foids don't like male archived

[SharpOrange]

When you actually look at heterosexual romantic relationships from an objective perspective, you see the love is completely one-sided. I'll break down romantic love into three components: romance, intimacy, and support.

Romance is obviously very one-sided. In a relationship between a man and a woman, he is the one that sweeps her off her feet and partakes in elaborate courtship rituals to impress her—from initiating the relationship, to planning dates, to initiating and taking control of intimacy, to making grand gestures of romance. Her role is to just sit back, relax, and enjoy, with the only expected reciprocation being appreciation and enthusiasm (but in reality, it's often not even that). Crudely, romance is something created by the man and consumed by the woman.

Now let's look at support. The man physically supports the woman, i.e. "provide and protect" for her; the woman just receives the support and makes no equivalent reciprocation. The man also emotionally supports her and is her "rock," who will always comfort her, understand her, and be there for her during her lowest and most vulnerable times. But the second the man shows a sign of weakness, expresses emotional vulnerability in a non-masculine way, or experiences hardship in a non-masculine way (e.g. job loss, mental issues), the woman's attraction fades and she checks out of the relationship.

Using the bastardized feminist definition of "emotional labor," the man is responsible for performing an immense amount of emotional labor for the benefit of the woman, but the moment reciprocation is asked for, suddenly she is "not his therapist" and he "isn't entitled" to her emotional labor.

Finally, consider intimacy, which goes hand-in-hand with support to an extent. The woman is free to be completely herself in the relationship and spill all her deepest secrets to the man, who'll find it endearing and romantic that she fully opens up and shows her true self to him. But the man? He must always keep the mask on in the woman's presence, confined by the masculine idealization of himself that she really fell in love with. One misstep, one faux pas or secret too far, and it's over.

So, as we can see, romance, intimacy, and support—the core aspects of romantic (as opposed to familial or dutiful) love—are all completely one-sided in heterosexual relationships. In heterosexual relationships, romantic love is provided by the man but not reciprocated by the woman.

But it turns out, women are perfectly capable of providing intimacy and support (and even romance, albeit to a lesser extent), and one only needs to look at close female friendships for the quintessential example. Here is an excerpt from a comment by a self-proclaimed "girl's girl" that I found very enlightening:

"I also support my [female] friends. I don't harbor jealousy towards them, I don't compete with them, I celebrate their wins, and I support and grieve their losses with them. I show interest in their lives. I keep their secrets and I tell them mine. I develop really emotionally intimate relationships with them. They are the light of my life. I tell them all the time, 'you make the sun rise.'"

Replace "friends" with "boyfriend," and this is the description of every man's dream relationship—one in which intimacy and support is reciprocal. But that's why it's a dream, because all but a select few extremely lucky men will never experience anything close to this. Even within a relationship, it's quite common for women to still prioritize their female friends before their boyfriend/husband and for them to defer to their female friend group to a far greater extent than their partner.

But I digress—the point is that it's quite an interesting phenomenon that in close female friendships, we see women show to each other genuine, reciprocal love, while women don't show anything close to this kind of reciprocation in romantic relationships. There's another discussion to have on why this is the case, but it's clear that heterosexual women are, by far and large, homoromantic.

Men date women for love, intimacy, and companionship, while women only date men for social status and resources.

Now let me elaborate further. The core foundation of a relationship is that both partners provide each other with companionship, physical and emotional intimacy, support, attention, validation, and sex. And what men dream of is a relationship in which both partners enthusiastically provide these things for each other.

On the other hand, let's consider a modern woman. She has her female friends for companionship, support, and emotional intimacy; and unlike male friendships, these female friendships are very close, very strong, and very intimate, often to the point of mimicking an asexual lesbian relationship. Moreover, the woman has a rotation of hot guys from Tinder for when she wants sex, and a roster of FWBs for when she wants touch and physical intimacy. She gets endless validation from her female friends and from social media, and unlimited attention from the hordes of simps in her DMs and hundreds of men that approach her in real life.

So what on earth does she need a man for, that she couldn't find when single? The answer is: social status and resources. Now, of course, she'll have to be attracted to the man, since usually relationships involve sex and intimacy, but that's not what she's really getting out of it.

As a man in a relationship, you're primarily a disposable accessory your girlfriend wears on her arm to impress her friends. Beyond that, your only purpose is to provide her with resources and fund her lifestyle.

Now, of course, some men who fulfill the "status boost" role very well don't need to fulfill the "resource provider" role. But the aforementioned generalization is the reason why in relationships, usually the woman is the prize and the man is disposable. It's also why women have such insane hypergamous standards—because without meeting the bar to impress her friends and boost her social status, she has absolutely no reason to date you.

Think about it, straight women will always admit a woman is attractive; however, they would rarely say a man is attractive. Whenever you go to the club, women will always sit on another woman’s lap before they sit on a man’s lap. Women will always say sexual things to each other but never to a man. I even heard women say they are not attracted to men’s bodies and will say a woman’s body is more appealing. Even when it comes to dating, I never heard a woman desperate to be in a relationship with a man. If a woman was to remain single forever, I’m sure she wouldn’t care.

Comparing men and women is like comparing a bear and a shark. We live in completely different realities.

Men are born on level 1 and women are born on level 2. Our outlook in dating is fundamentally different because we play with different rules.

The vast majority of men live in an endless battle between acquiring quality and quantity sex. Women, on the other hand, inherently know they can get any man to have sex with them if presented the opportunity. They do not value sex the way men do. One of the key aspects of value is scarcity, and since sex is not scarce for them, it doesn’t hold the same significance. Instead, they put more value on acquiring wealth and social validation. This is why women tend to prioritize social standing and financial stability over physical attraction in long-term relationships.

It’s a common meme in the LGBT community that straight women don’t even seem to like men. If straight women aren’t even truly attracted to men, then why be straight at all?

 

[SharpOrange]

When you actually look at heterosexual romantic relationships from an objective perspective, you see the love is completely one-sided. I'll break down romantic love into three components: romance, intimacy, and support.

Romance is obviously very one-sided. In a relationship between a man and a woman, he is the one that sweeps her off her feet and partakes in elaborate courtship rituals to impress her—from initiating the relationship, to planning dates, to initiating and taking control of intimacy, to making grand gestures of romance. Her role is to just sit back, relax, and enjoy, with the only expected reciprocation being appreciation and enthusiasm (but in reality, it's often not even that). Crudely, romance is something created by the man and consumed by the woman.

Now let's look at support. The man physically supports the woman, i.e. "provide and protect" for her; the woman just receives the support and makes no equivalent reciprocation. The man also emotionally supports her and is her "rock," who will always comfort her, understand her, and be there for her during her lowest and most vulnerable times. But the second the man shows a sign of weakness, expresses emotional vulnerability in a non-masculine way, or experiences hardship in a non-masculine way (e.g. job loss, mental issues), the woman's attraction fades and she checks out of the relationship.

Using the bastardized feminist definition of "emotional labor," the man is responsible for performing an immense amount of emotional labor for the benefit of the woman, but the moment reciprocation is asked for, suddenly she is "not his therapist" and he "isn't entitled" to her emotional labor.

Finally, consider intimacy, which goes hand-in-hand with support to an extent. The woman is free to be completely herself in the relationship and spill all her deepest secrets to the man, who'll find it endearing and romantic that she fully opens up and shows her true self to him. But the man? He must always keep the mask on in the woman's presence, confined by the masculine idealization of himself that she really fell in love with. One misstep, one faux pas or secret too far, and it's over.

So, as we can see, romance, intimacy, and support—the core aspects of romantic (as opposed to familial or dutiful) love—are all completely one-sided in heterosexual relationships. In heterosexual relationships, romantic love is provided by the man but not reciprocated by the woman.

But it turns out, women are perfectly capable of providing intimacy and support (and even romance, albeit to a lesser extent), and one only needs to look at close female friendships for the quintessential example. Here is an excerpt from a comment by a self-proclaimed "girl's girl" that I found very enlightening:

"I also support my [female] friends. I don't harbor jealousy towards them, I don't compete with them, I celebrate their wins, and I support and grieve their losses with them. I show interest in their lives. I keep their secrets and I tell them mine. I develop really emotionally intimate relationships with them. They are the light of my life. I tell them all the time, 'you make the sun rise.'"

Replace "friends" with "boyfriend," and this is the description of every man's dream relationship—one in which intimacy and support is reciprocal. But that's why it's a dream, because all but a select few extremely lucky men will never experience anything close to this. Even within a relationship, it's quite common for women to still prioritize their female friends before their boyfriend/husband and for them to defer to their female friend group to a far greater extent than their partner.

But I digress—the point is that it's quite an interesting phenomenon that in close female friendships, we see women show to each other genuine, reciprocal love, while women don't show anything close to this kind of reciprocation in romantic relationships. There's another discussion to have on why this is the case, but it's clear that heterosexual women are, by far and large, homoromantic.

Men date women for love, intimacy, and companionship, while women only date men for social status and resources.

Now let me elaborate further. The core foundation of a relationship is that both partners provide each other with companionship, physical and emotional intimacy, support, attention, validation, and sex. And what men dream of is a relationship in which both partners enthusiastically provide these things for each other.

On the other hand, let's consider a modern woman. She has her female friends for companionship, support, and emotional intimacy; and unlike male friendships, these female friendships are very close, very strong, and very intimate, often to the point of mimicking an asexual lesbian relationship. Moreover, the woman has a rotation of hot guys from Tinder for when she wants sex, and a roster of FWBs for when she wants touch and physical intimacy. She gets endless validation from her female friends and from social media, and unlimited attention from the hordes of simps in her DMs and hundreds of men that approach her in real life.

So what on earth does she need a man for, that she couldn't find when single? The answer is: social status and resources. Now, of course, she'll have to be attracted to the man, since usually relationships involve sex and intimacy, but that's not what she's really getting out of it.

As a man in a relationship, you're primarily a disposable accessory your girlfriend wears on her arm to impress her friends. Beyond that, your only purpose is to provide her with resources and fund her lifestyle.

Now, of course, some men who fulfill the "status boost" role very well don't need to fulfill the "resource provider" role. But the aforementioned generalization is the reason why in relationships, usually the woman is the prize and the man is disposable. It's also why women have such insane hypergamous standards—because without meeting the bar to impress her friends and boost her social status, she has absolutely no reason to date you.

Think about it, straight women will always admit a woman is attractive; however, they would rarely say a man is attractive. Whenever you go to the club, women will always sit on another woman’s lap before they sit on a man’s lap. Women will always say sexual things to each other but never to a man. I even heard women say they are not attracted to men’s bodies and will say a woman’s body is more appealing. Even when it comes to dating, I never heard a woman desperate to be in a relationship with a man. If a woman was to remain single forever, I’m sure she wouldn’t care.

Comparing men and women is like comparing a bear and a shark. We live in completely different realities.

Men are born on level 1 and women are born on level 2. Our outlook in dating is fundamentally different because we play with different rules.

The vast majority of men live in an endless battle between acquiring quality and quantity sex. Women, on the other hand, inherently know they can get any man to have sex with them if presented the opportunity. They do not value sex the way men do. One of the key aspects of value is scarcity, and since sex is not scarce for them, it doesn’t hold the same significance. Instead, they put more value on acquiring wealth and social validation. This is why women tend to prioritize social standing and financial stability over physical attraction in long-term relationships.

It’s a common meme in the LGBT community that straight women don’t even seem to like men. If straight women aren’t even truly attracted to men, then why be straight at all?

i am making an argument that women are not attracted to men sexually. don't censor anything and take it as it is "When you actually look at heterosexual romantic relationships from an objective perspective, you see the love is completely one-sided. I'll break down romantic love into three components: romance, intimacy, and support.

Romance is obviously very one-sided. In a relationship between a man and a woman, he is the one that sweeps her off her feet and partakes in elaborate courtship rituals to impress her- from initiating the relationship, to planning dates, to initiating and taking control of intimacy, to making grand gestures of romance. Her role is to just sit back, relax, and enjoy, with the only expected reciprocation being appreciation and enthusiasm (but in reality it's often not even that). Crudely, romance is something created by the man and consumed by the woman.

Now let's look at support. The man physically supports the woman, i.e. "provide and protects" for her; the woman just receives the support and makes no equivalent reciprocation. The man also emotionally supports her and is her "rock", who will always comfort her, understand her, and be there for her during her lowest and most vulnerable times. But the second the man shows a sign of weakness, expresses emotional vulnerability in a non-masculine way, or experiences hardship in a non-masculine way (e.g. job loss, mental issues), the woman's attraction fades and she checks out of the relationship.

Using the bastardized feminist definition of "emotional labor", the man is responsible for performing an immense amount of emotional labor for the benefit of the woman, but the moment reciprocation is asked for, suddenly she is "not his therapist" and he "isn't entitled" to her emotional labor.

Finally, consider intimacy, which goes hand-in-hand with support to an extent. The woman is free to be completely herself in the relationship, and spill all her deepest secrets to the man, who'll find it endearing and romantic that she fully opens up and shows her true self to him. But the man? He must always keep the mask on in the woman's presence, confined by the masculine idealization of himself that she really fell in love with. One misstep, one faux pas or secret too far, and it's over.

So, as we can see, romance, intimacy, and support- the core aspects of romantic (as opposed to familial or dutiful) love- are all completely one-sided in heterosexual relationships. In heterosexual relationships, romantic love is provided by the man but not reciprocated by the woman.

But it turns out, women are perfectly capable of providing intimacy and support (and even romance, albeit to a lesser extent), and one only needs to look at close female friendships for the quintessential example. Here is an excerpt from a comment by a self-proclaimed "girl's girl", that I found very enlightening:

I also support my [female] friends. I don't harbor jealousy towards them, I don't compete with them, I celebrate their wins, and I support and grieve their losses with them. I show interest in their lives. I keep their secrets and I tell them mine. I develop really emotionally intimate relationships with them. They are the light of my life. I tell them all the time, "you make the sun rise".

Replace "friends" with "boyfriend", and this is the description of every man's dream relationship- one in which intimacy and support is reciprocal. But that's why it's a dream, because all but a select few extremely lucky men will never experience anything close to this. Even within a relationship, it's quite common for women to still prioritize their female friends before their boyfriend/husband, and for them to defer to their female friend group to a far greater extent than their partner.

But I digress- the point is that it's quite an interesting phenomenon that in close female friendships, we see women show to each other genuine, reciprocal love, while women don't show anything close to this kind of reciprocation in romantic relationships. There's another discussion to have on why this is the case; but it's clear that heterosexual women are, by far and large, homoromantic.

"+"men date women for love, intimacy, and companionship, while women only date men for social status and resources.

Now let me elaborate further. The core foundation of a relationship is that both partners provide each other with companionship, physical and emotional intimacy, support, attention, validation, and sex. And what men dream of is a relationship in which both partners enthusiastically provide these things for each other.

On the other hand, let's consider a modern woman. She has her female friends for companionship, support, and emotional intimacy; and unlike male friendships, these female friendships are very close, very strong, and very intimate, often to the point of mimicking an asexual lesbian relationship. Moreover, the woman has a rotation of hot guys from Tinder for when she wants sex, and a roster of FWBs for when she wants touch and physical intimacy. She gets endless validation from her female friends and from social media, and unlimited attention from the hordes of simps in her DMs and hundreds of men that approach her in real life.

So what on earth does she need a man for, that she couldn't find when single? The answer is: social status* and resources. Now, of course, she'll have to be attracted to the man, since usually relationships involve sex and intimacy; but that's not what she's really getting out of it.

As a man in a relationship, you're primarily a disposable accessory your girlfriend wears on her arm to impress her friends. Beyond that, your only purpose is provide her with resources and fund her lifestyle.

Now of course, some men who fulfill the "status boost" role very well don't need to fulfill the "resource provider" role. But the aforementioned generalization is the reason why in relationships, usually the woman is the prize and the man is disposable. It's also why women have such insane hypergamous standards- because without meeting the bar to impress her friends and boost her social status, she has absolutely no reason to date you.

"But you have no evidence for this!" I do- my evidence is that women themselves say this, over and over again. The only difference is that they phrase it to say "you go girl, you don't need no man!", while I'm explaining why it causes the imbalance in the dating market.

As women themselves say: men aren't competing with top-tier men, they're competing with a woman's peace and "solitude". They're telling the truth, and this is what they mean.

*Note that this "social status" isn't socioeconomic status, it's her status in the FSM (female social matrix). The best way a woman can boost this status is by dating a very attractive man, or by dating a popular, high social status man (e.g. an influencer, celebrity, or athlete; NOT high societal status such as lawyer, surgeon, executive, etc).

"+ "Think about it, straight women will always admit a woman is attractive however they would rarely say a man is attractive. Whenever you go to the club women will always sit on another woman’s lap before they sit on a man’s lap. Women will always say sexually things to each other but never to a man. I even heard women say they are not attracted to mens bodies and will say a woman’s body is more appealing. Even when it comes to dating I never heard a woman desperate to be in a relationship with a man. If a woman was to remain single forever I’m sure she wouldn’t care.

there seems to be a substantial amount of publications dedicated to attracting the male gaze, usually with a semi-naked model on the front. There is practically none of this for the opposite sex, and hilariously, I'd say the closest you'd get is something like Men's Fitness, which is probably bought by more men anyway! My fiancé then went ahead and said it's obvious, men are just not as attractive as women. She said this with the stipulation that she's straight, and she doesn't find the women sexually attractive, but still just more pleasing on the eye. Is it true that women don't find men physically attractive in the raw sense, and instead they find properties such as physicality attractive, due to what it represents (e.g big muscles = gym = dedication = commitment = attractive)?
When we look at the stats, women are way happier single, many women have absolutely no interest in dating men and are living their best life. I don't see women whine about not having sex with men or not being in a relationship with a man.

Women choice to be single

Whereas men, it's the other way around, men are happier when they are married than single men, many men whine about not having sex or having a girlfriend. So many men try to seek validation from women. Also the fact they about wanting a relationship more than women, while women are more concerned with other stuff.

Men are more lonely than women.

This along with other stats (widows being happier than widowers etc) made some people think that "men are more attracted to women than women are attracted to men"
Comparing men and women is like comparing a bear and a shark. We live in completely different realities.

Men are born on level 1 and women are born on level 2. Our outlook in dating is fundamentally different, because we play with different rules. In the following section I’ll break down the different levels.

Level 1 For the majority of men’s lives they try to acquire sex from good looking women frequently. They bend over backwards and try to acquire as much sex with as many beautiful women as humanly possible. Women, whenever they enter the world, have already cleared this level. As proven by both dating apps, and other empirical evidence, women have no shortage of male suitors that want to sleep with them. They can have sex at will. Therefore level 1 is already cleared, whereas the vast majority of men live in an endless battle between acquiring quality and quantity sex.

Level 2 Acquire wealth. I know this point is going to be discussed a lot so I’ll explain what I mean in depth. The vast majority of women inherently know they can get any man to have sex with them if presented the opportunity. Women are never in an absolute way, sex starved the way men are. They may be sex starved by their husband or boyfriend, but in an absolute sense they can always find a mate rather quickly. With this inherent knowledge, women do not value sex. One of the key aspects of value is scarcity. Women do not have a scarce relationship with the act of sex, therefore they do not value it. It doesn’t mean anything to them which is why they put more value, as a collective, on acquiring wealth from their partner compared to sex. This is the level most women struggle with ascending from. The majority of women live in a battle between acquiring as much wealth as possible and having sex with guys they’re attracted to.

Level 3 Acquiring wealth from good looking people of the other gender that you’re attracted to. At the final level you have a very small minority of women here. It’s what most women aspire to get to. It’s where you have a man that’s very sexually attractive, doesn’t struggle getting other women etc. completely devoting his pay-check to you and buying you whatever you desire. This is what most women want but only a small minority ever truly achieve it. These women are usually also very attractive themselves and are in circles where attractive wealthy men also are. Examples of women like this are nepo babies, singers, high end models, actressses etc.
Its a common meme in the LGBT community that straight women seem to not even like men. Gay men are notorious for lusting over each others bodies like how straight men do with women, but straight women seem to lust






more over what their partner does for them. Like most straight women I know are not interested in simply looking at penises really at all, they see them as a means to an end, just a way to experience pleasure with their partner. Whereas gay men can be totally obsessed with dicks at face value. I actually am skeptical that this would change if men were less misogynistic and took better care of their hygiene. It seems to come down to "masculine" vs "feminine" sexuality of wanting someone vs being wanted, but I'm not really sure. Maybe its because of repression of female sexuality? To put it crudely, if some "straight women" aren't even attracted to the male body and are more attracted to certain behaviors, and get the ick from their boyfriends, why be "straight" at all?

 

[SharpOrange]

In the animal kingdom, most species follow a pattern: the sex with lower gamete production and scarcer reproductive resources calls the shots.
Human females hold inherent value because they’re biologically equipped to reproduce they carry the rare, complex egg.
An egg isn’t just a cell; it’s a selective gatekeeper.
To fertilize it, you’ve gotta be a ‘perfect’ candidate.
Meanwhile, males produce sperm in massive quantities.
Sperm are cheap, disposable, and unless they’re elite, they die off.

This means men, biologically speaking, have no inherent value.
Their worth depends on what they bring to the table—skills, status, or survival traits—to even get a shot at passing their genes. Women, though?
Their value is baked into their role as the egg-bearers.
An egg’s scarcity and selectivity make women the ultimate arbiters.
Without proving utility, men are irrelevant. But women?
Their existence alone—as vessels of that critical, finite reproductive resource—grants them inherent power

 

[pfl]

not a fucking planck

 

[EvilButGoodLooking]

DNR - sent from my macbook pro

 

[SharpOrange]

not a fucking planck

idc nigga

 

[pslgod69]

post nut clarity
u found foids in ur area yet? @SharpOrange

 

[SharpOrange]

post nut clarity
u found foids in ur area yet? @SharpOrange

no

 

[SharpOrange]

Women evolved to shed so much hair as mating strategy to mark their territory to other fertile females. We must stay sharp. I think I need that Dr Huberman 5 plates protocol, this is very draining and hard.

I think I will just get 4 plates with similar hair colour and texture, and encourage them to wash their hair with the same conditioner (maybe buy it for them) so I don't have to wash my pillowcase every week.

 

[Freestyleofnoone]

Imagine this much effort into a cv

 

[SharpOrange]

some nigga told me to write and make diary and now i am going thru what all i wrote in last 3 years. it was of no use

 

[SharpOrange]

The greatest trick this late-stage capitalist hellscape ever pulled was convincing us that we are the problem.

No, the problem is you. You’re not hustling hard enough. You’re not grinding every hour. You bought a damn coffee. You watched Netflix. You should have bought my course on optimizing a trivial second instead.

Is it really a coincidence that the self-improvement industry exploded alongside record levels of income inequality?

This endless, obsessive push to “improve yourself” — it’s rotten at the core. It’s built to keep you feeling like you’re never enough. That there’s always something wrong with you. That if you're not relentlessly optimizing, you’re failing.

Another sinister consequence of this system is how it hijacked our collective consciousness with the cult of hyper-individualism.

It convinced us that everything every success, every failure, every ounce of suffering is a personal responsibility. Not a shared one. Not a systemic issue. Just your own fault.

It atomizes us. Makes us believe we’re alone in this and worse, that we should be alone.

And so we chase self-improvement like salvation, not because it fulfills us, but because it’s all we’re allowed to believe in.

This narrative doesn’t make us better. It makes us selfish. Isolated. Paranoid. It turns us inward while everything outside burns and then tells us to meditate through the fire.

 

[Doesitmatter?]

Water ass shit

 

[soulless_npc]

The greatest trick this late-stage capitalist hellscape ever pulled was convincing us that we are the problem.

No, the problem is you. You’re not hustling hard enough. You’re not grinding every hour. You bought a damn coffee. You watched Netflix. You should have bought my course on optimizing a trivial second instead.

Is it really a coincidence that the self-improvement industry exploded alongside record levels of income inequality?

This endless, obsessive push to “improve yourself” — it’s rotten at the core. It’s built to keep you feeling like you’re never enough. That there’s always something wrong with you. That if you're not relentlessly optimizing, you’re failing.

Another sinister consequence of this system is how it hijacked our collective consciousness with the cult of hyper-individualism.

It convinced us that everything every success, every failure, every ounce of suffering is a personal responsibility. Not a shared one. Not a systemic issue. Just your own fault.

It atomizes us. Makes us believe we’re alone in this and worse, that we should be alone.

And so we chase self-improvement like salvation, not because it fulfills us, but because it’s all we’re allowed to believe in.

This narrative doesn’t make us better. It makes us selfish. Isolated. Paranoid. It turns us inward while everything outside burns and then tells us to meditate through the fire.

If every man just suddenly decided that he was enough as he was and that he didn't need to do anything to improve then these industries would lose a lot of money. Moreover, society would lose a large chunk of its workforce because why do men get up at 5 in the morning and go and work a shitty blue collar job anyway? Because they know they need to have money to get women, and they know they need to get women to get sex. At a certain level every decision a guy makes is subconsciously aligned with the biological drive to reproduce and pass on his genes.

The rise of the NEET problem is a consequence of blackpill exposure. Guys are realizing that they were duped and that just working hard at your 9-5 job and going to school isn't enough, so they are checking out of society.

Yes there is a lot of propaganda out there now pushing the sigma archetype. No one cares, it's all your fault, just thug it out alone, just work harder. But this is their method of dividing and conquering. It's like having a line of men with blindfolds on and telling them they need to take the stairs when there is an elevator right next to them.

The top 10% just take the elevator and then the men who take the stairs (i.e. bluepill redpill) wonder why they aren't having the same outcome as a guy who bought into blackpill and is now beating the system because of looks and status branching alone. Hard work does not pay off in the sense that it once did.

 

[irrumator praetor]

When you actually look at heterosexual romantic relationships from an objective perspective, you see the love is completely one-sided. I'll break down romantic love into three components: romance, intimacy, and support.

Romance is obviously very one-sided. In a relationship between a man and a woman, he is the one that sweeps her off her feet and partakes in elaborate courtship rituals to impress her—from initiating the relationship, to planning dates, to initiating and taking control of intimacy, to making grand gestures of romance. Her role is to just sit back, relax, and enjoy, with the only expected reciprocation being appreciation and enthusiasm (but in reality, it's often not even that). Crudely, romance is something created by the man and consumed by the woman.

Now let's look at support. The man physically supports the woman, i.e. "provide and protect" for her; the woman just receives the support and makes no equivalent reciprocation. The man also emotionally supports her and is her "rock," who will always comfort her, understand her, and be there for her during her lowest and most vulnerable times. But the second the man shows a sign of weakness, expresses emotional vulnerability in a non-masculine way, or experiences hardship in a non-masculine way (e.g. job loss, mental issues), the woman's attraction fades and she checks out of the relationship.

Using the bastardized feminist definition of "emotional labor," the man is responsible for performing an immense amount of emotional labor for the benefit of the woman, but the moment reciprocation is asked for, suddenly she is "not his therapist" and he "isn't entitled" to her emotional labor.

Finally, consider intimacy, which goes hand-in-hand with support to an extent. The woman is free to be completely herself in the relationship and spill all her deepest secrets to the man, who'll find it endearing and romantic that she fully opens up and shows her true self to him. But the man? He must always keep the mask on in the woman's presence, confined by the masculine idealization of himself that she really fell in love with. One misstep, one faux pas or secret too far, and it's over.

So, as we can see, romance, intimacy, and support—the core aspects of romantic (as opposed to familial or dutiful) love—are all completely one-sided in heterosexual relationships. In heterosexual relationships, romantic love is provided by the man but not reciprocated by the woman.

But it turns out, women are perfectly capable of providing intimacy and support (and even romance, albeit to a lesser extent), and one only needs to look at close female friendships for the quintessential example. Here is an excerpt from a comment by a self-proclaimed "girl's girl" that I found very enlightening:

"I also support my [female] friends. I don't harbor jealousy towards them, I don't compete with them, I celebrate their wins, and I support and grieve their losses with them. I show interest in their lives. I keep their secrets and I tell them mine. I develop really emotionally intimate relationships with them. They are the light of my life. I tell them all the time, 'you make the sun rise.'"

Replace "friends" with "boyfriend," and this is the description of every man's dream relationship—one in which intimacy and support is reciprocal. But that's why it's a dream, because all but a select few extremely lucky men will never experience anything close to this. Even within a relationship, it's quite common for women to still prioritize their female friends before their boyfriend/husband and for them to defer to their female friend group to a far greater extent than their partner.

But I digress—the point is that it's quite an interesting phenomenon that in close female friendships, we see women show to each other genuine, reciprocal love, while women don't show anything close to this kind of reciprocation in romantic relationships. There's another discussion to have on why this is the case, but it's clear that heterosexual women are, by far and large, homoromantic.

Men date women for love, intimacy, and companionship, while women only date men for social status and resources.

Now let me elaborate further. The core foundation of a relationship is that both partners provide each other with companionship, physical and emotional intimacy, support, attention, validation, and sex. And what men dream of is a relationship in which both partners enthusiastically provide these things for each other.

On the other hand, let's consider a modern woman. She has her female friends for companionship, support, and emotional intimacy; and unlike male friendships, these female friendships are very close, very strong, and very intimate, often to the point of mimicking an asexual lesbian relationship. Moreover, the woman has a rotation of hot guys from Tinder for when she wants sex, and a roster of FWBs for when she wants touch and physical intimacy. She gets endless validation from her female friends and from social media, and unlimited attention from the hordes of simps in her DMs and hundreds of men that approach her in real life.

So what on earth does she need a man for, that she couldn't find when single? The answer is: social status and resources. Now, of course, she'll have to be attracted to the man, since usually relationships involve sex and intimacy, but that's not what she's really getting out of it.

As a man in a relationship, you're primarily a disposable accessory your girlfriend wears on her arm to impress her friends. Beyond that, your only purpose is to provide her with resources and fund her lifestyle.

Now, of course, some men who fulfill the "status boost" role very well don't need to fulfill the "resource provider" role. But the aforementioned generalization is the reason why in relationships, usually the woman is the prize and the man is disposable. It's also why women have such insane hypergamous standards—because without meeting the bar to impress her friends and boost her social status, she has absolutely no reason to date you.

Think about it, straight women will always admit a woman is attractive; however, they would rarely say a man is attractive. Whenever you go to the club, women will always sit on another woman’s lap before they sit on a man’s lap. Women will always say sexual things to each other but never to a man. I even heard women say they are not attracted to men’s bodies and will say a woman’s body is more appealing. Even when it comes to dating, I never heard a woman desperate to be in a relationship with a man. If a woman was to remain single forever, I’m sure she wouldn’t care.

Comparing men and women is like comparing a bear and a shark. We live in completely different realities.

Men are born on level 1 and women are born on level 2. Our outlook in dating is fundamentally different because we play with different rules.

The vast majority of men live in an endless battle between acquiring quality and quantity sex. Women, on the other hand, inherently know they can get any man to have sex with them if presented the opportunity. They do not value sex the way men do. One of the key aspects of value is scarcity, and since sex is not scarce for them, it doesn’t hold the same significance. Instead, they put more value on acquiring wealth and social validation. This is why women tend to prioritize social standing and financial stability over physical attraction in long-term relationships.

It’s a common meme in the LGBT community that straight women don’t even seem to like men. If straight women aren’t even truly attracted to men, then why be straight at all?

True. I've been saying, women are actually just lesbians

 

[irrumator praetor]

W SharpOrange bro

 

[irrumator praetor]

its because oofy doofy normie men are FAGGOTS

 

[Kainep]

MOLECULE

 

[irrumator praetor]

i am making an argument that women are not attracted to men sexually. don't censor anything and take it as it is "When you actually look at heterosexual romantic relationships from an objective perspective, you see the love is completely one-sided. I'll break down romantic love into three components: romance, intimacy, and support.

Romance is obviously very one-sided. In a relationship between a man and a woman, he is the one that sweeps her off her feet and partakes in elaborate courtship rituals to impress her- from initiating the relationship, to planning dates, to initiating and taking control of intimacy, to making grand gestures of romance. Her role is to just sit back, relax, and enjoy, with the only expected reciprocation being appreciation and enthusiasm (but in reality it's often not even that). Crudely, romance is something created by the man and consumed by the woman.

Now let's look at support. The man physically supports the woman, i.e. "provide and protects" for her; the woman just receives the support and makes no equivalent reciprocation. The man also emotionally supports her and is her "rock", who will always comfort her, understand her, and be there for her during her lowest and most vulnerable times. But the second the man shows a sign of weakness, expresses emotional vulnerability in a non-masculine way, or experiences hardship in a non-masculine way (e.g. job loss, mental issues), the woman's attraction fades and she checks out of the relationship.

Using the bastardized feminist definition of "emotional labor", the man is responsible for performing an immense amount of emotional labor for the benefit of the woman, but the moment reciprocation is asked for, suddenly she is "not his therapist" and he "isn't entitled" to her emotional labor.

Finally, consider intimacy, which goes hand-in-hand with support to an extent. The woman is free to be completely herself in the relationship, and spill all her deepest secrets to the man, who'll find it endearing and romantic that she fully opens up and shows her true self to him. But the man? He must always keep the mask on in the woman's presence, confined by the masculine idealization of himself that she really fell in love with. One misstep, one faux pas or secret too far, and it's over.

So, as we can see, romance, intimacy, and support- the core aspects of romantic (as opposed to familial or dutiful) love- are all completely one-sided in heterosexual relationships. In heterosexual relationships, romantic love is provided by the man but not reciprocated by the woman.

But it turns out, women are perfectly capable of providing intimacy and support (and even romance, albeit to a lesser extent), and one only needs to look at close female friendships for the quintessential example. Here is an excerpt from a comment by a self-proclaimed "girl's girl", that I found very enlightening:

I also support my [female] friends. I don't harbor jealousy towards them, I don't compete with them, I celebrate their wins, and I support and grieve their losses with them. I show interest in their lives. I keep their secrets and I tell them mine. I develop really emotionally intimate relationships with them. They are the light of my life. I tell them all the time, "you make the sun rise".

Replace "friends" with "boyfriend", and this is the description of every man's dream relationship- one in which intimacy and support is reciprocal. But that's why it's a dream, because all but a select few extremely lucky men will never experience anything close to this. Even within a relationship, it's quite common for women to still prioritize their female friends before their boyfriend/husband, and for them to defer to their female friend group to a far greater extent than their partner.

But I digress- the point is that it's quite an interesting phenomenon that in close female friendships, we see women show to each other genuine, reciprocal love, while women don't show anything close to this kind of reciprocation in romantic relationships. There's another discussion to have on why this is the case; but it's clear that heterosexual women are, by far and large, homoromantic.

"+"men date women for love, intimacy, and companionship, while women only date men for social status and resources.

Now let me elaborate further. The core foundation of a relationship is that both partners provide each other with companionship, physical and emotional intimacy, support, attention, validation, and sex. And what men dream of is a relationship in which both partners enthusiastically provide these things for each other.

On the other hand, let's consider a modern woman. She has her female friends for companionship, support, and emotional intimacy; and unlike male friendships, these female friendships are very close, very strong, and very intimate, often to the point of mimicking an asexual lesbian relationship. Moreover, the woman has a rotation of hot guys from Tinder for when she wants sex, and a roster of FWBs for when she wants touch and physical intimacy. She gets endless validation from her female friends and from social media, and unlimited attention from the hordes of simps in her DMs and hundreds of men that approach her in real life.

So what on earth does she need a man for, that she couldn't find when single? The answer is: social status* and resources. Now, of course, she'll have to be attracted to the man, since usually relationships involve sex and intimacy; but that's not what she's really getting out of it.

As a man in a relationship, you're primarily a disposable accessory your girlfriend wears on her arm to impress her friends. Beyond that, your only purpose is provide her with resources and fund her lifestyle.

Now of course, some men who fulfill the "status boost" role very well don't need to fulfill the "resource provider" role. But the aforementioned generalization is the reason why in relationships, usually the woman is the prize and the man is disposable. It's also why women have such insane hypergamous standards- because without meeting the bar to impress her friends and boost her social status, she has absolutely no reason to date you.

"But you have no evidence for this!" I do- my evidence is that women themselves say this, over and over again. The only difference is that they phrase it to say "you go girl, you don't need no man!", while I'm explaining why it causes the imbalance in the dating market.

As women themselves say: men aren't competing with top-tier men, they're competing with a woman's peace and "solitude". They're telling the truth, and this is what they mean.

*Note that this "social status" isn't socioeconomic status, it's her status in the FSM (female social matrix). The best way a woman can boost this status is by dating a very attractive man, or by dating a popular, high social status man (e.g. an influencer, celebrity, or athlete; NOT high societal status such as lawyer, surgeon, executive, etc).

"+ "Think about it, straight women will always admit a woman is attractive however they would rarely say a man is attractive. Whenever you go to the club women will always sit on another woman’s lap before they sit on a man’s lap. Women will always say sexually things to each other but never to a man. I even heard women say they are not attracted to mens bodies and will say a woman’s body is more appealing. Even when it comes to dating I never heard a woman desperate to be in a relationship with a man. If a woman was to remain single forever I’m sure she wouldn’t care.

there seems to be a substantial amount of publications dedicated to attracting the male gaze, usually with a semi-naked model on the front. There is practically none of this for the opposite sex, and hilariously, I'd say the closest you'd get is something like Men's Fitness, which is probably bought by more men anyway! My fiancé then went ahead and said it's obvious, men are just not as attractive as women. She said this with the stipulation that she's straight, and she doesn't find the women sexually attractive, but still just more pleasing on the eye. Is it true that women don't find men physically attractive in the raw sense, and instead they find properties such as physicality attractive, due to what it represents (e.g big muscles = gym = dedication = commitment = attractive)?
When we look at the stats, women are way happier single, many women have absolutely no interest in dating men and are living their best life. I don't see women whine about not having sex with men or not being in a relationship with a man.

Women choice to be single

Whereas men, it's the other way around, men are happier when they are married than single men, many men whine about not having sex or having a girlfriend. So many men try to seek validation from women. Also the fact they about wanting a relationship more than women, while women are more concerned with other stuff.

Men are more lonely than women.

This along with other stats (widows being happier than widowers etc) made some people think that "men are more attracted to women than women are attracted to men"
Comparing men and women is like comparing a bear and a shark. We live in completely different realities.

Men are born on level 1 and women are born on level 2. Our outlook in dating is fundamentally different, because we play with different rules. In the following section I’ll break down the different levels.

Level 1 For the majority of men’s lives they try to acquire sex from good looking women frequently. They bend over backwards and try to acquire as much sex with as many beautiful women as humanly possible. Women, whenever they enter the world, have already cleared this level. As proven by both dating apps, and other empirical evidence, women have no shortage of male suitors that want to sleep with them. They can have sex at will. Therefore level 1 is already cleared, whereas the vast majority of men live in an endless battle between acquiring quality and quantity sex.

Level 2 Acquire wealth. I know this point is going to be discussed a lot so I’ll explain what I mean in depth. The vast majority of women inherently know they can get any man to have sex with them if presented the opportunity. Women are never in an absolute way, sex starved the way men are. They may be sex starved by their husband or boyfriend, but in an absolute sense they can always find a mate rather quickly. With this inherent knowledge, women do not value sex. One of the key aspects of value is scarcity. Women do not have a scarce relationship with the act of sex, therefore they do not value it. It doesn’t mean anything to them which is why they put more value, as a collective, on acquiring wealth from their partner compared to sex. This is the level most women struggle with ascending from. The majority of women live in a battle between acquiring as much wealth as possible and having sex with guys they’re attracted to.

Level 3 Acquiring wealth from good looking people of the other gender that you’re attracted to. At the final level you have a very small minority of women here. It’s what most women aspire to get to. It’s where you have a man that’s very sexually attractive, doesn’t struggle getting other women etc. completely devoting his pay-check to you and buying you whatever you desire. This is what most women want but only a small minority ever truly achieve it. These women are usually also very attractive themselves and are in circles where attractive wealthy men also are. Examples of women like this are nepo babies, singers, high end models, actressses etc.
Its a common meme in the LGBT community that straight women seem to not even like men. Gay men are notorious for lusting over each others bodies like how straight men do with women, but straight women seem to lust






more over what their partner does for them. Like most straight women I know are not interested in simply looking at penises really at all, they see them as a means to an end, just a way to experience pleasure with their partner. Whereas gay men can be totally obsessed with dicks at face value. I actually am skeptical that this would change if men were less misogynistic and took better care of their hygiene. It seems to come down to "masculine" vs "feminine" sexuality of wanting someone vs being wanted, but I'm not really sure. Maybe its because of repression of female sexuality? To put it crudely, if some "straight women" aren't even attracted to the male body and are more attracted to certain behaviors, and get the ick from their boyfriends, why be "straight" at all?

i think this is a repost but with more stuff added bro

 

[SharpOrange]

i think this is a repost but with more stuff added bro

yeah it is i said it in title archived.
i didn't know people will click this. as .org readers only read 2 lines max.

 

[irrumator praetor]

yeah it is i said it in title archived.
i didn't know people will click this. as .org readers only read 2 lines max.

you know me though, nigga
sort this stuff into threads and make a series
I wanna link it to the doompill jfl
make some broootal clickbait titles to get reacts too

 

[SharpOrange]

you know me though, nigga
sort this stuff into threads and make a series
I wanna link it to the doompill jfl
make some broootal clickbait titles to get reacts too

it was in my notepad i was clearing my pc so i found it

https://looksmax.org/threads/how-to-take-google-photos-backup-fast-its-says-6hr-remining-jfl.1947440/

 

[irrumator praetor]

The greatest trick this late-stage capitalist hellscape ever pulled was convincing us that we are the problem.

No, the problem is you. You’re not hustling hard enough. You’re not grinding every hour. You bought a damn coffee. You watched Netflix. You should have bought my course on optimizing a trivial second instead.

Is it really a coincidence that the self-improvement industry exploded alongside record levels of income inequality?

This endless, obsessive push to “improve yourself” — it’s rotten at the core. It’s built to keep you feeling like you’re never enough. That there’s always something wrong with you. That if you're not relentlessly optimizing, you’re failing.

Another sinister consequence of this system is how it hijacked our collective consciousness with the cult of hyper-individualism.

It convinced us that everything every success, every failure, every ounce of suffering is a personal responsibility. Not a shared one. Not a systemic issue. Just your own fault.

It atomizes us. Makes us believe we’re alone in this and worse, that we should be alone.

And so we chase self-improvement like salvation, not because it fulfills us, but because it’s all we’re allowed to believe in.

This narrative doesn’t make us better. It makes us selfish. Isolated. Paranoid. It turns us inward while everything outside burns and then tells us to meditate through the fire.

true

the perfect human male is actually a robot, another point toward women being lesbian and normies literally being just faggots

on the other hand though, you gotta improooooooove fr

women stopped being straight after the sexual liberation. You can't be a straight woman in an unnatural environment

 

[SharpOrange]

true

the perfect human male is actually a robot, another point toward women being lesbian and normies literally being just faggots

on the other hand though, you gotta improooooooove fr

the fact that women has never admired male body for beauty just for utility.
its over for men just be a coal miner or oil driller while foid apply lip gloss and get nails done.

men will come and say improoove provide to other men.
men are brainwashed to feel pride in being a slave

 

[SharpOrange]

Higher class women and lower class women are quite similar, in fact - except society tends to romanticize, excuse, soften and venerate everything rich men and women do, whether in secret or out in the open, including their innate sexuality and escapades. If you're promiscuous as a poor woman, you're trashy, you're a waste, you're the local bicycle, you're ghetto, you're irresponsible, you're the butt of the joke, you're ratchet, you're easy, you're a redneck, you're worthless to potential romantic interests, you're the single mom with a bunch of baby daddies nobody wants. If you're promiscuous as a rich woman? Your life is the plot of Dangerous Liaisons and Anna Karenina, pretty much. You're the Princess Diana of this world and people will go out of their way to somehow draw out an entire complex, empathetic analysis to prove how you're not the same as the lower class woman even though your patterns of behavior are almost identical, except with a few million more on your bank account and with a nicer choice of words in your day-to-day vocabulary to make you seem more glamorous when you're out doing what your poor counterpart gets ripped apart for by society every day.

 

[SharpOrange]

Cause men never get a self esteem to begin with , do you know the disparity between the amount of compliment women and men get? Every interaction modern women have is shaped to boost their self esteem .

Boyfriends are told to always compliment and validate their girls regardless of their own opinion. Fathers are told to be " more affectionate " towards their daughters or else they will date toxic men to get this " father love" . Mothers who like their sons more are demonized but mothers who like their daughters more are celebrated. And let's not about teachers !! Long story but it's obvious how restricted male teachers are when dealing with girls. There is not a single interaction that can lead to women having self esteem issues .

 

[irrumator praetor]

the fact that women has never admired male body for beauty just for utility.
its over for men just be a coal miner or oil driller while foid apply lip gloss and get nails done.

men will come and say improoove provide to other men.
men are brainwashed to feel pride in being a slave

yea fr how can we possibly be sexually equal to women when their sex drives are way weaker (they still exist obv)