Women actually do like men - Strange, but true

[TheBigZee]

You're either sexually fit or you aren't.

Every species has individuals that fail mate selection.

Jane Austin and Isaac Newton were both successful people who died alone.

Joblessness and low income just correlate with other factors about your appearance and personality that make you unfuckable. The disabled who are the slightest bit fit and capable can find love.

 

[Bungdit Din]

You're either sexually fit or you aren't.

Every species has individuals that fail mate selection.

Jane Austin and Isaac Newton were both successful people who died alone.

Joblessness and low income just correlate with other factors about your appearance and personality that make you unfuckable. The disabled who are the slightest bit fit and capable can find love.

[Ackshually mode engaged] Remember, though, that 'fitness' is defined as (successful) adaptation to environment. 'Success' being surviving, and even thriving, long enough to pass on your genes. Of course, the environment is subject to change (and/or subject to artificial manipulation) and doesn't just mean the tangible, gross-matter, physical conditions of a given space and time, but also includes the slightly more intangible 'social' or 'cultural' factors.

I could sperg out further, here, about our Current Year 'dysgenic' [says who? innit] man-made[??!] environment but, long story short: a failure to reproduce is a failure to adapt. And it makes little difference whether that failure is due to unwillingness, or because of incapability, if the end result is the same. Other side of the coin being that it doesn't make much difference, either, if those that do reproduce (that is, they're integrated, harmoniously, into their environment) do it 'accidentally' or purposefully. Your genes don't care, they just 'want' (for want of a better word) to propagate/perpetuate themselves into the future.

It's also worth considering that, by and large, wahmens dictate the social/cultural conditions under which teh menz compete for reproductive access. Wahmens determine how the punishments and rewards are to be distributed. In this game, women decide the 'winners' and 'losers'. It's not so much 'Natural Selection' but Female Selection. By simply observing who - or, what type of men - women fuck (whether or not any offspring are conceived), one can determine the kind of traits that females truly find attractive, as opposed to the bullshit claims that they make - which can be safely ignored. Or rather, which must be ignored, if you wish to really understand the dynamics of mating. Watch what they do, not what they say, in other words.

All pretty elementary. More to it than that, too - shit's complicated. But it's also quite simple:

It's a buyer's market, and men have to sell themselves. Men - barring brute force strategies - can only offer an invitation, it's up to the wahmens whether or not they want to accept. If you're a sexless chud, it's because there simply aren't any willing buyers of what you're selling - at least, not right now, under present circumstances. Insert female dual mating strategy digression here.

I'm sure I was going somewhere with this... Oh, yeah; as far as Nature is concerned, Austin and Newton are - and more to the point, were - fucking losers. Geniuses, but also stupid, dumbfuck nerds, who got shoved, permanently, into the locker of oblivion in the merciless school of Life. This also tells us that women don't particularly value, in reproductive terms, [too much] intelligence in men, any more than men care all that much about a woman's intellect. If Newton had more muscles (and a cunt-stretching monster-cock), and Austen had bigger tits and a prettier face, things might've worked out differently for them.

...

Back on topic - no, women don't like [most] men - and those that they do like, they only like what these men can do for them (and only for as long as they do) not the men in and of, and for and as themselves.

That's /thread, right there, in one sentence, btw. Sorry.

tl;dr: Briffault's Law.

Relationships, for women, are purely transactional, even if men have other ideas. No judgement - good or bad - that's just how it is. Adapt to this reality, or go extinct. No-one fucking cares.

 

[Cheeseknife]

All I want is a man who is employed, is presentable, and wants total nigger death. That's it.

Alas, I am only two of those things.

 

[r9k-speaks]

Relationships, for women, are purely transactional, even if men have other ideas. No judgement - good or bad - that's just how it is. Adapt to this reality, or go extinct. No-one fucking cares.

I can't remember where I read it but some guy said "Men love Women like Children. Women love Men like an accessory, that can afford them a certain lifestyle."

 

[redcent]

could sperg out further, here, about our Current Year 'dysgenic' [says who? innit] man-made[??!] environment but, long story short: a failure to reproduce is a failure to adapt. And it makes little difference whether that failure is due to unwillingness, or because of incapability, if the end result is the same. Other side of the coin being that it doesn't make much difference, either, if those that do reproduce (that is, they're integrated, harmoniously, into their environment) do it 'accidentally' or purposefully. Your genes don't care, they just 'want' (for want of a better word) to propagate/perpetuate themselves into the future.

Not all things survive by reproducing themselves. Take the honey bee for example. The usual worker is infertile, and protect the next generation of siblings from the queen because technically their siblings are more genetically similar to them than any offspring if they ever could have managed to have "reproduced"

Reproduction doesn't necessarily mean you have to be out for yourself and your own genes. Take cancer, technically it is a successful cell which is reproducing well, simply at the cost of the host's health/life, because it is out for itself rather than the good of the body. Now you get some cancers that spread from animal to animal. It is successful at surviving, it just so happens it's a cancer

You can be a cancer. But in the end it's nothing but harmful

Or you could be like the rest of the cells. You may or may not reproduce as successfully as the cancer, but the body survives.

Back on topic - no, women don't like [most] men - and those that they do like, they only like what these men can do for them (and only for as long as they do) not the men in and of, and for and as themselves.

What do you mean "don't like? " As in "not get along with?" because the world is getting along just fine, men and women alike, - contrary to internet wackos being whingers say.

Or do you mean "not attracted to" because I though it was the norm for all adults to be unnattracted to the majority around them. This should not be offensive at all.

 

[TheBigZee]

Remember, though, that 'fitness' is defined as (successful) adaptation to environment. 'Success' being surviving, and even thriving, long enough to pass on your genes.

In a k-selected species, surviving and thriving does not garauntee you will pass on your genes. Irrespective of environment there will be people that are undesireable no matter what.

 

[Bungdit Din]

@redcent [can't directly reply].

Not all things survive by reproducing themselves. Take the honey bee for example. The usual worker is infertile, and protect the next generation of siblings from the queen because technically their siblings are more genetically similar to them than any offspring if they ever could have managed to have "reproduced"

Reproduction doesn't necessarily mean you have to be out for yourself and your own genes. Take cancer, technically it is a successful cell which is reproducing well, simply at the cost of the host's health/life, because it is out for itself rather than the good of the body. Now you get some cancers that spread from animal to animal. It is successful at surviving, it just so happens it's a cancer

You can be a cancer. But in the end it's nothing but harmful

Or you could be like the rest of the cells. You may or may not reproduce as successfully as the cancer, but the body survives.

That's a difference of context, I think. And the fact that I was, necessarily, making very broad generalizations, to which there are bound to be exceptions. The context being that I was talking about humans, not insects (or Chinamen), nor cancer (or Jews, lol). Slightly different rules apply. Even with 'oomans, it's still very much about the continuation of the species, not the individual, not entirely unlike bees.

I'm really not an expert, btw (no shit, right?), and I am just regurgitating a bunch of opinions I've adopted from elsewhere. One day, I might have an original thought. That'd be an interesting experience, if nothing else.

What do you mean "don't like? " As in "not get along with?" because the world is getting along just fine, men and women alike, - contrary to internet wackos being whingers say.

Or do you mean "not attracted to" because I though it was the norm for all adults to be unnattracted to the majority around them. This should not be offensive at all.

Bit of both. Sort of. It was a bit pedantic, but I used "like" because that's the way the title of the thread is worded, and I did that so I can't be accused of moving the goalposts/changing the topic to suit my argument(s). But yes, it's more or less a substitute for "attracted to". Non-controversial, I agree.

However, I'm increasingly of the opinion that women really don't like men. Y'know, as in... like. As in, feel some... I don't know, affinity? for men. They'll tolerate them, just about, if they can get something out of them being around, but otherwise would rather they didn't exist. Again, they may not say that, but that's what they're telling us. I'm just restating Briffault's Law*, which I already mentioned. By definition, you tolerate that which you dislike. Tolerate, for whatever reason, or if you have no other choice. Women, now, have that choice - and look at the choices they make.

*The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place. [Wiki; first google result]

Examine the evidence and draw your own conclusions.

---

In a k-selected species, surviving and thriving does not garauntee you will pass on your genes. Irrespective of environment there will be people that are undesireable no matter what.

Oh, abso-fucking-lutely. Luckily, there's always raep. Lovely, lovely, delicious raep. Which is wrong, and bad. But then, why does it feel so good? Answer: Patriarchy, obviously...

 

[redcent]

That's a difference of context, I think. And the fact that I was, necessarily, making very broad generalizations, to which there are bound to be exceptions. The context being that I was talking about humans, not insects (or Chinamen), nor cancer (or Jews, lol). Slightly different rules apply. Even with 'oomans, it's still very much about the continuation of the species, not the individual, not entirely unlike bees.

I'm really not an expert, btw (no shit, right?), and I am just regurgitating a bunch of opinions I've adopted from elsewhere. One day, I might have an original thought. That'd be an interesting experience, if nothing else.

Thing is humans supposed to be the epitome of a species that is altruistic.

We're not monkeys or viruses out to spread our genes and nothing else. Humans are supposed to be above that.

Bit of both. Sort of. It was a bit pedantic, but I used "like" because that's the way the title of the thread is worded, and I did that so I can't be accused of moving the goalposts/changing the topic to suit my argument(s). But yes, it's more or less a substitute for "attracted to". Non-controversial, I agree.

However, I'm increasingly of the opinion that women really don't like men. Y'know, as in... like. As in, feel some... I don't know, affinity? for men. They'll tolerate them, just about, if they can get something out of them being around, but otherwise would rather they didn't exist.

You can get along, and yes, be friends with the opposite gender even without attraction. It just all depends on not being a dredge to hang around with.

Hence why I ask why A&H guys are so insufferable. Why drag yourself into a rabbit hole that makes you unlikable?

Again, they may not say that, but that's what they're telling us. I'm just restating Briffault's Law*, which I already mentioned. By definition, you tolerate that which you dislike. Tolerate, for whatever reason, or if you have no other choice. Women, now, have that choice - and look at the choices they make.

*The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place. [Wiki; first google result]

Examine the evidence and draw your own conclusions.

Anyways, back the question I asked and you answered: you meant attraction. And like I said, majority of the adults don't feel attracted en masse. This, too, is part of nature, human nature. None of us want just anybody to get attracted to us. Particularly with a population so big and a large society (or societies) we're all stuck in.

You pointed out earlier failure to survive is failure to adapt. So adapt.

 

[TheBigZee]

In my experience most women want sex as a part of a loving relationship with a physically attractive man that makes them feel emotionally and physically safe.

Women might forgo the relationship or attractiveness to get sex, but they won't sacrifice feeling safe. A short conversation is more than enough time to pick up on red flags.

Hence why I ask why A&H guys are so insufferable.

Because they're angry and you're hardwired to avoid angry men.

 

[Blobby's Murder Knife]

Let's say you are autistic enough to coast on disability. Let's say you're so autistic nobody will hire you anywhere. Several women on this thread have cited employment as a dating requirement, but you'd be surprised how low the standards of unemployed women can be. Seriously, a lot of them have PTSD from bad relationships and are happy enough with an unemployed man just because he doesn't beat the shit out of them. Even a loser doesn't need to be an incel if he looks for women in the right places. Sometimes 2/3 of the OP (looking presentable and wanting total nigger death) is good enough.

Employment is a dating requirement for women unless you are independently wealthy. It proves to us you can at least attempt to provide and that is a large part of the purpose of men to us. Some women will date perennially unemployed men. The question to men is are these also the women you want to date?

Jane Austin and Isaac Newton were both successful people who died alone.

Newton, like Tesla, was an insane autist. I think he died alone because he wanted to. He probably could have got pussy, but he was meh about it. Not everyone is driven by sex, for whatever reason.

Because they're angry and you're hardwired to avoid angry men.

It depends on what they are angry about. I do admire a man who is passionate on certain issues.

 

[Bungdit Din]

@redcent

Thing is humans supposed to be the epitome of a species that is altruistic.

We're not monkeys or viruses out to spread our genes and nothing else. Humans are supposed to be above that.

Supposed to be. Yes. But how often do we see that actualized? And yes, I am only presenting a VERY narrow view - only part of the story - there is, or should be, more to us than that. But we are that, at base, at first. That, I'm saying, is where we're starting from - and to get anywhere, we need to know, first, where we are.

You can get along, and yes, be friends with the opposite gender even without attraction. It just all depends on not being a dredge to hang around with.

Hence why I ask why A&H guys are so insufferable. Why drag yourself into a rabbit hole that makes you unlikable?

Nah. This is where we disagree. I don't think men and women can be - or will be - 'friends' without some attraction. Both men and (though much, much more rarely) women get friendzoned, but that doesn't make them friends. It just means that one party or the other (sometimes both, if we're writing the setup to a will they/won't they romcom, or something) isn't getting everything that they really want out of the... association. These 'friendships' usually cease once one of them finds what they're looking for elsewhere, or, at least, gives up trying to get it from the wrong source. Or, they stop pretending, and that usually leads to the (often explosive) disintegration of the 'friendship'. Or, they fuck, and 'discover' something great. Can, and does, happen - so I'm not completely cynical.

And, who gives a fuck about being liked? That's a female priority. There's bound to be a clash when our perspectives are so radically different. It's not so much the guys of A&H themselves that are so insufferable, it's more a case that they break consensus, and that is abhorrent to the femoid (hive)mind.

Anyways, back the question I asked and you answered: you meant attraction.

No, and yes. Been over this, lol.

 

[The Ugly One]

I could sperg out further, here, about our Current Year 'dysgenic' [says who? innit] man-made[??!] environment but, long story short: a failure to reproduce is a failure to adapt.

The environment is dysgenic because it selects against the traits needed to sustain it. High-tech, advanced civilization needs lots of people with high IQs and impulse control. But those exact people are disincentivized to reproduce. Fertility is incentivized among our dumbest, most lawless people, who cause the system to collapse anywhere their numbers grow large enough to drive out the people who sustain it. And currently, those people would be dying off if it weren't for high-functioning people sending them aid from the places we still control.

 

[Blobby's Murder Knife]

The environment is dysgenic because it selects against the traits needed to sustain it. High-tech, advanced civilization needs lots of people with high IQs and impulse control. But those exact people are disincentivized to reproduced. Fertility is incentivized among our dumbest, most lawless people, who cause the system to collapse anywhere their numbers grow large enough to drive out the people who sustain it. And currently, those people would be dying off if it weren't for high-functioning people sending them aid from the places we still control.

I mean, no lies dectected. My family, my ex-in-laws, are all extremely highly educated white peoplez. All of my siblings and ex-siblings in law have had exactly one child each and then sterilized themselves.

 

[Bungdit Din]

The environment is dysgenic because it selects against the traits needed to sustain it. High-tech, advanced civilization needs lots of people with high IQs and impulse control. But those exact people are disincentivized to reproduced. Fertility is incentivized among our dumbest, most lawless people, who cause the system to collapse anywhere their numbers grow large enough to drive out the people who sustain it. And currently, those people would be dying off if it weren't for high-functioning people sending them aid from the places we still control.

Beautiful. Thank you.

That is, I would've struggled to prove (as it were) or define why it's dysgenic (even though it's kind of self evident), but that first sentence alone is a perfect, succinct, and elegant, way of explaining it. Totally stealing that for future use - apart from online, trying to gradually red pill one or two people, irl, and that could come in useful. I'll give credit to... Unknown (next to Arch Stanton. Ho-Ho).

 

[Nick Gars]

All I want is a man who is employed, is presentable, and wants total nigger death. That's it.

Women aren't hard to figure out either, just have a job, shower, don't be bitter.

I was going to bold the last 3 words, but the websites being a shithead with my phone right now.

So how exactly can I want TND and not be bitter I have to share oxygen with these nonhumans? Those two things kind of go hand in hand.

 

[DumbDude43]

It's also worth considering that, by and large, wahmens dictate the social/cultural conditions under which teh menz compete for reproductive access.

while this is currently true, it is worth pointing out that this is a rather young phenomenon within civilisation. up until relatively recently, this control lay not in the hands of women themselves but in the hands of their parents (chiefly their fathers) which resulted in very different selection criteria. "girl falls for sleazy womanizer, daddy isn't having it" is a common trope in fiction for a reason.
pretty much all successful civilisations arose in an environment where this control was in male hands, this is what allowed humanity to rise as far as it did.
the inversion of this arrangement, the adoption of new (female) selection criteria in favor of male ones, is the root cause of our current decline - and by 'our' i dont just mean the west, it affects the entire civilised world. you can see variations of this exact same phenomenon everywhere, from america in the west to korea in the far east.

 

[SpergioLeonne]

I was going to bold the last 3 words, but the websites being a shithead with my phone right now.

So how exactly can I want TND and not be bitter I have to share oxygen with these nonhumans? Those two things kind of go hand in hand.

She means don’t be bitter in the incel way

 

[DumbDude43]

What do you mean "don't like? " As in "not get along with?" because the world is getting along just fine, men and women alike

literally the entire world except india and africa is staring down the barrel of catastrophic population decline
america europe china japan korea russia, even some muslim countries (within turkey, ethnic turks themselves have sub replacement fertility rates)
calling this "getting along just fine" is the equivalent of this dumb old meme

 

[SpergioLeonne]

Reproduction doesn't necessarily mean you have to be out for yourself and your own genes. Take cancer, technically it is a successful cell which is reproducing well, simply at the cost of the host's health/life, because it is out for itself rather than the good of the body. Now you get some cancers that spread from animal to animal. It is successful at surviving, it just so happens it's a cancer

Cancer arises from cells replicating while some of their instructions are damaged. Why don’t you use viruses for your example? Cancer isn’t subject to evolution. It’s not a distinct life form.

Speaking of evolution, that’s why people should have their own kids instead of relegating reproduction to some master class.

We’re susceptible to inbreeding while many species aren’t. Your cat doesn’t give a shit about fucking it’s parents or siblings, but if we humans do that, well, look at the UK’s increase in recessive genetic disorders since they started importing tons of cousin-fuckers.

Also, the more genetic pairings that get to compete in human evolution, the better the results. We just have to stop trying so hard to stop natural selection from selecting

 

[The Ugly One]

Kind of on topic, men don't actually like women that much, either. We wouldn't hang out with them if it weren't for boobs.