gender views cause of incel.

[Tiassa]

[1/3]​

The swastika was stolen from ancient Hindus. Do they delete it because someone they dont approve of uses their identity?

But why change the subject? It's one thing if I happened to already use a particular rune or symbol in its own context, but at this point, why would I go out of my way to adopt it?

This is the difference between you bawling about, "The word in-cel stands for In-voluntary Cel-ibate", and the fact of what one joins up with when adopting the identity.

People notice how you derail discussions to be about mexicans when it had nothing to do with mexicans, or even racism for that matter. The topic was mainly about sexism and double standards.

Timing is everything: Wait until you actually have a point to try the rubber-glue thing. I mean, you did do the bit↑ about "how fat, ugly chicks can get a date eventually, if they just play their cards right", and I did offer a version↑ of how that either works or not; you, apparently↑, cannot figure out how the two points are related?

Same as you make an excuse to complain about men?

Think of it this way: One of the problems about trying rubber-glue retorts arises when you box yourself in. To the one, start making sense; to the other—

Not as terrible as yours?
I mean on one hand, you blame men for all the worlds problems.

—make believe is make believe, and—

Then, on the other hand, when I have a terrible view of men, you shame me.
No way to win with you.

—if you're worried about winning, then you're doing wrong.

But there is also this: Your terrible view of men is important to consider given that you're whining about not getting laid, and, really, consider the context when we track the back and forth to #47↑: "And what did the man get from this non-sexual conversation? Absolutely nothing." The attitude you display in that line pretty much demonstrates the problem inasmuch as it presents a masculinity that warns women away. It is relevant to your complaint inasmuch as this aspect, at least, is self-imposed. Self-inflicted. Whatever.

That tells me a lot about you.

I'm just sayin', the creepy yeast discussion is certainly better than nothing. And flavor holes, too.

Sexual attraction happens under stress. This is an evolutionary mechanism. The stress must not be too high, paranoia kills sexual attraction. And yet the stress must not be too low, as it instills a lull of complacency.

Sounds like tricky parameters for computing strategies↗ to gain female favors.

So you are ignorant too, has been noted.

Most Americans have left the word behind; it works well enough for musical comedy, but there are substantive differences 'twixt transvestite, hermaphrodite, and transgender.

So me being a compassionate person, trying to save lives, makes me dangerous and toxic?

You're not compassionate.

Reminds me of yesterday, my friend say a German on TV trying to save some kids live, and my friend immediately accused the german of looking like a gestapo nazi. Funny how people judge you based on their immediate feelings, rather than any kind of logic or reason.
I get it, saying the word "Eliot Rodgers" makes you feel immediately uncomfortable, and triggers your animal flight or flight primordial instincts.

Doesn't matter if I say I don't agree with his views, mentioning the devil's name enough is enough to trigger a full on panic attack.

Most of what you say is nonsense. You accuse Eliot Rodgers of being a rapemonger, when in actuality he was the exact opposite of a rapist. Even when he went on a killing spree he didn't rape anyone. Eliot's idea of a utopia was a man only world, a world without women. Not a world of rape. So you are spouting nonsense, as per usual. Eliots main complaint, was that women only flirted with perfect specimens, and didn't give many men the time of day. That some men got so much positive attention, while other's got none. I agree with him on this issue, what I don't agree with are his other views, such as a man only world.

But feel free to go on your slanted tirade. Eliot never demanded for women to be handed as assets, his complaint was that women, of their own free will, would not take an interest in him of their own accord. Now I understand that in your mind, me saying the word "provided" could be interpreted as some mysterious entity handing out girlfriends, but that is not what I meant by it, and I assumed sane person would have understood but I guess not.

Wow.

I've seen people swoon over that moron, before, but if you think my point is just about him, you really haven't been paying attention to incels. Think back a month; remember when I asked↗ about "the old-time language, the focus on masculinity, the dog metaphor"? How about a couple weeks ago, when I recalled↗ a pathetic tweet troll? To the one, it's true, I'm not unfamiliar with identity masculinism; to the other, it's not like you don't match a known type, such as that wannabe MRA tweet troll; while he argued virginity and you argue celibacy, the bit where people pretend ignorance while reciting the dogma is not an uncommon routine. Neither is the bit when you ignore↑ what you're actually responding to, and then go on to repeat yourself↑ despite the point that it is already covered↑ without response. (Yes, the words were in a picture, but you did respond to the image specifically, and you're not a bot↑, so you clearly did read them.) Added up, what all this reminds is that we're talking about a poseur political movement of rapemongering brats. Well, that and you're not fooling anyone.

A man shouldn't kill his wife unless she does something very extreme, such as try to kill him first.
I dont believe cheaters ought to be killed, I believe it is wrong to kill someone for following natural urges and instincts.

That wasn't the question.

Far as guns being men, I think the purpose of men is to kill, to think, and to build, enemy men and animals. The role of the man is to defend the tribe, attack enemy men, and hunt and kill animals.

(sigh)

But we live in a civilized age, an age where there isn't supposed to be pain and suffering. So the role of man is no longer to kill, but to build and to think. But again if this is the age of pain and suffering, then why is it that society only cares about ending wars, but does not give empathy to the pain and suffering to lonely, sexually frustrated males.

Well, it's not exactly a new problem↗; Sanhedrin 75a:2, explains, "The Sages insisted: Let him die ...." And this is even part of a history that includes explicit sexual obligation, and trial by poisoning of a woman.

It also probably helps when your if/then formulations aren't completely stupid. Your take on pain and suffering in our civilized age is amiss, to be certain, but wondering "why is it that society only cares about ending wars" is just ridiculous.

[cont.]​

 

[Tiassa]

[2/3]​

K here is the video.

And the peer review?

Finally, you've made an actual post that wasn't complete nonsense.

And yet you still missed the point.

I think it is you who is posturing yourself as damnably stupid, because I keep saying that incel, stands for involuntary celibate, and you keep saying it is a choice.

Simply not getting laid does not make one "involuntarily celibate" if the only reason is being male. See above, this is already covered.

Then you make loose assertions that if someone is involuntary celibate, they automatically agree with all incels on all views ...

Make-believe is make-believe.

... and that all MRAs are clone robot armies who agree with each other on all views 100%, this seems reflected in your perception that men are to blame of all the worlds problems, as if they are all one unified hivemind entity who agrees with each other 100% on all issues.

If we start with the question at what point I have suggested all men are part of the identifying masculinist movements, the answer is obvious enough that we can simply move on to the next point, about making believe, and reminding you that petulant lying isn't going to get you laid.

I don't see the logic in this statement.

You've been running from logic for a while.

If your reasons for being "involuntarily" celibate is tinfoil, then you're not really an incel, but just some bitter dude who chooses to not put in the effort for even a superficial lay.

Number one: You're going to get laid someday, and be grotesquely disappointed. Don't worry, she'll be disappointed, too, probably even more so.

It is true that society cannot provide girlfriends, however it can stop making it so damnably difficult by stop perpetuating this primitive culture of a toxically masculine mindset of saying all males must rigidly obey gender norms and be perfect specimens. Rap music is the ultimate essence of this, but it is in all parts of culture not just rap.

Yeah, well, the bit about stopping with the making things damnably difficult will involve men transcending primmitive sexual expectations according to rigid-ish gender norms they demand.

Perfect specimens? Bullshit, dude.

And you're probably best served skipping the rap critique.

The same could be argued of rap music, that blacks portray themselves as criminals.

The record industry?

Bullshit, dude.

But I would like to reclaim the word and say not all incels are rapists.

Start a movement denouncing the current incels. Have a big, nasty political fight with them to win the day and redefine inceldom.

The word incel means involuntary celibate.

Then give it back to the lesbian and let the word die a proper bed death.

Now mathematically speaking, someone who doesn't get any, in a place where prostitution is made illegal, might eventually lose their sense of morality and do some criminal things.

Yeah, that's well-recognized as an incel pitch.

Just like blacks, who are living in poverty, mathematically, poor people might lose their sense of morality and do some criminal things.

Neither color nor deprivation, for instance, might account for people who don't fit those descriptions, say, boosting car stereos for the hell of it.

You accused me of wanting to purge heterosexuals. And now you post gobble-de-gook deflecting from your own accusation, which was nonsense to begin with.

Make-believe is make-believe. You need to stop making things up.

It's like if I was in a court room, and you accused me of murder, and the cops and judges exonerate me and say "Your murder accusations are false, we have evidence that such and such was at this place and time, it is on record."
And then you say "Oh but by the way, did you know that they have some library fees overdue, it means they are a bad person."

If you say so. Because, you know, you're reliable.

No, really, you just keep making shit up, so nobody really knows what to tell you.

I don't remember any question ....

Well, you only quoted the questions↑. And since you're so busy making believe it's rather quite possible you missed it. To reiterate:

• Hey, just out of curiosity: Can you tell us one thing about the person you've shown, here at Sciforums, that a woman should find attractive?

• She happens across this site, sees your writing, and what about the character you're presenting is going to give her that vulvic vibe, that twitchy twitch, them sloppy pants, you're after?

• More directly, what isn't going to disgust her?​

Wait I do remember the question now, you were saying would all women hate me for standing up for myself.
The question was, does the complaining about sexual double standard and inequal treatment towards males, anger women enough not to date me.
Yes I believe many narcissistic, american women would be angered that I complain about being a male, they would tell me to "man up" and get confidence, stop complaining, suck it up, tell me about how bad periods and pregnancy is, and then blame me for all the horrible things my ancestors did to them in their supposed past lives.

Not quite. To simplify: What part of the way you've been behaving do you think isn't grotesquely unattractive to the women you would condescend to date?

I wouldn't make it the main profile point of my political platform ....

Sexual ineptitude is best omitted from the platform entirely.

It is akin to a bee-like hive where males are expected to take it, not complain, not share their feelings and take whatever second class status american society affords to them.

Only men can change that.

If a male shows a sign of weakness he is stripped and shamed of his stoic title.

Only men can change their masculine need for stoic titles.

Even for standing up for Mens Rights he is declared to be a bad person.

It's one of those detail things. Kind of like "incel". "Men's rights" is an innocuous phrase; the movement, however, is tragic.

Then feminism is praised for its equality, a monopoly saying only feminism can bring equality, mens rights=bad and evil, or so they say.

It has to do with deeper content, not superficial labels.

My argument was not that, but fair enough you misunderstood what I meant due to me using the word "provided".
So I will make it clear, american society views males as worthless and disposable, they are generally unloved and unwanted by most. The state offers them a deal, you work a lot as our slave, we will give you the promise of eventually making enough money that materialist females will want to be with you.

You overstate the State, but there is a lot about American society you don't seem to understand. Still, though, there are less materialistic females out there; it is also possible they just don't meet your standards.

It may be necessary at least in the near future, in order to prevent the greedy men who run this show to stop destroying the planet.

We should be able to find at least a few women who aren't narcissists. It does happen, which you would be capable of learning if you stopped playing make-believe long enough to learn anything.

I cannot compress my posts sometimes because of the 10000 character limit.

Nor I, but your line is beside the point. You don't argue consistently. Nobody will pretend it's easy to keep track of all the lines of a larger discussion, but it's even harder when someone just makes shit up at random. The part nobody wants to do is pick post by post through your ramblings for the number of times you approach contradiction.

For example,
I say "Hot girls shames man for wanting her because she is hot. Yet, observing this girl's dating patterns, she only dates hot guys herself."
This would seem to be clear cut case of moral hypocrisy, seemingly like Yahweh's "Do as I say not as I do."
Yet you try to explain it away with evolution.

Well, you keep changing your story in order to keep pretending to argue.

The problem is the focus on hotness and getting into her pants; as you said, "claim that men only lust for them". That word "only" is important. And you are correct at least in that there are men who think and behave that way. This fact has nothing to do with the physical aesthetics of who she does date. There is no inherent contradiction for basing your bawl about moral hypocrisy.

It would be similar to a rapist saying "But my evolutionary instincts made me rape."

No, we call that evolutionary psychology.

If that does not fly in debate, then using evolutionary excuses for bad behavior should not fly for females either.

Figure it out: Make-believe does not fly, either in debate or as an excuse for bad behavior.

Yes because a man must be confident, etc. Even though idea of a confident animal in a hostile city is an oxymoron. What i mean is that, man is out of his element, placed inside a land of infinite rules and toxic cubicles, and then expected to be happy and confident.

Figure it out: Creepy obsession is not attractive.

Although in America today, there are a large majority of ignorant females, though this could be explained due to male feminization and female masculinzation.

There are a number of things wrong with that statement, and they're all you.

[cont.]​

 

[Tiassa]

[3/3]​

And don't even try to say that male hell is a myth, you've literally proved it with your ridiculous rock videos.

Sure, it's a meaningless statement, but a fine excuse.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

I would say 99% percent, as indicated by my above comments.

I actually wouldn't have gone quite so high, because I was referring to a different vagina envy than your pornography critique.

That is a delusional fallacy. No. It is the world the rich elite wanted, to keep the majority of males down. And yes any men who are brainwashed to support the dogma are the enemy, same as any women brainwashed to support the dogma are the enemy.

When you add up your conspiracist potsherds, you're casting the overwhelming majority of males in the "enemy" camp.

This really isn't rocket science here. I'm not going to spend money on a woman who doesn't love me. And its not prostitution, I'm talking about a woman who genuinely loves me and isn't just using me for money, though those are hard to find these days.

With that attitude, disappointment awaits.

All I ask is that society does not make it explicitly illegal and impossible, which it does. Never asked society to automatically give me a suprise hooker on my birthday, although it would be nice.

Weren't you just complaining about paying women for sex?

What stands out in this aspect is your need for a hot woman to satisfy you sexually as some manner of obligation.

You are over complicating this thing. I can tell in my gut if a woman loves me. It is more than her not being in the mood for sex. I can tell the difference between her not being in the mood for sex, and someone who doesn't love me and is just pretending to like me to get money out of me.

I shouldn't laugh. It's not actually funny.

As far as marriage, marriage is for children. It has no benefit to adults.

What part of that clueless utterance doesn't warn women away? Especially if they consider the rest of what goes with it?

It is just so people can't just escape raising their kids. The current marriage system is meant to enslave males, as males will beg not to divorce and obey any ultimatum, in order for the wife not to leave them. Because if the wife leaves them, then a. they may not get to spend very much time with their kids and b. still have to pay a ton of money to the kids that they rarely get to see, and also pay a ton of money to the ex they hate. Which of course is absolutely, totally sexist.

History disagrees, and while people often describe what you're pitching as delusional, it is more accurate to say it's simply selfish and stupid, and by that latter I mean not simply being uneducated but also dysfunctional.

My ideal system, would be that a male is allowed to have sex with other girls if his wife does not put out. This would decrease the likelyhood of rape and divorce. But sadly we live in a close-minded, Puritan religious system where such an act is shamed.

You can tell if a woman loves you or is trying to get your money; marriage has no benefit for adults; your ideal system would be that a man is allowed to step out on his wife.

You seriously can't figure out the answer is to not get married?

But sadly we live in a close-minded, Puritan religious system where such an act is shamed.

If you're not going to style your relationship with a partner according to your shared, agreed terms, because some "Puritan religious system" might disapprove, you're doing it to yourselves.

I dont know how you see it like that, I am obviously trying to erode the current gender dogma, which puts males into a corner and tells them that males are not allowed to challenge traditional male gender norms.

By advocating heterosexual—i.e., binary—obligation.

You might want to try thinking it through before just spitting out words for the sake of self-gratification in the moment. I mean, look at that debacle about marriage just above; it's not even a hot mess, you're just making a mess.

And yes all americans are guilty of this, men and women.

By your own logic, so are you.

Meanwhile, more logically, let us consider the functional result the proposition: All Americans are guilty of this, you argue, men and women. Guilty of what? According to you, guilty of "gender dogma, which puts males into a corner and tells them that males are not allowed to challenge traditional male gender norms".

This isn't rocket science: All Americans are guilty, you argue, including those who challenge traditional gender norms. Too bad you hate those men and women.

I dont know how you see it like that, I am obviously trying to erode the current gender dogma, which puts males into a corner and tells them that males are not allowed to challenge traditional male gender norms.

No, you're advocating an uneducated, supremacist, rapemongering political argument.

For instance, women on fetlife mostly say they only want dominant males. So any male who is submissive is looked down on by america.

As our neighbor Seattle↑ reminds, "America isn't 'fetlife'."

And we might take another moment about thinking it through before just spitting out words for the sake of self-gratification in the moment: You just condemned "every American" as guilty of "gender dogma", but your baseline metric for women in the moment, because you think it empowers further self-gratifying complaint, is particular aberration from "gender dogma"?

It doesn't work the other way around. Most guys aren't dying for the chance to wear dresses and makeup and most who are, are hoping to attract a male, not a female.

What really stands out there is that the second sentence ought to be irrelevant to you.

Except there is a whole bunch of this that sounds like self-loathing. That part has been clear for several days, at least, and is generally essential to crybaby masculinism. And in addition to the basic hostility of your presentation, there is also the fact that you're not really breaking type at all. You know, the old-time language, the focus on masculinity, the dog metaphor? You've only gone on to reinforce the point. To wit:

Let me make one thing clear.

Actually, you go back and forth on that, and your doctrinaire advocacy of the Isla Vista incel idol in #63↑ is precisely to type.

And, lastly—

Yeah but what about me? I want to be told by women, that I am smart and delightful and not just in a platonic way.

—one more time:

• Can you tell us one thing about the person you've shown, here at Sciforums, that a woman should find attractive?

• She happens across this site, sees your writing, and what about the character you're presenting is going to give her that vulvic vibe, that twitchy twitch, them sloppy pants, you're after?

• More directly, what isn't going to disgust her?

• What part of the way you've been behaving do you think isn't grotesquely unattractive to the women you would condescend to date?​

What about you? Well, you're working hard to chase them away.

And that's the thing about people trying to empathize or sympathize; this repulsive anger and ranting supremacist fallacy is pretty much all you've shown.

Well, that and gender dysphoria, and I really, really don't know what to do about that because people aren't going to bash their heads against stone for you, literally or figuratively, when your whole purpose is just to inflict misery.

Take a deep breath, dude. You're going to continue to get sliced and diced and skewered like this if you keep behaving so poorly. You're not new; you're not creative; and you're certainly not being smart about it.

But if you're worried it's only platonic, consider it this way: As much as you want a woman, just once, to treat you how men treat women, women would much appreciate it if every now and then, or even just once, an encounter could be platonic, or businesslike, through and through from start to finish. The result being that when people like you bring their appeals, the only thing that makes you stand out is the aura of menace about your behavior; the priority of romance and intimacy, in itself, leaves you just another face in the crowd of men who only value her for the potential of their enjoyment.

[fin]​

 

[Write4U]

The swastika was stolen from ancient Hindus. Do they delete it because someone they dont approve of uses their identity?

Actually it's not the same. It's the mirror image and reversed.

 

[gamelord]

Actually it's not the same. It's the mirror image and reversed.

You and I know that, but the world doesn't know that.

Its like, one day you want to wear the Hindu swastika and be a being of peace, but are afraid to because people will think you are a nazi.

 

[gamelord]

A straight woman wants a man. Men are b*st*rds. If you want a woman, break her heart. She'll never get over you.

Women want things they can't have. This is what I think is narcissistic about females, the moment they can have you they lose interest, it was never about you it was always about them.

I'll take your word for it, yet don't you have a disdain for her was well?

Please do not consider this an argument but you said pop singers basically give off bad vibes. Hence, wouldn't there be some ambivalence towards her then?

No I have mostly disdain for the modern pop movement especially after around 2010 or so.

That's a start, no. Since the beginning of time the male have had to show the female that they are worthy to father her children. If you cannot do this by being Mr. Atlas, then do it by being "smarter than the average bear".

Since the beginning of time, males have pillaged, raped, exiled and brutally fought other males for dominance.

So why is evolutionary instincts an excuse for bad behavior? Males can no longer use "evolutionary instinct" for an excuse. It seems like females get a free pass for primitive behavior by using the excuse of "can't resist their animal minds".

 

[gamelord]

But why change the subject? It's one thing if I happened to already use a particular rune or symbol in its own context, but at this point, why would I go out of my way to adopt it?

This is the difference between you bawling about, "The word in-cel stands for In-voluntary Cel-ibate", and the fact of what one joins up with when adopting the identity.

Because its an identity you just happen to be stuck with. Involuntary celibate is not a choice. Its like being mexican is not a choice. Or being poor is not a choice. Now some can argue on their high horse that being poor is a choice, and if they just tried harder they could escape from being poor, or escape from being incel, or escape from being fat. But the fact remains they are poor, or incel, or fat, at that moment.
Now you could argue that in order to "avoid" all negative association with the word incel, involuntary celibates should spell out the full word "involuntary celibate" at all times, which I think is absurd and a waste of time. But its still the Mexican argument. You can argue that Mexicans created their own culture and thus painted themselves as mexicans, just like some incels painted their own culture and painted themselves as incel, still the fact remains if you are a mexican, you are mexican, if you are incel, you are incel. You can be a mexican who hates burritos and tacos and loves french fries, but there will always be ignorant folk who automatically assume you love burritos and tacos because you happen to be mexican.

Timing is everything: Wait until you actually have a point to try the rubber-glue thing. I mean, you did do the bit↑ about "how fat, ugly chicks can get a date eventually, if they just play their cards right", and I did offer a version↑ of how that either works or not; you, apparently↑, cannot figure out how the two points are related?

You went on some tangent about how mexican men are the target of white racism. Had nothing to do with the conversation really. The fact remains, a fat ugly chick of average income will have an easier time finding romance than a fat ugly male of average income. Going on random tangents will not change this fact.

But there is also this: Your terrible view of men is important to consider given that you're whining about not getting laid, and, really, consider the context when we track the back and forth to #47↑: "And what did the man get from this non-sexual conversation? Absolutely nothing." The attitude you display in that line pretty much demonstrates the problem inasmuch as it presents a masculinity that warns women away. It is relevant to your complaint inasmuch as this aspect, at least, is self-imposed. Self-inflicted. Whatever.

You and I have different worldviews, shaped by our life experiences.
You see, I can chat up a random stranger on facebook, or a homeless guy on the bus, and have a conversation with him to pass the time. But it is usually a meaningless experience for me, I don't get much out of it.
So if a woman chats up a conversation with me at the bar, it is as meaningless as talking with a random stranger. It is just a way to pass the time. If it goes no where and we dont form any kind of real bond, it is just cheap table talk.

The different life experiences between you and I, is that you are a female, females generally get attention and are not starved of love, whereas I am male, and wherever I go noone hardly ever hits on me, flirts, or asks for my number. So I feel like wandering leper or an outcast who noone loves. And so if someone talks to me, it is meaningless to me unless I sense they are actually attracted to me, otherwise I might as well be talking to a homeless man, and not getting anything out of it, then I pay the homeless man 2 dollars so he can drown his sorrows in booze and I get nothing out of it, other than a wispy delusional belief that somehow I will get good karma that somehow someone will want me someday, which never comes, then walking to my home alone both sexually frustrated and unloved, fearing I will someday end up like him, as per usual.

Sounds like tricky parameters for computing strategies↗ to gain female favors.

Sad fact of evolution, dating game has always been brutal for males, having to brutally fight each other just to get some love and attention.

Most Americans have left the word behind; it works well enough for musical comedy, but there are substantive differences 'twixt transvestite, hermaphrodite, and transgender.

The official lgbt community uses transsexual as a dominant word. But even I'd say mainstream america uses it still.

You're not compassionate.

I think it is you here who is not compassionate.

Wow.

I've seen people swoon over that moron, before, but if you think my point is just about him, you really haven't been paying attention to incels. Think back a month; remember when I asked↗ about "the old-time language, the focus on masculinity, the dog metaphor"? How about a couple weeks ago, when I recalled↗ a pathetic tweet troll? To the one, it's true, I'm not unfamiliar with identity masculinism; to the other, it's not like you don't match a known type, such as that wannabe MRA tweet troll; while he argued virginity and you argue celibacy, the bit where people pretend ignorance while reciting the dogma is not an uncommon routine. Neither is the bit when you ignore↑ what you're actually responding to, and then go on to repeat yourself↑ despite the point that it is already covered↑ without response. (Yes, the words were in a picture, but you did respond to the image specifically, and you're not a bot↑, so you clearly did read them.) Added up, what all this reminds is that we're talking about a poseur political movement of rapemongering brats. Well, that and you're not fooling anyone.

Yeah words just overflowing and dripping with compassion.

I dont know anything about a tweet troll, I dont remember what the dog metaphor was, and the rest or your paragraph is just vitroilic hateful nonsense.

That wasn't the question.

I thought it was, but the quotes arent multinested and I'm afraid if I go back a few pages I will lose my post data.

Well, it's not exactly a new problem↗; Sanhedrin 75a:2, explains, "The Sages insisted: Let him die ...." And this is even part of a history that includes explicit sexual obligation, and trial by poisoning of a woman.

Sounds brutal, not my kind of world.

It also probably helps when your if/then formulations aren't completely stupid. Your take on pain and suffering in our civilized age is amiss, to be certain, but wondering "why is it that society only cares about ending wars" is just ridiculous

[
cont.
]​

In any case society does seem only to care about saving lives rather than noticing the kind of criminal greedy behavoir which causes war and strife in the first place. Mainly angry narcissist men, who for some reason aren't able to exude love and compassion in the world. Perhaps some men are born criminals but many have just be given a tough set of circumstances. Compassion is rarely given and instead the response is greater crackdowns, longer sentences, bigger prisons, rather than focusing on the core problem, which is the nature of men itself.

 

[gamelord]

Sure, it's a meaningless statement, but a fine excuse.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Not sure what these rock videos mean. I only watched the last one. Are you saying, you love me?

I actually wouldn't have gone quite so high, because I was referring to a different vagina envy than your pornography critique.

Care to elaborate? The kind of vagina envy I was saying was all encompassing, men are envious of women in all areas almost, envious of their beauty, envious of their passivity, envious of course, of their vaginas and breasts, ability to give birth, and also envious of their inner calm and such inner, almost damnable "sponge-bob level" positivity. But I'm curious as to what you meant by vagina envy specifically.

When you add up your conspiracist potsherds, you're casting the overwhelming majority of males in the "enemy" camp.

And rightly so. Anyone who is a sheeple or slave is working for the cause of the enemy. All votes in a first past the posts system are votes to further the tyranny of a first past the posts system.

With that attitude, disappointment awaits.

Dissapointment awaits regardless. In the past I've had girlfriends just use me for money all the while cheating on me in the process. So it's best to adopt a skeptical attitude.

Weren't you just complaining about paying women for sex?

In my ideal world women would love me and I wouldn't need to buy a prostitute. But this is not an ideal world and at least I'd rather pay for sex than be constantly sick with angst and frustration.

What stands out in this aspect is your need for a hot woman to satisfy you sexually as some manner of obligation.

Again this is about my needs, not the woman's needs or obligations. It is not about me viewing that women have an obligation, it is just about me wanting to be happy and not feel sexual frustration.

What part of that clueless utterance doesn't warn women away? Especially if they consider the rest of what goes with it?

You are clueless if you think marriage is beneficial to adults. First you complain about marriage used as a tool to oppress women, then you say it's great and an excellent thing.
Marriage was a tool to oppress women, now it is a tool to oppress men, the only purpose of marriage really is for child raising and as such it only benefits children.
Your views are illogical antiquated and dated, you imply that women would find it repulsive if I am not interested in a long-term relationship with them ending in ultimately marriage. What era are you from exactly?

History disagrees, and while people often describe what you're pitching as delusional, it is more accurate to say it's simply selfish and stupid, and by that latter I mean not simply being uneducated but also dysfunctional.

Wow you must be challenged in some regard. I said that the current marriage system and then you bring about "history".
Has nothing to do with "History", since I was talking about the current marriage system of modern times.
And do you want a cookie, yes historically marriage has oppressed women, now it oppresses males, hooray for the child.
Child can get another cookie if they mention to me something about third-world countries.

You can tell if a woman loves you or is trying to get your money; marriage has no benefit for adults; your ideal system would be that a man is allowed to step out on his wife.

You seriously can't figure out the answer is to not get married?

I have already stated marriage is stupid and oppresses males, so what is your point exactly?
Oh the point is you are trying to undermine what I am doing here for no good reason.
I give you methods to decrease the amount of divorce and murder, and you try to undermine it and shame me for doing so. How typical.
Obviously if social norms were different and out of sex marriage wasn't so stigmatized, people wouldn't murder their partners or divorce so often just for fooling around. But real sanity is lost among the Americans.

If you're not going to style your relationship with a partner according to your shared, agreed terms, because some "Puritan religious system" might disapprove, you're doing it to yourselves.

Sheeple dont have agency, they just obey the dogma and stigma of their religion or society. And sane people are stuck having to deal with it and conform to the insanity if they want to get anywhere.

By advocating heterosexual—i.e., binary—obligation.

First you say I want to purge heterosexuals.
Now you say I am advocating heterosexual binary obligation.
Make up your mind, you're so confusing.

You might want to try thinking it through before just spitting out words for the sake of self-gratification in the moment. I mean, look at that debacle about marriage just above; it's not even a hot mess, you're just making a mess.

Marriage has always been a mess and me posting about it didn't cause a backwards rift in time that made it a mess.

By your own logic, so are you.

Meanwhile, more logically, let us consider the functional result the proposition: All Americans are guilty of this, you argue, men and women. Guilty of what? According to you, guilty of "gender dogma, which puts males into a corner and tells them that males are not allowed to challenge traditional male gender norms".

This isn't rocket science: All Americans are guilty, you argue, including those who challenge traditional gender norms. Too bad you hate those men and women.

Fair enough, I should have said "most" not all.

No, you're advocating an uneducated, supremacist, rapemongering political argument.

I haven't advocated rape, but if you want to spread lies and fake news like a typical modern liberal, then go ahead.

And we might take another moment about thinking it through before just spitting out words for the sake of self-gratification in the moment: You just condemned "every American" as guilty of "gender dogma", but your baseline metric for women in the moment, because you think it empowers further self-gratifying complaint, is particular aberration from "gender dogma"?

No idea what you are trying to say and this is over my head. You think in a way that sounds very convoluted.

What really stands out there is that the second sentence ought to be irrelevant to you.

Irrelevant mainly because, you are very bad at communicating your thoughts in a understandable manner.

cont.

 

[gamelord]

Except there is a whole bunch of this that sounds like self-loathing. That part has been clear for several days, at least, and is generally essential to crybaby masculinism. And in addition to the basic hostility of your presentation, there is also the fact that you're not really breaking type at all. You know, the old-time language, the focus on masculinity, the dog metaphor? You've only gone on to reinforce the point. To wit:

Actually, you go back and forth on that, and your doctrinaire advocacy of the Isla Vista incel idol in #63↑ is precisely to type.

No idea about anything about Isla Vista, and the link isn't working so I'm not going to bother.

—one more time:

• Can you tell us one thing about the person you've shown, here at Sciforums, that a woman should find attractive?

• She happens across this site, sees your writing, and what about the character you're presenting is going to give her that vulvic vibe, that twitchy twitch, them sloppy pants, you're after?

• More directly, what isn't going to disgust her?

• What part of the way you've been behaving do you think isn't grotesquely unattractive to the women you would condescend to date?​

What about you? Well, you're working hard to chase them away.

You talk about looking down on machismo and masculinism, but you are the shining image of it.
This is exactly the kind of bullyish, sadistic talk that males have with other males who dare to disobey the male macho dogma.

And that's the thing about people trying to empathize or sympathize; this repulsive anger and ranting supremacist fallacy is pretty much all you've shown.

I could say the same of you, since you blame men for the worlds problems.
But again females get a free ticket to do everything they complain men do.

Well, that and gender dysphoria, and I really, really don't know what to do about that because people aren't going to bash their heads against stone for you, literally or figuratively, when your whole purpose is just to inflict misery.

Maybe that's your twisted view, because what I was trying to do was just give men more gender flexibility. Maybe it feels like misery to certain macho men who have been brainwashed by macho values so long that they dont want those kinds of freedoms.

But if you're worried it's only platonic, consider it this way: As much as you want a woman, just once, to treat you how men treat women, women would much appreciate it if every now and then, or even just once, an encounter could be platonic, or businesslike, through and through from start to finish. The result being that when people like you bring their appeals, the only thing that makes you stand out is the aura of menace about your behavior; the priority of romance and intimacy, in itself, leaves you just another face in the crowd of men who only value her for the potential of their enjoyment.

Okay so I make it a platonic thing and what do I get out of it? Nothing. As for the once thing, it is an exaggeration and I have treated women platonic more than once.

Now however you do make a valid point, in that males do seem to to inject romantic needs into what is usually a platonic encounter amongst men, but when women are there, the men inject romantic needs.
So, this is a valid point of yours, but what does it actually mean in reality?
Well it means 2 things actually.
1. It means men are starved of romantic affections, that is, women do not chase men the same way men admire or chase women. This creates a "market imbalance" of love-starved men, and this market-imbalance destabilizes the platonic nature of relations.
2. It means that women are not sexually attracted to most men. Because if women were sexually attracted to most men, then being hit on and flirted would not be such a grave transgression to these women.

 

[gamelord]

And the peer review?

Thought you were gonna be the peer review.

And yet you still missed the point.

No I got your point, which is, at is it always, feel sorry for the womens and blame the big bad mens. But did you get my point, which is that, is it possible, just possible, that women are at least partially to blame for their world being such a sh*tshow?

Simply not getting laid does not make one "involuntarily celibate" if the only reason is being male. See above, this is already covered.

If they don't get laid on purpose, they are voluntary, other wise they are involuntary. Anything else is just your convoluted thought processes twisting words, as some kind of ego defense so you can never lose an argument.

I mean look at you. I've agreed with you on some points, even admitted I was wrong on other points, and yet have you ever even once admitted you were wrong on anything?
You are so egotistical, like you convolude everything to the point where somehow you twist the argument into you always being right about everything. And when you can't convolude it or twist the argument, you "conclude" it, with either petty ad homs of you being right and me being wrong.

If we start with the question at what point I have suggested all men are part of the identifying masculinist movements, the answer is obvious enough that we can simply move on to the next point, about making believe, and reminding you that petulant lying isn't going to get you laid.

Maybe not "all" men but still you blame "men" for the worlds problems in the same manner a religous person holds the devil as the cause of the worlds problems, or the same manner a nazi holds a jew for all the worlds problems.
Also, petulant lying will get you laid, if your are a female that is. (But it also works for some men.)

You've been running from logic for a while.

If your reasons for being "involuntarily" celibate is tinfoil, then you're not really an incel, but just some bitter dude who chooses to not put in the effort for even a superficial lay.

Number one: You're going to get laid someday, and be grotesquely disappointed. Don't worry, she'll be disappointed, too, probably even more so.

Already did get laid, on several occasions, was disappointed already. Mainly because of the women's indifference, I had to do all the work and while she just sat their passive and indifferent to my existence. At one point I just left, because at what point is it rape, I do not want to feel like a rapist while a woman just sits there and passively accepts my existence. At what point does it no longer feel enjoyable to me when the woman clearly isn't that into it and puts forth no effort into getting it to work. If a woman is just gonna lay there indifferent to me at least she could be very hot so I could feel aroused, as it stands I feel no arousal for a woman who is both neither hot nor nurturing and loving. I want to feel loved and appreciated, but most of the women I encounter are just severe narcissists, they have no love to give. Tesla was an incel who complained that women were becoming masculine and non-nurturing.

Perfect specimens? Bullshit, dude.

And you're probably best served skipping the rap critique.

Aye aye, most of these men are not perfect specimens in the genetic sense, but more so in the abstract "im more macho than everybody else" sense.

Start a movement denouncing the current incels. Have a big, nasty political fight with them to win the day and redefine inceldom.

That's the equivalent of telling a Mexican who doesn't eat tacos and burritos, to denounce mexican culture.
Do you actually know how ridiculous you sound?

You know everything is rigged right?

I have actually tried to stop school shootings before, noone would give me a voice, because to have a voice you need to have the proper connections.

Second, although I am not a rapist and my ideal version of utopia is not a rape fest, I have enough understanding to know what its like to sexually frustrated. You don't you are just a female speaking about things you don't understand. You couldn't possibly understand the pain of sexual frustration, you just see these people as monsters. I know this for a fact, because when every FTM starts taking testosterone, they say "Oh I had no idea how bad this sexual frustration was, and how much torture it was like to be a man."

Then give it back to the lesbian and let the word die a proper bed death.

Who am I? I am just one person? As much as I'd like to I don't have that power.

Yeah, that's well-recognized as an incel pitch.

Again, its the average American on their high-horse, not wanting to empathize or understand criminal struggles. All americans think in black and white, good and evil, and not shades of grey. Your high-horse is no different than the high horse of the law man, who puts the "bad guys" away. You have all the moral nuance and all the philosophical depth of a soldier bombing "enemies".

Make-believe is make-believe. You need to stop making things up.

You can scroll back and see where you accused me of that.

If you say so. Because, you know, you're reliable.

No, really, you just keep making shit up, so nobody really knows what to tell you.

Funny because thats how I see you.

Well, you only quoted the questions↑. And since you're so busy making believe it's rather quite possible you missed it. To reiterate:

• Hey, just out of curiosity: Can you tell us one thing about the person you've shown, here at Sciforums, that a woman should find attractive?

• She happens across this site, sees your writing, and what about the character you're presenting is going to give her that vulvic vibe, that twitchy twitch, them sloppy pants, you're after?

• More directly, what isn't going to disgust her?​

Not quite. To simplify: What part of the way you've been behaving do you think isn't grotesquely unattractive to the women you would condescend to date?

Wow at this point I wonder if it's you who's the chatbot. Because you litterally just copypasted that from a moment ago.

I guess this is the strong arm tactics they use for those who disagree with feminist dogma, they try to say "what woman would want to date someone who dares to challenge my feminist dogma."

Sexual ineptitude is best omitted from the platform entirely.

Yes, because humans are primitive, judgey, and want to be ruled by a virile alpha male who has on-demand sex at all times. In essence humans are civilized savages.

Only men can change that.

Only men can change their masculine need for stoic titles.

its sad if you actually believe that nonsense.
Most of what drives that kind of masculine ideolgy is the fact that they believe women are attracted to stoic male.
I even hear this kind of toxic idealogy from mtf transsexuals, saying they want a strong alpha male who doesnt share his feelings.
So yes women can play their part by not perpetuating the macho dogma. Because I see plenty of females on facebook who complain about emos and say they want a "real man". The strange thing about these females is they always seem to be single, despite being surrounded by "real men", and somehow the emos usually are the only males getting female sexual attention.

It's one of those detail things. Kind of like "incel". "Men's rights" is an innocuous phrase; the movement, however, is tragic.



It has to do with deeper content, not superficial labels.

thats what I've been saying all along, yet youve been chastizing me about it for several pages.

You overstate the State, but there is a lot about American society you don't seem to understand. Still, though, there are less materialistic females out there; it is also possible they just don't meet your standards.

If a woman actually came up to me and displayed an interest in me, I'd be willing to overlook her looks and not care as much about how hot she was. But as it stands thats not the american dating climate, as a male I'm expected to chase and win a woman's affection, passing her "tests" and proving I'm high status, its all toxic maddening nonsense.

We should be able to find at least a few women who aren't narcissists. It does happen, which you would be capable of learning if you stopped playing make-believe long enough to learn anything.

Im sure it does happen, but not to me.

cont.

 

[gamelord]

Nor I, but your line is beside the point. You don't argue consistently. Nobody will pretend it's easy to keep track of all the lines of a larger discussion, but it's even harder when someone just makes shit up at random. The part nobody wants to do is pick post by post through your ramblings for the number of times you approach contradiction.

Funny because that seems to describe you mostly.

The problem is the focus on hotness and getting into her pants; as you said, "claim that men only lust for them". That word "only" is important. And you are correct at least in that there are men who think and behave that way. This fact has nothing to do with the physical aesthetics of who she does date. There is no inherent contradiction for basing your bawl about moral hypocrisy.

it is. If you go deeper into the logic, you will see that those women, use Hotness as a disqualifies the same as men use hotness as a qualifier.
For instance, a man may see a hot woman, get interested because she is hot, and then find out she has a great personality, and love her even more.
But the hot woman who only dates hot guys, she automatically disqualifies any man who is not hot, she could care less about his personality, in fact she is even more shallow that the other guy.

No, we call that evolutionary psychology.



Figure it out: Make-believe does not fly, either in debate or as an excuse for bad behavior.

Evolutionary instincts are part of evolutionary psychology, so it is you who is doing make believe.

Figure it out: Creepy obsession is not attractive.

Well feminism shames male sexuality and outward obvious displays of attraction, which tends to make people go down the creepy route.

There are a number of things wrong with that statement, and they're all you.

Your argument boils down to, female right, male wrong.
The majority of females in america are ignorant, but you want to deny this.
Why because that's just the kind of person you want to be, a person of make-believe.

 

[TheFrogger]

I agree Gamelord. Women get us to fall in love with them, then they leave us.

 

[Write4U]

I agree Gamelord. Women get us to fall in love with them, then they leave us.

And men get the women pregnant and then leave them....

 

[gamelord]

I agree Gamelord. Women get us to fall in love with them, then they leave us.

This is exactly true.

Women molest people with their eyes, and they walk around in sexualized clothing saying it is their right as a woman.
Fine, but what about the rights of men to wear the same sexualized clothing that women get away with wearing? Of course feminists "say" they want equality but you almost never hear them standing up for male gender rights to wear such clothing, or makeup, for that matter. And of course, if a male molests a woman with his eyes well he is called what he is, a molester, but of course a woman gets a free pass to do the same thing men are criticized for doing. Every narcissistic thing modern women do gets a free pass.

And if you say any of this, that sexualized clothing arouses men and thus is a form of molestation, they accuse you of perpetuating "rape culture". And lets be real, noone is saying that rape is good for women. What I do, is simply state the elephant in the closet: That the reason rape is traumatizing to women, is because they are sexually repulsed by everything about men and males in general. Women want to be heterosexual males. Essentially everything about the modern woman is a heterosexual male walking around in a female's body. So of course they would hate the idea of being raped by a man, what heterosexual male wouldn't?

Of course men never mention this double standard, of course because men want to be slapped in the ass by women, or touched on the arm sexually by women, so by exposing the double standard, it would enforce women to have to receive male's consent for the molestation that males want women to give them, which deeply digs their own tire into the dirt. Further exposing of this double standard would also expose to men that they are obsolete and that everything they've been taught about gender is deeply flawed.

 

[gamelord]

And men get the women pregnant and then leave them....

They still have to pay child support though.

And I think what he was meaning is how women flirt inherently with any man, but have no intention of the flirting leading up to anything. Like men are just narcissistic supply for women.

But yes, men ought not to just leave a relationship without any warning. Anyone who ghosts is garbage person.

 

[Write4U]

This is exactly true.

Women molest people with their eyes, and they walk around in sexualized clothing saying it is their right as a woman.
Fine, but what about the rights of men to wear the same sexualized clothing that women get away with wearing? Of course feminists "say" they want equality but you almost never hear them standing up for male gender rights to wear such clothing, or makeup, for that matter. And of course, if a male molests a woman with his eyes well he is called what he is, a molester, but of course a woman gets a free pass to do the same thing men are criticized for doing. Every narcissistic thing modern women do gets a free pass.

And if you say any of this, that sexualized clothing arouses men and thus is a form of molestation, they accuse you of perpetuating "rape culture". And lets be real, noone is saying that rape is good for women. What I do, is simply state the elephant in the closet: That the reason rape is traumatizing to women, is because they are sexually repulsed by everything about men and males in general. Women want to be heterosexual males. Essentially everything about the modern woman is a heterosexual male walking around in a female's body. So of course they would hate the idea of being raped by a man, what heterosexual male wouldn't?

Of course men never mention this double standard, of course because men want to be slapped in the ass by women, or touched on the arm sexually by women, so by exposing the double standard, it would enforce women to have to receive male's consent for the molestation that males want women to give them, which deeply digs their own tire into the dirt. Further exposing of this double standard would also expose to men that they are obsolete and that everything they've been taught about gender is deeply flawed.

Yes, Muslim countries have solved that problem. They force women to wear Burkas, so as to protect those emotionally vulnerable men from being beguiled by those evil women.

You'd feel right at home there!

 

[gamelord]

Yes, Muslim countries have solved that problem. They force women to wear Burkas, so as to protect those emotionally vulnerable men from being beguiled by those evil women.

You'd feel right at home there!

Do you honestly I'd feel at home at some savage religious traditionalist country like that?

And there are different ways and methods at tackling a problem.
One way is outperforming women at their own game, for society to outsexualize males more than females are sexualized, and thus reducing the female dominance of the dating department.

The Muslim idea is to desexualize both males and females, the American idea is to desexualize males, but sexualize females.

 

[Write4U]

They still have to pay child support though.

Good luck with that! I know some men who refuse to seek work because they have 3 or 4 children by different women and their entire paycheck would go to childsupport.
Thus society is picking up the tab for those "productive" citizens.

 

[Write4U]

Do you honestly I'd feel at home at some savage religious traditionalist country like that?

From the way you speak, yes. They HAVE solved the problem of sexualized behavior in the female.
Males are not restricted in any way, except they are forbidden to look at the genitals of overflying birds.

 

[gamelord]

Good luck with that! I know some men who refuse to seek work because they have 3 or 4 children by different women and their entire paycheck would go to childsupport.
Thus society is picking up the tab for those "productive" citizens.

Then what are you complaining about? The kids are fed and get clean clothes.
Would be nice to have a father around but my father wasn't around that much when I was a kid, so they need to learn to deal with it.
In my father's defense it was mostly my mother who forbid him from being around.

From the way you speak, yes.

Then you don't really know me that well.