that it's stopping there and that other men aren't feeling the growing pressure as well.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The root reason is cope. Incels want to fool themselves into thinking they are normal, average guys. They keep lying to themselves that the majority of men are just like them. They cannot accept the truth, that they are absolutely the bottom of the barrel tier men. They are even more afraid of accepting the other truth, that they could get out of inceldom by stopping to be such garbage tier males.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I like how you've completely given up on arguing that it's just in their heads and a nice hair cut and trying a little harder could fix their problems and you've assumed what is essentially a black pill position.

            I don't think the incels are in denial about being bottom of the barrel - that is why they are incels.

            When it comes to average men however, there is quite a bit of data that things aren't getting easier for them but that hoeflation is creeping up and more and more people are becoming incels by the day. And because of that felt pressure you see more red- and blackpill content dominate the charts and Andrew Tate being the second most influential account on twitter.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You keep saying there is a lot of data but never post any. Anecdotes you read on incel forums are not data.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No problem Anon. Here:

            >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

            >hoeflation
            Using this word automatically reveals you to be a low IQ basement dwelling incel.

            That's what it is. Women are getting choosier. See the data above.

            >I don't think the incels are in denial about being bottom of the barrel - that is why they are incels.
            NTA
            they ARE in denial about *WHY* they are the bottom of the barrel.
            80% of WHY they are bottom of the barrel is in their heads.
            Another 20% is how they act/dress/etc.

            This is measurably untrue. Look for example at the data I posted above.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            LMFAO
            You're looking at data about GEN X?!?!
            OK, junior, history lesson time
            The period of time when Gen X was aged 18-40, the prime marrying years, was when the US/West experienced
            -the highest sustained unemployment rates of all time, including the Great Depression
            -The highest inflation of all time
            -The second largest bank collapse in history, bigger than the Great Recession
            -Gen X's prime marriage years included FIVE recessions
            -Credit, mortgage, and banking rules were much different then so less than 10% of the public had access to ANY credit unrelated to buying a home
            soa paper saying
            >"Did you know that among the generation that experienced the highest economic turmoil in American history men that made money were more likely to marry?"
            is *not* a 'profound insight' but rather a 'no fricking shit' joke

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're looking at a modern, peer reviewed paper here which makes the claim that there is increasing pressure on US men based on that data. We are looking at a trend from the 19th century onwards that has progressed up to today. If you want to tell me straight faced that this long ongoing trend has 'suddenly' reversed you BETTER have some supportive data to back up your horseshit.

            But if you want more data on female choosiness having gotten worse see

            I think you're misrepresenting the ideology and you're debating a strawman. When it comes to blackpill orthodoxy in terms of 'only looks matter', that is something many people don't subscribe to. I for example believe that looks are important but they don't predict the majority of the variance when it comes to mate appeal. My position is one of hereditarianism, or biological essentialism/determinism. I believe in the primacy of heritable traits. Both in the economic and in the romantic domain. And I believe it is well substantiated by research.

            The fact that you can point at an exceptionally wealthy, famous or successful man who also happens to not conform to conventional beauty standards because he has a hot wife does not mean that just anyone could replicate his success. After all: most people are not wealthy, famous and successful. An incel who is not particularly handsome 'and' not particularly successful will struggle finding a partner. Telling him he can just become a Hollywood actor, a famous writer, a billionaire, etc. is obviously not going to solve his problem because he probably lacks the innate ability to do that.

            Now, individuals who didn't manifest the traits that women were looking for in partners have always existed, but what is factual is that women have gotten choosier. I've already posted the data in [...], but there is further evidence. The famous Lichter et al. study on marriage market mismatches: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335623782_Mismatches_in_the_Marriage_Market.

            What they basically found is that female choosiness is dependent on their relative social status, as choosiness was most pronounced among educated/wealthy women. This is also not my conclusion but it was drawn in the Harvard paper I posted earlier ITT.

            If you combine these facts with the fact that women are outcompeting men in terms of educational attainment, it is easy to see why men are experienced dating as more competitive these days.

            ; I can also back it up through data:

            >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).

            >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).

            >Women are outcompeting men when it comes to educational achievements (https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100401).

            >The Baby Boom happened at a period when men were significantly outcompeting women in terms of educational achievements (https://arctotherium.substack.com/p/the-baby-boom).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If you want to tell me straight faced that this long ongoing trend has 'suddenly' reversed you BETTER have some supportive data to back up your horseshit.

            no one even IMPLIED that you braindead frickwit.
            What are you doing to STOP being a low-status man?
            Oh.
            That's right.
            You're the drooling lackwit that thinks personality, having a job, and brushing your teeth is genetic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Women men are both more choosy and now and that is why more of them are single. You are the bottom 0.1% of men who are desperate and have no standards and are projecting it on the top 99.9% of men.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Women men are both more choosy and now and that is why more of them are single.
            Men aren't nearly as choosy as women. For female choosiness we have plenty of data. See

            You're looking at a modern, peer reviewed paper here which makes the claim that there is increasing pressure on US men based on that data. We are looking at a trend from the 19th century onwards that has progressed up to today. If you want to tell me straight faced that this long ongoing trend has 'suddenly' reversed you BETTER have some supportive data to back up your horseshit.

            But if you want more data on female choosiness having gotten worse see [...]; I can also back it up through data:

            >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).

            >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).

            >Women are outcompeting men when it comes to educational achievements (https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100401).

            >The Baby Boom happened at a period when men were significantly outcompeting women in terms of educational achievements (https://arctotherium.substack.com/p/the-baby-boom).

            . But where do you take the male choosiness from? Do you have anything to back it up or are you talking out of your ass?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What you linked to and what you said are completely different things. You are just desperately try to deny the truth, which is that you chose to be an incel, and are only looking for excuses to not try. You could get a girlfriend but you don't want to.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What you linked to and what you said are completely different things.
            What are you even talking about? I literally quoted the article.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yup.
            When the oldest Millennial men were aged 25-28 only 15%-20% of them were married.
            Among Gen Z men the oldest are now aged 15 - 28 and 22%-25% of them are already married showing that marriage rates for young men are already higher than the previous generation.
            No incel cares.
            Show an incel a survey that says
            >the average bodycoung of 18-20 year old men is 2.1 but the average bodycount of 18-20 year old women is 1.4
            and they REEEEEEEE! "SURVEY! SURVEY! OOOOOOH GAAAAAWD IT'S A SURVEY!"
            But show them a survey that shows 30% of unmarried young men think they are in a relationship but 55% of young women think they are in a relationship and they REEEEEEE! "SCIENTIFIC PROOF! SCIENTIFIC PROOF! OOOOOOOH GAAAAAAAWD IT'S SETTLED SCIENCE!"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            *25 - 28, not 15

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >hoeflation
            Using this word automatically reveals you to be a low IQ basement dwelling incel.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't think the incels are in denial about being bottom of the barrel - that is why they are incels.
            NTA
            they ARE in denial about *WHY* they are the bottom of the barrel.
            80% of WHY they are bottom of the barrel is in their heads.
            Another 20% is how they act/dress/etc.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Incels could stop being bottom of the barrel. They just don't want to.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The barrel has to have a bottom.

            The problem is that the middle of the barrel is also rotting.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Incels could stop being bottom of the barrel. They just don't want to.
            This is liberal hogwash.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Bingo. These guys are a total joke.

            >hoeflation
            Using this word automatically reveals you to be a low IQ basement dwelling incel.

            This. It's the most cringy, cheesy thing imaginable, even for incel standards, and it's all from one autist on here relentlessly trying to make it a "thing".
            "Hoeflation" doesn't even make sense on a fundamental level. If a woman is a hoe, that means, by definition, she'll give it up to anybody. Hoeflation literally cannot exist, unless these incels are admitting in a roundabout way that even the flooziest slampigs with the lowest standards possible won't touch them, but also implying that they would at some point in the past.
            Whoever came up with "hoeflation" is an ESL or an unironic moron, because it flies in the face of both logic and the English language.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Hoeflation is a common term. You might not like it but everyone knows what it means. It indicates that women are becoming choosier. They expect more of potential mates.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > It indicates that women are becoming choosier.
            Very diplomatic way of describing hoeflation.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Hoeflation is a common term.
            It was literally invented here and spammed by some homosexual, probably you.
            >It indicates that women are becoming choosier. They expect more of potential mates.
            Good. Why is this is a bad thing? It's only bad for you if you suck and can't meet the criteria (you do, and you can't). I wish we were choosier and expected better from women also.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >It was literally invented here and spammed by some homosexual, probably you.
            I think you're overestimating my creativity. I think I first encountered the term on /misc/ and I've seen it used in some youtube videos on the subject.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Good. Why is this is a bad thing?
            Because most developed nations are facing demographic collapse and having all those incels around eager to vote for Hitler or join ISIS might not be the best for social stability?

            Polygynous societies are also associated with all sorts of negative issues in general, and if due to serial monogamy you create polygynous conditions you're in for trouble.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >having all those incels around eager to vote for Hitler or join ISIS might not be the best for social stability?
            You know what else is bad for social stability? Having all these completely useless non-functional young men around, who are some combination of NEET, socially maladjusted, isolated, moronic, mentally ill, or all of the above. The very same things that led to their inceldom to begin with. You're focusing way too much on the end result and not the underlying cause.
            Also wanting to vote for Hitler at this point is hardly an incel thing, it's increasingly becoming the chad option if anything. We're just not at the point where people can openly talk like that in public. Yet.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You know what else is bad for social stability? Having all these completely useless non-functional young men around, who are some combination of NEET, socially maladjusted, isolated, moronic, mentally ill, or all of the above. The very same things that led to their inceldom to begin with.
            I am not even in disagreement with you.

            >Also wanting to vote for Hitler at this point is hardly an incel thing, it's increasingly becoming the chad option if anything.
            Perhaps, but if you're the type of guy who wants people to vote for Hitler, you should be happy about having all those incels around, since you can recruit them for your cause.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Perhaps, but if you're the type of guy who wants people to vote for Hitler, you should be happy about having all those incels around, since you can recruit them for your cause.
            Not really honestly. I always cringe when I see some incel adopt right-wing identity politics. Not because I disagree (I am far right myself), but because it hurts the cause. And the left is always too happy to exploit that, despite most lefty men being huge incels themselves. The left has always been better at using optics to sway public opinion.

            It's about quantity man. Now and then it also happens to me but not basically always.

            >Now and then it also happens to me but not basically always.
            Ok, and why should it always happen to you? Or even frequently happen? Are you that good? What's so special about you?
            And actually no you're wrong, it IS about quality when it comes to women. I've done the quantity thing and trust me, a good woman is worth her weight in gold. Incels don't actually like women though so they don't know or care about the difference.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >it IS about quality when it comes to women
            With quantity comes quality you stupid frick. The bigger the pool to choose from the better the chosen.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >guy who gets no women and knows nothing about women tries to lecture guy who actually gets women
            Many such cases.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's like saying you don't have to right to want to affect politics unless you are a chosen politician

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Hard to blame him when male models legitimately believe women like them for their personalities. I'm sure you'd be annoyed if some 9 year old Harvard grad told you he was just harder working and had no natural advantage over you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I always cringe when I see some incel adopt right-wing identity politics. Not because I disagree (I am far right myself), but because it hurts the cause.
            I always love this
            How can having more people with little to lose and a lot to gain hurt "the cause?"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Not really honestly. I always cringe when I see some incel adopt right-wing identity politics. Not because I disagree (I am far right myself), but because it hurts the cause. And the left is always too happy to exploit that, despite most lefty men being huge incels themselves. The left has always been better at using optics to sway public opinion.
            I'd say the whole optics debate is a thing of the past. People are openly naming the nose on twitter now. Incels won't hurt the movement, they're extremely online and don't have anything to do. They're good footsoldiers on twitter.

            >The social status is still there
            that's vanishing FASTER.
            The economic advantage of uni was annihilated in the Dot Com collapse of the mid - late 1990's, that's why young men started avoiding it.
            As early as 2009 the American Dept of Labor published reports
            >quietly withdrawn, but the data still exists
            that unless you were studying one of about 8 majors in the top 20% of universities getting a degree *lowered* your lifetime income before you added in debt.
            Major corporations realized the fact that degrees are worthless not too long after and slowly but surely they are dropping requirements for them and shifting to skills.
            The issue now?
            Bomers, idiots, and certain cohorts of women don't realize that university degrees are now what they were in 1950 - a luxury good. But they also don't realize that the *side effects* they had from the 1950's
            >networking, mainly
            ae gone.
            99% of the young people throwing money at a 4 year degree right now are effectively buying an expensive horse-drawn carriage they can never afford horses for and it is 1932

            >that's vanishing FASTER.
            Perhaps, but not yet fast enough. If you are actually right and a decline of economic status is going to be followed by a decline in social status, then this might actually contribute to fixing birthrates, but I very much doubt it. Degrees are a very good tool of awarding people status. e.g. the liberal states need to somehow provide an illusion of equity to their bottom feeding demographics, and degrees are a good way to do that, since they can use it for gatekeeping jobs, combine it with civil rights law (e.g. the masters degree black woman needs to be promoted before the white guy with a bachelors) and so on. And women tend to do better in the rather feminine university environments. I don't think we are going to see a return of male dominance in education - without taking over the country and really cleaning up, that is.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your stone ignorance of demographics shines through again.
            The collapse of birthrates in the First Demographic Transition is not related to marriage rates. Indeed, in several European nations as marriage rates go up fertility goes down.
            We know EXACTLY how to fix the fertility issue because we have subcultures doing it.
            "more marriage" by itself isn't on the list

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The collapse of birthrates in the First Demographic Transition is not related to marriage rates. Indeed, in several European nations as marriage rates go up fertility goes down.
            I can only repeat: marriage rates alone are not as interesting if they don't tell you 'when' people marry. The problem is that women marry too late. The baby boom was most of all a marriage boom but women married 'young' (and they married young men), so they had a lot of time for having children.

            And the reason why women aren't marrying young is because the men available to them don't live up to their (inflated) standards (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335623782_Mismatches_in_the_Marriage_Market).

            If you want to fix birthrates you need to fix the status differential, and the way to do that is through education most of all.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The problem is that women marry too late.
            ALSO unrelated to the impact of the First Demographic Transition collapsing fertility. In Uttar Pradesh India where the average age a woman marries went from 18 to 18 and 4 months you STILL had fertility drop for 5 to 1.2 in 2 generations.
            In the US and UK female chorts that marry at 22 have the same fertility as female cohorts that marry at 28.
            You VERY LITERALLY have no fricking clue about what you are talking about.
            Again, we know EXACTLY how to fix fertility.
            Note - you aren't smart enough to ask

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >In Uttar Pradesh India where the average age a woman marries went from 18 to 18 and 4 months you STILL had fertility drop for 5 to 1.2 in 2 generations.
            The baby boom pretty much proves that you can have high fertility even in developed nations. What matters is that men outcompete women in status hierarchies.

            >In the US and UK female chorts that marry at 22 have the same fertility as female cohorts that marry at 28.
            Marriage alone typically indicates that women are willing to settle and become mothers but what matters most is obviously 'when' women have children.

            >Again, we know EXACTLY how to fix fertility.
            No, we don't. If we did know how to fix fertility and it's all easy, why doesn't China do that? They're in dire demographic trouble. No, I think you're talking out of your ass.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The baby boom pretty much proves that you can have high fertility even in developed nations
            No shit, REALLY?!?!?!?!
            >What matters is that men outcompete women in status hierarchies.
            Utter moronation.
            Fertility collapse extends to North Africa, the Middle East, and so on. In cultures where women AREN'T ALLOWED INTO the status hierarchy? Fertility collapse.
            >but what matters most is obviously 'when' women have children
            Totally false! In India, North Africa, and so on where the average age women marry AND the average age women have first birth is effectively unchanged?
            Fertility collapse.
            Again - you literally have no idea what you are talking about. Every time you type about demographics you PROVE you don't know a fricking thing about it other tan you can't get laid.
            NOTE: Like I said, you are too stupid to ask.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >In cultures where women AREN'T ALLOWED INTO the status hierarchy? Fertility collapse.
            And where do you think does it happen predominantly? Among the educated classes. It happens even in Iran (https://profdoc.um.ac.ir/articles/a/1081185.pdf). They're dealing with female celibacy and they are explicitly mentioning raised female expectations of their future husband as an issue.

            >Totally false! In India, North Africa, and so on where the average age women marry AND the average age women have first birth is effectively unchanged?
            Averages are obviously a tricky issue since may not give you a good idea of the shape of the distribution. Especially in developing societies, you'll face a steep contrast between the high and the low.

            >Every time you type about demographics you PROVE you don't know a fricking thing about it other tan you can't get laid.
            I don't see you back anything you say with data. You get told in this thread on every issue up to the point where you talk about nothing but online dating. You consider yourself "far-right" yet you spout liberal nonsense. Are you even white?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Oh, FFS.
            You're deranged.
            Millennials had the largest cohort of never-married men AND lifelong virgins. Not only was there zero mass-movements of them towards some sort of totalitarian state but the main supporters of populism are the *married* Millennials.
            Incels are a small *and shrinking* cohort.
            You frickwits are looking at shit like
            >ZOMG! 60% of young men aren't in a relationship! REEEE!
            and not looking at page two where the large majority o those single men *aren't looking for a relationship* because they are establishing themselves. Not unreasonable for men aged 18-25, neh? Among men LOOKING FOR a relationship less than 20% aren't in one.
            It is like the massive nothingburger of
            >ZOMG! YOUNG MEN AREN'T HAVE SEX ALL THE TIME!
            as if COVID wasn't going on. Lockdowns ended, sex was the same as before.
            Did the blackpillers ever say
            >"Wow! WOMEN were having less sex than MEN! Our bad!"
            no
            Did the blackpillers ever say
            >"Gosh! We really did overreact and misinterpreted that data! Sorry!"
            Frick, no.
            They keep posting the male only chart from 2020 and pretending its true.
            20-25 year old men shrieking that most men their age aren't in a relationship is like screaming water is wet.
            No, the Incels aren't going to put on armbands. Most of them are going to marry and have kids

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The majority of people learn helplessness from a young age and settle down with a fat single mother because they don't have anymore options.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I think you're projecting a lot into my views. I don't really care that much about sexlessness. I think sexlessness is way too wonky of a thing to measure properly. Birthrates are what actually matters.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >not talking just about you
            >You don't know frickall about marriage/birthrates interaction

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Matters for what? I have no wife or kids and I am getting sex just fine. It has never been easier to get it than today, many zoomers are just too lazy to leave their home and instead socialize on social media.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Lower birthrates are good overall for any country that's sufficiently advanced. The only problem is we have a country that's being invaded by brown morons.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Lower birthrates are good overall for any country that's sufficiently advanced.
            Not at all. A serious country needs soldiers. A serious country needs workers.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Done by robots.
            White men defeat 100 men with just one if they aren't stupid enough to give their enemies the same weapons they have, and even then the odds are in our favor because we're capable of higher thought. If you want higher birthrates you have to accept some amount of dysgenics or you're not going to have that happen. I'd rather just everyone be attractive and intelligent and not have to deal with subhumans.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            In the 1950s America removed the guns from their fighter aircraft because they thought AA missiles would do the job just fine. The Korea war taught them better. This idea that you could fight a war without men on the ground is a pipe dream of post-heroic societies. If this were a thing, the Taliban wouldn't rule in Afghanistan and the Ukraine conflict would look differently.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            All of those were wars we could win, we just decided not to.
            Vietnam was lost by pissy communists here in the states.
            Iraq and Afghanistan would have been won if we had not decided to do "hearts and minds" and "nation building" of mud people, and Ukraine we're barely involved in, and frankly Ukraine is pathetic anyways.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >All of those were wars we could win, we just decided not to.
            And yet you did not. That too is the mark of post-heroic societies.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's a problem with subhumans, you just want people to die in ditches again because you have a martyrdom streak.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If you lack the willingness to die in ditches, the people who are willing to die in ditches will make you die in ditches - with a bullet to the neck after you dug them out yourself.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's implying the Taliban died in ditches to win.
            The Taliban did die in ditches. But then they got pushed to the mountain. Then instead of conquering the country and kicking everyone out the US army twiddled its thumbs for 20 years. Then the senile-in-chief wanted a political stunt and made everyone leave. The Taliban moved back in again from the mountains.

            They didn't win. They simply filled a power vacuum.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The Taliban outlasted you and achieved a strategic victory, because as it turns out, bombing people every now and then is not enough to actually defeat them. You need boots on the ground. You need the willingness to stamp the resistance out radically. And for that you need men.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Afghanistan has been called the Graveyard of Empires for over 2,000 years, son.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why are you so invested in proving that mud people are "true warriors?"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >duuuuuuuuuuur *shits own pants* huuuuuurrrrrrr *drools on shirt*
            FTFY
            Afghanistan has nothing of value in it. It is vaguely important for some land travel. It is rugged and mountainous. The people largely reject central authority and HATE foreigners. They have a tradition of responding to armies by breaking into small bands, retreating into the mountains, and harassing invaders.
            The only reason to go there is to conquer a worthless bit of land full of inbred vilalgers who fight like cornered rats.
            They aren't "true warriors", you mongoloid. Invading the place proves the invader is moronic

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Then why did you bring them up?
            You're the one who acted like they fought the "invader," out of their lands.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Hoeflation is a common term
            So common I only ever read it on NSFFW or when robots post on /adv/

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I never really understood the meme about people getting zero matches on dating apps being able to somehow charm women in person. If anything dating apps let unattractive men get rejected at a far higher rate than what could ever be achieved in person until they maybe hit the lottery with an ugly woman on one. It's the ultimate way to play the "number's game" PUA anons are always going on about.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why is that their only option?
            I get that they don't know women or have friends or go out or have a social life...but that was also their choice.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Why is that their only option?
            It isn't. It is the best one though.
            >but that was also their choice
            To an extent, but not fully. If you're ugly or autistic, you don't only have to worry about women hating you. It's really hard to make friends because men tend to despise people like that, too.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Most of you "autists" aren't actually autistic, you're just socially awkward dorks. That can be worked on and fixed.
            Secondly, unless you want to hang out with literal gays men don't care what other men look like.
            Thirdly, one of the most beloved incel narratives is that most men are ugly and unattractive to women. But yet, most men still have friends. So how do we reconcile these two contradictory narratives?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I never claimed to be autistic. At most I'm just pretty spergy.
            >men don't care what other men look like
            Yes they do. Halo effect doesn't only apply to people you want to frick. This has been studied extensively. Kids in school got bullied all the time for being short and/or ugly.
            >So how do we reconcile these two contradictory narratives?
            I never claimed it was equally difficult to have male friends as it was to date women. It's easier than dating, sure - I was just saying that it's more difficult for some people through no fault of their own. I have male friends for the record.

            My definition of "trying" is doing almost anything besides doomposting and sharing graphs and "studies" all day. Which no, a lot of you have not done.

            >almost anything besides doomposting and sharing graphs and "studies" all day
            "I tried like 4 dating apps"
            >"DOESN'T COUNT!"

            First, you don't get ronnie tier roid results without putting in ronnie tier levels of work - second, bodybuilders seek to push the boundaries of what's even physically achievable as a human, regardless of whether or not it could be done naturally. If your goal is

            >I just want to look substantially better in a bar or on a dating app pic
            You definitely don't need to roid to get there, and honestly, you probably wouldn't even want to if you could because most women just want "toned", not "freakishly strong looking" or "bodybuilder-huge"

            I just think roiders don't deserve any amount of respect

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I never claimed to be autistic. At most I'm just pretty spergy.
            You why did you say "if you're ugly and autistic..." and if that wasn't you, why are you speaking for him?
            >Kids in school got bullied all the time
            Ok great, are you a kid in school today?
            >"I tried like 4 dating apps"
            >"DOESN'T COUNT!"
            This but unironically, it doesn't count in my book at least. There's a whole big world out there, use it.
            Mind you I will give you credit for at least trying the apps, because a lot of your incel buddies haven't even done that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >are you a kid in school today?
            NTA but are YOU autistic homie ?
            We are talking about a hypothetical situation but you seem to be struggling with the idea.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No Black person YOU are talking about a hypothetical situation, I am talking about real life, present day, actual solutions to actual problems. Nothing else interests or concerns me.
            So you're the autistic one, because you're apparently here talking with yourself.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            did mommy not make your tendies on time tonight ?
            I think you should go to bed instead of throwing a fit on the computer big boy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >if that wasn't you, why are you speaking for him?
            That was me. Sounds like you maybe didn't eat breakfast this morning.
            >Ok great, are you a kid in school today?
            Yeah you definitely didn't eat breakfast
            >This but unironically, it doesn't count in my book at least
            Thank you for proving my point.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >That was me

            >if you're ugly or autistic
            >what no I never said I was autistic

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Even disregarding the fact you seem to be failing the breakfast test, "ugly or autistic" would still be true if one were only ugly and not autistic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >That can be worked on and fixed.
            silly incels, they just need to talk to themselves in the mirror to improve their social skills

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            imma be real with you, changing this is way harder than looksmaxxing

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your a woman a little kid or just a tard.
            Most men struggle to talk to woman even me and I'm a literal 8 in the body.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Let me quote from a paper Lindner, M. (2022, April 30). Alone Together and Angry: Misogynistic Extremism as Coalitional Bargaining for Sexual Access. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/pve8u:

          >Although women are the choosier sex, if they decide to be partnered, they will choose men with more desirable traits such as good looks, high educational attainment, status, and so on. Women’s preferences for high-status men may have caused the evolution of men’s competitive strategies (Buss & Malamuth, 1996; Shackelford, Schmitt, & Buss, 2005). Comparing the demand- side sociodemographic characteristics that women look for in male partners to the supply of these characteristics in the marriage market, Lichter, Price, and Swigert (2020) found that women preferred men who are 30% more likely to be employed and 19% more likely to have a college degree than the actual unmarried men available. This selectivity was particularly pronounced among highly educated white (i.e., high-status) women. In short, growing social status among women appears to amplify female choosiness, which might produce a grievance in men who cannot easily compete for a partner. This is the case especially if women will tolerate either (a) being celibate themselves if they cannot find a high-enough quality partner, or (b) sharing a partner with other women, whether through affairs, polyamory, or serial monogamy (having a husband until he leaves her for a younger woman or marrying an older man and then being a widow). All these have become more common compared to the monogamous eras of previous generations and would serve to reduce opportunities for lower-status men.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >literally all of it is in relation to marriage and pointing out that men who do not demonstrate ability to acquire resources are not desired as husbands

            How you are able to quote a paper and still be moronic enough to miss a key point is remarkable. It shows that marriage is shit not that blackpillers are correct that unless you are a Chad you can't score a girl.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Who do you think gets married if not men who successfully date? What exactly is the goal of everything if not getting married and having families? Hoeflation is well backed by data as the paper (and the various papers it quotes) shows and it heavily reflects on marriage rates and ultimately also on birthrates.

            This is an empiric fact and nothing you say changes that.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Let me quote from a paper Lindner, M. (2022, April 30). Alone Together and Angry: Misogynistic Extremism as Coalitional Bargaining for Sexual Access. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/pve8u:

          >Although women are the choosier sex, if they decide to be partnered, they will choose men with more desirable traits such as good looks, high educational attainment, status, and so on. Women’s preferences for high-status men may have caused the evolution of men’s competitive strategies (Buss & Malamuth, 1996; Shackelford, Schmitt, & Buss, 2005). Comparing the demand- side sociodemographic characteristics that women look for in male partners to the supply of these characteristics in the marriage market, Lichter, Price, and Swigert (2020) found that women preferred men who are 30% more likely to be employed and 19% more likely to have a college degree than the actual unmarried men available. This selectivity was particularly pronounced among highly educated white (i.e., high-status) women. In short, growing social status among women appears to amplify female choosiness, which might produce a grievance in men who cannot easily compete for a partner. This is the case especially if women will tolerate either (a) being celibate themselves if they cannot find a high-enough quality partner, or (b) sharing a partner with other women, whether through affairs, polyamory, or serial monogamy (having a husband until he leaves her for a younger woman or marrying an older man and then being a widow). All these have become more common compared to the monogamous eras of previous generations and would serve to reduce opportunities for lower-status men.

          >With gender imbalances in educational achievement becoming increasingly clear (Buchmann & DiPrete, 2006), many high-status women not only increasingly remain unmarried, but also they might opt to remain single rather than adapting to deficits in the sexual marketplace, thereby reversing conventional patterns of marital hypergamy (“marrying down”) (Lewis & Oppenheimer, 2000; Lichter, Anderson, & Hayward, 1995; Qian, 2017). Women also display more choosiness in the economic domain. Lichter et al. (2020) compared estimates of the preferred sociodemographic characteristics of unmarried women’s potential spouses with the actual distribution of unmarried men. They reported that unmarried women prefer partners who have an average income that is about 58% higher than the actual unmarried men available. Further, 71% of women who are financially secured by their own income still deem it essential that their partner has a steady income; in contrast, only 14% of men in that income bracket report the same preferences in their potential partner (Fales et al., 2016).

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          [...]
          >With gender imbalances in educational achievement becoming increasingly clear (Buchmann & DiPrete, 2006), many high-status women not only increasingly remain unmarried, but also they might opt to remain single rather than adapting to deficits in the sexual marketplace, thereby reversing conventional patterns of marital hypergamy (“marrying down”) (Lewis & Oppenheimer, 2000; Lichter, Anderson, & Hayward, 1995; Qian, 2017). Women also display more choosiness in the economic domain. Lichter et al. (2020) compared estimates of the preferred sociodemographic characteristics of unmarried women’s potential spouses with the actual distribution of unmarried men. They reported that unmarried women prefer partners who have an average income that is about 58% higher than the actual unmarried men available. Further, 71% of women who are financially secured by their own income still deem it essential that their partner has a steady income; in contrast, only 14% of men in that income bracket report the same preferences in their potential partner (Fales et al., 2016).

          >Exacerbated female choice thus creates a pool of excess, low-status men without opportunities for sexual and/or romantic relationships - that is, a shortage of educationally and/or economically attractive, unmarried men for women to marry. Empirical data attests to this trend: Whereas men and women did not differ much in the prevalence of being single from the 1980s through the 2000s, a gap appeared in the 2010s, such that more men (compared to women) remained unpartnered. For example, in 2018, 42% of women and 31% of men reported that they were not currently in a relationship, and 56% of women reported it difficult to find someone who matches their expectations – a number that was significantly lower (35%) among men (Brown, 2020).

          >These statistics underscore the importance of evolutionary (as opposed to purely socioeconomic) explanations of the mating marketplace: they refute the hypothesis that women value status and wealth in romantic and sexual partners because society prevents them from attaining those assets themselves. The fact that women would rather be celibate than date a lower-status man (while this is not true of men) strongly suggests an evolutionary psychological explanation.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Greater within-sex status variance allows some men to monopolize marketplace power while others are missing out. Usually, it is the degree of such monopolization of females by males that characterizes the degree of “effective polygyny” of the marketplace. The more intense this competition to secure a female partner, the more men will be inclined to use risky tactics to secure a mate. And, as described previously, one with a potential of perceived grounds for grievance against women, a target typically associated with lower power of physical coercion. Polygyny is positively associated with domestic violence (Ahinkorah, 2021; Ebrahim & Atteraya, 2021; Jansen & Agadjanian, 2020), and cultural evolution may have selected for monogamy and strong pair-bonding between males and females because it suppresses intra-sexual competition by reducing the number of unmarried men, which in turn reduces conflict over mating resources documented to involve crime, including rape, murder, and assault (Gavrilets, 2012; Koos & Neupert-Wentz, 2020; Seffrin, 2017; Sosis, Kress, & Boster, 2007).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That logics a little flawed but its not to far from reality. A more realistic interpretation is an average income average height guy is out competed generally speaking by a 6ft guy with equivalent looks without the 6ft guy having any additional income.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >useless dating app info

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Greater within-sex status variance allows some men to monopolize marketplace power while others are missing out. Usually, it is the degree of such monopolization of females by males that characterizes the degree of “effective polygyny” of the marketplace. The more intense this competition to secure a female partner, the more men will be inclined to use risky tactics to secure a mate. And, as described previously, one with a potential of perceived grounds for grievance against women, a target typically associated with lower power of physical coercion. Polygyny is positively associated with domestic violence (Ahinkorah, 2021; Ebrahim & Atteraya, 2021; Jansen & Agadjanian, 2020), and cultural evolution may have selected for monogamy and strong pair-bonding between males and females because it suppresses intra-sexual competition by reducing the number of unmarried men, which in turn reduces conflict over mating resources documented to involve crime, including rape, murder, and assault (Gavrilets, 2012; Koos & Neupert-Wentz, 2020; Seffrin, 2017; Sosis, Kress, & Boster, 2007).

          >As with all markets, monopolies change everything. In the sexual marketplace, monogamy is the ultimate coalitional tactic that favors low-status men: Men enforce laws that that guarantee that even the lowest-status man can secure a partner (if we assume that all women want to be paired with some man). It is compatible with the proposed theory that recent trends toward de facto polygyny–unmarried high-status promiscuous men, married men who have affairs, and serially monogamous men–would tend to lead to incel culture. Overall, female empowerment exacerbates this trend. In the current supply-and-demand model for relationship dynamics, such a gender imbalance in demand is expected to decrease the supply of available women (mostly of their own volition) relative to men who are seeking a sexual or romantic partner. To evolved male psychology, this ‘inflates’ female marketplace power and allows women to be even more selective, inflicting perceived grievances on men who are now ‘losing out’.

          >The tangible effects of female empowerment span other domains as well. For example, female empowerment is inversely associated with the number of children in both WEIRD and non- WEIRD societies (Abadian, 1996; Hindin, 2000; Kabir, Ibrahim, & Kawsar, 2004). Higher gender equality is also associated with more sexual activity, including more casual sex, more sex partners per capita, and younger age at first sex among women in both industrial and non-industrial societies (Baumeister & Mendoza, 2011).

          In case the link in

          Let me quote from a paper Lindner, M. (2022, April 30). Alone Together and Angry: Misogynistic Extremism as Coalitional Bargaining for Sexual Access. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/pve8u:

          >Although women are the choosier sex, if they decide to be partnered, they will choose men with more desirable traits such as good looks, high educational attainment, status, and so on. Women’s preferences for high-status men may have caused the evolution of men’s competitive strategies (Buss & Malamuth, 1996; Shackelford, Schmitt, & Buss, 2005). Comparing the demand- side sociodemographic characteristics that women look for in male partners to the supply of these characteristics in the marriage market, Lichter, Price, and Swigert (2020) found that women preferred men who are 30% more likely to be employed and 19% more likely to have a college degree than the actual unmarried men available. This selectivity was particularly pronounced among highly educated white (i.e., high-status) women. In short, growing social status among women appears to amplify female choosiness, which might produce a grievance in men who cannot easily compete for a partner. This is the case especially if women will tolerate either (a) being celibate themselves if they cannot find a high-enough quality partner, or (b) sharing a partner with other women, whether through affairs, polyamory, or serial monogamy (having a husband until he leaves her for a younger woman or marrying an older man and then being a widow). All these have become more common compared to the monogamous eras of previous generations and would serve to reduce opportunities for lower-status men.

          doesn't work, try: https://osf.io/pve8u/download

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Let me quote from a paper Lindner, M. (2022, April 30). Alone Together and Angry: Misogynistic Extremism as Coalitional Bargaining for Sexual Access. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/pve8u:

            >Although women are the choosier sex, if they decide to be partnered, they will choose men with more desirable traits such as good looks, high educational attainment, status, and so on. Women’s preferences for high-status men may have caused the evolution of men’s competitive strategies (Buss & Malamuth, 1996; Shackelford, Schmitt, & Buss, 2005). Comparing the demand- side sociodemographic characteristics that women look for in male partners to the supply of these characteristics in the marriage market, Lichter, Price, and Swigert (2020) found that women preferred men who are 30% more likely to be employed and 19% more likely to have a college degree than the actual unmarried men available. This selectivity was particularly pronounced among highly educated white (i.e., high-status) women. In short, growing social status among women appears to amplify female choosiness, which might produce a grievance in men who cannot easily compete for a partner. This is the case especially if women will tolerate either (a) being celibate themselves if they cannot find a high-enough quality partner, or (b) sharing a partner with other women, whether through affairs, polyamory, or serial monogamy (having a husband until he leaves her for a younger woman or marrying an older man and then being a widow). All these have become more common compared to the monogamous eras of previous generations and would serve to reduce opportunities for lower-status men.

            [...]
            >With gender imbalances in educational achievement becoming increasingly clear (Buchmann & DiPrete, 2006), many high-status women not only increasingly remain unmarried, but also they might opt to remain single rather than adapting to deficits in the sexual marketplace, thereby reversing conventional patterns of marital hypergamy (“marrying down”) (Lewis & Oppenheimer, 2000; Lichter, Anderson, & Hayward, 1995; Qian, 2017). Women also display more choosiness in the economic domain. Lichter et al. (2020) compared estimates of the preferred sociodemographic characteristics of unmarried women’s potential spouses with the actual distribution of unmarried men. They reported that unmarried women prefer partners who have an average income that is about 58% higher than the actual unmarried men available. Further, 71% of women who are financially secured by their own income still deem it essential that their partner has a steady income; in contrast, only 14% of men in that income bracket report the same preferences in their potential partner (Fales et al., 2016).

            [...]
            >Exacerbated female choice thus creates a pool of excess, low-status men without opportunities for sexual and/or romantic relationships - that is, a shortage of educationally and/or economically attractive, unmarried men for women to marry. Empirical data attests to this trend: Whereas men and women did not differ much in the prevalence of being single from the 1980s through the 2000s, a gap appeared in the 2010s, such that more men (compared to women) remained unpartnered. For example, in 2018, 42% of women and 31% of men reported that they were not currently in a relationship, and 56% of women reported it difficult to find someone who matches their expectations – a number that was significantly lower (35%) among men (Brown, 2020).

            >These statistics underscore the importance of evolutionary (as opposed to purely socioeconomic) explanations of the mating marketplace: they refute the hypothesis that women value status and wealth in romantic and sexual partners because society prevents them from attaining those assets themselves. The fact that women would rather be celibate than date a lower-status man (while this is not true of men) strongly suggests an evolutionary psychological explanation.

            >Greater within-sex status variance allows some men to monopolize marketplace power while others are missing out. Usually, it is the degree of such monopolization of females by males that characterizes the degree of “effective polygyny” of the marketplace. The more intense this competition to secure a female partner, the more men will be inclined to use risky tactics to secure a mate. And, as described previously, one with a potential of perceived grounds for grievance against women, a target typically associated with lower power of physical coercion. Polygyny is positively associated with domestic violence (Ahinkorah, 2021; Ebrahim & Atteraya, 2021; Jansen & Agadjanian, 2020), and cultural evolution may have selected for monogamy and strong pair-bonding between males and females because it suppresses intra-sexual competition by reducing the number of unmarried men, which in turn reduces conflict over mating resources documented to involve crime, including rape, murder, and assault (Gavrilets, 2012; Koos & Neupert-Wentz, 2020; Seffrin, 2017; Sosis, Kress, & Boster, 2007).

            Imagine if you put all the time you put into researching being a raging perma-virgin into meeting a nice 5/10 qt.

            I’m going to go kiss my gf instead of reading your guide to being a homosexual.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Sounds to me like you got schooled so hard that your only answer to the cruelty of the overwhelming facts is solipsism.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You’re right I’m pwned I’ll live a life of solitude and celibacy from now on. Thank you for your based and smegmapilled research.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            if you don't care about other people why should we care about you and what you have to say?
            like 30% of men are getting screwed and all people have to offer them is spit or a lash
            why should they listen to anyone?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >incels who have never had positive experiences with women
      well, yeah
      if you only ever had positive experiences with women your brain will refuse to accept the blackpill
      that's why they're incels and you're not
      Unless you are ugly and autistic you haven't proven them wrong at all

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >that's why they're incels and you're not
        Hello there my illiterate and sexless friend, did you miss the part where that anon clearly said he WAS an incel and made it out?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          him considering himself an incel because he didn't get a gf as soon as he turned 15 doesn't make him one

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And where did he say that exactly?
            Imagine gatekeeping being an incel of all things.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            NTA but it's common for zoomers nowadays to graduate HS without being approached and instantly declaring themselves incels then they go to college and get laid like all the other normies do. They were never ugly or autistic. Now they look down on people who actually ARE those things because they legitimately think they're just better people than you and that's why things worked out.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >And where did he say that exactly?
            read his post again
            It's obvious that for once in his life he tried, and he actually had a positive interaction with a woman and IMMEDIATELY changed his worldview.
            If he was ugly, 4'10, autistic and 35 years old this would have never happened.
            He's probably one of those morons who unironically call themselves manlets because they are only 5'10

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >t's obvious that for once in his life he tried
            Oh, you mean something most incels never do?
            >If he was ugly, 4'10, autistic and 35 years old this would have never happened.
            Probably not. So what though? Are YOU a 4'10 autistic 35 year old?
            >He's probably one of those morons who unironically call themselves manlets because they are only 5'10
            And I've never once seen a non-incel do this.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Oh, you mean something most incels never do?
            NTA but people like you tend to just change the definition of "trying" to whatever it takes to say the person you're arguing with hasn't tried.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            My definition of "trying" is doing almost anything besides doomposting and sharing graphs and "studies" all day. Which no, a lot of you have not done.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How many incels do you know lil bro ?

            I agree, a lot of self-proclaimed incels have never tried. Trying and failing is what separates a fake incel from a real incel. (except maybe for the mentally ill incels)

            I'm not sure what point you're trying to make ?
            If he considered himself an incel and never tried that doesn't make him an incel, just a loser.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >How many incels do you know lil bro ?
            I've known a few. One of my best friends was one for years, might still be for all I know, I only see him every couple of years now. But it's a moot point because I was talking about here on NSFFW. I've never once even heard someone use the term manlet in real life. Unless they heard it from me, and I only heard it here and on other online shitholes.
            >that doesn't make him an incel, just a loser.
            Yes, exactly. Now you're getting it. Most incels are just losers. There's only a tiny few who are truly that ugly or deformed and those guys, believe it or not, I do feel sorry for.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah my bad I was a bit vague.
            I also meant on NSFFW when I referred to 5'10 men calling themselves manlets.

            Most incels are losers, but people generalise all incels and end up overlooking the deformed minority. They're the reason why I "gatekeep" inceldom.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Blackpill is mostly bullshit anon
      Why is it matched most closely by empiric data then? Are those researchers incels?

      The Blackpillers carefully cherrypick shitty studies and data
      >almost exclusively surveys!
      and dismiss the vast amount of research that proves personality is paramount

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's the other way around. Surveys usually overrate personality and underrate looks.

        For comparison: looks predicts roughly 40% of the variance in mate appeal, while intelligence predicts less than 5%.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You don't understand the study you cite. It was measuring intelligence and related traits, not personality. The studies previously linked show that male attractiveness is essentially flat unless you are in the very lowest/very highest categories (about 1.5% of men at each end) and in between it is self-confidence and personality.
          Intelligence is a "kicker"
          >salman rushdie
          He married a former model multimillionaire socialite BEFORE his first book was published when he was poor, short, pudgy, and balding in his 20's.
          He had ZERO wealth, fame, or accomplishments when he did that.
          Your example disproves your claim.
          Anything else you want to get backwards?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The studies previously linked show that male attractiveness is essentially flat
            Link me to the paper as pdf. The study I posted clearly shows that attractiveness is the single most important factor in predicting the mate appeal of men for both short and long-term mating. It clearly contradicts what you say - so I would suspect the methodology in your paper is unsound.

            >It was measuring intelligence and related traits, not personality.
            Intelligence is not a part of your personality? The reason intelligence is an interesting trait to look at is because it can be easily measured. The Halo effect also plays a role here, e.g. men deemed attractive are believed to be smarter by women.

            >He married a former model multimillionaire socialite BEFORE his first book was published when he was poor, short, pudgy, and balding in his 20's.
            What are you even talking about? He has an upper class family background. At no point in his life was he poor. His father studied at Cambridge. He also studied at Cambridge. Why lie about such an easily disprovable fact?

            Anything else you want to lie about?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >attractiveness is the single most important factor
            Attractiveness is a combination of many things. It cannot be objectively measured and varies wildly with every woman's taste in men.
            >The Halo effect
            Another incel meme. Intelligence and physical attractiveness are somewhat correlated yes. And intelligence plays a major part in a man's overall attractiveness. Unlike other traits it is always a direct correlation, more intelligent is always better and has no disadvantage.

            Anything else you want to lie about?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Attractiveness is a combination of many things. It cannot be objectively measured and varies wildly with every woman's taste in men.
            Complete nonsense. If attractiveness were this wildly individual thing you'd find it to be randomly distributed - but this is not the case in experiments. If you take 1000 men and 1000 women and introduce them to each other, then they can mostly agree on who is attractive and who isn't.

            Dating apps show a similar pattern. Some people are rated as more attractive than others. Personal taste plays a role, sure, but it does not discredit the empiric fact that there is a general tendency of what people deem attractive in the opposite gender.

            >Another incel meme.
            No, not at all. In the paper they measured a discrepancy between the perceived intelligence and the measured intelligence. Men who were rated more attractive were also rated more highly in intelligence.

            >Intelligence and physical attractiveness are somewhat correlated yes. And intelligence plays a major part in a man's overall attractiveness.
            No, the paper in

            It's the other way around. Surveys usually overrate personality and underrate looks.

            For comparison: looks predicts roughly 40% of the variance in mate appeal, while intelligence predicts less than 5%.

            clearly showed: intelligence on its own only plays a very minor part. It only predicts 3.2 or 3.4% of the variance in mate appeal for short- and long-term mating.

            >Anything else you want to lie about?
            What am I lying about? You're the one who is getting schooled here.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If attractiveness were this wildly individual thing
            You keep switching between
            >overall attractiveness
            and
            >physical beauty

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I am exclusively referring to physical attractiveness there. I you asked people to rate their physical attractiveness you would find a pattern, it would not be random.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            meaning you are either stupid or dishonest.

            >attractiveness is the single most important factor
            Attractiveness is a combination of many things. It cannot be objectively measured and varies wildly with every woman's taste in men.
            >The Halo effect
            Another incel meme. Intelligence and physical attractiveness are somewhat correlated yes. And intelligence plays a major part in a man's overall attractiveness. Unlike other traits it is always a direct correlation, more intelligent is always better and has no disadvantage.

            Anything else you want to lie about?

            >Attractiveness is a combination of many things. It cannot be objectively measured and varies wildly with every woman's taste in men.
            is OBVIOUSLY referring to overall appeal, not just physical appearance.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >meaning you are either stupid or dishonest.
            How so? You told me that attraction was basically random because it was based on individual taste and I told you that this is nonsense because if you ask people to rate individuals of the opposite gender they can for the most part agree on who is attractive and who isn't.

            You don't think that people would rate Ryan Gosling or Henry Cavill as more attractive than Richard Stallman or Asmongold? In what world do you live?

            >is OBVIOUSLY referring to overall appeal, not just physical appearance.
            I actually agree here. The 'overall' appeal is a combination of a variety of traits, and if you were not a moron you'd have realised that this is literally EXPRESSED in the post I made:

            It's the other way around. Surveys usually overrate personality and underrate looks.

            For comparison: looks predicts roughly 40% of the variance in mate appeal, while intelligence predicts less than 5%.

            . If looks predict 40% of the variance, then it is clearly implied that the other 60% are predicted by something else. But that does not change that out of all the various traits we can look at that predict mate appeal, looks is the biggest chunk - even if it's not the majority.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You told me that attraction was basically random
            You are replying to at least two different anons, anon. I did not type
            >You told me that attraction was basically random
            >it was based on individual taste
            This is obviously a reference to the fact that physical beauty is not 1:1 correlated with actual attractiveness overall
            You acting like it was anything else is moronic

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >This is obviously a reference to the fact that physical beauty is not 1:1 correlated with actual attractiveness overall
            This is completely true and it's already expressed in the first post I made, so I don't see what your issue is then. If looks predict 40% of the variance, then 60% (i.e. the largest part) is predicted by something else. Still, looks is the biggest part if looked at on its own. Now to be fair: you could actually critique that argument, and bemoan that the 60% have been unfairly split up in things like financial security, dependability, etc. when looks itself could be further split up into height, facial symmetry, etc. and that would be a fair point.

            Still, looks are an important part of mate appeal in men. I'm also fairly certain it matters much more in online dating contexts when it comes to getting a foot in the door while they matter less in other contexts. However, as online dating takes up a larger share of the pie nowadays it's not surprising that many men feel looks matter more than anything else.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't see what your issue is then
            the issue is this

            >Attractiveness is a combination of many things. It cannot be objectively measured and varies wildly with every woman's taste in men.
            Complete nonsense. If attractiveness were this wildly individual thing you'd find it to be randomly distributed - but this is not the case in experiments. If you take 1000 men and 1000 women and introduce them to each other, then they can mostly agree on who is attractive and who isn't.

            Dating apps show a similar pattern. Some people are rated as more attractive than others. Personal taste plays a role, sure, but it does not discredit the empiric fact that there is a general tendency of what people deem attractive in the opposite gender.

            >Another incel meme.
            No, not at all. In the paper they measured a discrepancy between the perceived intelligence and the measured intelligence. Men who were rated more attractive were also rated more highly in intelligence.

            >Intelligence and physical attractiveness are somewhat correlated yes. And intelligence plays a major part in a man's overall attractiveness.
            No, the paper in [...] clearly showed: intelligence on its own only plays a very minor part. It only predicts 3.2 or 3.4% of the variance in mate appeal for short- and long-term mating.

            >Anything else you want to lie about?
            What am I lying about? You're the one who is getting schooled here.

            >Complete nonsense

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            My issue is:
            >It cannot be objectively measured and varies wildly with every woman's taste in men.

            This is completely wrong. Even if attractiveness in terms of 'overall appeal' is more than just looks, that does not mean you can't measure it all the same. And in fact, that's what they've been doing in the paper. e.g. you can see they refer to stuff like "financial security", "dependability", or intelligence for that matter and use it to predict mate appeal - and they find that it matters. Their point is NOT that intelligence is irrelevant to women. If you're a smart guy it does make you more attractive to women - not as much as being a hot guy does, but it matters.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            OK, moron, lets get this going.
            since more than 1 in 12 married women has a husband shorter than herself yet their happiness markers are the same as other women and odds of divorce are LOWER than women with husbands the same height or taller tell me again that you have a mathematical formula that can take the uy's measurements and test scores and show he would be her choice.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You couldn't predict it at an individual basis but what you can do is estimate the likelihood of finding a partner given your height, based on whether women are willing to accept you and how many men you are competing with.

            Women 'generally' prefer a partner who is taller than they are, and if you actually look at the height differential of couples, you even find that the height differential between married couples is larger than would be expected by chance (given that men are taller on average), i.e. the average married man is taller than the average unmarried man.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If you're a smart guy it does make you more attractive to women - not as much as being a hot guy does
            You keep posting your incel wank fantasies as facts. You obviously are projecting your homosexual lust of what you find attractive in a man (100% physical appearance) onto women, not realizing they are not as single-minded as you are.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's what the study shows. You can cry about that as much as you want - it's not going to change the truth.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >'m also fairly certain it matters much more in online dating contexts
            confirmed - you are an idiot.
            Online dating is a meme

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, online dating is a meme. That does not keep millions of lonely people from partaking in it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >bad study with unclear data
            Here is updated and accurate data.
            And write this down -
            Of people who meet online *less than 10% of them meet on dating apps*. Of those that DO meet on dating apps more than 80% of them meet on "specialty apps" such as Catholic Match or Mormon Mingle.
            So barely 1% of couples meet on dating apps and less than 0.2% meet on something like Tinder.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why post data on LGB adults then?

            Also, it's interesting how even the source you post mentions that nearly half of US adults say dating has gotten harder for most people in the last 10 years - so clearly this entire thing is not just some incel fantasy but something experienced by pretty much everyone.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Why post data on LGB adults then?
            Translation: You can't read charts.
            for ALL partnered adults
            then by age
            etc.
            The very bottom line shows that LGB are most likely to meet online.
            But the headline confused you because your IQ is under 80.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            All partnered adults obviously contains a lot of elderly couples. And if we also consider that a lot of younger people aren't dating, the data set would be biased towards them. If you were cleverer yourself, you'd realise that

            Yes, online dating is a meme. That does not keep millions of lonely people from partaking in it.

            is a much more accurate representation of the 'now'.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            And the data also shows that the younger the age group the higher the amount of people who meet online. This essentially maps the trend we see in [...] quite well, i.e. your own chart confirms me.

            [...]
            Another remark: your data from 2019 was before worldwide covid restrictions, so a lot more people have discovered online dating since then.

            Amazing.
            It took this fricker 20+ minutes to read the simple entry and he STILL can't do the math.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The actual truth is that you got completely destroyed in this thread, which is why your last fort of defence, if one wants to call it that, the percentage of people engaging in online dating rather than the actual black pill issues.

            And even on that front you've lost, since even your own data both confirms the trend that people are experiencing the dating market as more competitive than in the past and that more and more people - in particular among younger generations - are engaging in online dating.

            So what are you even talking about?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The actual truth is that you got completely destroyed in this thread
            that was my first reply
            The core black pill idea
            >only a man's appearance matters
            is not just obviously wrong no black piller legit TRIES to defend it
            >He's rich
            >he's famous
            >he's got thick wrists
            etc. are all trotted out to explain why some ugly short guy has a wife, then the black piller goes back to claiming ONLY looks matter like he didn't just admit that isn't true.
            >So what are you even talking about?
            I am mocking the brain dead fool that first read JUST the headline to an image, then sloooooooowly figured out what the chart meant
            >taking 20 minutes
            and was STILL too dim to realize that even with all the changes online dating doesn't matter.
            That was you, wasn't it?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I think you're misrepresenting the ideology and you're debating a strawman. When it comes to blackpill orthodoxy in terms of 'only looks matter', that is something many people don't subscribe to. I for example believe that looks are important but they don't predict the majority of the variance when it comes to mate appeal. My position is one of hereditarianism, or biological essentialism/determinism. I believe in the primacy of heritable traits. Both in the economic and in the romantic domain. And I believe it is well substantiated by research.

            The fact that you can point at an exceptionally wealthy, famous or successful man who also happens to not conform to conventional beauty standards because he has a hot wife does not mean that just anyone could replicate his success. After all: most people are not wealthy, famous and successful. An incel who is not particularly handsome 'and' not particularly successful will struggle finding a partner. Telling him he can just become a Hollywood actor, a famous writer, a billionaire, etc. is obviously not going to solve his problem because he probably lacks the innate ability to do that.

            Now, individuals who didn't manifest the traits that women were looking for in partners have always existed, but what is factual is that women have gotten choosier. I've already posted the data in

            No problem Anon. Here:

            >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

            [...]
            That's what it is. Women are getting choosier. See the data above.

            [...]
            This is measurably untrue. Look for example at the data I posted above.

            , but there is further evidence. The famous Lichter et al. study on marriage market mismatches: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335623782_Mismatches_in_the_Marriage_Market.

            What they basically found is that female choosiness is dependent on their relative social status, as choosiness was most pronounced among educated/wealthy women. This is also not my conclusion but it was drawn in the Harvard paper I posted earlier ITT.

            If you combine these facts with the fact that women are outcompeting men in terms of educational attainment, it is easy to see why men are experienced dating as more competitive these days.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're the moron that posted Salman Rushdie as proof that it is about wealth not knowing he married a millionaire socialite when he was poor, aren't you?
            >The fact that you can point at an exceptionally wealthy, famous or successful man who also happens to not conform to conventional beauty standards because he has a hot wife does not mean that just anyone could replicate his success.
            How about the fact that I can point to millions of AVERAGE to BELOW AVERAGE men that have a wife "above their looksmatch" when they are NO rich, etc.?
            I can do that by going outside.
            > but what is factual is that women have gotten choosier
            Yes. SO much choosier that Millennials men had their total marriage rate drop to the lowest ever
            80%.
            And Millennial men had lifetime virginity peak to the highest ever
            2.8%
            And these are over represented in minority groups, especially Blacks.
            >choosiness was most pronounced among educated/wealthy women.
            you mean like it has always been?
            >he fact that women are outcompeting men in terms of educational attainment
            irrelevant an a stupid point.
            Men are fleeing university education because it has no value to men OR WOMEN. Women always lag in these areas.
            >men are experienced dating as more competitive these days.
            SO. WHAT?
            very literally SO. WHAT?

            Ever see the Brass Balls scene in Glengarry Glen Ross? It is a FASCINATING scene because of how people react to it.
            To sum it up it is a successful rich salesmen talking to a bunch of losers. He explains to them, very clearly, that sales is hard, *very* hard. That most people can never do sales, ever. Most people that try it fail. But if you CAN sell and DO sell? You can be *RICH*!!
            IME when women and weak men watch the scene they agree
            >"That man is so MEAN! He is just so RUDE! Why, I would NEVER let him talk to ME that way!"
            When actual men watch that scene?"
            >"I'm gonna sell some fricking REAL ESTATE and I'm gonna be RICH!"

            more

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            More directly - sure. its harder. No one ever denied that
            >Yes, check. People have said 'here is how you can get laid/a GF'
            are you going to work harder or Lie Down And Rot?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You're the moron that posted Salman Rushdie as proof that it is about wealth not knowing he married a millionaire socialite when he was poor, aren't you?
            No, I'm the guy who criticised the guy who posted Salman Rushdie because he never was poor. Rushdie studied at Cambridge. His father studied at Cambridge too. What are you even talking about?

            >How about the fact that I can point to millions of AVERAGE to BELOW AVERAGE men that have a wife "above their looksmatch" when they are NO rich, etc.?
            I'd say that should reflect in data. Looks is obviously a pretty vague thing that is hard to measure, but if we look at height, as a particular aspect of looks for example, we find that it does indeed matter. For example: in US couples, the height differential between men and women is larger than you would expect it to be by chance (considering that men are taller on average), i.e. the average married man is taller than the average unmarried men; women are sexually selecting for height. And these couples obviously contain many elderly couples from a time when romance was less liberal of a thing than it is today.

            >Yes. SO much choosier that Millennials men had their total marriage rate drop to the lowest ever
            What matters much more than overall marriage rates is marriage rate by age. Women marry later and they have children later, which indicates that their own choosiness prevents them from finding partners earlier, forcing them to settle as they age or not marry at all. This pattern is mentioned in the Lichter study (

            I think you're misrepresenting the ideology and you're debating a strawman. When it comes to blackpill orthodoxy in terms of 'only looks matter', that is something many people don't subscribe to. I for example believe that looks are important but they don't predict the majority of the variance when it comes to mate appeal. My position is one of hereditarianism, or biological essentialism/determinism. I believe in the primacy of heritable traits. Both in the economic and in the romantic domain. And I believe it is well substantiated by research.

            The fact that you can point at an exceptionally wealthy, famous or successful man who also happens to not conform to conventional beauty standards because he has a hot wife does not mean that just anyone could replicate his success. After all: most people are not wealthy, famous and successful. An incel who is not particularly handsome 'and' not particularly successful will struggle finding a partner. Telling him he can just become a Hollywood actor, a famous writer, a billionaire, etc. is obviously not going to solve his problem because he probably lacks the innate ability to do that.

            Now, individuals who didn't manifest the traits that women were looking for in partners have always existed, but what is factual is that women have gotten choosier. I've already posted the data in [...], but there is further evidence. The famous Lichter et al. study on marriage market mismatches: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335623782_Mismatches_in_the_Marriage_Market.

            What they basically found is that female choosiness is dependent on their relative social status, as choosiness was most pronounced among educated/wealthy women. This is also not my conclusion but it was drawn in the Harvard paper I posted earlier ITT.

            If you combine these facts with the fact that women are outcompeting men in terms of educational attainment, it is easy to see why men are experienced dating as more competitive these days.

            ).

            >you mean like it has always been?
            The question is not whether or not high status women are choosy, the question is: are they choosier?

            >irrelevant an a stupid point.
            Not at all. Education results in social status and if social status makes women choosier, then women outcompeting men could already explain a lot of the grievances.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >i.e. the average married man is taller than the average unmarried men
            To be fair: that conclusion might not be valid, given the fact that there might be extremely tall men outside of the preferred range who also struggle with finding partners who are capable of offsetting the average, but the general point of the claim remains.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Education results in social status
            This is collapsing/has collapsed.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >This is collapsing/has collapsed.
            I'm not disagreeing entirely, but I'd mostly agree with you when it comes to economic status. The social status is still there. And arguably: there have always been professions which largely yielded social status rather than wealth; the best example being the journalist.

            Still, if you hand a woman a degree, she'll want to date a guy who also has a degree. And if he doesn't have one, he has to make up for it by different means, e.g. income, net-worth, etc.; see (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jomf.12372).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The social status is still there
            that's vanishing FASTER.
            The economic advantage of uni was annihilated in the Dot Com collapse of the mid - late 1990's, that's why young men started avoiding it.
            As early as 2009 the American Dept of Labor published reports
            >quietly withdrawn, but the data still exists
            that unless you were studying one of about 8 majors in the top 20% of universities getting a degree *lowered* your lifetime income before you added in debt.
            Major corporations realized the fact that degrees are worthless not too long after and slowly but surely they are dropping requirements for them and shifting to skills.
            The issue now?
            Bomers, idiots, and certain cohorts of women don't realize that university degrees are now what they were in 1950 - a luxury good. But they also don't realize that the *side effects* they had from the 1950's
            >networking, mainly
            ae gone.
            99% of the young people throwing money at a 4 year degree right now are effectively buying an expensive horse-drawn carriage they can never afford horses for and it is 1932

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You are 6'3" and a kissless virgin. Just flush down your moronic height arguments with the rest of the bile excrement coming out from your mouth.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You're the moron that posted Salman Rushdie as proof that it is about wealth not knowing he married a millionaire socialite when he was poor, aren't you?
            No, I'm the guy who criticised the guy who posted Salman Rushdie because he never was poor. Rushdie studied at Cambridge. His father studied at Cambridge too. What are you even talking about?

            >How about the fact that I can point to millions of AVERAGE to BELOW AVERAGE men that have a wife "above their looksmatch" when they are NO rich, etc.?
            I'd say that should reflect in data. Looks is obviously a pretty vague thing that is hard to measure, but if we look at height, as a particular aspect of looks for example, we find that it does indeed matter. For example: in US couples, the height differential between men and women is larger than you would expect it to be by chance (considering that men are taller on average), i.e. the average married man is taller than the average unmarried men; women are sexually selecting for height. And these couples obviously contain many elderly couples from a time when romance was less liberal of a thing than it is today.

            >Yes. SO much choosier that Millennials men had their total marriage rate drop to the lowest ever
            What matters much more than overall marriage rates is marriage rate by age. Women marry later and they have children later, which indicates that their own choosiness prevents them from finding partners earlier, forcing them to settle as they age or not marry at all. This pattern is mentioned in the Lichter study ([...]).

            >you mean like it has always been?
            The question is not whether or not high status women are choosy, the question is: are they choosier?

            >irrelevant an a stupid point.
            Not at all. Education results in social status and if social status makes women choosier, then women outcompeting men could already explain a lot of the grievances.

            >SO. WHAT?
            >very literally SO. WHAT?
            So you've given up on defending your position and and you try to argue that it doesn't matter instead? I can live with that. I think it matters, but that's a different debate.

            >Ever see the Brass Balls scene in Glengarry Glen Ross?
            I don't watch American movies.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >So you've given up on defending your position
            That same tired straw man? AGAIN?
            The initial point I made was very simple
            >No, 50% of couples do NOT meet on online dating
            You forgot that as YOU proved it wrong and strutted about as if you won something.
            Now you keep pretending I hold positions never mentioned by me or by anyone but you.
            Take your fricking meds and remember the voices in your head aren't real

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's you!
            For the third time -
            When was the last time you asked a woman on a date? Give details.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >women are choosier
            Is that why 1 in 3 25 year old Gen Z women are already married?!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Marriage and birthrates are as low as ever. They've merely returned to pre-covid levels.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Marriage and birthrates are as low as ever
            Wrong.
            Wrong as frick.
            Wrong and dumb.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The vast majority of the developed world is facing demographic collapse. Peter Zeihan makes a living out of telling people. You must live in a different universe if you haven't heard of this.

            >So you've given up on defending your position
            That same tired straw man? AGAIN?
            The initial point I made was very simple
            >No, 50% of couples do NOT meet on online dating
            You forgot that as YOU proved it wrong and strutted about as if you won something.
            Now you keep pretending I hold positions never mentioned by me or by anyone but you.
            Take your fricking meds and remember the voices in your head aren't real

            >That same tired straw man? AGAIN?
            How is that a straw man? I confront you with substantial data why men would perceive dating as more competitive than previously and even that singular piece of data you've posted remarks on that fact, and as soon as it becomes impossible for you to hold that position, you abandon it and go "SO WHAT?!".

            That's fine, I like winning debates, but I'll still point it out.

            >The initial point I made was very simple
            >No, 50% of couples do NOT meet on online dating
            I've provided you with a current piece of data which shows they do

            Yes, online dating is a meme. That does not keep millions of lonely people from partaking in it.

            . And even in your data, you could see that online dating was more popular among younger generations. Now, you can always question: what does 'online' mean in that context, does it mean Tinder? Does it mean OkCupid? Does it mean people met on Discord? Well, who knows? No matter - it's not going to help you win this debate since it's an issue only tangentially related. Preference for certain physical traits is well established even in non-online contexts, such as the height thing in

            >You're the moron that posted Salman Rushdie as proof that it is about wealth not knowing he married a millionaire socialite when he was poor, aren't you?
            No, I'm the guy who criticised the guy who posted Salman Rushdie because he never was poor. Rushdie studied at Cambridge. His father studied at Cambridge too. What are you even talking about?

            >How about the fact that I can point to millions of AVERAGE to BELOW AVERAGE men that have a wife "above their looksmatch" when they are NO rich, etc.?
            I'd say that should reflect in data. Looks is obviously a pretty vague thing that is hard to measure, but if we look at height, as a particular aspect of looks for example, we find that it does indeed matter. For example: in US couples, the height differential between men and women is larger than you would expect it to be by chance (considering that men are taller on average), i.e. the average married man is taller than the average unmarried men; women are sexually selecting for height. And these couples obviously contain many elderly couples from a time when romance was less liberal of a thing than it is today.

            >Yes. SO much choosier that Millennials men had their total marriage rate drop to the lowest ever
            What matters much more than overall marriage rates is marriage rate by age. Women marry later and they have children later, which indicates that their own choosiness prevents them from finding partners earlier, forcing them to settle as they age or not marry at all. This pattern is mentioned in the Lichter study ([...]).

            >you mean like it has always been?
            The question is not whether or not high status women are choosy, the question is: are they choosier?

            >irrelevant an a stupid point.
            Not at all. Education results in social status and if social status makes women choosier, then women outcompeting men could already explain a lot of the grievances.

            .

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The vast majority of the developed world is facing demographic collapse
            I've been writing about demographic winter online since 1999, you moron.
            Marriage rates are UP.
            Ask questions, fool

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Marriage rates are UP.
            Marriage rates have merely returned to pre-covid levels. Birthrates are as low as ever - especially where it matters: in white Europe.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Marriage rates have merely returned to pre-covid levels
            Again, for the fifth time.
            marriage rates in Gen Z are ahead of marriage rates in Millennials at the same cohort age.
            Look up the big words

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I confront you with substantial data why men would perceive dating as more competitive than previously
            Which no one argued with
            >as soon as it becomes impossible for you to hold that position
            I never held that position
            >SO WHAT?!"
            Yup.
            Are you ESL?
            OK, EVERYONE KNOWS dating is harder.
            What are you going to do about that?
            I asked you a direct question.
            Are you going to Lie Down And Rot? Or get a wife?
            Which, you fricking loser?
            >That data
            That data graph you showed is not just wrong but fails to support your dating app argument.
            Every analysis fo dating apps shows that AT MOST 00.5% of relationships started on dating apps.
            > it's not going to help you win this debate since it's an issue only tangentially related
            tangentially related to THE TOPIC I AM TALKING ABOUT!
            You keep trying to change the subject, you keep propping up strawmen, and so on
            >Heritability. Demographics. Education
            all when all *I* said was
            >you are OBVIOUSLY wrong about the importance of dating apps
            which you KEEP ADMITTING then claiming victory

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Which no one argued with
            >I never held that position
            >OK, EVERYONE KNOWS dating is harder.
            Is that so? What are we debating then? Just the percentage of how many people partake in online dating?

            >What are you going to do about that?
            The solution can only be political. Voting for Hitler could be a good first step.

            >Are you going to Lie Down And Rot? Or get a wife?
            Optimisation of the individual potential is something you can 'also' do, but it's not going to solve the problem at large. It's a completely separate issue.

            >That data graph you showed is not just wrong but fails to support your dating app argument.
            >Every analysis fo dating apps shows that AT MOST 00.5% of relationships started on dating apps.
            I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't actually very good at providing people with relationships.

            >tangentially related to THE TOPIC I AM TALKING ABOUT!
            >You keep trying to change the subject, you keep propping up strawmen, and so on
            On the contrary. I am talking about the primacy of heritable traits in partner choice. You are talking about dating apps for some reason. They first came up when I remarked as a sidenote that physical traits probably matter 'especially' on apps when it comes to getting a foot in the door, but we can perceive something similar in speed dating experiments, so my argument does not actually depend on how common dating apps are being used.

            >which you KEEP ADMITTING then claiming victory
            Perhaps I am confusing you with someone else then. If you were 'only' talking about dating apps in this thread, having obviously entered the discussion at a later point then, then I'll concede that I haven't looked into the success rates and to how much of 'met online' dating apps actually contribute. If you have some substantial data I'd be very eager to look into it. But I can only emphasise: my main point is that heritable traits matter. And people who don't manifest them will struggle in more competitive dating markets.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What are we debating then? Just the percentage of how many people partake in online dating?
            That is what *I* was discussing. YOU kept thinking the voices in your head was something I wrote.
            >The solution can only be political.
            maybe the stupidest thing you've typed.
            And that is impressive.
            >You are talking about dating apps for some reason.
            Because you mentioned them first.

            Look, I get it.
            You can't keep track of a written conversation; you can't remember what you just read; you think your imaginary discussion in your head is what other people actually wrote; you think heritability determines the majority of personality despite the massive scientific evidence to the contrary.
            You're stupid.
            Combined with everything else that has GOT to be hard.
            But FFS ask more questions

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >maybe the stupidest thing you've typed.
            >And that is impressive.
            For someone who considers himself far-right, that's a rather ridiculous opinion. But it doesn't surprise me. In my experience, American right wingers are just liberals who don't like black people.

            >Because you mentioned them first.
            I'm merely remarked on them in reply to apparently someone else. But I can only repeat: they are irrelevant to my main point, which you seem to be unable to confront so you're having this tangential debate about a non-issue.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you think heritability determines the majority of personality despite the massive scientific evidence to the contrary.
            That is a completely nonsensical claim.

            Personality traits are pretty much all heritable and according to research between 40 - 60%. However, those remaining percentages are 'not' nurture but it might as well be random. Twin studies have been rather one-sided in that regard and any claim to the contrary only shows that you haven't looked into it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >That is a completely nonsensical claim.
            says the guy that can't keep track of a written conversation
            Again, all research into identical twins shows strong divergence in personality.
            If it was as heritable as you need to to be to explain why you can't get laid that wouldn't be true.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Again, all research into identical twins shows strong divergence in personality.
            What are you liberal subhuman even talking about?

            >it has been established that personality traits are partially heritable, with studies consistently showing that 40% to 60% of individual differences in personality are due to genetic influences (Vukasović & Bratko, 2015)

            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188692200109X

            Twin studies are pretty clear on the heritability. And I can only repeat: the remaining 40 - 60% are NOT 'nurture'.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >partially heritable
            >the remaining 40 - 60% are NOT 'nurture'.
            lol
            lmao, even
            If they weren't nurture it wouldn't be "partially" heritable.
            you have no idea what words mean

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If they weren't nurture it wouldn't be "partially" heritable.
            You have no idea what 'nurture' means you giant moron. The literature avoids the term 'nurture' here deliberately because 'nurture' implies a directed influence of the parent generation. The literature refers much more neutrally to this randomness as 'environment'. When it comes to nurture it can be clearly shows that nurture means frickall. If it were nurture you could show a strong correlation between adopted siblings, adoptive parents and the adopted kids. But the studies don't show that correlation at all.

            Why talk out of your ass about a subject you know nothing about?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The literature avoids the term 'nurture' here deliberately because 'nurture' implies a directed influence of the parent generation
            translation
            >I am a high school dropout that trolls the Incel Wiki and think it is an education
            but if tit was as heritable as it NEEDS TO BE for you to claim improvement is impossible you cannot account for the strong variance in identical twins in the same family.
            If IDENTICAL genes in the IDENTICAL family equals one introvert and one extrovert *which is very common* then your excuse vanishes.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >but if tit was as heritable as it NEEDS TO BE for you to claim improvement is impossible you cannot account for the strong variance in identical twins in the same family.
            Where did I say improvement is impossible? First of all, your naive, liberal interpretation that variance in identical twins comes down to one of the twin 'improving' and not just the randomness of the trait (which - as I can only repeat - might as well be genetic in the sense of the randomness that is inherent to genetics), and second of all: of COURSE you can improve yourself. If you have a predisposition to addictive behaviour you can avoid alcohol, drugs, gambling, etc. and you won't become an addict. Of your environment might prevent you by different means.

            But the potential for self-improvement is obviously limited. Just like Kevin won't turn himself into Chad by lifting weights and not touching his weiner, Kevin won't turn himself into Stacy by swallowing hormones and wearing a skirt.

            This liberal ideology of 'self-improvement' (which is why I already said: you're a misguided a liberal rather than "far-right"), is the basis which motivates letting boat people into Europe. After all, we never know whether Ngubu won't work hard and become a doctor or engineer, right?

            I'd recommend the article by Nathan Cofnas here, who's obviously as israeli, but still right (no-pun intended): https://ncofnas.com/p/why-we-need-to-talk-about-the-rights

            >If IDENTICAL genes in the IDENTICAL family equals one introvert and one extrovert *which is very common* then your excuse vanishes.
            I can only repeat you giantic moron: if the trait is 40 - 60% heritable then this shouldn't be surprising. But what you still don't understand is that it might be still genetics.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >First of all, your naive, liberal interpretation that variance in identical twins comes down to one of the twin 'improving'
            I never said that or implied it.
            >of COURSE you can improve yourself
            then you just rejected the black pill.
            >you're a misguided a liberal rather than "far-right"
            more proof you are a gibbering moron.
            >what you still don't understand is that it might be still genetics
            what YOU can't grasp is that if the genetics is a coin flip it isn't determinative

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >then you just rejected the black pill.
            No, not at all. The fact that you can improve yourself does not mean that you can do it indefinitely and that your improvement will have a significant effect. If you're a natural 3 and you work your ass off to become 4, then you might not even notice that in terms of romantic success. If you're a natural 7 and you work your ass off to become an 8 on the other hand you might see a hundred times the success. The matthew effect applies. Free markets assume pareto distributions of wealth.

            >more proof you are a gibbering moron.
            Who happens to know more about history of ideas than you.

            >what YOU can't grasp is that if the genetics is a coin flip it isn't determinative
            It is immutable. That's what matters.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If you're a natural 3 and you work your ass off to become 4, then you might not even notice that in terms of romantic success
            we're back to the Black Pill that ONLY APPEARANCE MATTERS after him denying it for a day
            kek

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            One does not follow the other. You're simply not clever enough to think logically.

            The fact that an improvement in the domain of looks at a low baseline does not result in more romantic success does NOT imply that only looks matter.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Who happens to know more about history of ideas than you
            You simply refuse to ask questions, don't you?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why would I ask you questions when I'm the one schooling you here?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Why would I ask you questions when I'm the one schooling you here?
            also you
            >wrong about fertility rates
            >wrong about age of marriage impacts on fertility rates
            >wrong about age of first birth on fertility rates
            >wrong about cultural status and fertility rates
            >wrong about contemporary marriage rates
            >wrong about use of dating apps

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I can only repeat: you got told on all of these issues and didn't provide one bit of data on them to back your points. We must be living in different universes.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I gave my shitty opinion that is wrong, so you were TOLD!
            You keep repeating your opinions like they are facts but are wrong.
            Average black pill enjoyer

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You keep repeating your opinions like they are facts but are wrong.
            I backed up all of my points with data. You made up shit throughout this entire thread. The only data you you posted was an online dating statistic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You keep repeating your opinions like they are facts but are wrong.
            I backed up all of my points with data. You made up shit throughout this entire thread. The only data you you posted was an online dating statistic.

            And it should be noted: I posted an online dating statistic of my own which was even more recent.

            The ONLY thing it did NOT contain was the extent to which actual dating apps were part of the overall amount of online dating. And on that end you haven't yet provided any data either. i.e. you spent the entire thread talking out of your ass.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            And it should be noted: I posted an online dating statistic of my own which was even more recent.

            The ONLY thing it did NOT contain was the extent to which actual dating apps were part of the overall amount of online dating. And on that end you haven't yet provided any data either. i.e. you spent the entire thread talking out of your ass.

            In any case, it's getting a little late here and I still have things to do, so we can continue this tomorrow. You're clearly too moronic for this debate to still go in a fruitful direction and it doesn't look like you have any actual data on your hands. If the thread still exists tomorrow I'll look into it if you provide something, otherwise: enjoy having gotten told on the internet, homosexual.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Tell us again how you can't get laid because your personality is genetic

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Reminds me of something my father told me.
            My dad was military intelligence for a decade then worked at the FBI. Interrogator and psychological profiler. Almost like a mind reader in his ability to observe people.
            He taught me a lot of things, but one that is most accurate was,
            "If a man is obviously confused or uncertain about something you say there are two reasons he won't ask you to explain. Stupidity or deceit. If someone makes massive assumptions about someone speaking without asking questions, he's stupid or dishonest."
            Its always held true.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I would like to pick your dad's brain. Any other tips about how people act? Any ways to falsify confidence or to detect malicious intent?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            "The questions people ask tell you a lot more about what they are thinking any any answer they can give you"
            "What people assume without sufficient evidence is a massive tell on what they fear"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He worked at the FBI. If there's one thing he knows, it's falsifying things and lying kek.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I can only repeat: what questions would I have to ask this person? If he were an honest debater he would not wait for being asked but he would reveal the wisdom he supposedly possesses in order to disprove my point.

            The fact that he made up data, such as in

            >the primacy of heritable traits in mate selection.
            Let me tell you how YOU proved this wrong
            What is the number one factor a woman chooses for long-term mate selection?
            The self-confidence/extroversion trait.
            Identical twins raised in the same home have identical genes. In over 80% of the cases, almost 90%, one twin is extroverted and the other introverted.
            Meaning these genetically indentical men result in one being highly desirable and the other poorly desirable.
            Your own research posts PROVE this is true.
            You yourself repeatedly admit this is true.
            If genetics is AT BEST a 50/50 good/bad that is NOT "highly heritable".

            , and generally didn't provide anything to back up his other claims only leads me to believe that he is a dishonest actor, and this nonsense of "ask me questions" only serves the purpose of concealing that he's dumbfounded and can't respond to the given arguments.

            He tries to save face by asserting that there is 'something' behind his moron act that I could 'reveal' by just asking the right questions, but I refuse to play into such games. If he knew something, he would openly reveal it, disprove my points and call it a day. But he can't. He evades, lies, and loses himself in asserting things about my character rather than debating me openly - which only speaks about his character. I gave him the chance to opt out of this debate gracefully but he didn't take it, which only reveals a tenacious kind of narcissism and bad character in general.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >of COURSE you can improve yourself.
            The blackpiller just refuted the blackpill.
            THREAD'S OVE, EVERYONE!
            Sorry Schooler missed it

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            See

            >then you just rejected the black pill.
            No, not at all. The fact that you can improve yourself does not mean that you can do it indefinitely and that your improvement will have a significant effect. If you're a natural 3 and you work your ass off to become 4, then you might not even notice that in terms of romantic success. If you're a natural 7 and you work your ass off to become an 8 on the other hand you might see a hundred times the success. The matthew effect applies. Free markets assume pareto distributions of wealth.

            >more proof you are a gibbering moron.
            Who happens to know more about history of ideas than you.

            >what YOU can't grasp is that if the genetics is a coin flip it isn't determinative
            It is immutable. That's what matters.

            , moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Does "looksmaxxing" mean anything to you? You do know that this is a big thing in the blackpill sphere right? Why do you talk about things you know nothing about?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Improvement has a ceiling depending on the person. For some, that ceiling is below the minimum threshold modern daring requires.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're just doing the Anti-Improover meme with more steps.
            >MUH HERITABILITY! is why I don't shower
            >MUH HERITABILITY! is why I never talk to women
            >MUH HERITABILITY! is why I can't climb a flight of stairs without resting for 3 minutes

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >winning debates
            kek
            WHEN
            WAS
            THE
            LAST
            TIME
            YOU
            ASKED
            A
            WOMAN
            ON
            A
            DATE
            ?
            give details

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Kek. No matter how many times you ask he will avoid answering.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Here is the truth about him
            >He never, ever talks to women except to get a receipt
            >He never, ever looks men in the eye
            >He has 6-80 links to articles he uses to justify why men with GFs are dumb but he is smart for never talking to women

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Anon
            Online dating is a meme
            You
            >over 50% of people meetin on dating apps
            Anon
            >that isn't true, it is a very small fraction
            You over the course of hours
            >OK, sure, it's obviously true that only a very few people meet on dating apps and that makes them a meme but you are BAD and I won this debate

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            All partnered adults obviously contains a lot of elderly couples. And if we also consider that a lot of younger people aren't dating, the data set would be biased towards them. If you were cleverer yourself, you'd realise that [...] is a much more accurate representation of the 'now'.

            And the data also shows that the younger the age group the higher the amount of people who meet online. This essentially maps the trend we see in

            Yes, online dating is a meme. That does not keep millions of lonely people from partaking in it.

            quite well, i.e. your own chart confirms me.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            And the data also shows that the younger the age group the higher the amount of people who meet online. This essentially maps the trend we see in [...] quite well, i.e. your own chart confirms me.

            Another remark: your data from 2019 was before worldwide covid restrictions, so a lot more people have discovered online dating since then.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I love that this guy concedes the black pill is wrong but is such a backhanded way he can keep using it as an excuse

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If you take 1000 men and 1000 women and introduce them to each other, then they can mostly agree on who is attractive and who isn't.
            According to a study you pulled out of your ass.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, if attractiveness is random, how do you explain a preference for height, like in

            You couldn't predict it at an individual basis but what you can do is estimate the likelihood of finding a partner given your height, based on whether women are willing to accept you and how many men you are competing with.

            Women 'generally' prefer a partner who is taller than they are, and if you actually look at the height differential of couples, you even find that the height differential between married couples is larger than would be expected by chance (given that men are taller on average), i.e. the average married man is taller than the average unmarried man.

            . Does that look random to you? If female preference for physical traits is random, why do they seem to all prefer men of a certain height? You don't think the same applies to certain facial features?

            I can only repeat: do you think people would rate Ryan Gosling and Richard Stallman as equally attractive? If it were random, you'd have to expect that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Paper looks at only two factors, intelligence and appearance
            >Appearance is higher
            >Dumbfrick thinks that means only appearance counts
            You, BTW, are the dumbfrick

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Are you too dumb to read?

            Look what I said in

            It's the other way around. Surveys usually overrate personality and underrate looks.

            For comparison: looks predicts roughly 40% of the variance in mate appeal, while intelligence predicts less than 5%.

            >For comparison: looks predicts roughly 40% of the variance in mate appeal, while intelligence predicts less than 5%.

            How does "looks predicts roughly 40% of the variance in mate appeal" imply that it's everything there is? If looks predict 40% of the variance than the other 60% (i.e. the largest part) are obviously predicted by something else. However, looks are still the single-most important factor by itself, while the rest is made up of multiple minor factors, which only matter in accumulation.

            Still, these other factors are just as heritable as the looks. Intelligence is heritable. Conscientiousness is heritable. Pretty much all personality traits are largely heritable.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Pretty much all personality traits are largely heritable.
            Superstitious nonsense.
            Identical twins raised in the same home, etc. have widely divergent personalities.
            Multiple studies have proven this time and time again.
            If people with essentially identical genetics in essentially the exact same environment end with with very different personalities then
            >Pretty much all personality traits are largely heritable.
            is total bullshit

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Superstitious nonsense.
            >Identical twins raised in the same home, etc. have widely divergent personalities.
            Monozygotic twins are actually pretty close in terms of personality - even if they never met and were raised in different homes by different parents. However, personality traits are only 40 - 60% heritable, i.e. there is actually quite a bit of room for randomness (and it actually 'is' random, for all we know). Still, genetics are the single most important factor that we can use to predict a trait. 'nurture' for example is largely a meme. If you have monozygotic twins raised in different households by adoptive parents, they are typically highly correlated with each other in terms of personality traits, even if they never met, while there is very little to no correlation with their adoptive parents and a high correlation with their biological parents, even if they ever met them either.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Superstitious nonsense.
            >Identical twins raised in the same home, etc. have widely divergent personalities.
            Monozygotic twins are actually pretty close in terms of personality - even if they never met and were raised in different homes by different parents. However, personality traits are only 40 - 60% heritable, i.e. there is actually quite a bit of room for randomness (and it actually 'is' random, for all we know). Still, genetics are the single most important factor that we can use to predict a trait. 'nurture' for example is largely a meme. If you have monozygotic twins raised in different households by adoptive parents, they are typically highly correlated with each other in terms of personality traits, even if they never met, while there is very little to no correlation with their adoptive parents and a high correlation with their biological parents, even if they ever met them either.

            Also, what is important to note: even if 40 - 60% can be traced back to being heritable, that does not mean the rest is not genetic in origin. Polygenic scoring and AI based models will likely reveal a greater genetic component in the near future.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You

            >Pretty much all personality traits are largely heritable
            Also you

            >Superstitious nonsense.
            >Identical twins raised in the same home, etc. have widely divergent personalities.
            Monozygotic twins are actually pretty close in terms of personality - even if they never met and were raised in different homes by different parents. However, personality traits are only 40 - 60% heritable, i.e. there is actually quite a bit of room for randomness (and it actually 'is' random, for all we know). Still, genetics are the single most important factor that we can use to predict a trait. 'nurture' for example is largely a meme. If you have monozygotic twins raised in different households by adoptive parents, they are typically highly correlated with each other in terms of personality traits, even if they never met, while there is very little to no correlation with their adoptive parents and a high correlation with their biological parents, even if they ever met them either.

            >personality traits are only 40 - 60% heritable
            Which is it?
            "Maybe half, maybe" or "Largely"?
            When was the last time you personally asked a woman out on a date?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Pretty much all personality traits are largely heritable
            Largely heritable opposed to being the result of 'nurture'.

            >"Maybe half, maybe" or "Largely"?
            Your genetic heritage is the best predictor you have. It is the single most important determinant. That is what I mean by 'largely'. Depending on the trait and depending on the study, you'll find a heritability between 40 - 60%, in general it's around 50%. However, as I said in

            [...]
            Also, what is important to note: even if 40 - 60% can be traced back to being heritable, that does not mean the rest is not genetic in origin. Polygenic scoring and AI based models will likely reveal a greater genetic component in the near future.

            , that does not mean that it's 'actually' random in the sense that it cannot also be traced back to genetics.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you missed a question
            >When was the last time you personally asked a woman out on a date?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Link me to the paper as pdf.
            WTF do you mean "link me to the paper"?
            You haven't read the paper yourself?!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I mean: link me to a pdf of the paper you are quoting. If you have read it, you should have it somewhere, right?

            In case you're interested in mine: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223316163_Intelligence_and_mate_choice_Intelligent_men_are_always_appealing - you can read the full text there.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >he study I posted clearly shows that attractiveness is the single most important factor in predicting the mate appeal of men for both short and long-term mating
            If you are talking about the study reflected in the image here

            It's the other way around. Surveys usually overrate personality and underrate looks.

            For comparison: looks predicts roughly 40% of the variance in mate appeal, while intelligence predicts less than 5%.

            then you are either a moron or a fricking liar.
            That single sentence at the end of the screenshot is out of context, you moronic liar.
            The study refers to other research that shows if a woman is only going on a date with a guy with no prospect of seeing him again *or of having sex with him* then appearance is highest.
            But in ANY OTHER SCENARIO personality and intelligence are tops.
            You didn't read it or understand it
            -You claim appearance is 40% of attractiveness.
            What the paper ACTUAL SAYS
            >in other studies that did not include intelligence, creativity, or capacity to learn attractiveness was NO MORE THAN 39% of variability in attractiveness to women
            Meaning, you moron, that no study has ever shown male attractiveness to be MORE THAN 40% of what women are interested in.
            Idiots like you are how the black pill continues

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >no study has ever shown male attractiveness to be MORE THAN 40% of what women are interested in
            Is that so? They clearly state in

            Are you too dumb to read?

            Look what I said in [...]
            >For comparison: looks predicts roughly 40% of the variance in mate appeal, while intelligence predicts less than 5%.

            How does "looks predicts roughly 40% of the variance in mate appeal" imply that it's everything there is? If looks predict 40% of the variance than the other 60% (i.e. the largest part) are obviously predicted by something else. However, looks are still the single-most important factor by itself, while the rest is made up of multiple minor factors, which only matter in accumulation.

            Still, these other factors are just as heritable as the looks. Intelligence is heritable. Conscientiousness is heritable. Pretty much all personality traits are largely heritable.

            that they've encountered models where for short-term appeal it predicted almost 60% of the variance.

            >That single sentence at the end of the screenshot is out of context, you moronic liar.
            It's not out of context at all. It was taken from their conclusion. You can read the paper yourself, I've linked you to it. They found that intelligence matters but they found that it matters very little. And if you were a bit smarter, you wouldn't find this surprising, since intelligence on its own is very much worthless. On NSFFW you'll find plenty of 'smart' people, who probably score reasonably well in IQ tests, but due to manifesting other, detrimental personality traits, find themselves unable to harness their intelligence to advance their social status. If you look at

            Are you too dumb to read?

            Look what I said in [...]
            >For comparison: looks predicts roughly 40% of the variance in mate appeal, while intelligence predicts less than 5%.

            How does "looks predicts roughly 40% of the variance in mate appeal" imply that it's everything there is? If looks predict 40% of the variance than the other 60% (i.e. the largest part) are obviously predicted by something else. However, looks are still the single-most important factor by itself, while the rest is made up of multiple minor factors, which only matter in accumulation.

            Still, these other factors are just as heritable as the looks. Intelligence is heritable. Conscientiousness is heritable. Pretty much all personality traits are largely heritable.

            for example, you'll find that 'financial security' accounts for much more of the variance than intelligence - yet financial security is clearly g-loaded.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Research BTFO the likes of you LMAO. Nevermind the quality of their studies are beyond top tier (prof level). Whatever man keep PUA scamming for money.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >what they say about men which to me as a man sounds ridiculous
    It's not ridiculous at all. These are the men they are attracted to.

    This idea that you could be more attractive to them by not being like those men is an incel fantasy, because those are the men they want and gravitate towards, getting burned over and over again like the moth relates to the fire.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah black pill is usually people too afraid to get their feeling hurt through rejection coping with their fears. A lot of times the have a grandiose self-view and when the realise reality doesn’t line up with that they make a new reality. Which sounds cooler “I’m not desireable to as many women as I imagined” or “I’m a black pilled man going my own way”

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >OP gets grifted by internet morons
    >realizes years later that making broad generalizations about half the population doesn’t actually make sense in reality
    You’re kind of a moron but at least your growing out of your moronation

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Really it depends on how badly you want it. As less attractive men the odds are stack against us for sure, but one thing about people is that if they want something bad enough they will fight relentlessly for that 1% chance to win.

    I believe there is a lot of truth to the red/black pills, but overall what really kept me from dating and dealing with women is that I never wanted it bad enough to risk anything for it.

    I have no regrets about my decision to "opt out" back when I was around your age, even now as a 31 yo virgin. But the most important thing is to ask yourself how badly do you want it, because if you want it badly the black pill shouldn't deter you to the point of quitting.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I would argue if you really want it, the black pill won't keep you from trying. The likelihood is low and most red/blackpill takes are correct, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. It just depends on how much time of your life you want to dedicate to a possibly fruitless endeavour, since there obviously is no guaranteed success.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        lol why are you so overly dramatic about it, you make it sound like you’re on some Lord of The Rings epic quest.

        Dating is so easy when you step outside your little online bubble.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Dating is so easy
          If it's easy, I wonder why people like Andrew Tate are as popular as they are, why dating podcasts where men complain about their grievances and complain to women about it top the charts and why so many people feel it's impossible to the point where they opt out and become 31 years old virgins like

          Really it depends on how badly you want it. As less attractive men the odds are stack against us for sure, but one thing about people is that if they want something bad enough they will fight relentlessly for that 1% chance to win.

          I believe there is a lot of truth to the red/black pills, but overall what really kept me from dating and dealing with women is that I never wanted it bad enough to risk anything for it.

          I have no regrets about my decision to "opt out" back when I was around your age, even now as a 31 yo virgin. But the most important thing is to ask yourself how badly do you want it, because if you want it badly the black pill shouldn't deter you to the point of quitting.

          .

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They’re popular because they tell people like

            Really it depends on how badly you want it. As less attractive men the odds are stack against us for sure, but one thing about people is that if they want something bad enough they will fight relentlessly for that 1% chance to win.

            I believe there is a lot of truth to the red/black pills, but overall what really kept me from dating and dealing with women is that I never wanted it bad enough to risk anything for it.

            I have no regrets about my decision to "opt out" back when I was around your age, even now as a 31 yo virgin. But the most important thing is to ask yourself how badly do you want it, because if you want it badly the black pill shouldn't deter you to the point of quitting.

            what they want to hear so the can grift them into becoming paying viewers.

            No one wants to hear that it’s easy and the reason it might not be for them is because they’re not appealing as a person. They want to hear that globochad puppet masters are ruining their chances with any girl so it’s best not to try at all. PS don’t forget to seethe about it and tune into next weeks gaycast after you buy Tate brand protein powder and his 18 step hustler course.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They wouldn't want to hear that if there were not an issue in the first place.

            Take your liberal media theory elsewhere. Reality comes first, then comes the demand.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >they’re not appealing as a person
            so dating isn't easy for them then even if they "leave their internet bubble"
            are you moronic ?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          This

          >pic related is too ugly to talk to girls
          Dude facially has essentially the same skin and facial structure as Ronnie Coleman if Ronnie
          >didn't have an ounce of muscle on him.
          >had a chubby, un-exercised face that hid his jaw
          >badly needed a haircut
          >put zero effort into his drip or appearance
          Ronnie never went wanting for women despite being virtually unknown outside of bodybuilding circles, because after he put the time in, the full package was much more than just the face, and women were into it. Even for this guy, there is a route to success.

          I'm not going to pretend like this guy's route for success isn't substantially harderm but don't act like there isn't an element of self-sabotage at play either - if you look like the guy in your picture, you've still typically got a lot of elements in your control if you genuinely want to make getting laid a personal priority.

          is what guys mean when they say dating is hard for some men. You have to dump thousands of hours into self improvement just to qualify for a mid b***h, if that.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah I don't think its impossible to find anything worthwhile, but its not something I would be my time and effort on. I've never seen a healthy relationship in my entire life. Sex, relationships, marriage, and kids have been nothing but a detriment to everyone I know personally. And that shaped a lot of my worldview, the online black/redpill communities just helped me connect the dots and see that I wasn't the only one who noticed these things.

        They’re popular because they tell people like [...] what they want to hear so the can grift them into becoming paying viewers.

        No one wants to hear that it’s easy and the reason it might not be for them is because they’re not appealing as a person. They want to hear that globochad puppet masters are ruining their chances with any girl so it’s best not to try at all. PS don’t forget to seethe about it and tune into next weeks gaycast after you buy Tate brand protein powder and his 18 step hustler course.

        You're kinda off the mark. Guys like Tate don't really push for men to opt out, he's more about understanding how women work and dealing with them in a non pussified way. You don't sell courses on how to give up on dating.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Salty incels want to feel less like a failure so they convince others (you) to also become an incel because "all womenz r evul".
    As it however turns out: Women are not a hive mind and individual people have different personalities and opinions. Some are c**ts, some are not.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Didn't read

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Blackpill is literally gay psyops.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe grow up and stop using TikTok homosexual

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >"Is the shrieking anti-woman doomposting of uneducated losers that can't figure out how to talk to women wrong?"
    Yes.
    /next stupid question

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    These make the blackpillers FREAK OUT.
    1) none are surveys
    2) All have high confidence
    >combined they show that a guy like Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise has a little bit more sex (1-2 more partners than average) as a teen, then as adults personality always wins.
    I've seen blackpillers make up ies about the contents of the studies, post out of context & heavily edited quotes, etc. but never, you know, decide to talk to women
    First study
    >Having a higher score in Personality increased the odds of marriage. Having a higher score in Appearance did not.
    second study
    >Men ...in good health, and wealthier individuals are also more likely to engage in several facets of intimate relationships"
    meaning 'looks were a fourth or fifth on the list"
    Third study, direct quote
    >"Men who believed they were of high mate value were more likely than lower mate value men to prefer to marry at a younger age; to have a spouse who was younger than them; and to have a partner who was sociable, ambitious, high in social status, with good financial prospects, a desire for children, health, good looks, and mutual attraction. Objective male facial attractiveness was generally unrelated to heightened mate preferences"
    Translation
    >"Confidence matters more than appearance"
    Fourth study
    >"When determining total sexual partner count no significant difference was shown between unattractive, average, and attractive men."
    So unless you are literally Brad fricking Pitt there is no difference between ugly and handsome

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      See

      It's the other way around. Surveys usually overrate personality and underrate looks.

      For comparison: looks predicts roughly 40% of the variance in mate appeal, while intelligence predicts less than 5%.

      .

      Also, you need to consider that while looks predicts "only" 40% of the variance in mate appeal, i.e. 60% is explained by different means, the traits that make a man attractive are still largely heritable. Salman Rushie is an accomplished author, a wealthy and educated man. The fact that you can make up for a lack of physical attractiveness by being a guy who is one in a million in terms of accomplishment does not disprove the primacy of heritable traits.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don't get mad at whatever men say on the internet anymore after i accepted on fact. they're not talking about you, they're talking about stacy.
    when they say "women are trash", "women always cheat", "why are women so abusive", "i hate all women", they're talking about women they wish they could interact and have sex with. You're not even part of the game. you don't even exist to them, LITERALLY. there was a study done where they showed men pics of ugly women and there was no brain activity, they could see them with their eyes but their brains weren't registering anything.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No. You got incelled by autism. Good riddance.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >it's all about height bro! Be tall!
    >It's about being funny broo, jestermaxx!
    >It's about your personality! You're boring! Be something original and the ladies will come!
    >It's about being
    >It's about being FUN, BE FUN NERD
    >ITS ALL ABOUT BEING-
    GO FRICK YOURSELF YOU STUPID c**tS ITS NOT ABOUT WHAT WOMEN WANT ITS ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You're Gonna Make It, Anon

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      but what if the only thing I want in life is to return to the void by any means necessary?

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    All the good looking women who would make good wives and mothers are taken in high school and college the latest. Whatever remains is taken shortly after they enter the workforce. There exist very few good looking (6 and above) women that are single and have a good heart. The window of opportunity when they are single is very very narrow. If you don't frequent their circles or the events they attend you have no chance of meeting them. Women also don't go anywhere alone, so whatever hobbies women have or events they attend it is done with their husband or boyfriend and if they are single with their groups of friends.
    Boomers and gen-x are throwing money at young pussy like never before, we are talking boat trips, exotic trips, paying their rent and bills, buying them clothes, trips to beauty salons, etc. Many of them have net worths in the millions. Just look at all those modelling agencies and realize how many pretty girls are being baited to frick the rich and upper class.
    Then there are chad millennials and chad zoomers who get their first pick at all the young pussy.
    Then at the end of the line there is you anon, the average nobody with no money, no charisma, no looks, no social circle, no experiences and no toys.

    tldr; single good looking young women don't really exist except in very niche places where men without social circles (loners) can't get in to

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      sounds like natural selection taking place, if you havent achieved anything or have anything of value, why would someone with more to lose invest in a proposition that will bankrupt them? Looks are basically the marketing department of genetics,if you have the best product in the world and spend no money on advertisements (fashion, grooming, etc) why are you screaming at passer by and calling them prostitutes for not buying your product?

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Blackpillers are fricking morons. You take advice on women from them you may as well cut off your dick cause you will never use it

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You have low self-esteem and to save yourself from the feared humiliation of being rejected by women you instead went full moron and let miserable losers online brainwash you into thinking half the people on the planet are so fundamentally rotten that you shouldn't even waste your time trying to find a partner. You will be a miserable, lonely person for the rest of your life if you don't abandon these ideas.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I feel genuine sorrow for men who fall for the black pill, yes it's good to have scientific data to make informed decisions but they fail to account for the variations and outliers that are consistent with human nature. do women like men who are 6 ft tall, make 6 figures and have a 6" penis? Yes, but in the same way men like a 5'2 rich girl with a big ass and a skinny waist; it's a wish list, not a necessity, and there will always be people who want things outside of those parameters.

    There's so much generalization and lumping people into groups that they fail to account for individual wants and needs, and that turns into an echo chamber as these people who carry these rigid and strictured beliefs are forcing themselves into situations that are only going to reaffirm exactly what they already believe by being close minded.

    The only way to know for certain if you're going to be able to find someone to share your life with is through trial and error. If you want to look at it statistically think of it as research and development, you are a product of your own design but you are also your marketing team, you may have a target demographic right out of the gate or you may struggle to meet industry expectations. there may be a high demand for what you supply, or there may just be a small group of dedicated consumers. If you find yourself in a situation where what you are marketing does not have demand, you could always make tweaks to the product in the efforts of attracting a consumer base.

    Wording it like a normal person, you might find someone who loves you just as you are, you might have a lot of women interested in you or there might just be one or two. If there are none, take a step back and reevaluate; make some positive changes in yourself and then try again. There's always something you could be doing to improve your odds, and I promise you that finding real love is worth it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >do women like men who are 6 ft tall, make 6 figures and have a 6" penis? Yes, but in the same way men like a 5'2 rich girl with a big ass and a skinny waist;
      Stopped reading there. The key difference is that women have easy access to the men who fit most of their preferences.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The blackpill doesn't turn happy people into incels.
      It just lets incels stop making fools out of themselves by letting them know that it's over.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    sure but keep it casual. the divorce rate is no psy-op

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >be a man
    >put fear aside
    >ask girl to hang out
    >she says yes
    >we hang out
    >she bails halfway through with an excuse
    So just keep doing this forever? Or do I have to keep self improving for another 10 years?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Or do I have to keep self improving for another 10 years?
      Probably not, but you ARE in a competition with the other men she could reasonably pull and be spending that time with instead. Figure out your answer to
      >why is she spending that time with you, instead of one of those other guys?
      And instead of her bailing, you'll be balls deep.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        i wouldnt know the answer to what goes on in her mind, my assumption obviously is looks/personality but im not going to waste my time trying with anyone who isn’t interested. ill maybe ask out a few more girls and see what happens

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >i wouldnt know the answer to what goes on in her mind
          People call dating a numbers game because you don't have to, you just have to know

          >I have an answer to that question that some reasonable percentage of women as a group will find compelling.
          Then put yourself in front of enough women to run into women that care about that answer.

          >im not going to waste my time trying with anyone who isn’t interested.
          This is fine, so long as your follow-up is
          >so I can spend more time finding and fricking the portion of women who will be interested.
          Self-improvement grows that portion, asking more women out increases the number of chances you have to find that portion.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >wake up everyday
            >self improve
            >still get rejected
            whats the point?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're gonna die anyways and you're trapped in your bodily meat canoe no matter what - all else being equal, even if it doesn't help you get laid, you should want the meat canoe to feel its best, look its best, and be its best. Don't do it for women, do it for you.

            It is a fortunate happenstance that doing it for you ALSO generally does it for women.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            i don’t even look bad, not saying im perfect but ive seen uglier specimens get girls (maybe im biased, also not posting face) also im an athlete, im just a little autistic so women avoid me

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sorta same. Went to an arcade with a friend group and an old female friend came along. We talked a bit, she repeatedly showed interest in me, asking about personal stuff (nothing too private), following me everywhere, and even asking me to go play games just the two of us (to which I obliged).

      She gets my phone number, says she'll text me, and never does. I get hers from a friend and write her, saying I figured she lost my phone number and I just wanted to keep in touch or whatever, some platonic stuff like that.

      She replies, we chat a bit, and then she ghosts me.

      She's at best a 5/10, and she's a devout Christian. If you can't trust that, what woman can you trust?

      If I were doing all the work at the arcade and she was just keeping up a smile that would be one thing, but she repeatedly showed interest in me. Why would she lead me on like that?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Women are serial ghosters. I have talked to dozens of women and not ONCE were they open about being disinterested or whatever. They'd just lie and bail whenever was most convenient. They don't even view men they aren't attracted to as actual people with feelings so they'll do whatever benefits them most at the cost of people like you and me.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    1. don't listen to what they say, watch what they do
    2. the black pillers are the bottom 10-20% of men, it applies to them for sure
    3. yes, you missed out on young love and have taken permanent damage but not catastrophic damage.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So much complaining about women being pickier but you should look ar statistics of sexual violence, especially sexual violence during childhood. Shits so fricking prevalent. How is anyone surprised that women are picky and careful about the men they date? Patting yourselves on the back for how bad it feels to be the overlooked sex, but you should also think about how it feels to know for a fact that the opposite sex you are attracted to could kill you with his bare hands if he so pleased because he's so much stronger than you + a frickton of women have direct experience with being physically and sexually overpowered, often at young ages.
    I don't know what is it that you people don't get. Women are cautious of men in a way that men aren't of women and that's the main defining factor of how heterosexual romance comes to be.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This post is comically unaware. Women are not picky about finding dudes that won't beat them lmao. They are picky about the dude being hot, and will ignore obvious signs of them being abusive to secure that. Abusive dudes are generally more desired because they're seen as "confident".

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This is a consequence of the situation, not the cause.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Abusive dudes are generally more desired
        This just shows it's literally impossible for an incel to make a single post without lying. Incels are abusive, so how come they don't get girls?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Incels are abusive
          How are incels abusive ? They have nobody to abuse and most of them are angry simps who would do a 180 the moment a woman talked to them

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Women aren't cautious of violent men at all. They find themselves attracted to them. Why do you think women's shelters are a thing? Nothing makes me laugh more than women asserting that the reason they're not dating incels is because they're afraid they'd be violent, when most of these guys are meek, submissive guys who only act tough on the internet.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If you actually looked at statistics you'd knew that "beta" and loser males are just as likely to be violent as conventionally attractive men. Abuse of women happens in every country, in every culture, through all of history. Women being victims of sexual violence to men is an almost universal illness of the human race.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >If you actually looked at statistics you'd knew that "beta" and loser males are just as likely to be violent as conventionally attractive men.
          I have no doubt about that but it still contradicts the argument. If the losers aren't more likely to be violent then clearly they're not being avoided for their violent behaviour.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >"beta" and loser males are just as likely to be violent as conventionally attractive men
          Even if this is true, that doesn't disprove what anon is saying at all. Your claim about them being pickier because they might be killed or whatever would require them to avoid abusive men regardless of looks, which obviously isn't happening.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Did I miss out on young love as a 19 year old
    Yes? If you didn't get it in school you probably aren't gonna get it ever. School didn't really matter but it's an extremely accurate indicator for the rest of adulthood.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Was I psyopped about women?
    Tell me your ideas and I'll tell you which ides are L takes.
    ... No ideas.
    Okay, you're not psyopped, you're a homosexual.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How people cope about the Chad meme not being real is ridiculous. I have Chad tier friends and how women gravitate towards them is unreal. Like women instantly go to them and offer their help and try to keep the conversation going, even if they talk like some moron or don't give a frick.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Do you not see what is really happening here? Of course the chad meme becomes real when you assign the term to your friends. Your friends just sound like normal guys to me. If you think a woman keeping a conversation going is some high bar it says a lot about the perspective you're coming from. Women love to talk, of course they'll keep a conversation going with a guy they like or are interested in.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >normal guys
        My normal guy friends don't get this attention shower from women

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          To me, a woman liking me and wanting to talk to me is normal. You just have no frame of reference for what normal actually is.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's about quantity man. Now and then it also happens to me but not basically always.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    how do you go from red to black. seems like just carbonado placebo

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Some of it is true, divorce rates and single parenthood is at an all time high. If you score its likely because you found someone desperate or on the rebound. Anyways who cares, try to be happy and go out and be social + platonic, you never know man, and put some work into yourself, improve meme, but don't go all autistic on it.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    People only care about what affects them, doesn't matter if its a fact or not thats why there are cucks so adamant against the Blackpill. What matters is, are you a subhuman? or just a mentally moronic good looking sperg?
    Think about where you stand and decide about accepting the truth or try your way out of moronation.

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    All these pills are moronic just go out talk to women you like and don't let them get the better of you.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >go out talk to women
      about what ?
      real question unfortunately, I always go blank

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Idk it's up to you, no one size fits all my friend

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >it's up to you
          I have no idea tho...
          I wouldn't be asking if I could just come up with something myself

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It depends where you and what sort of mood she's in. Complements are ok to give especially if you actually mean them. Young women, especially attractive women, have heard a lot of things and know you probably are into them so you got to be more direct. If she's smart girl, she might like talking about some random topic you like way too much of. If she's kinda dumb or ghetto she probably wants loud overconfidence. Too many variables to give one answer but you can compliment something they've clearly worked a lot on (hair, outfit, tattoos, etc.) And then ask details about that. But you have to shift the conversation about her and kind of push things into a romantic or sexual context. But depending where you are again, you might want to take it slow. And honestly it's worth it to just talk about whatever feels natural since i can bring up numbers and stereotypes here but everyone is an individual who wants different things. Don't be afraid to fail just don't make yourself look like a predator and the rejection will be over in an instant

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >the rejection will be over in an instant
            Yeah if you're an unfeeling ghoul PUA. Actual people have emotions.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Fair enough but you have to fail to eventually succeed.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What happens if you were too scared as a kid and now you are a full blown man child still afraid of women and with a weak sense of confidence

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I did (and still continue to do) all of those things but still never made any friends

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How did this conversation go from dating to Afghanistan

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because the guy who wanted to challenge black pill talking point got destroyed to the point where he can only talk about nonsense issues. He has completely given up on challenging black pill ideas such as heritable traits of physical attractiveness predicting the likelihood of success in romance and now he talks about tangential stuff in order to make it look like he didn't lose the debate on all ends.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >the guy who wanted to challenge black pill talking point got destroyed
        You mean being right about dating apps, marriage rates, fertility rates, sex prevalence, and so on when you were WRONG about that means YOU won?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          When was the last time you asked a woman on a date?
          Give details

          >le funny meme mocking reddit argument
          lmao come back when you got big boy stuff to talk about

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            We're talking about the Black Pill.
            The Black Pil is about relations between men and women.
            When was the last time you talked to a woman to ask her on a date is DIRECTLY relevant.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You got destroyed on black pill ideology, i.e. the primacy of heritable traits in mate selection.

          This is why you are arguing about the percentage of Tinder users among the 70% who found each other online (for which you haven't yet provided any data). When it comes to marriage rates you haven't provided data either. I told you marriage rates had a slight upwards trend due to returning to pre-covid levels but you haven't discredited anything of that either. Fertility rates are below replacement level in all developed nations you didn't dispel any of that either. And when it comes to sex prevalence, I never made any claims. Not to mention the nonsense about heritability you've been spouting on which you got destroyed as well.

          Ultimately you did a poor performance, didn't post any relevant data, failed to back up your points, didn't challenge me on my actual subject and talked a lot of nonsense.

          But this doesn't surprise me because this always happens. You talk big but as soon as people confront you with hard data you fold like a piece of paper and lose yourself in meta-discussions.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I keep repeating myself without evidence. This means I win.
            >Sure, I was wrong about every particular detail BUT my *subjective personal opinion* hasn't changed so I win!
            kek
            >didn't post any relevant data
            Except the chart that you admit proved you are wrong.
            Right?
            Right?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Except the chart that you admit proved you are wrong.
            The chart which backed my point that:

            - Adults reported dating has gotten harder in the past ten years
            - Young adults are more commonly engaging in only dating than older generations

            And I already told you: I don't care about online dating, it is irrelevant to my argument. The same phenomena you see in online dating also apply to non-online dating data, such as the height differential I posted. You're fighting so hard for those percentages of how many adults partake in online dating when they don't even help your argument in a hapless attempt of proving me wrong on one particular issue upon my argument does not even rest, so you can at least claim a minor victory for yourself.

            But this does not change that you've been unable to touch me on any real issue. Enjoy your told, moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >-Adults reported dating has gotten harder in the past ten years
            a claim you only made AFTER you were assblasted over dating apps being important that NO ONE disagreed with you about
            >Young adults are more commonly engaging in only dating than older generations
            a claim you only made AFTER you were assblasted over dating apps being important that NO ONE disagreed with you about
            >I don't care about online dating, it is irrelevant to my argument
            Then why did you
            A) mention it, and
            B) spend hours defending your position before abandoning it when proven wrong over and over
            ?
            >You're fighting so hard for those percentages of how many adults partake in online dating when they don't even help your argument
            YOU FRICKING IDIOT. My only point was you were wrong about dating apps.
            YOU keep changing the topic because YOU are strawmanning!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He isn't strawmanning. There are 55 people ITT beside him and he thinks everyone roasting him is one guy

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Then why did you
            >A) mention it, and
            >B) spend hours defending your position before abandoning it when proven wrong over and over
            I could ask you the same: why are you still here debating me when you've lost on all fronts but the dating app - where you haven't convinced me yet either though because you STILL haven't provided actual data in terms of dating app participation. You remarked you've read something about it about Tinder having a small share in terms of relationships and not having looked into it myself I conceded that I find it plausible that Tinder relationships are only a small part, but maybe I shouldn't have done that given the fact you were pulling data out of your ass on heritability too.

            >YOU FRICKING IDIOT. My only point was you were wrong about dating apps.
            What are you still doing in this thread then? You could call it day. I even granted you that you could have been right. You could have opted out gracefully there.

            Do you want me to ask you to actually back your point with hard data? Or do you want to leave it at that until the next time we debate this and I'll have looked up the data myself?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You were proven wrong about
            >fertility in every aspect you mentioned it
            >marriage rates
            >use prevalence of dating apps
            >the heritability of personality
            yet you are taking a victory lap?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You think you're replying to one guy?
            Dumbass, there are at least three people roasting you right now!
            We keep pointing this out and you can't seem to remember

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >the primacy of heritable traits in mate selection.
            Let me tell you how YOU proved this wrong
            What is the number one factor a woman chooses for long-term mate selection?
            The self-confidence/extroversion trait.
            Identical twins raised in the same home have identical genes. In over 80% of the cases, almost 90%, one twin is extroverted and the other introverted.
            Meaning these genetically indentical men result in one being highly desirable and the other poorly desirable.
            Your own research posts PROVE this is true.
            You yourself repeatedly admit this is true.
            If genetics is AT BEST a 50/50 good/bad that is NOT "highly heritable".

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >In over 80% of the cases, almost 90%, one twin is extroverted and the other introverted
            NTA but wtf where did you get this from? That certainly isn't even close to true lmao

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >TA but wtf where did you get this from?
            The OSNSFG analysis of identical twins my brothers participate in
            Read a book

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Provide it. All the research I've seen shows identical twins have remarkably similar personalities and lifestyles even when raised apart. For them to differ in extroversion 90% of the time would mean they're more likely to differ than 2 random people which makes no sense.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He can't. He has been making such bonkers claims throughout the thread.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >In over 80% of the cases, almost 90%, one twin is extroverted and the other introverted.
            Provide data, you subhuman. I've backed up such claims by posting papers. I want to see one from you, pulling those numbers out of your ass.

            And I can only repeat: you subhuman don't understand that there is a randomness inherent to genetics. If there weren't, we wouldn't even be around.

            Lastly: if you want to make a case for nurture, how come twins in the same household, raised by the same parents, ended up differently in terms of personality? Doesn't that show that it's NOT nurture?

            But again:

            - You make up numbers without providing data.
            - Even then, it doesn't back your claim of nurture.

            You're again being a massive moron who is arguing something that doesn't support his position.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            When was the last time you asked a woman out on a date?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        When was the last time you asked a woman on a date?
        Give details

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          NTA but has a woman ever tried to talk to you before?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            We're talking about the Black Pill.
            The Black Pil is about relations between men and women.
            When was the last time you talked to a woman to ask her on a date is DIRECTLY relevant.

            Why won't you answer

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It didn't.
      Side conversation.

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >300 post thread
    >no Schooler in it
    what happened here

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Is it the "I don't see anyone my age anywhere no one goes out anymore, like me!" poster

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