/R9K/ - Robot - 9000

ot's over..

High body count = daddy issues.

>>11531
Irony is, there’s more low body-count women with daddy issues than with high body-count

These days, they’re all writing fanfiction and making sexual roleplay videos

>>11532
>Irony is, there’s more low body-count women with daddy issues than with high body-count
Cope white knight. The only low body count women out there are women that got married young. Having Daddy issues makes you promiscuous

>>11534
It's not just daddy issues. The whole culture of our society (influenced by the mechanisms of capital) have turned women into commodities and they behave as such. Bodies and all.

>>11534
>t. Doesn’t interact with women enough in real life.

Most women who marry young nowadays are more likely to be plagued with daddy issues

The stereotype about female sexuality being influenced by daddy issues is just mainly sore losers who don’t know how to counteract immature women that were drop dead gorgeous.

>>11567
It’s not capitalism. It’s patriarchy. Men are the same way as well

>>11577
>Most women who marry young nowadays
Not in developed countries
>are more likely to be plagued with daddy issues
Cope, women model your adult relationships on their relationship to their father and his relationship to his wife.
If he ain't around they don't understand what emotional intimacy looks like. They don't realize the very obvious signs that Chad just wants to smash.
I'm not even against pre martial sex, but women despite all these proclamations about being liberated are actually quite conservative. It's why they complain about fuck boys and being "used" for their body. They still see sex and inherently exploitative of women

>>11579
That’s because women are infantilised. Even women who have good relations with their dads complain about men to no end.
In fact, a lot of those man-hating feminists had relatively decent dads. Those girls were just too self-indulgent on romantic media.

Feminism is the prodigal daughter of patriarchy.

Can't blame them. How can one resist when men are so accessible for sex? I'm a man and a whore, I'd do the same as a woman.

>>11587
Women aren't being promiscuous as an expression of their sexuality. If they did that they'd sleep with nearly any man, not just Chad.
What they're really doing is being hypergamous. Which is rooted in an ugly objectifying view of men that are result of an emotionally neglectful father.
I actually knew a woman personally that really did just have sex because she enjoyed it. She slept with half the men in our friend group the other half had the opportunity to sleep with her as well but choose not too because they were turned off by her promiscuity and I can tell you she was absolutely despised by other women.
She only had male friends but it wasn't because she "couldn't get a long with women". She desperately wanted female friends but women were never willing to befriend her.
They were too afraid that she'd sleep with their partners. They were too afraid to lose the leverage they had over their boyfriends that withholding sex gave them in their personal relationships.
Modern women aren't sleeping with a lot of different men because they are sexually liberated. They are doing because they believe they can manipulate men into commitment in the same way you'd train a dog with treats.

>>11592
>I actually knew a woman personally that really did just have sex because she enjoyed it. She slept with half the men in our friend group the other half had the opportunity to sleep with her as well but choose not too because they were turned off by her promiscuity
If they wanted to, could someone fix her?

>>11592
Daddy Issues Are Real and Can Affect Your Sex Life, Study Says
https://www.vice.com/en/article/daddy-issues-are-real-and-can-affect-your-sex-life-study-says/
Scientific studies backing up what I'm saying.

>>11592
I understand there's more demand for vaginas and women use it. I was just speaking from my men's perspective.

For context I'm bi and a bit feminine, obviously not many women are into that but men.. They're very accessible and I have sex with them just because I like it. Not interested in manipulating them or something. I never even had a relationship, only hookups for fun.

>>11592
>Women aren't being promiscuous as an expression of their sexuality. If they did that they'd sleep with nearly any man, not just Chad.

Men have higher libido and they aren't as open to fuck any type of woman. They have preferences but they're condemned for it.
Just because women are Chad only doesn't mean her sex drive is non-existent.


Modern women aren't sleeping with a lot of different men because they are sexually liberated. They are doing because they believe they can manipulate men into commitment in the same way you'd train a dog with treats.

Most modern women dont even have as high a body count as you think. They tease with nudes mostly.

Most women who get around only have a small clientele of men they shag. They're not fucking a few hundred different men.
They only have ten men they fuck a few times each.

>>11596
Men are the only ones that seem to sexually appreciate different types of men

>>11597
>Men have higher libido and they aren't as open to fuck any type of woman.
>Most modern women dont even have as high a body count as you think. They tease with nudes mostly.
>Most women who get around only have a small clientele of men they shag.
Should we tell him?

>>11630
Tell me what?
You’re the ones that need to be told the truth

>>11641
You're not going to believe this but, women are political actors and can even use sex, yes sex, as a means to an end.
It's crazy to think that something as scared as sex, which we all know women are very innocent about, can used to get something but I assure you it's true.

>>11650
to be desired is both a danger and a source of power
the social environment in developed first world societies currently favors women in this regard
and yet most mass shooters are still men, most gangsters are still men, et cetera

those who lack a moral objection to such things for whatever reason will use whatever power they have over others to their advantage
even if it is a suicidal use of power, it might serve the ego better than to wield nothing
some people just want to crack some skulls because it makes them feel good
there is a complete disregard for the social-psychological context behind such phenomena, none of you seem to have an explanation that fits with the bigger picture

>>11650
I’m well aware that women are actors that can use sex to get whatever they want but the moment of women who do so especially nowadays is less than you think.

>to be desired is both a danger and a source of power
the social environment in developed first world societies currently favors women in this regard

It only favors women whom are young, smooth-skinned, curvy, slender, docile, flowery-dressed

Women whom lack a multitude of these attributes are looked down upon.

Are older women, especially if they’re single moms, given much favor?

Are husky butch women given much favor?

>and yet most mass shooters are still men, most gangsters are still men, et cetera

Because men are socially assigned to be favored differently.

>those who lack a moral objection to such things for whatever reason will use whatever power they have over others to their advantage
even if it is a suicidal use of power, it might serve the ego better than to wield nothing
some people just want to crack some skulls because it makes them feel good

Captain Obvious

>there is a complete disregard for the social-psychological context behind such phenomena, none of you seem to have an explanation that fits with the bigger picture

Humans are just another species of animal

>>11657
da vinci, von neumann and lenin are all animals, yes
but i think that one species is clearly a little more complicated than the rest

>>11663
Wdtmbt

The problem is not woman's body count, the problem is that chads are the main part of it. If women gave sex to all men, not only to chads or rich, there wouldn't be such a big feeling of injustice that leads to all this "I only want a virgin" stuff.

>>11670
Most men that women have sex with are not chads nor rich people.
If anything, what you’re suggesting would make men even more indignant.

>>11675
>Most men that women have sex with are not chads nor rich people.
This is cope Captain-Save-A-Hoe, and it's simps like you that end up in sexless marriages believing roastie fairy tales.

>>11677
>simp
>captain save a ho
>you’re the reason for loveless marriages

<I guess we are hitting all the stops today

Where am I wrong? Most men that women fuck aren’t “Chads”.
And most women aren’t Stacies either.

>>11675

> Most men that women have sex with are not chads nor rich people.

That's why 63% of 18-30yo men is the U.S. are incels?

> If anything, what you’re suggesting would make men even more indignant.

Why? I'm suggesting that every man should have guaranteed sex on a regular basis. And the distribution of sex between men must be much more uniform.

>>11688
>That's why 63% of 18-30yo men is the U.S. are incels?

Can you provide evidence of this?

>Why? I'm suggesting that every man should have guaranteed sex on a regular basis. And the distribution of sex between men must be much more uniform.

Then you will have to promise the same for women.
You’re forgetting that not all men are the same In personalities, looks, hygiene, or wit.

By your logic, women ought to be wed regardless if they’re ugly, old, fat, etc

>>11698
> Can you provide evidence of this?

google.com

> Then you will have to promise the same for women.

No, I won't. How did you make this conclusion?

> You’re forgetting that not all men are the same In personalities, looks, hygiene, or wit.

I didn't say that all are same.

> By your logic, women ought to be wed regardless if they’re ugly, old, fat, etc

No, it's only if we follow the logic that we should consider sex in the same way for men and women. But I do not consider it like that. I consider sex as a need for men and a duty for women.

>>11684
Look in the Blackpill Science thread. 5% of men are getting 50% of all the pussy. Even scientists are saying you're wrong.

>>11735
>>11733
>t. I made it all up

>google.com

Which link on Google

>No, I won't. How did you make this conclusion?

Sex is two or more sentient entities running genitals together
Unless you mean only gay sex?

>No, I won't. How did you make this conclusion?

Because of men of all non-Chad types are to get their rocks off, then women must be promised the same as well.


>I didn't say that all are same

So you are okay with women being forced to service men who stink, have AIDS, have parasites and blemishes, excessive body hair, obese etc?

>No, it's only if we follow the logic that we should consider sex in the same way for men and women. But I do not consider it like that. I consider sex as a need for men and a duty for women.

This low key sounds like coercion. Women have sexual needs as well.
By your logic, sex should be duty for men as well.

Men will have to eat out women whom are not all pretty, slim, hairless, etc

>Look in the Blackpill Science thread. 5% of men are getting 50% of all the pussy. Even scientists are saying you're wrong.

Again, post proof.
Also you’re aware that people can lie on polls. Men may tend to embellish the amount of sex they had.

>>11736
>Again, post proof.

>>11709
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bioe.13134

This just the tired old liberal canard of wanting a study proving water is wet so they can feel entitled to dismiss anything analysis they don't like out of hand.
There are so many signs that women are concentrating on the top percentage of men as a means of social mobility. Things that aren't even in dispute, like a falling birth rate, marriage rate, climbing marriage ages etc. But this white knight wants it spelled out for him. Well here ya go.

>>11733
You’re viewing human sociosexuality as if though it’s like cookie-cutter products being mixed and matched

You’re demanding that women be forced to service men who may have hygenic and criminal issues

You’re also forgetting that not all men are heterosexual.

And even not accounting for that, you’re foregtting that not all men are willing to have casual sex with random women

Men want sincerity as well.
Just because they have higher libido doesn’t mean that they are oblivious to womens will.

>>11738
>This just the tired old liberal canard of wanting a study proving water is wet so they can feel entitled to dismiss anything analysis they don't like out of hand.


What’s with you people with your obnoxious persecution complex? You’re the one making these bold claims about “eighty percent of women fuck twenty percent of men” and complaining about “muh chads” and shit all the time.

Most of the shit you’re talking about exists in fiction.

You act like there’s a vendetta against average Joes like you from getting laid.

You hyperfocus on sex as an entitlement

You even say “sex is a male need and a female duty”

Like bruh, how am I supposed to take you seriously?

>There are so many signs that women are concentrating on the top percentage of men as a means of social mobility.

That’s mainly due to patriarchy. But don’t think for a second that men aren’t doing this either. If anything, more men should be encouraged to think like this as well.

>Things that aren't even in dispute, like a falling birth rate, marriage rate, climbing marriage ages etc. But this white knight wants it spelled out for him. Well here ya go.

All those things you mentioned are due to economic recession and sociophysicial infantilization of young adults.
Also we already have a global human population of nearing ten billion.

And we have ecological crises due to rapid urbanization.

Also, not all men want marriage nor offspring nor should they.
Family-rearing is not a hobby, it’s a full time job.

And we already have so many fucked up people in the world due to dysfunctional adults treating “be fruitful and multiply” as an entitlement for their age group.

But okay, since you wanna whine, if you were offered a woman to have sex with and wed and breed, how would you handle it?

Do you have a career and/or any technical skills to raise kids and impart to them by the time they’re of age?

>>11738
>>There are so many signs that women are concentrating on the top percentage of men as a means of social mobility.

Men also hyperfocus on the young slender docile prime age women

>>11736

> Which link on Google

You don't know how to search? Type 63% incels in USA or something like this and you will find the survey.

> Unless you mean only gay sex?

No, and for me there is no such thing as gay sex.

> Because of men of all non-Chad types are to get their rocks off, then women must be promised the same as well.

Again, if only we apply that sex is the same entity for men and women. I state that it's clearly not.

> So you are okay with women being forced to service men who stink, have AIDS, have parasites and blemishes, excessive body hair, obese etc?

No. There is common sense. I say that women must provide sex to men, but if a man can't even go to shower or get rid of the parasites, he's got to do it in the first place. If he has AIDS he should be having sex only with women with AIDS in order not to infect others.

> This low key sounds like coercion

Just like drafting men to military service. Or you are OK with that, and only "coercing" women bothers you? I estimate it not as coercion, but as social duty. Men need sex and cannot get it without women. So women should give sex to men. To all men, not only to chads.

> Women have sexual needs as well.

So? In the modern society they have no problems with finding a sex partner.

> By your logic, sex should be duty for men as well.

You are to mirror all things like feminists do, forgetting that men and women are not the same, especially in term of their sexual behavior. That's a wrong way.

> Men will have to eat out women whom are not all pretty, slim, hairless, etc

I see no problem. Men already do it. And yes, I do not think that in my system there will be a lot of femcels, even when men will be provided with guaranteed sex. Men can fuck even an ugly women just to taste something new. And there's nothing bad in this. It might be considered bad now, when men just have no other choice.

>>11741

> You’re demanding that women be forced to service men who may have hygenic and criminal issues

Where did I say that?

> You’re also forgetting that not all men are heterosexual.

And they are. Those who claim themselves as homo just cannot find a gf, their "homosexuality" is just a way to replace physical and social contact with a female. Just like, for example, people in India, that drink unsafe water with parasites - they do it because it's their choice and they want it? No, they do it because there is lack of fresh safe water. Maybe there is a tiny percent of "true" homosexuals, who fuck in the ass with other men even having the opportunity to have sex with females, but that more looks like mental illness.

> not all men are willing to have casual sex with random women

So what's the problem?

> Just because they have higher libido doesn’t mean that they are oblivious to womens will.

It's all bullshit talking. You are speaking about some rare exceptions, and completely don't care about the fact that the majority of men are completely deprived of sex in our modern society. Which means that you stand with feminazi, not with men.

>>11744
>Prove to me this is true.
<Proves to them it's true.
>Uh, now I wanna talk about how much of an asshole you are.
Nice try liberal, but I've seen your moves too many times to be fooled by them anymore.

>>11747
>Just like drafting men to military service. Or you are OK with that, and only "coercing" women bothers you? I estimate it not as coercion, but as social duty. Men need sex and cannot get it without women. So women should give sex to men. To all men, not only to chads.


I am against military draft for men. In fact any society that preaches equality an progressivism and freedom should do away with it

If we can have autonomous robotic floor sweeping machines in grocery stores, security cameras to replace vantage point surveillance, why do we still need humans to fight wars?

If military draft is to be in place for men, then it should be extended to women

>>11748
>And they are. Those who claim themselves as homo just cannot find a gf, their "homosexuality" is just a way to replace physical and social contact with a female. Just like, for example, people in India, that drink unsafe water with parasites - they do it because it's their choice and they want it? No, they do it because there is lack of fresh safe water.

You’re referring to prison gays and they don’t refer to themselves as genuine gays. They only go for femboys and passable transwomen

>Maybe there is a tiny percent of "true" homosexuals, who fuck in the ass with other men even having the opportunity to have sex with females, but that more looks like mental illness.

So you’re showing your bias towards male homosexuality as “mental illness” because it doesn’t conform to your gynophilia?

>will.

It's all bullshit talking. You are speaking about some rare exceptions, and completely don't care about the fact that the majority of men are completely deprived of sex in our modern society. Which means that you stand with feminazi, not with men.

You sound like some whiny ass cunt with persecution complex. You act more like a feminazi who thinks anyone questioning their delusional solipsistic fan-theories as “le heckin misogynists”

Unlike you I am accounting for real life factors

You’re the one pushing this shallow worldview of women and men as customer rewards products to be mixed-matched.

You’re willfully ignorant of the fact that men aren’t the only ones getting less sex. Most women are facing this as well.
Contrary to popular belief most women aren’t all throwing it out in meatspace these days.

>You are to mirror all things like feminists do, forgetting that men and women are not the same, especially in term of their sexual behavior. That's a wrong way.

Women and men may not be the same but their baseline behaviors are more similar than different.

>So? In the modern society they have no problems with finding a sex partner.

Men have no problem finding sex partners either. Just not the ones they want. Same for women.

Draft is missing the point entirely. The real question is whether the populace votes to go to war or not versus a small group of the ruling class making that decision for them.

>>11754

> If military draft is to be in place for men, then it should be extended to women

At first, no one is going to to extend it for women, at second there is no use of women in the army. Women should serve with their vagina, by giving sex to men.

> So you’re showing your bias towards male homosexuality as “mental illness” because it doesn’t conform to your gynophilia?

If one wants to eat shit instead of food - yes, he is mentally ill. Homosexuality is a same thing. Not even mentioning that ass is meant for shitting, not for putting dicks into it.

> You’re willfully ignorant of the fact that men aren’t the only ones getting less sex. Most women are facing this as well.

If a female is alone, it's only her choice. You are either a cuck bot, justifying women's social-Darwinism, or a fool that cannot even see the difference between one who is hungry and one who is on a diet.

> Women and men may not be the same but their baseline behaviors are more similar than different.

Not in the sexual sphere.

> Men have no problem finding sex partners either. Just not the ones they want. Same for women.

Incel: 0 matches on tinder, cannot get a gf for years, even fat girls reject him, the only way to get sex is to buy a hooker for an hour

Random female: 100+ matches on tinder, but doesn't want to go out with anyone, because there no chads and millionaires among them.

Yes, both cannot find find what they want. Absolutely the same situation, zero differences.

>>11761
> At first, no one is going to to extend it for women, at second there is no use of women in the army. Women should serve with their vagina, by giving sex to men.

Have you ever considered that the reason why there is no military draft for women is due to sexual objectification?
Also there’s been societies that do military draft for women.

Also not all women are fuckable nor do they want to be

> If one wants to eat shit instead of food - yes, he is mentally ill. Homosexuality is a same thing. Not even mentioning that ass is meant for shitting, not for putting dicks into it.

There are men who like doing anal sex with women

There are also men who prefer footjobs and grinding over penetrative sex. Does that make them mentally ill?

Also, why do you consider homosexuality a mental illness? Are you letting your hebegynophilia cloud your judgement?

I find that a lot of homoandrophobia is often due to sociocognitive bias of putting women on a pedestal. That’s a form of misandry.

Do you consider female homosexuality to be a mental illness?
Probably not, especially if they’re all slim, pretty, and young.

> If a female is alone, it's only her choice. You are either a cuck bot, justifying women's social-Darwinism, or a fool that cannot even see the difference between one who is hungry and one who is on a diet.

I think you’re being a whiny little bitch who cannot take disagreement.
If I were to suggest your arguments to actual conservatives, they would look at you as an entitled loser.
Women would especially be creeped out by you.
Also, nice job on equating sex with food as a need

> Incel: 0 matches on tinder, cannot get a gf for years, even fat girls reject him, the only way to get sex is to buy a hooker for an hour

Bruh, most incels complain about getting matched to fat/ugly women. If anything, incels are just picky. Also, “incel” is a misnomer for the people you’re talking about.

Incels in actuality are men with disabilities: immunological, neurocognitve, or mobile that are unable to get laid due to said conditions

Your definition of “incel” are just entitled able-bodied, Allistic/HFA asocial assholes whose whole personality is “I hate normies” and have no hobbies

>Random female: 100+ matches on tinder, but doesn't want to go out with anyone, because there no chads and millionaires among them.

If that were true, why do women go out with average looking guys with some prospects?

>Yes, both cannot find find what they want. Absolutely the same situation, zero differences

Unironically yes

>>11751
You’re not answering my question

>>11761
> If one wants to eat shit instead of food - yes, he is mentally ill. Homosexuality is a same thing. Not even mentioning that ass is meant for shitting, not for putting dicks into it

And here it is.
The glorification of women as sex toys. This chauvinism you have is what is fueling the thot epidemic

>>11767
It's like you're not even reading his posts

>>11768
I’ve read his posts. And they’re all shallow excuses for gender chauvinism.
Stop defending him.

>>11765

> Have you ever considered that the reason why there is no military draft for women is due to sexual objectification?

No, that's clearly bullshit. Sexual objectification is a term created by feminists btw.

> Also not all women are fuckable nor do they want to be

So what?

> There are men who like doing anal sex with women

That's not a normal thing either, though it's still more normal than homosexuality.

> There are also men who prefer footjobs and grinding over penetrative sex. Does that make them mentally ill?

I suppose they like footjobs as a part before sex, but not instead of sex.

> Also, why do you consider homosexuality a mental illness? Are you letting your hebegynophilia cloud your judgement?

Hebegynophilia is a thing immanent to the vast majority of men. Homosexuality - only to a few percent of them. Make conclusions from this, mister I-want-men-to-fuck-other-men's-hairy-asses.

> I find that a lot of homoandrophobia is often due to sociocognitive bias of putting women on a pedestal. That’s a form of misandry.

Now let's talk about this from class analysis perspectives. Who benefits from the situation when "ugly" men AKA incels (and from women's point of view 80%+ of men are ugly) would each other instead of demanding sex from women? Incels themselves? No, they are interested in sex with women, not in the ugly surrogate called homosexuality. Women? Yes - they benefit, because they can fuck with chads only not bothering about the consequences of the fact that nonchads are not getting sex. Chads/capitalists? Again yes - they get even more women to fuck, if other men are off the way. Thus, opposing homosexual propaganda is what incels should do. Because homosexual propaganda is against their class interests. So homoandrophobia is not misandry. Homosexual propaganda is misandry and is a weapon against men in the hands of feminists and liberal cuck feminists agents like you.

> Do you consider female homosexuality to be a mental illness?

At first I consider it as a form of misandry because the whole idea of it is to deprive men of sex by giving sex to other women-lesbians instead of men. And that's why it's much more worse than male homosexuality.

> If I were to suggest your arguments to actual conservatives, they would look at you as an entitled loser.

Of course, 90% of them are cucks like you, even though some of them even call themselves patriarchy-real-alpha-gigachad men, lol.

> Bruh, most incels complain about getting matched to fat/ugly women

Most incels complain about getting matched to nobody, you fool. The idea that fat and ugly women usually behave themselves to incels in pretty the same way as their stacy "sisters" is one of the base ideas in incelosphere. You don't even know anything about incels.

> Incels in actuality are men with disabilities: immunological, neurocognitve, or mobile that are unable to get laid due to said conditions
> Your definition of “incel” are just entitled able-bodied, Allistic/HFA asocial assholes whose whole personality is “I hate normies” and have no hobbies

Incel is a man who needs sex but cannot get it for free for some period of time. That's all. The reasons why he cannot get it do not matter at all. Learn this defintion and then try to teach incels who incels are, feminist clown. Hobbies, normies - what are you even talking about? Every one who has a hobby or doesn't hate normies automatically gets a gf? Are you an idiot or what?

> If that were true, why do women go out with average looking guys with some prospects?

If all workers would like to get 300K per year working 40 hours a week, why are there those who work for 40K per year for 60 hours a week?

> Unironically yes

100 matches and 0 matches - unironically no difference, he says. What else a feminist cuck could say though. And that's why, my incel comrades, male cucks are even worse than feminists. They are either completely dumb or just traitors, that are trying to show loyalty to the oppressors. Naively thinking that they will be spared for it. Maybe you will, but not for a long time.

>>11770
>I suppose they like footjobs as a part before sex, but not instead of sex.

I mean as a REPLACEMENT of penetrative sex

> That's not a normal thing either, though it's still more normal than homosexuality.

How is male-on-female anal sex any less normal than male-on-male

>Hebegynophilia is a thing immanent to the vast majority of men. Homosexuality - only to a few percent of them.

>Make conclusions from this, mister I-want-men-to-fuck-other-men's-hairy-asses.

Not a mental illness. That’s like saying that kids who don’t like sweets are mentally ill.
Or saying that black people who don’t like rap are mentally ill.
Your logic is appealing to groupthink which is exactly what these feminazis you complain about are doing

Also, women can have hairy asses as well. And not all men are into hairy asses, that’s why shaving exists
Lastly, not all young women are beautiful. What if all fertile age women are ugly but become more beautiful when they dry up?


> Now let's talk about this from class analysis perspectives. Who benefits from the situation when "ugly" men AKA incels (and from women's point of view 80%+ of men are ugly) would each other instead of demanding sex from women? Incels themselves? No, they are interested in sex with women, not in the ugly surrogate called homosexuality. Women? Yes - they benefit, because they can fuck with chads only not bothering about the consequences of the fact that nonchads are not getting sex. Chads/capitalists? Again yes - they get even more women to fuck, if other men are off the way. Thus, opposing homosexual propaganda is what incels should do. Because homosexual propaganda is against their class interests. So homoandrophobia is not misandry. Homosexual propaganda is misandry and is a weapon against men in the hands of feminists and liberal cuck feminists agents like you


The fact you think homosexuality is being promoted intentionally towards incels and accusing me of being a feminist cuck tells me that you suffer from persecution complex.
You’re being a hysterical cunt who thinks they’re entitled to adoration regardless of personal attributes.

Also for you to say homoandrophobia isn’t misandry is internalized misandry.

That logic you have is patriarchal propaganda to keep you enslaved to pussy so that you’ll kill yourself to appease the gods and their daughters. That is peak cuck behavior.


> Incel is a man who needs sex but cannot get it for free for some period of time. That's all. The reasons why he cannot get it do not matter at all. Learn this defintion and then try to teach incels who incels are, feminist clown. Hobbies, normies - what are you even talking about? Every one who has a hobby or doesn't hate normies automatically gets a gf? Are you an idiot or what?

You’re the idiot for twisting up the term “incel” to mean not getting sex on demand.
Celibacy literally means “no sex” period, regardless if it’s free or compensated.

Your logic of inceldom is just whiny ass fans of a franchise who wants to petition media networks to reboot their favorite series to be EXACTLY like the old days, irrespective of the authors wishes.


> Most incels complain about getting matched to nobody, you fool. The idea that fat and ugly women usually behave themselves to incels in pretty the same way as their stacy "sisters" is one of the base ideas in incelosphere. You don't even know anything about incels.

Show me where this happens.
Because a lot of incels complain about getting matches to ugly/fat/older women or single moms.

> Of course, 90% of them are cucks like you, even though some of them even call themselves patriarchy-real-alpha-gigachad men, lol.

Or maybe they don’t care about getting entitled sex the same way you do?
Again, go amongst actual conservatives, not mere “muh patriarchal types”. They don’t have any respect for simps or “incels”.

> At first I consider it as a form of misandry because the whole idea of it is to deprive men of sex by giving sex to other women-lesbians instead of men. And that's why it's much more worse than male homosexuality

Now I can tell you’re deranged.
The fact that you sincerely believe female homosexuality is a ploy to deprive men of pussy, which “makes it worse” than male homosexuality tells me you need to go reactionary circles instead of here.


No offense but if your main concern is not getting immediate sex from prime-age female beauties, building an entire secular theology behind it, you have no real problems.

You are far too self-absorbed.

Please come back to me when you wanna discuss real issues like housing and employment for neurodivergent folk.

>>11773
* How is male-on-female anal sex any MORE normal than male-on-male

Fixed

>>11770
>No, that's clearly bullshit. Sexual objectification is a term created by feminists btw.

Also you:

>>11761
> Women should serve with their vagina, by giving sex to men.

Can you show me the logical consistency here?

How is this not sexual objectification?

If you view women as only good for giving sex instead of joining the front lines, how is this not sexual objectification?

>>11770
> Women? Yes - they benefit, because they can fuck with chads only not bothering about the consequences of the fact that nonchads are not getting sex. Chads/capitalists? Again yes - they get even more women to fuck, if other men are off the way.

Most women don’t fuck exclusively chads. Just the same way most men don’t fuck exclusively Stacie’s
Also, most capitalists aren’t all swimming in pussy as you’d think.

They promote that image to get suckers like you to buy into their product.

And it’s not that they can’t, but rather because they know that prioritizing pussy will get them sprung and broke.

>>11773

> I mean as a REPLACEMENT of penetrative sex

So what's the point of this?

> How is male-on-female anal sex any less normal than male-on-male

Because in this case it's only a replacement the correct hole with a wrong hole, and in the other case it's a replacement the whole gender with the wrong one.

> Not a mental illness. That’s like saying that kids who don’t like sweets are mentally ill.
> Or saying that black people who don’t like rap are mentally ill.

No, they are not. It has nothing to do with their sexual or other needs. Homosexuality has.

> Also, women can have hairy asses as well. And not all men are into hairy asses, that’s why shaving exists

First learn what the ass exists for. Either male or female one. For shitting, not for putting penises into it. Vagina is penises.

> Also for you to say homoandrophobia isn’t misandry is internalized misandry.

Is this what you have against my class analysis? Just saying stuff in "no you" manner and attempts to be a psycho doctor? LOL. Too weak.

> The fact you think homosexuality is being promoted intentionally towards incels

Of course it's not. Just accidentally the percentage of people who identify themselves as LGBT raised from 5 something percent to 20-30 something percent for a few decades. No promotions, no propaganda, no prides, no faggots in cinema, no cancel culture for those who dislike all this crap. If you are not a bot, which I doubt very much, you REALLY stupid.

> You’re the idiot for twisting up the term “incel” to mean not getting sex on demand.

That's exactly what it means. How can one not be an incel if he's trying to get sex from women and gets rejected by them you moron?

> Show me where this happens.

You may start with creating your own tinder account with an "incelish" profile. Keep us in touch how it goes.

> Because a lot of incels complain about getting matches to ugly/fat/older women or single moms.

Completely understandable. If some men fuck young and beautiful females for free, why should others fuck fat ugly old hags? There is no justice in this.

> Or maybe they don’t care about getting entitled sex the same way you do?

Sex should be only entitled, otherwise it's exploitation of men. And the idea that sex is a reward that men should be working hard to get, like slaves, is an idea of women and cucks, no matter what they are thinking of themselves.

> Again, go amongst actual conservatives, not mere “muh patriarchal types”. They don’t have any respect for simps or “incels”.

I don't care who they have respect for. Conservative ideology is just another sort of puritanist antisexual shit. The first one is modern feminism. Any ideology that denies the importance of sex is hostile to men and incels in particular.

> The fact that you sincerely believe female homosexuality is a ploy to deprive men of pussy, which “makes it worse” than male homosexuality tells me you need to go reactionary circles instead of here.

Stop playing a doctor. You are not a doctor, you are a pathetic liberal feminist cuck. That has nothing to say against my statements.

> Please come back to me when you wanna discuss real issues like housing and employment for neurodivergent folk.

If you want to discuss that go to other threads, or are you blind and do not see what the topic is? Actually the whole board is about incels, not just topic.

> How is this not sexual objectification?

Because there is no sexual objectification at all. There is normal sexual feeling of male to female. Sexual objectification is slang of feminists, that was created to demonize normal male feeling in order to cancel sex. And it worked - nowadays in western countries lots of men are even afraid to flirt with a female at work or in the street.

> Most women don’t fuck exclusively chads

So what? Millions of incels must feel themselves much better now or what? You, of course, don't know it, but I will tell one more secret - the problem is not that women have sex with chads. The problem is that incels have no sex with women.

> Also, most capitalists aren’t all swimming in pussy as you’d think.

Why would you know that? I thought you are a specialist at homosexuality. Anyway, even if that was true - now what? Why should an incel care that a random capitalist is tired to fuck 50th woman in a row and today has no sex, just like the incel? You are a complete idiot that doesn't even understand what is the problem. Incels don't care that some capitalists or women have no sex today. Incels care that THEY have not sex today, and not only today, but for weeks, months, years and sometimes even decades. Understand this, mister cuck, and then come to discuss this topic.

>>11778
>I thought you are a specialist at homosexuality

You’re the one acting like a sexuality expert in general.

All the paragraphs you posted on here reeks of persecution complex

>Of course it's not. Just accidentally the percentage of people who identify themselves as LGBT raised from 5 something percent to 20-30 something percent for a few decades. No promotions, no propaganda, no prides, no faggots in cinema, no cancel culture for those who dislike all this crap. If you are not a bot, which I doubt very much, you REALLY stupid.

I really think you’re schizo or something. Have you considered that less reported being gay in the past due to the culture being less accepting back then?

If you’re not a bot you must be really stupid.

Also cancel culture is mainly an indignatory response used by contrarian figures for being told that their ploy isn’t cool.

A lot of “cancelled” figures often get more press than ever.

>No, they are not. It has nothing to do with their sexual or other needs. Homosexuality has.

Ok and? Still not an illness.
Your response is more applicable towards comparing sex to food

>So what? Millions of incels must feel themselves much better now or what? You, of course, don't know it, but I will tell one more secret - the problem is not that women have sex with chads. The problem is that incels have no sex with women

You know that incels are lower number than you realize?
The number of reported incels has increased a lot in the past two decades In tandem to reactionary politics.
Totally just a coincidence huh?

>Because there is no sexual objectification at all. There is normal sexual feeling of male to female. Sexual objectification is slang of feminists, that was created to demonize normal male feeling in order to cancel sex. And it worked - nowadays in western countries lots of men are even afraid to flirt with a female at work or in the street.


sexual objectification isn’t a feminist term, even if they abuse it for men ogling over fictional characters
Secondly, it’s wrong to flirt with women at work unless they’re okay with it.

Would you like it if women flirted with you at work? And I don’t mean the young,beautiful,docile ones either.

Also, there’s been a lot of incidents of men taking advantage of women for sex in the past that was dismissed as “boys being boys” or female hysteria.

I will say though that unfortunately, a lot of women now (and then) have gotten away with murder for accusing high status men of rape to get attention.

Actual rape victims never like airing their laundry unless they have proof.


>Stop playing a doctor. You are not a doctor, you are a pathetic liberal feminist cuck. That has nothing to say against my statements.

You’re the one acting like a medical professor using pathetic platitudes from conspiracy theorists and you’re being a little bitch calling me “feminist cuck” just because I don’t grovel to your obnoxious persecution complex

>Because in this case it's only a replacement the correct hole with a wrong hole, and in the other case it's a replacement the whole gender with the wrong one.

If you view anal sex as wrong, it is wrong on equal levels of both genders. To say otherwise is to admit that you’re a chauvinist.

>I don't care who they have respect for. Conservative ideology is just another sort of puritanist antisexual shit. The first one is modern feminism. Any ideology that denies the importance of sex is hostile to men and incels in particular.

So you admit that you’re politicizing your own irrelevant issues. No wonder why you’re so pissy towards me

Also if you believe male homosexuality is an mental
Illness, you have to believe that sex is strictly for PROCREATIVE measures and EMOTIONAL bonding with your spouse

Otherwise you’re just a selfish horndog who wants a legal license to rape anything with boobs and pussies.

Which is how a lot of these right wing idealists behave like.

>That's exactly what it means. How can one not be an incel if he's trying to get sex from women and gets rejected by them you moron?

Because most of the “incels” aren’t actually getting rejected by women? They’re merely only stuck on dating apps swiping.
And these incels also reject women for not being pure and pretty.

If a man is incapable of getting laid and he’s not in a wheelchair or special Ed, chances are, he’s doing a whole lot wrong

Or maybe, he doesn’t realize that sex isn’t really as convenient as adult programming told him it was.
There’s a reason why prostitution and porn exists.

If casual sex really was as easy to obtain, porn and prostitution wouldn’t be as common.

>Why would you know that? I thought you are a specialist at homosexuality. Anyway, even if that was true - now what? Why should an incel care that a random capitalist is tired to fuck 50th woman in a row and today has no sex, just like the incel? You are a complete idiot that doesn't even understand what is the problem. Incels don't care that some capitalists or women have no sex today. Incels care that THEY have not sex today, and not only today, but for weeks, months, years and sometimes even decades. Understand this, mister cuck, and then come to discuss this topic.

You’re the one who keeps bringing up “much chads” and “muh capitalists” always comparing their alleged sex loves to your own

“Why can’t I have what they have” when you have never met with them in person or lived next door
To them?

Your knowledge about chads and capitalists mainly comes from tabloids and caricatures.

>>11778
>So what's the point of this?

Non penetrative sex has become more popular

>>11782

> Have you considered that less reported being gay in the past due to the culture being less accepting back then?

Yes, I have. And I've also considered another fact - that sex and getting a young wife were much more available back then. So we have the first option - men in the past desperately wanted to fuck other men in the ass, but couldn't do it due to the culture or law reasons and the real percentage of gay was roughly the same as now. And the second option - today sex and relationship with young women are so unavailable for men and the gay propaganda is so ruthless, that some of men give up and start to date other men, which leads to higher gay percentage. The principle of Okkam's razor states that you should choose the more likely option between two. Which is clearly the second one.

> You know that incels are lower number than you realize?

I know that you have no clue about the statistics and this makes your question senseless. You didn't even know about the U.S. survey and asked me for the link that there are 63% of incels among young men in the U.S., lol.

> The number of reported incels has increased a lot in the past two decades In tandem to reactionary politics. Totally just a coincidence huh?

No coincidence of course. The politics of cancelling sex which is being executed with huge help of feminists, is an important part of the reactionary politics you are talking about. And it's the ruling class of capitalists who is doing this and benefits from it. So when you're defending feminism and talking bullshit against incels, you are helping them.

> Secondly, it’s wrong to flirt with women at work unless they’re okay with it.

C-U-C-K-O-L-D

> Would you like it if women flirted with you at work?

Yes, why not?

> you have to believe that sex is strictly for PROCREATIVE measures and EMOTIONAL bonding with your spouse

No, sex is needed no matter leads it to a birth or not. And not only with your wife, actually the more females you fuck the better for you.

> Otherwise you’re just a selfish horndog who wants a legal license to rape anything with boobs and pussies.

Why is an incel, that wants sex for sex, selfish, and a woman, who wants sex + money + status for sex, is not selfish?

> Which is how a lot of these right wing idealists behave like.

They want sex for themselves only, lots of them hate incels and consider other men as rivals. I'm saying that men should stop competing for sex and that sex must be available for all men. So their idea is social-darwinism, my idea is communism.

> Because most of the “incels” aren’t actually getting rejected by women? They’re merely only stuck on dating apps swiping. And these incels also reject women for not being pure and pretty.

As far as I know, in you liberal-feminist twitter slang it's called gaslighting and victimblaming. Here is a question for you and other idiots saying nonsense like this - why would anyone swipe 24/7 if he can just find a gf within an hour, meet her and have sex?

> If a man is incapable of getting laid and he’s not in a wheelchair or special Ed, chances are, he’s doing a whole lot wrong

Of course, the majority of men are all doing all wrong. Only chads and women (not even necessarily beautiful ones) have a powerful natural instinct how to get laid and do it right. Very scientific approach. I'll give you a great opportunity to help incels. You are no doubt a very smart and intelligent person, that knows women and how be romantic with them. So you will have no problem to tell us the step-by-step algorithm how to find a girlfriend and get sex from her without turning it into prostitution, for free. This algorithm must be working for majority of men, not only for very beautiful ones AKA chads. And you should explain why you guarantee it's working. You can start.

>>11798
> C-U-C-K-O-L-D

I guess not being an obnoxious horndog means I’m a cuck. Women aren’t gonna like flirting unless you’re suave and gorgeous

> Yes, why not?

I mean ALL kinds of women, not merely the young slender docile beauties. That means it includes the grannies and boisterous butch ones as well.

>No, sex is needed no matter leads it to a birth or not. And not only with your wife, actually the more females you fuck the better for you.

Then why do you call homosexuality a mental illness? If heterosexual intercourse shouldn’t have to be procreation, there is no moral mandate for anal sex to be pathologized.

>Yes, I have. And I've also considered another fact - that sex and getting a young wife were much more available back then. So we have the first option - men in the past desperately wanted to fuck other men in the ass, but couldn't do it due to the culture or law reasons and the real percentage of gay was roughly the same as now. And the second option - today sex and relationship with young women are so unavailable for men and the gay propaganda is so ruthless, that some of men give up and start to date other men, which leads to higher gay percentage. The principle of Okkam's razor states that you should choose the more likely option between two. Which is clearly the second one.


There is no “gay agenda”. The only people who think so are people who have persecution complex.

> As far as I know, in you liberal-feminist twitter slang it's called gaslighting and victimblaming. Here is a question for you and other idiots saying nonsense like this - why would anyone swipe 24/7 if he can just find a gf within an hour, meet her and have sex?

That’s a good question. Why aren’t you doing that?

> Of course, the majority of men are all doing all wrong. Only chads and women (not even necessarily beautiful ones) have a powerful natural instinct how to get laid and do it right. Very scientific approach. I'll give you a great opportunity to help incels. You are no doubt a very smart and intelligent person, that knows women and how be romantic with them. So you will have no problem to tell us the step-by-step algorithm how to find a girlfriend and get sex from her without turning it into prostitution, for free. This algorithm must be working for majority of men, not only for very beautiful ones AKA chads. And you should explain why you guarantee it's working. You can start.

It’s interesting that you’re not responding to the rest of that paragraph.

> They want sex for themselves only, lots of them hate incels and consider other men as rivals. I'm saying that men should stop competing for sex and that sex must be available for all men. So their idea is social-darwinism, my idea is communism.

How is your idea of sex-pairing “communist”? It sounds like coercion.

> I know that you have no clue about the statistics and this makes your question senseless. You didn't even know about the U.S. survey and asked me for the link that there are 63% of incels among young men in the U.S., lol.

You haven’t provided any links for this though. You’re just pulling numbers out your ass. Also, where are the numbers for female sexual prospects?

>>11814

> Women aren’t gonna like flirting unless you’re suave and gorgeous

In you previous posts you denied that women want chads. Now you are confirming that they don't like flirting with a man who is not a chad (suave and gorgeous). You are so bad at debating that you don't even remember what you have said, lol.

> I guess not being an obnoxious horndog means I’m a cuck.

You care more about what women like than what about men need. That's why you are a cuck.

> I mean ALL kinds of women, not merely the young slender docile beauties. That means it includes the grannies and boisterous butch ones as well.

I don't get erection to grannies, lol. But still don't mind their right to flirt with me, if it's required to get sex with the young ones.

> Then why do you call homosexuality a mental illness? If heterosexual intercourse shouldn’t have to be procreation, there is no moral mandate for anal sex to be pathologized.

There is - ass is not for fucking. Vagina is. And there is even another reason - homosexuals work against men, because they legitimate the false idea that women are not required for sex. Instead of fighting for the male right to have sex with women.

> There is no “gay agenda”

In the eyes of gay activists, cucks and feminists - definitely.

> That’s a good question. Why aren’t you doing that?

Because incels do not get matches you idiot. You still haven't understood?

> It’s interesting that you’re not responding to the rest of that paragraph.

There's nothing to respond there. I'm not interesting in discussing your fantasies about my psychology or about me in general. I'm discussing the problem of involuntary celibacy, one of the main social problems in the modern neoliberal capitalist world.

So, you don't have the algorithm for incels how to get a gf and do it in the right way? Then, it seems, all of your talking about men that just do it wrong was pure bullshit, because you also don't know how to do it right?

> How is your idea of sex-pairing “communist”? It sounds like coercion.

The first stage of communism is socialism, when workers coerce capitalists to give up their factories. What's the problem?

> You haven’t provided any links for this though. You’re just pulling numbers out your ass.

I sent you to google, but it seems your brain is so small that you don't even know how to use it.

> Also, where are the numbers for female sexual prospects?

Don't know and it doesn't matter. All or almost all of women who don't have sex can get it easily, so it's only their choice.