The level of women interested in me are not worth reproducing with

[Deleted member 8080]

Gooks, black girls and ugly foids.

If I do reproduce with any of the above, my kids will be incels. It's not fair to bring a cel to this world. My male kid will probably be around 5 7. That's fucking brutal. I can't fucking cope with that. It's not fair to do that, but yet again my urge to reproduce is too big.

Thank you for attending my ted talk

 

[Deleted member 11748]

Condoms?

 

[lutte]

 

[Bignuts]

Gooks, black girls and ugly foids.

Based as fuck.

 

[Deleted member 5973]

fix your maxilla and start dating better looking foids

 

[Deleted member 7753]

ye youre ugly. welcome to the club

 

[eduardkoopman]

Gooks, black girls and ugly foids.

If I do reproduce with any of the above, my kids will be incels. It's not fair to bring a cel to this world. My male kid will probably be around 5 7. That's fucking brutal. I can't fucking cope with that. It's not fair to do that, but yet again my urge to reproduce is too big.

Thank you for attending my ted talk

Brutals.

I support your "natural selection" criteria's

Are your lookslevel not good enough? or do you look nice?
Poland is close by, by the way

 

[fras]

This. Get with a 5'8 black foid and make sure her dad is a 6'3 Tyrone, his DNA comes into play too.

 

[Deleted member 8080]

Brutals.

I support your "natural selection" criteria's

Are your lookslevel not good enough? or do you look nice?
Poland is close by, by the way

if hypergamy existed i would be a trucel. im not in germany

 

[Deleted member 8080]

This. Get with a 5'8 black foid and make sure her dad is a 6'3 Tyrone, his DNA comes into play too.

i dont want a monkey son. rather have ER kid than jeremy meeks tbh

 

[Deleted member 8080]

fix your maxilla and start dating better looking foids

yeah i would but face isn't even my problem. i can sometimes get dates from tinder with average looking white girls. but bc of my height and frame it never works out. so i dont think fixing my face would do much, bc online i do above average

 

[R@m@]

tinder Portugal, só pretas com uma puta duma pintelheira gigante

 

[Deleted member 8080]

tinder Portugal, só pretas com uma puta duma pintelheira gigante

ha gajas bacanas no tinder cá, só q obviamente sao chadlite only

 

[R@m@]

ha gajas bacanas no tinder cá, só q obviamente sao chadlite only

n consigo perceber porque tenho tantos matches de pretas

 

[Deleted member 8080]

n consigo perceber porque tenho tantos matches de pretas

prq elas n têm standards

 

[Deleted member 6475]

ye youre ugly. welcome to the club

arent you a chad nigga? tf

 

[eduardkoopman]

im not in germany

wtf

 

[Deleted member 10185]

That not how it works.. Even if both of your parents are good looking.. They children could still look like incel.

 

[Deleted member 8080]

wtf

problem?

 

[Deleted member 8080]

That not how it works.. Even if both of your parents are good looking.. They children could still look like incel.

yes i agree, but if the parents r both ugly, the child will be incel

 

[RODEBLUR]

Gooks, black girls and ugly foids.

If I do reproduce with any of the above, my kids will be incels. It's not fair to bring a cel to this world. My male kid will probably be around 5 7. That's fucking brutal. I can't fucking cope with that. It's not fair to do that, but yet again my urge to reproduce is too big.

Thank you for attending my ted talk

mogs me to death, not a single girl interested in me of any kind

 

[eduardkoopman]

problem?

No. Just unexpected.
But I love posting anything, related to the DUtch Show: New Kids
Was very popular in Germany also.

 

[quakociaptockh]

That is the worst shameless humblebragging thread on this forum so far.

So you are trying to say that you have a harem of ethnics begging you for one drop of semen so they can get impregnated and raise a tribe of your offspring, but you would refuse because you have standards.

In thread like this, photographic evidence should be mandatory.

 

[Deleted member 7753]

arent you a chad nigga? tf

yeah but i need to comfort him or he might kill himself

 

[turbocuckcel_7000000]

truecel commie cope

 

[eduardkoopman]

That not how it works.. Even if both of your parents are good looking.. They children could still look like incel.

yes i agree, but if the parents r both ugly, the child will be incel

Can, we stop the cope.
That children looks, is random.

It's about increased odds.
Children looks fautures, is mostly decided by the looks features of the parents.
The risk is though, how it gets re-combined. So it also has a significant unceratin aspect.

To quote research:

Study 1.

"Substantial heritability is found in both facial attractiveness (~60 %) and in facial masculinity–femininity (~50 %), a prerequisite for “sexy sons” and “sexy daughters” good genes hypotheses."
" The heritability was ~0.50–0.70 for attractiveness"
"genetic influences on attractiveness were shared across the sexes, suggesting that attractive fathers tend to have attractive daughters and attractive mothers tend to have attractive sons."
(by the way, now know why Elliot Rodgers got fucked. his dad looks good, but his mother less. And his sister, also looked good, but he got nuked significantly by the mothers lesser looks. Also Elliot Rodgers fathered remaried and had a son with a female that was also quit good looking. And that son looks actually really good.)

source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4096150/

Study 2.

"We found that both fathers' and mothers' attractiveness predicted the facial attractiveness of daughters: ‘sexy daughters’. Fathers and sons were related to each other in facial masculinity but not attractiveness, providing only partial evidence for ‘sexy sons’. Mothers and sons did not relate in masculinity–femininity; neither did fathers and daughters."

source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347208003928

Study 3:

to add. when we allow females to choice mates.
Females select hard, on attractiveness (and height) of men. They are natural selection maxxing, alot (also). Which is basically their biology telling them: attractiveness (and height) is hertiable. otherwise their biology wouldn't fprce them to select for it.

"As predicted, facially more attractive and taller men were more likely to engage in marriage. In turn, married men had higher reproductive success than single men.
Even when men’s marital status was considered, facially more attractive men had higher reproductive success than their less attractive counterparts. This supports the importance of physical attractiveness in sexual selection in modern humans."

link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10164-011-0274-0

 

[Mr.cope]

not gauranteed that youll have a boy

 

[Deleted member 6512]

I love how everyone here is an expert on genetics and knows exactly the outcome of reproducing with certain women. Jfl at not knowing about genetics recombination and how genes interact with each other.

 

[Deleted member 8080]

That is the worst shameless humblebragging thread on this forum so far.

So you are trying to say that you have a harem of ethnics begging you for one drop of semen so they can get impregnated and raise a tribe of your offspring, but you would refuse because you have standards.

In thread like this, photographic evidence should be mandatory.

They r not gl and im not gl either. Where is the brag?

 

[Deleted member 8080]

Can, we stop the cope.
That children looks, is random.

It's about increased odds.
Children looks fautures, is mostly decided by the looks features of the parents.
The risk is though, how it gets re-combined. So it also has a significant unceratin aspect.

To quote research:

Study 1.

"Substantial heritability is found in both facial attractiveness (~60 %) and in facial masculinity–femininity (~50 %), a prerequisite for “sexy sons” and “sexy daughters” good genes hypotheses."
" The heritability was ~0.50–0.70 for attractiveness"
"genetic influences on attractiveness were shared across the sexes, suggesting that attractive fathers tend to have attractive daughters and attractive mothers tend to have attractive sons."
(by the way, now know why Elliot Rodgers got fucked. his dad looks good, but his mother less. And his sister, also looked good, but he got nuked significantly by the mothers lesser looks. Also Elliot Rodgers fathered remaried and had a son with a female that was also quit good looking. And that son looks actually really good.)

source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4096150/

Study 2.

"We found that both fathers' and mothers' attractiveness predicted the facial attractiveness of daughters: ‘sexy daughters’. Fathers and sons were related to each other in facial masculinity but not attractiveness, providing only partial evidence for ‘sexy sons’. Mothers and sons did not relate in masculinity–femininity; neither did fathers and daughters."

source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347208003928

Study 3:

to add. when we allow females to choice mates.
Females select hard, on attractiveness (and height) of men. They are natural selection maxxing, alot (also). Which is basically their biology telling them: attractiveness (and height) is hertiable. otherwise their biology wouldn't fprce them to select for it.

"As predicted, facially more attractive and taller men were more likely to engage in marriage. In turn, married men had higher reproductive success than single men.
Even when men’s marital status was considered, facially more attractive men had higher reproductive success than their less attractive counterparts. This supports the importance of physical attractiveness in sexual selection in modern humans."

link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10164-011-0274-0

High iq tbh. U should make a post with this

 

[Deleted member 6512]

Can, we stop the cope.
That children looks, is random.

It's about increased odds.
Children looks fautures, is mostly decided by the looks features of the parents.
The risk is though, how it gets re-combined. So it also has a significant unceratin aspect.

To quote research:

Study 1.

"Substantial heritability is found in both facial attractiveness (~60 %) and in facial masculinity–femininity (~50 %), a prerequisite for “sexy sons” and “sexy daughters” good genes hypotheses."
" The heritability was ~0.50–0.70 for attractiveness"
"genetic influences on attractiveness were shared across the sexes, suggesting that attractive fathers tend to have attractive daughters and attractive mothers tend to have attractive sons."
(by the way, now know why Elliot Rodgers got fucked. his dad looks good, but his mother less. And his sister, also looked good, but he got nuked significantly by the mothers lesser looks. Also Elliot Rodgers fathered remaried and had a son with a female that was also quit good looking. And that son looks actually really good.)

source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4096150/

Study 2.

"We found that both fathers' and mothers' attractiveness predicted the facial attractiveness of daughters: ‘sexy daughters’. Fathers and sons were related to each other in facial masculinity but not attractiveness, providing only partial evidence for ‘sexy sons’. Mothers and sons did not relate in masculinity–femininity; neither did fathers and daughters."

source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347208003928

Study 3:

to add. when we allow females to choice mates.
Females select hard, on attractiveness (and height) of men. They are natural selection maxxing, alot (also). Which is basically their biology telling them: attractiveness (and height) is hertiable. otherwise their biology wouldn't fprce them to select for it.

"As predicted, facially more attractive and taller men were more likely to engage in marriage. In turn, married men had higher reproductive success than single men.
Even when men’s marital status was considered, facially more attractive men had higher reproductive success than their less attractive counterparts. This supports the importance of physical attractiveness in sexual selection in modern humans."

link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10164-011-0274-0

Problem is this, sexy daughters theory is bullshit to me for one reason: in order for a woman to be considered sexy the bar is super low, all it takes is not be deformed and having a decent body. However for men the problem is that everything gotta be in the right place and every small flaw takes away a lot of attractivness.
Ugly parents or not don't mean much because you should see how the parents looked back then in their prime, if they were looksmaxxed and then you can see if the children are gl or not and if the beauty is inheritable. If the parents are fat, unkept ecc then you will expect the children to be the same, while if your parents are very narcs and care about physical appearance then you would expect them to make their children looksmaxx from early age. I say this by having a Chad father and a gl mother when they were in their prime, however none of me and my brothers came out as Chads, and plus height differences confirm this, I'm 5ft10, my brothers are 5ft11 and the youngest is 6ft1 despite my parents being 5ft2 and 5ft8.

 

[fras]

Can, we stop the cope.
That children looks, is random.

It's about increased odds.
Children looks fautures, is mostly decided by the looks features of the parents.
The risk is though, how it gets re-combined. So it also has a significant unceratin aspect.

To quote research:

Study 1.

"Substantial heritability is found in both facial attractiveness (~60 %) and in facial masculinity–femininity (~50 %), a prerequisite for “sexy sons” and “sexy daughters” good genes hypotheses."
" The heritability was ~0.50–0.70 for attractiveness"
"genetic influences on attractiveness were shared across the sexes, suggesting that attractive fathers tend to have attractive daughters and attractive mothers tend to have attractive sons."
(by the way, now know why Elliot Rodgers got fucked. his dad looks good, but his mother less. And his sister, also looked good, but he got nuked significantly by the mothers lesser looks. Also Elliot Rodgers fathered remaried and had a son with a female that was also quit good looking. And that son looks actually really good.)

source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4096150/

Study 2.

"We found that both fathers' and mothers' attractiveness predicted the facial attractiveness of daughters: ‘sexy daughters’. Fathers and sons were related to each other in facial masculinity but not attractiveness, providing only partial evidence for ‘sexy sons’. Mothers and sons did not relate in masculinity–femininity; neither did fathers and daughters."

source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347208003928

Study 3:

to add. when we allow females to choice mates.
Females select hard, on attractiveness (and height) of men. They are natural selection maxxing, alot (also). Which is basically their biology telling them: attractiveness (and height) is hertiable. otherwise their biology wouldn't fprce them to select for it.

"As predicted, facially more attractive and taller men were more likely to engage in marriage. In turn, married men had higher reproductive success than single men.
Even when men’s marital status was considered, facially more attractive men had higher reproductive success than their less attractive counterparts. This supports the importance of physical attractiveness in sexual selection in modern humans."

link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10164-011-0274-0

These results aren't entirely corect. Children of both genders get the majority of their characteristics from their mother, it's just that for sons it's more extreme. Let's say for sons it would be 90% from the mom and for daughters 60 or 70%. The example of Elliot Rodger's family you gave there pretty much proves it spot on. ER looked nothing like his dad, but his sister doesn't either. Both ended up looking a lot like their ugly gook mom.

Also, the fact that at one point in history only the best men reproduced and there is still so much ugliness nowadays goes to show that men really don't have a large impact on their children's looks, it's all on the mother. You can pair the greatest, most beautiful Chad with an ugly foid and the children will be ugly.

Of course women will still try to upgrade their shit genes by getting Chad's sperm, but it's a fight against windmills. If we wanted to make humanity beautiful, it would be women that would have to be selected, not men.

 

[Deleted member 6512]

These results aren't entirely corect. Children of both genders get the majority of their characteristics from their mother, it's just that for sons it's more extreme. Let's say for sons it would be 90% from the mom and for daughters 60 or 70%. The example of Elliot Rodger's family you gave there pretty much proves it spot on. ER looked nothing like his dad, but his sister doesn't either. Both ended up looking a lot like their ugly gook mom.

Also, the fact that at one point in history only the best men reproduced and there is still so much ugliness nowadays goes to show that men really don't have a large impact on their children's looks, it's all on the mother. You can pair the greatest, most beautiful Chad with an ugly foid and the children will be ugly.

Of course women will still try to upgrade their shit genes by getting Chad's sperm, but it's a fight against windmills. If we wanted to make humanity beautiful, it would be women that would have to be selected, not men.

High iq, plus the bar for women to look good is so low that if you put a wig on ER he would look like a cute foid.

 

[Favela_cake]

Your future son

 

[fras]

High iq, plus the bar for women to look good is so low that if you put a wig on ER he would look like a cute foid.

Exactly. Women will always pass down their shit genes and keep humanity the way it is. There was one point in time where that wasn't the case and that's of course humanity's greatest period, the cavemen times. In that time both genders were selected for carefully and they threw ugly women off of cliffs too because they knew that resources were very scarce and keeping a low quality woman around would be a negative investment just like keeping low quality men around. Once civilisation came, we entered the state of nearly all women reproducing and ruining the gene pool.

 

[Deleted member 8080]

These results aren't entirely corect. Children of both genders get the majority of their characteristics from their mother, it's just that for sons it's more extreme. Let's say for sons it would be 90% from the mom and for daughters 60 or 70%. The example of Elliot Rodger's family you gave there pretty much proves it spot on. ER looked nothing like his dad, but his sister doesn't either. Both ended up looking a lot like their ugly gook mom.

Also, the fact that at one point in history only the best men reproduced and there is still so much ugliness nowadays goes to show that men really don't have a large impact on their children's looks, it's all on the mother. You can pair the greatest, most beautiful Chad with an ugly foid and the children will be ugly.

Of course women will still try to upgrade their shit genes by getting Chad's sperm, but it's a fight against windmills. If we wanted to make humanity beautiful, it would be women that would have to be selected, not men.

Y do we get more from our moms? What sense does that make? Shouldnt it be 50/50?

 

[Deleted member 8080]

Your future son
View attachment 939651

Q cope cara. Ele vai ser mais tipo um ER 2.0

 

[eduardkoopman]

These results aren't entirely corect. Children of both genders get the majority of their characteristics from their mother, it's just that for sons it's more extreme. Let's say for sons it would be 90% from the mom and for daughters 60 or 70%. The example of Elliot Rodger's family you gave there pretty much proves it spot on. ER looked nothing like his dad, but his sister doesn't either. Both ended up looking a lot like their ugly gook mom.

Also, the fact that at one point in history only the best men reproduced and there is still so much ugliness nowadays goes to show that men really don't have a large impact on their children's looks, it's all on the mother. You can pair the greatest, most beautiful Chad with an ugly foid and the children will be ugly.

Of course women will still try to upgrade their shit genes by getting Chad's sperm, but it's a fight against windmills. If we wanted to make humanity beautiful, it would be women that would have to be selected, not men.

Proofs or something? of these percenatges of 90%, 60%-70%.

beyond anecdotal stuff like: my 2 brothers

 

[Deleted member 756]

Ok chad

 

[Favela_cake]

Q cope cara. Ele vai ser mais tipo um ER 2.0

kkk vasectomia então man.
mas vc ta comendo elas pelomenos??

 

[Deleted member 8080]

Ok chad

U r the chad

 

[Deleted member 8080]

kkk vasectomia então man.
mas vc ta comendo elas pelomenos??

Its over cara

 

[Deleted member 756]

U r the chad

I am truecel

 

[Deleted member 8080]

Proofs or something? of these percenatges of 90%, 60%-70%.

beyond anecdotal stuff like: my 2 brothers

I also wanna know

 

[Deleted member 8080]

I am truecel

Cope u r a slayer. White becky doesnt fuck me on the first date meanwhile u slay

 

[fras]

Y do we get more from our moms? What sense does that make? Shouldnt it be 50/50?

Think about it, a man's DNA is injected into the female and after that he has no impact anymore whatsoever. It's a single sperm that ends up being "accepted" by the egg and all it does is fertilize it. There is no other way for the man's DNA than to make room for the DNA of the host (the foid). Then the child sits and develops inside the woman for another 9 months. Male genes don't matter for shit, it's literally all on the female.

 

[Deleted member 8080]

Think about it, a man's DNA is injected into the female and after that he has no impact anymore whatsoever. It's a single sperm that ends up being "accepted" by the egg and all it does is fertilize it. There is no other way for the man's DNA than to make room for the DNA of the host (the foid). Then the child sits and develops inside the woman for another 9 months. Male genes don't matter for shit, it's literally all on the female.

Tf do u mean? That 1 sperm is by definition 50% of the DNA.

 

[fras]

Tf do u mean? That 1 sperm is by definition 50% of the DNA.

 

[Deleted member 8080]

Damn kid took me a 5 sec google search to verify that im not retarded. Jfl at u


Wow kid. Over for ur iq ngl

 

[eduardkoopman]

Problem is this, sexy daughters theory is bullshit to me for one reason: in order for a woman to be considered sexy the bar is super low, all it takes is not be deformed and having a decent body. However for men the problem is that everything gotta be in the right place and every small flaw takes away a lot of attractivness.
Ugly parents or not don't mean much because you should see how the parents looked back then in their prime, if they were looksmaxxed and then you can see if the children are gl or not and if the beauty is inheritable. If the parents are fat, unkept ecc then you will expect the children to be the same, while if your parents are very narcs and care about physical appearance then you would expect them to make their children looksmaxx from early age. I say this by having a Chad father and a gl mother when they were in their prime, however none of me and my brothers came out as Chads, and plus height differences confirm this, I'm 5ft10, my brothers are 5ft11 and the youngest is 6ft1 despite my parents being 5ft2 and 5ft8.

there si no disagreeing with examples one gives.

At the same time. ofcourse anecdotes are easily high in this factor(s). so imo, anecdotes are a bit limited. between my 3 brothers is also decent difference:

-