I don't think wegs is the person who needs to read that.
I wonder what paddoboy would make of it.
Clementine Ford is a brave, uncompromising woman.
On Chivalry and Sexual Violence
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
I wonder what paddoboy would make of it.
Clementine Ford is a brave, uncompromising woman.
Bells
Staff member
You are placing a value on something that is only skin deep.
In other words, a woman may be funny, loving, caring, intelligent, but for you and people like yourself, you are solely concerned about something that is only skin deep. Her looks.
Vanity.
That is what it comes down to. You are vain and you are incredibly shallow.
You do not see a woman or "girl" as an individual or even human, but only as a prop to boost your own ego.
Before you were born, you never existed.
But please seek help. Professional help. Preferably counseling ...
Hmmm...
Let me remind you of something you said earlier (the irony cannot be escaped at this point):
It's not your genes.
It's your attitude, your vanity and how you view others, particularly women.
Maybe if you spent less time placing a value on women in regards to their looks and started viewing women like human beings and stopped being so vain in that regard, you might find a bit more happiness and balance in your life.
Maybe if you were less shallow and vain and less of a homophobic and sexist bigot, you'd have better luck.
Then I am sure they will return the favor.
So you are arguing that "I only want to date beautiful women" = "I should never have been born?"
Look at it this way. If you had never been born, you would never have had the chance to do what you enjoy most - complain on the Internet!
No. YOU are telling yourself that your genetics is of low value and should not be passed on. If you succeed, you have only yourself to blame - no matter how much you want to blame women for your own failures.
Yeah. It's kind of weird that there are actually people who struggle with this, as though beauty is only established through consensus or something. And, of course, the matter of actual physical attraction is a wholly separate matter that doesn't even seem to factor for some (well, one--pluto2), because women are just some sort of accessory, I guess? I mean, if you actually like a person, you generally do not regard them as ugly, right?
A complexity involved: the role of consensus there is often framing, defining context, and thereby determining the ordinary or indicated possibilities of meaning (of all kinds, not restrictively aesthetic).
A significant feature of modern (at least) spirituality, according to the poets -
e.g. "You learn to recognize beauty by its frame"
(Claire Schwartz, first line of "Object Lesson")
You are being irrational.
Beauty Is not in the eye of the beholder. Beauty is a completely genetic and biological thing and I believe evolutionary biology completely supports me on that.
The fact is that if you are an extremely unattractive male or female then you are going to be rejected by all people or almost all people as a romantic partner.
Women treat beautiful and very wealthy men much better than their ugly and poor counterparts.
In the incel forums there was a story about a man who abuses his girlfriend all the time but she still wants to be with him just because he's a good-looking Chad.
https://incels.net/threads/becky-ab...still-wants-to-be-with-him.12282/#post-197703
Last edited:
Of course it is. There are dramatically different standards of beauty between individuals, groups and cultures.
No, it does not. If that were true there would be one standard of beauty - and there is not.
If you make yourself unattractive - quite true. Will you choose to do that?
Perhaps spending less time in Incel forums would do you some good.
Yeah. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is kind of a curious expression. Setting aside the self-evident aspect, it implies that, obviously, the experience of beauty is a subjective phenomenon. But it also implies that determination of beauty is entirely subjective. This isn't necessarily at odds with beauty being culturally informed or defined (at least in part) by consensus; however, I've certainly encountered interpretations of the expression which imply that we, independently, determine beauty independent of cultural prescription. To me, at least, this suggests that some readers interpret beauty (within the context of the expression) more in the sense of physical attractiveness, or more specifically, sexual attractiveness, and not in an aesthetic sense.
And, of course, in the context of this particular discussion, we are speaking to outer beauty only.
Last edited:
I disagree. If you hit the gym and gained muscle (just from a purely physical standpoint)...you would be ahead of many other guys, even the ''genetically blessed.'' Strength and confidence are two things that are usually appealing to women. What is not appealing to women, is labeling yourself an 'incel,' and whining about your genetic lot in life. You could work out. You could become more confident. You could stop basing your entire identity on what women think of you.
The story that you are linking though, has to do with the fact that ''Becky'' has no self esteem of her own, therefore she is willing to be mistreated by ''Chad.'' Women who are confident in themselves, and have a healthy self esteem, aren't dating bad guys, who mistreat women...even the ''Chads.'' (I speak from experience to that end.)
You seem to think that good looking men have it all, but honestly, if they're morally bankrupt or lack intelligence, they will likely only gain attention from vapid women, who are just in it to use them.
You need to seriously get off of those forums, they sound toxic and useless.
Not "entirely". Significantly and unavoidably, would be the implication. There remains a large role for genetic heritage, deep (constraining, boundary establishing) level biological triggers and influences, etc.
What possibilities the peacock's tail illustrates, what the near-universal human perception of beauty in landscape implies: that hominids sharing an awareness of, sensitivity to, beauty in certain landscapes (and animals, other people, musical sounds, etc) had a Darwinian advantage.
Another possibility is that there are biological constraints or influences on a biological trait (perception of beauty) normally established and given specific form or nature during development and growth.
The many different cultural and personal norms of beauty would then be manifestations or specific presentations within a biologically constrained and species specific range. So: many languages, but no nonverbal human cultures - or non-dancing human cultures, non-singing human cultures, etc.
And no cultures in which that singing does not feature somehow - as an element of beauty or "harmony" or whatever - the interval of a fifth. No cultures in which the verbal aspect does not feature somehow, as an element of beauty or harmony or whatever, consonance and assonance in rhythmic or time-recurrent verbal manifestation: "poetry" differentiated from ordinary speech.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that in this day and age there are forums dedicated to hating on people who have sex - but it still seems very odd.
I know, right? The thing is, these men sound voluntarily celibate, but they call themselves involuntarily celibate because they can’t have sex with any woman they wish - but, they likely could match with some women. I find it hard to believe that all women would reject them.
All sane ones would.
Not because they're ugly, sad, graceless, incompetent, surly and insecure - any or all of those traits might appeal to some women. (So many people, including women, have a strong impulse to help, rescue and rehabilitate the victims of this world.)
But because they've decided - and it is a deliberate, conscious decision - to channel their negative self-image into hatred.
You can have a workeable (I'm not saying healthy!) relationship based on pity and self-pity.
No relationship can be based on hate. You come across hateful like Pluto, everybody shuns you.
Small anecdote about the ugliest person I've ever known. He came from the Middle East; had had some awful disease in early childhood that left his face mismatched and lop-sided. The first time I met him, I didn't know how to cover the visceral reaction - a kind of fascinated horror. I hope I was polite; I hope I didn't stare, but can't swear I succeeded in either. Two weeks later, he was just Atum, a colleague, good at his work, a really nice guy with a sense of humour. I don't know when I stopped noticing his disfigurement - I just got used to it. I imagine his wife must have done, too, about six years before.
Effectively a life sentence, so probably not too light.
Yea, my thoughts too. I wonder if his lawyer is still preaching how women should be worried that men are going to stop holding doors for us because a bad guy was taken off the streets. Awesome logic there.