/R9K/ - Robot - 9000

>>9829
Government mandated girlfriends

They don't, they just force you into hard labor

There is no solution, societies will be entering the tofet, a great war holocaust.

This is the direct result of the roastie sexual revolution which was ironically a counter revolution to the true revolutionary institution of marriage.
Hordes of incels are the natural outcome of any hierarchical society. A woman is just materially better off being a part of a harem to a booj like Bill Gates then any working class man because sex and reproduction is a zero sum game.
There's roughly equal numbers of men and women. If women are free to pursue the top 20% of men it leaves all other men assed out.
Liberal society is just loathe to tell the majority of men that they are just not going to have their own children and are not needed to do so.
If I'm being honest, while it lasted for a few millennial it was pretty naive to think that any institution that heavily relies on any party forgoing major parts of their innate leverage because of spooky morality.

>>9891
*monogamous marriage

> How do communists solve the incel problem?

Modern communists/marxists do not even try to think how to solve it. Sometimes I see some communist bloggers being asked questions like "hey, I'm 35 and I cannot get a wife", which actually means "hey, I'm 35 and I cannot get sex", and everything they can respond is something like "bro, it's all because of capitalism, in a socialist state it'll be fine". Not even explaining why it'll be fine and how exactly the problem of inceldom will be solved. The truth is that they do not want to even admit the problem of incels. Because if they admit it, they'll have to propose solutions for it, which will inevitably decrease their support among feminists and women in general, because there are no real solutions to this problem, those not affect women's rights, or, to be more precise, women's privileges.

I state that the communist society cannot be created without providing sex to all adolescent men. Today sex is a resource, that men have to buy from women. So women basically exploit men, selling what men have need of and what actually costs nothing (because a woman spends nothing to be born with a vagina). In the communist society there cannot be any exploitation. Giving all this, women should understand that sex is needed by men, refuse to exploit men, and provide sex to all men. This how it should be solved in a communist way.

>>12312
This, every communist or socialist instantly turns into a moralizing liberal the second the topic of male loneliness comes up. Making even the far left believe that men's sexuality is just inherently exploitative is the greatest trick the CIA ever pulled.

>>9829
There is no real fix thousands of years of class caused hypergamy has completely ruined women only futurist genetic modification can save the incels

>>12312
>How do communists solve the incel problem?
Under international proletarian rule, excess males are moved to areas lacking men due to war or male-heavy casualty events. A tax on bachelorettes is enforced. State propaganda opposes female materialism, "independence", and hoarding. A standardized warrior culture is spread through indoctrination. Eugenics first removes males with disabilities or baldness, then later targets women with weak genetics after the female-to-male ratio becomes sufficiently high. Feminist reactionaries are executed for idpol.
>>9830
this

>>12341
>Eugenics first removes males with disabilities
So basically most image board users?

>>12343
All Twitter and TikTok users are automatically euthanized. Posters from /WRK/, /777/, and /hobby/ are exempt. The remainder are brought before the tribunal.

>>12341
>Eugenics first removes males with disabilities or baldness, then later targets women with weak genetics after the female-to-male ratio becomes sufficiently high.

This is just reinforcing misandry.

You target primarily men with “weak genes” to “balance out” gender ratios.

>Under international proletarian rule, excess males are moved to areas lacking men due to war or male-heavy casualty events. A tax on bachelorettes is enforced. State propaganda opposes female materialism, "independence", and hoarding. A standardized warrior culture is spread through indoctrination.

So you wanna oppose female autonomy out of fear of zero pussy?

>>12312
There is no inceldom problem.
None at all. It’s just a talking point for people who wanna further politicize sex.

>>9891
Nothing could be further from the truth. Most women aren’t hopping into Chad harems. Most women are not that pretty enough to do so anyway.

Also, the institution of monogamous marriage is far more hierarchical by your logic than you realise.

It turns marriage into a vanity license of adulthood.

>>12356
>This is just reinforcing misandry.
Wrong. This is affection for a brighter, more competent humanity. It is an essential culling and sacrifice of the weakest individuals. A species advances as a group, never as separate individuals.
>So you wanna oppose female autonomy out of fear of zero pussy?
Do you fear a humanity free from petty acquisition and unrealized potential?

>>12356
> There is no inceldom problem.

> 63% of males below 30 in the U.S. don't have sex
> there is no problem

Gaslighting level 200%. Then go fucking off the incel board, where people discuss "non-existing" problems. Or better hit a wall with your head for a dozen of times, maybe you'll become smarter.

>>12323

You're right, man. Look, even here there's bunch of cucks that tell nonsense things like "there are no incels", "there is no inceldom problem" (just above), "people do need sex" and so on. Maybe not all of them are CIA agents, but the antimale and antisexual propaganda is so severe, that it made lots of men be against incels. The funniest and saddest thing is that most of these men are also incels, but stubbornly deny that.

>>12361
>Wrong. This is affection for a brighter, more competent humanity. It is an essential culling and sacrifice of the weakest individuals. A species advances as a group, never as separate individuals.

Then why target defective males first? Why not defective females?

Or at least cull criminals first?

>Do you fear a humanity free from petty acquisition and unrealized potential?

If you truly believe in that, why are you so obsessed with turning women into cattle?

>>12423
>Or at least cull criminals first?
What if they only violated bourgeois law such as Stalin, Lenin, and the Bolsheviks robbing trains and banks?

>>12341
>Eugenics first removes males with disabilities
Wow… Literally Hitler style liberal psychosis

im so fucking lonely.