Why are women shamed for wanting Chad Thundercock but men aren't

Because 100% of women want chad and will NO MATTER WHAT settle for less. Not only that, but they also make life ABSOLUTE MISERY to anyone lower than Chad.

Most men settle, because to them love is more important than status.

>>35097290
these are some hardcore generalizations
and also completely wrong

the female biological imperative is getting pregnant, not taking birth control pills and riding on a sea of cocks

>>35097312

This is the reality I live in.
This is the reality the only people I communicate (You, r9k) live in, for the most part.

What I posted is how I see, feel and experience things. It is also how a lot of people see, feel and claim to experience as well.

If you think different and wish to change my view you should atleast come up with something other than "NO U".

Now fuck off.

>>35097212

Men want both Stacey Sweettits and Kelly Pudgebody.

Women only want Chad Thundercock.

>>35097212
They lie and milk beta men without putting out. It's a moral thing not a biological.

File: robots BTFO.png (82KB, 1232x1079px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1232x1079px

>>35097361
>These are the alternative facts I believe in
fixed that for you
here's some actual facts

>>35097313

>biologicaI imperative

What constitutes "biological imperative"?

Are humans magical creatures that can somehow subvert causality?

>>35097290
>It's a "robot assumes all women are shallow and vacuous"

If it weren't so sad, it would be funny.

>>35097451
>source: surveys

Wow, thanks. People won't lie and the people surveyed represent the entire nation.

Yeah yeah we get it you're a slut and want to be gratified for it.

>>35097212
im shamed fot NOT wanting stacie
>tfw booze has killed my libido

>>35097212
why did you post a manfaced 30-year-old 1980s-porn-looking orc

the only time a dude jacks off to something like that he's either fantasizing about being 14 and porking his teachers or thinking about like pooping in her or something

what's with this shit

>>35097476
>my anecdotes are more accurate than your facts!
gee, it's funny, because for someone complaining about women, you sure do sound like one right now
also why the fuck would men lie about having sex if this is as big a problem as you're pretending it is

>>35097212
*clears throat*

I AM WILLING TO DATE ANY GIRL WHO READS THIS POST!

Hmm..that's odd. No one wants to date me. Hmmmm...really makes me think.

>>35097476
>People won't lie
>I can't actually argue against that, so I'll just claim it's inherently unreliable.
>That means I can continue to claim whatever bullshit makes me feel better.

>and the people surveyed represent the entire nation.

Those surveys certainly will reflect the population better than your half a dozen encounters with women.

>>35097377

This. Men could be entirely satisfied by an ugly woman and stay loyal to her. Women prefer Chad and Chad alone. If you don't meet up to high standards, you won't get shit. A woman could be obese, 2/10, 5'10", flat chest, no ass, short thin hair, pimple faced, NEET porn-star and still get 7/10 bfs easily. Meanwhile a 5/10 average guy with average height and average dick that earns an average wage will get passed up for and ignored by women because he's not Chad.

Women should never, ever post about this shit.

>>35097512
>facts

No sweetie, they aren't facts, they're data based on what they surveyed. It's only representative of the people surveyed.

>>35097577
data is facts
>It's only representative of the people surveyed.
which is far more representation than your pathetic anecdotes

>>35097577
>I don't understand statistics

That's okay senpai, most of the people on this board a little ill educated. Lemme explain the basic idea, you sample a certain number of people, preferably randomly (although I think the social sciences they use stratified sampling). From that you can generate a series of statistics that (say the mean, or sample mean), that should reflect the statistics of the population.

>>35097591

Data isn't facts, it's data. And this data is based off of self-reporting which makes it automatically untrustworthy and non-factual.

File: Capture.png (28KB, 621x687px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 621x687px

>>35097624
found the trump voter

>>35097616
>social sciences

Non-scientific.

>that should reflect the statistics of the population.

It doesn't it reflects the people surveyed. I can guarantee you that if I conducted a similar "study" I would get different results because this shit isn't factual. Anything that doesn't have repeatable results is non-factual.

>>35097624
Data allows us to infer facts.

>self-reporting which makes it automatically untrustworthy

Oh wow that's lucky for you, now you can go back to believing that it's only the top 10% of men that are getting laid. And not that you're in the bottom 3% of men.

>>35097212
but men are being shamed, not publicly because women are mature, but they refuse to talk to them or hang out with them.

>>35097644

Except this data isn't factual.

>>35097665

Not when it's based on garbage. Surveys mean nothing.

>>35097290
THIS. All women, no matter what they look like or what their status is, want Chad. Men are able to see beauty in almost all types of women.

>>35097700
i gotta say i find it funny how you say that self-reporting makes something automatically untrustworthy
when you say you believe in the reality you do because anonymous fucking 4chan posters corroborate it
how have you not fucking exploded from cognitive dissonance yet

>>35097658
>Non-scientific.

Not an argument.

>It doesn't it reflects the people surveyed

Completely wrong. I don't even know how I can argue at this point, you're just asserting that you can't know something because it doesn't sample literally everyone in the nation. Which is fucking retarded. You don't need that many people to get a good estimate on the population mean. I was once playing around with some data for hights, and found that sampling only about 100 people would reproduce the population mean (all-be-it with larger error bars)

>>35097700
>It's true because I assert it

>>35097591
>>35097616

>implying random sampling exempts a study from all error
>implying surveys aren't prone to bias
>implying data equals complete and total explanation of observed phenomena being studied

>>35097730
>Not an argument.

Not a refutation.

>Completely wrong. I don't even know how I can argue at this point, you're just asserting that you can't know something because it doesn't sample literally everyone in the nation. Which is fucking retarded. You don't need that many people to get a good estimate on the population mean. I was once playing around with some data for hights, and found that sampling only about 100 people would reproduce the population mean (all-be-it with larger error bars)

If your estimate is based on self-reporting, it isn't factual.

>>35097730
>>It's true because I assert it
>it's false because my (((facts))) say it is

>>35097756
none of that has to be implied for it to still be more valid as evidence than fucking anecdotes, and UNCITED anecdotes at that

>>35097756
Who are you quoting? I said the sample will reflect the population, so you'll get an approximation of the population statistics. Not that the sample statistics would be exactly the population statistics.

>>35097451
>>35097476
>>35097512
>>35097534

This is the older generations

Doesn't factor the millennials corruption

>>35097777

Tinder and online dating statistics show that Chad gets the vast majority of women. What now? That's fact based stats.

>>35097719

Self-reporting is bullshit. Objective facts are what you use like dating statistics from apps and sites. You know, stuff that has evidence behind it and not hearsay.

>>35097775
>Not a refutation.
Of fucking what?

>If your estimate is based on self-reporting, it isn't factual.

Prove it.

Holy fuck I didn't know it was possible to be this deluded.

>>35097812
>Tinder and online dating statistics show that Chad gets the vast majority of women. What now? That's fact based stats.

>No source

>>35097810
>25-44

Oh wow so old.

>>35097812
>Tinder
really, in an app literally made for sexual hookups attractive people have more sex? shocker. it's a good thing all sexual hookups aren't organized through it
>Objective facts are what you use like dating statistics from apps and sites.
feel free to post some then

>>35097512
for men there is pressure to have lots of sex, for women there is pressure to not be a slut
therefore surveys will be skewed with men bragging/exaggerating and women showing false modesty/understating
and even then women come out on top :)

if you genuinely think men and women are so fucking equal in the sexual marketplace, DO TELL why hookers are 99.999% a male thing (men pay women to have le intercoarse)
and the same for porn.

It seems you're trying to argue away reality here.

women lose their virginity earlier, more often than men on average and generally have vastly easier access to intercourse.
anything that disputes these basic facts is not compatible with observable reality

>>35097822
>Of fucking what?

Social "science" has nothing scientific about it. It's pure opinion based, no hard science. Prove my claim wrong because it IS an argument.

>>35097822
>Prove it.

It's self-evident. That's how surveys work. I could literally make a strawpoll right now and let anons mark whether they're a virgin or not and it's as factual as any survey.

>>35097867
>It's self-evident.

So basically you have nothing to contribute. Well I'll just leave you to your circlejerk over how horrid women are. But remember you are objectively in the bottom 3% of men.

>>35097512
>>35097534
>polls are facts
You people are either retarded or severely underage.

File: 1465783854913.png (132KB, 250x256px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 250x256px

>>35097212
>Stacy Sugartits
>Sugartits
How fucking new are you

why is this board full of retards?

>>35097850
>source: my ass
hey thanks for contributing but maybe you could make a quality post next time

>>35097894
>But infographics posted on the 4chinz, those are legit

Brainlet genocide when?

>>35097867
>Social "science" has nothing scientific about it.

You know literally nothing about science.

>>35097822
>hurrrrrr I'm too stupid to deduce why people in self reported studies have 7" dicks and bang every other day
No wonder you're whiteknighting skanks on 4chan

>>35097926
>social science is legit

Found the humanities major. How you doing BernieBro?

>>35097924
>not answering my question
nice dodging. I'll ask again and expect an answer this time, otherwise I'll assume you're just trolling:

>if you genuinely think men and women are so fucking equal in the sexual marketplace, DO TELL why hookers are 99.999% a male thing (men pay women to have le intercoarse)
>and the same for porn.

additionally: are you denying that there is societal pressure for men to be sexually successful and for women to not be slutting around?
I assumed those were obvious facts not needing a source to back them up

>>35097951
its funny you and everyone else are so desperate to shit on the slightest scrap of evidence in this thread but have yet to provide a single piece that corroborates your worldview
not even one source
if its so obvious that its wrong you should very easily be able to bring back a refutation

>>35097925
>I'm a tubby loser that never leaves my basement so all my only knowledge of relationships comes from wikipedia and 4chan
Beta genocide when?

>>35097951
>>35097992
>Literally no arguments

>>35097992
Also, don't act like you're some alpha stud faggot, it's pathetic.

File: static1.squarespace.png (88KB, 1000x458px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1000x458px

>>35097991
>evidence
The point is that it isn't, you brainless ass clown.

Name a single conceivable way to genuinely validate either view without self reported studies. You can't, which is where dragging your smelly ass away from the computer and into the real world comes into play.

>>35098007
>literally too autistic to ascertain the argument
Don't act like you have a functioning brain, it's pathetic.

>>35097290
>Most men settle, because to them love is more important than status.
Not really. Most men just want any sex and emotional support and validation they could get, it couldn't be any further away from "love"

>>35097989
i figured maybe you would be smart enough on your own to figure out why your question is stupid, but since you've proven yourself incapable I will gladly answer for you:
men have a much stronger sexual urge than women and are therefore more willing to pay for sexual release
damn was that so hard to figure out

>>35098007
>not an obese virgin = alpha stud
You definitely belong here.

Go back to begging faggots pretending to be women for contacts in the femanon threads.

>>35098069
>it's incredibly common to see a good looking guy dating a woman that's well below his league, almost impossible to find the opposite

Really fires those neurons

>>35098080
>men have a much stronger sexual urge than women and are therefore more willing to pay for sexual release
I see, but wouldnt that also make men more susceptible to "seduction" by women?

keep in mind you're still trying to argue that men and women have to work equally hard to get laid.

it seems that if men have a significantly higher libido that women would have a significantly easier time getting laid.

feel free to point out where you think this conclusion goes wrong

>>35098037
>Do lots of independent studies
>All point towards the same conclusion
>Retards on the internet think everyone lying in the exact same way, by a similar amount is a better explanation than they're measuring the average of the population.

>>35098057
I have a masters degree in physics. And what are you? Some faggot on the internet that needs oh so desperately to believe he isn't in the bottom 1% of men on the planet. Fuck it's having to deal with fucking morons like you that think they're hot shit that I stopped coming here.

>>35097212
Women want Chad every single time. They are not satisfied and will not stop looking unless they feel like they have the best they can get.

I mean take fembots. Perfect example. Why do fembots who want a bf exist? After all there are more men than women on this board from all over the world. Just pick one right? Pick a robot bf and be happy. But no. They want Chad. Because robots are "creepy", "not interesting enough", "incompatible". All excuses to keep looking for 'the one'. But there isn't a 'one'. People are not perfect, yet women CANNOT comprehend this.

Whereas me, a regular guy, would be perfectly fine with any girl who loves me and shares my interest, no matter the looks. But they don't want me.

In short: NORMOS GET OUT.

>>35097560
Is this really true? Would you honestly stay loyal to an ugly woman once you've been with her and start to realize you could do better?

>>35098183

Yes, if I built a relationship with her and we were in love and compatible, I would stay loyal for life. I'm not a degenerate that takes relationships lightly.

>>35098160
>keep in mind you're still trying to argue that men and women have to work equally hard to get laid.
funny, i'm not trying to argue that at all actually
i guess since you've once again shown yourself to be a gibbering moron, i'll make it clear: im refuting /r9k/'s pathetic pretense of this massive imbalance where 20% of men get 80% of women
because its blatantly untrue

>>35098119
That's because women get the upper hand in dating and are considered more valuable so when you account for that, it's what he could get. These are the women approaching him and initiating so he goes for them because it's better than having nothing

almost impossible to find the opposite
It's actually pretty common to see attractive young women with average/below average older men in terms of looks so don't know what you based this off

>>35098215
>It's actually pretty common to see attractive young women with average/below average older men in terms of looks

Proof?

>>35098178
That's because you don't care abut personality or the woman herself and just want someone to love you, like most men. Pathetic.

>>35098037
was this the same study that showed that while women rate men lower in attractiveness, they were still likely to contact men who were on the lower end of the scale and while men rate women higher, they were more likely to contact women only on the higher end of the scale, proving the exact opposite of the "women only want chads and men love all women" theory that anyone with a brain can see is untrue, since lots of ugly men in the real world have relationships?

>>35098183
I mean let's ask some fucking questions here. I'll answer these for myself because I don't know about your situation.

Now take me. I'm suddenly in a relation in this hypothetical situation. In a relation. Girl who loves me. Is loyal apparently, would never leave me, does all the things I like but is ugly.

Ok fine. How can I do better? Where is this 'doing better' coming from? How? Do I suddenly meet 'better' women who are interested in me? I do fuck all outside of work and vidya. So how am I supposed to do better?

This fucking scenario already makes zero absolute sense. The possibility of me BEING ABLE to do 'BETTER' is already fucking nonsense. I'd stay with this hypothetical girl for fucking ever and ever. No, and I mean ABSOLUTELY NO exceptions. I'm done. Boyfriend and girlfriend, man and woman, together forever. GG.

There you have it.

>>35098212
It makes me really happy to hear that. I hope you can find the best match for you, then.

>>35098162
>b-b-b-but I have tons of unscientific studies unsubstantiated by anything other than he-said-she-said, so they're valid
No, 7th grade.

>>35098243
The "scientific" kind of proof you're looking for doesn't exist for social scnarios like these. But I can give examples. Look at the camwhores that used to be popular on this board. Eliza, for example, was considered very very attractive by a lot of the men here and had p high status -- yet she went for some pimpled ugly spic. Anzu was the same, went for some substandard turk. When you look at celebrities, you see the same thing. George Clooney and his wife, Blake Lively and her husband, etc etc

>>35098251
Here's my EXTENSIVE list of standards brohan.

>likes me (implied)
>likes vidya

WEW LADDIE. You can be a baby eating, scat obsessed, turbo BDSM practicing insane bipolar schizophrenic acne-ridden turbo autist and I STILL WOULD NOT GIVE A SHIT. Because if someone loved me then I'm out of the race, I have a gf at that point.

Meanwhile the manifesto of standards women have for men, even fembots, is unfulfillable by 90% of the male population.

>>35098308
>b-b-but i have a ton of literal anecdotes from people on the internet, so my views are more valid
No, 7th grade.

>>35098282
Alright then what if multiple more attractive women made it clear they were interested in you, you'd have nothing to lose other than perhaps feeling sorry for your current gf. Wouldn't being more physically attracted to your significant other be 'better'?

>>35098323
>if someone loved me
Just like I said, you only care about women in relation to you. While women (esp ""fembots"") look more for interesting personalities, compatibility, etc etc.

Why should anyone be expected to love (really love) uninteresting men with vastly different mindsets from their own?

>>35098323
This just means you're extremely lonely and have very low standards. When anyone could be your gf then there's no le epic romantic connection

>>35098162
>masters degree in physics
What do the energy and state expressions of a particle do when the Hamiltonian is separable? A freshman can answer this.

And unlike you, I'm not some retarded 16 year old that thinks lying about a degree on 4chan will make the m'laides swoon over him. Welcome to the bottom 1%

>>35098214
you are funny, and you're resorting to namecalling. nice touch.

so to recap, you admit that women have much easier access to intercourse than men?

because that contradicts the data you posted earlier, that strongly indicated that women and men have essentially equal access to intercourse.

now I gave reasons for why the data may be wrong, having to do with societal attitudes regarding promiscuity in women and men, but you have completely ignored that train of though.
maybe you did not even bother to read my post at all before you started responding to it

>>35098330
>b-b-but I can't process empirical evidence because I never leave my house
Sure thing, 7th grade.

File: 1484083573367.jpg (23KB, 515x515px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 515x515px

>>35098358
>multiple more attractive women made it clear they were interested in you

Where? What even is going on here in this situation? Where am I meeting these women? While playing vidya? While at work? Who are they, what are their stories?

Like I literally CANNOT imagine a situation where this would happen. I'm at that fucking point in life where if I got a gf I would check out of the dating game forever, leave the keys at the door I'm never going back.
God himself could offer me a harem of twenty million pristine girls and I would tell him to fuck himself. I'm not bothering with meeting people anymore if I got a gf.

I would NOT take the risk of fucking everything up when everything is already perfect.

>>35098394
Because I'd assume fembots would be at that point in time where they would drop their standards and be happy with someone else. But no. they keep looking for Chadwick.

>>35098404
Wow you figured this board out finally huh? Pic related.

>>35098422
i didn't ignore your "train of though" because you aren't smart enough to think
do your homework kid

These "fembot" threads are always trash.
>look at me I'm a girl
>I can't get a boyfriend
>58739173421 robots and normies volunteer to be her boyfriend
r9k y'all culturally fucked up turning into the biggest beta's on the planet. you could of learned a thing or two from /b/ and told girls tits or gtfo with a time stamp every time instead you got this fembot bullshit. y'all are fucking beta.

>>35098438
>anecdotes
>empirical evidence
o i am laffin

>>35097624
Honestly, the other anon's arguments have more evidence than your bitchig and moaning. I bet you were the kidd weaeing a trenchcoat in high school all the girls find creepy and you are now lashing out about why sexy women dont want your ugly ass.
You are just as pathetic as a hanplanet whining why chad dont want her thicc ass.

>>35098291

Thanks you too. But guys like us are worthless so it doesn't matter.

>>35098481
>an actual example of ad hominem
You argue like a 12 year old, and are clearly BTFO if that's your only response.

>>35098500
>empirical evidence
>anecdotes
After you peel your butt off the basement chair and step into the real world, you might understand the difference :^)

>>35097212
Because women say they want Garrett then fuck Chad. Conversely men say they want Stacy, then try to fuck Stacy. One lies, one does not.

>>35098544
>After you peel your butt off the basement chair and step into the real world, you might understand the difference :^)
hasn't seem to have done you any good

>>35098449
"Fembots" don't want Chad, just an actual person and not a caricature of a typical internet asshole.

>>35098525
you're not smart enough to deserve an actual refutation beyond what you received
maybe if you go back and reread your stupid posts and find where you completely missed the point, i'll deem you worthy enough to get properly blown out

>>35098571
No. Fembots want Chad. Anything less will get instantly ghosted and dropped. Seen it happen time and time and time again.

>>35098565
No one says they want Garrett because he's boring as fuck. I want a Daniel, not Chad but not dull

>>35098520
Please don't say that and don't lose hope in a genuine relationship, I'm sure there are many more girls that are looking for the same thing as you so you just have to make your intentions clear to those worth your time.

>>35098571
>"Fembots" don't want Chad

Hahahahahahahahaahahahahahah

They literally dream of him.

>((("Fembot"))): I'm so ugly and lonely and a loser.
>anons: okay fembot, what's your standards?
>((("Fembot"))): *describes exactly Chad*

Kek. No woman chooses to be with an average guy.

>>35098602
What do you define as a "Chad"? Someone with any redeeming qualities at all?

>>35098627
not going to argue about the imaginary semantics of names, my point is that girls say they want a 'nice guy' the try to fuck chad. guys say they want a stacy, then try to fuck stacy. it's quite simple really.

>>35098628

Women reward guys that sleep around and punish guys that don't. That simple.

>>35098644
If a fembot would have reasonable standards they wouldn't exist. There are tons of guys on here, everywhere, who are funny, smart, do something with their lives, care for people who are ALONE.

But they don't have a six pack, yeah that happens, not everyone is ripped and goes to the gym.
Yeah they have some social issues or don't like partying or drinking, not everyone does.
Of course not everyone has a good face, some have acne or just a bad bone structure, happens. People are different.

But for women and fembots, that's a fucking DENIED on the dating game.

Once again: If fembots had reasonable standards they wouldn't exist. But because anon #500 who adds them on Skype isn't the most interesting or active person they met it's a ghost. If women even put a fucking OUNCE of effort into meeting and socializing with people and being interesting themselves this entire problem would not exist.

>>35097290
>settle
>love

"ugh I fucking GUESS i'll date this 7/10...boring cunt. wish her eyes were green at least and she had better taste in...everything"

that's not love you dumb idiot

>>35098725
>almost all guys sleep with girls if they can
>only high quality guys have ability to sleep around
>girls lust after high quality guys

girls go after high quality guys, they don't sleep with guys who sleep around because they sleep around, they sleep with guys who sleep around because guys who sleep around are high quality guys (aka chads)

>>35098725
What? Do you really believe that? I really wish guys would stop sinking their personality with stupid bitter r9k shit. Girls don't want guys because they're boring, uninteresting and don't see anything wrong with it so they refuse to change and blame it on being physically unattractive which isn't the case most of the time.

>>35098408
>What do the energy and state expressions of a particle do when the Hamiltonian is separable?

They do a lot of things, amongst them they exactly solve the time independent SE. Is this we're doing now? Are we asking each other simple physics questions, sure lets roll. Sketch the analytic structure of of the two point correlation function for a typical field theory, desu you could probably google this one.

>>35098820
>boring and uninteresting

So if a 8/10 Chad was "boring and uninteresting" women wouldn't chase after him? Or are you just making shit up because you're white knighting women or are a woman yourself trying to make the case that most women are worse than men in the promiscuity department.

File: hoy.png (137KB, 689x491px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 689x491px

>>35097456
Psst
Kill yourself.

>>35098911
there is no such thing as a boring and uninteresting chad, because chads are a sum of personality and looks
so a better question is "would a woman chase after a boring and uninteresting 8/10?" and the answer is yes, go ask /fit/

>>35098911
I'm not saying woman aren't worse than men because I guess they are since many women would chase after a guy like that but that doesn't mean there aren't women that aren't like that so there's no point in becoming boring and uninteresting yourself because then you'd lose any chance with either type.

>>35099013
>would a woman chase after a boring and uninteresting 8/10?

Even for a boring and uninteresting 6/10 actually.

t. Boring and uninteresting 6/10 with Assburgers

>>35097212
>men on /r9k/ are enchanted by a girl with scars all over her face and missing several limbs.
>even the most desperate women on the internet want only the 4X6: 6' feet tall, 6'' dick, 6/10 face, 60k per year. At the least.
Yeah totally the same.

>>35099112
seems like you're not good enough for the game.

Why suffer and not just enjoy yourself in an hedonistic way?

>>35098846
>sketch
This is 4chan you brainlet dipshit. If you think I'm going to bust out a pen, paper, and camera for you you're even dumber than I thought.

And the fact that you didn't even mention if they're additive or multiplicative tells me your masters is from the University of Google

>>35098591
>haha I don't have to counter my argument being dismantled bcuz ur dum
I'll take that as a concession of your failure :^)

>>35098591
This anon needs to shut the fuck up.

>>35099188
What's a matter brainlet, can't do it? It's literally a sentence.

>>35098567
Considering I'm not a virginal moron championing whores on the internet, I'd say it did me a lot more good than stagnating in Cheetos dust is doing you.

File: 2MstAzl.gif (49KB, 983x622px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 983x622px

>>35099184
Congratulations on the completely content free post.

>>35099249
Seems like this is how the world goes.
Nothing to change the nature of men.

You better accept that you're not good enough for the game and go on doing something else.

>>35099188
>a sketch
>a sentence
You don't even understand the concept of nouns, and you expect me to believe you have a masters?

And you're a total idiot if you think ripping quantum terms from Wikipedia will convince me you ever attended college
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_function_(quantum_field_theory)

>>35099319
Clicked on the post instead of the reply >>35099240

>>35099225
>he thinks he dismantled anything
lol

>>35099319
>Brainlet mad

Fucking lol dude. Also that wiki page didn't even have the answer in it. I'll give you a hint, you'll almost certainly find it in your copy of Peskin and Schroeder. It'll be in the section on radiative corrections.

What's hilarious is that you're telling me that my degree is from the University of Google because my completely correct answer wasn't specific enough for you. Meanwhile you apparently don't even know what "analytic structure" is since you linked to a page with absolutely no pertinent information.

Stay mad though pleb.

Because most women CAN get Chads because men are horny fucks that'll have sex with anything with a hole in it. Whereas men struggle to get any scraps they can get and fantasize about getting the hot chicks (fantasy versus reality)

>>35099355
>I'm so dumb I can't even process the flow of an argument
lmao

>>35099434
i'm glad you admitted your own stupidity, it took you long enough

>>35098243
Teenage girls will happily date a 20-something year old guy that looks like shit because it makes the girl think she's super mature for her age. The relationships NEVER work out because the guy just wants prime-teen-pussy and the girl wants validation that she's not like the other girls because an older man finds her 'interesting'. The second she starts hinting that what they have is more than sex he'll vanish because being in a serious relationship with a 17 year old when you're 25-26 is fucking pathetic or she'll vanish the instant she hits an age where the older guy gets eclipsed by younger versions of him.

The other scenario is when you see 10/10 girls dating some greasy haired, DUDE WEED, bug-eyed creep. She's with him because he provides a constant state of drama, and women love drama. The kind of guy who has a friendship group that could easily start a shitty version of Eastenders with all their contrived and constant 'happenings'. She's just there to enjoy the emotional roller-coaster that comes with people like that.

File: fuckerberg.jpg (27KB, 450x600px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 450x600px

>>35097560
Fucking thiiiiiiissssssss

I've seen literally LANDWHALES with 7/10 (even Chads) men but I have NEVER EVER in my life seen an obese neckbeard with a Stacy. The only way for an obese neckbeard to get female affection is by he's either a millionaire or just hiring a hooker which is mostly the case.

Stacy will always throw any guy in the "friendzone" trash can just because he's not a chad, and when they don't, then this guy has money and makes beyond average.

>>35099281
>You better accept that you're not good enough...
I never mentioned myself, merely pointing out facts that contradict OP. Nice job projecting on other people.

>>35099521
I know really many women and I know your facts are wrong.

There is this phenomenon that says that people that are winners of a game don't complain about it.

>>35099398
>h-hahaha the wiki page didn't include the graph in the definition so I win
>I-it doesn't matter if I didn't actually answer the question, it's good enough

Your degree is most definitely from University of Google, you Dunning Kruger dipshit

>no pertinent information
mmm hmm.

>>35099456
>I'm so underage I don't know what greentext is
lmfao

>>35099568
>t. loser
You only win the game if you know it, virgin.

Women control sexual market. This allows them to be selective and can usually date above their tier as a result. Men must settle for less because they don't have control of sexual market and they don't have ability to be choosy.

>>35099610
who are you quoting? i don't see that anywhere in the post

>>35099626
And your life is in your own hands.
The world won't turn around because you dislike it.

>>35099599
It's fine if you want to feel superior anon, it really doesn't bother me. Looking at your posts so far I can tell that some sort of perceived intelligence (however limited) is pretty much the only thing you have going for you.

>h-hahaha the wiki page didn't include the graph in the definition so I win

I'm more looking for the description of the graph, which really is just 3 bullet points points. The worst part of all of this is if you googled the question that you clearly can't answer you'd find, in the very first link (to my old alma mater) the answer. Never mind though.

>mmm hmm.
It didn't, the fact you seem to think it does shows how little you know.

File: c4185ca29ddaca6fc840265bdf4f0f7e.jpg (67KB, 736x549px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 736x549px

>>35097212
the shame game keeps flipping back and forth but it basically sums up to "I hate my betters" and as much as people do mental back flips to deny that truth it still holds as what makes us human.
People hate the rich because of their wealth, the strong because they are weak, the wise because they are fools, the beautiful, because they are ugly.
So those that shame and hate are just putting large signs over their heads declaring "I am inferior"

>>35098591
You got rekt pretty good brah

>>35099568
>I know really many women
You know women? Wow, what a fantastical and unique position to be in.

>and I know your facts are wrong.
Men going bananas over not very desirable and flawed women is an observable fact, just open the catalog or take a stroll down the street.
Women rather becoming cat-ladies than "settling" is a fact: just check statistics, surveys or sites frequented by lonely women.
That chart I posted, and many others to that effect are the result of empirical observations.

>There is this phenomenon that says that people that are winners of a game don't complain about it.
It's "there is this phenomenon where." Explaining the rules is not the same as complaining.

Also:
>those rules aren't accurate
>you are losing according to those rules
You are a regular logic super-computer, aren't you.

>>35099711
And I was looking for more a description of the state and energy equations, which you clearly can't express.

>clearly can't answer
I did, brainlet.
You're just so autistic you can't word a question to indicate what information you want.

>It didn't
Mmmmmm hmmmmmm

>>35099702
>I'm so new I think greentext is just used to quote posts
lmfaotbhfam

>>35099776
>is a fact
Le fact.
It's fact.

I hear this very often. The Term Fact lost all its value. You should take your time to allow some healthy sceptisism take place in your head. This will improve your "fact".

You really beg to be the pittied victim of an unfair world. Then be it.

>>35099735
>maximum over-edge

I doubt people who are mad at a company poisoning their ground water are jealous.
I doubt the family of a kid that got run over by a politician who got away scot free are jealous.
Sure, envy is a large part of human motivation - but it's hardly the only reason why people dislike or hate others and it's not exclusively a negative emotion.

>>35099705
?
If you thought that response was remotely coherent, you might be having a stroke.

>>35099711
>if you googled
>my old alma mater
He already knows google is your alma mater :^)

>>35097212
Because women's sexual value decreases the more she exposes her sexuality.

>>35099825
>I did, brainlet.
Really where? Because that wiki link doesn't have information at all on the the analytic structure of a correlation function, hell it was literally just a definition.

>>35099899
I won't lie, I keked.

>>35099852
its pretty ironic, the man using the "new" use for greentext calling someone else a newfag

>>35097212
Is it opposite day?

>>35097534
Not at all. There are studies that show women lie more than men when asked questions about their sexuality when they are not surveyed for anonimously. The inconsistency of men's answers tend to be smaller.

>>35099876
You are discussing a fantasy that is proven with statistics. Statistics is not science. It's reading astrology.

Your own brain is main issue I see here. Why are you eager to believe in such bogus?

That's why a aim for your own thought rather than for a nonsense topic.

>>35098806
but sleeping around signals quality so in the end they take sleeping around as a positive trait.

Men are shamed for it? Its been a common perception that men are just instinctual thirsty horn dogs who are always shallow. Stop looking for confirmation bias.

>>35099976
>statistics aren't real broh
Maybe you should aim for thought in general before typing anything

>>35099013
>hads are a sum of personality and looks
No. They are Chads because of their looks only, their personality is only a reflection of how society and women treat them.

>>35099867
>The Term Fact lost all its value.
Agreed, because dipshit like you are willing to call "knowing plenty of women" a credible source, while dismissing actual studies by going all reductio ad absurdum.

>It's a fact
A fact?
Ein faktum?
Really?
Hm, yes.
That word holds no sway in our opinion centered world, I'm afraid.
See, I can do that too.

>sceptisism
It's skepticism.

>You really beg to be the pittied victim of an unfair world. Then be it.
You really insist on talking past people in a conversation so you can let your inner 101 philosophy zen-master hang out. Go right fucking ahead.

File: 1487567772296.jpg (917KB, 2405x917px) Image search: [Google]

917KB, 2405x917px

Men are worth more than women.

Wanting Stacy Sugartits is normal for a productive male in a sane society.

Wanting Chad Thundercock helps destory society and bring us back to the stone age.

>>35097290
>Because 100% of women want chad and will NO MATTER WHAT settle for less. Not only that, but they also make life ABSOLUTE MISERY to anyone lower than Chad.
>Most men settle, because to them love is more important than status.

Everyone wants someone good looking and everyone settles. You're just mad because you got friendzoned.

>>35099568
>I know really many women and I know your facts are wrong.
My anedoctes are worth more than actual studies. KEK

>>35098212
Ahahahahhaha check out this desperate liar.

>>35097560
I think you're exaggerating a bit, but mostly right. A 2/10 girl can get with and keep a 5/10 guy somewhat easily. Those girls can even sleep with a 10/10 guy if they just say yes to every guy, just don't plan on keeping him.

>>35099931
The analytic structure is the graphical representation of the function, you mong.

That's like saying "You can't just say that the sine of theta is "sin(theta)"! You need to sketch the sine wave!"

>>35099976
>Statistics is not science.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What the fuck is science then, nigga?

>>35100025
Statistical science is not science.
Statistical data is not an empirical evidence.

Most of the time it can't be ecen reproduced. Scientifically such a study says only exact as much as the people that participated were willing to say.

>>35100044
English is not my mother tongue. But sure you lazy yourself on insulting me as a Person or correcting my spelling and gramma mistakes.
Or you can try to open your mind for a bigger world as you know it.

>>35099934
>the "new" use for greentext
This is what happens when 12 year olds pretend to be oldfags

>>35099965
I've found one that used a bogus pipe line (apparently making the subjects think they were hooked up to a lie detector) and asked how many sexual partners they had, in the non-pipeline (so no lie detector) on average it was 2.70 (3.18), in the bogus pipeline it was 3.35 (3.46). So not a huge difference.

>>35100086
>Statistical science is not science.
Tell that to every analytical chemist on the planet.

>Most of the time it can't be even reproduced
Are you retarded or something

Statistics relies on approximation of data sets. Collected data sets are NEVER identically reproducible. Gaussian distributions are.

>>35100086
>science is not science
>data is not an empirical evidence
wtf
>Or you can try to open your mind for a bigger world as you know it.
My anedoctes of a single person are the bigger picture, bigger than actual studies with thousands of participants

Men are constantly attacked for how 'shallow' they are for their preferences. It will automatically assume a male doing it is a bitter loser until proven otherwise.

Males are by and large the disposable sex. The chosers thrive and the beggars die. It is not the same for women.

>>35100101
Sauce. Does it state the rates of men and women separatelly?

>>35100065

Not lying. A pussy is a pussy. What I care about is the person. And I'd bleed for a woman that I loved. The problem for me is that I'm too autistic and shy to form a relationship and I'm ugly. Really is that simple.

>>35100046
>everyone settles
The losers settle.

>>35098215
What? Men have the upper hand. We can ask out any girl we want.

>>35100167
Maybe it's only your bias of a lonely man.

>>35100086
>But sure you lazy yourself on insulting me as a Person or correcting my spelling and gramma mistakes.
I also directly called out your line of reasoning, correcting your spelling and calling you dipshit was just a little bonus. But nice job focusing on that and failing to address your faulty reasoning and syllogistic error from before. Also, "you lazy yourself" is horrendous.

>Or you can try to open your mind for a bigger world as you know it.
A completely empty statement referring to a non-existing previously posited cogent point or worldview. You first must make any kind of point besides "lol, loser" or "you are wrong" before people can "open their mind" to your logic.

>>35100072
You know what senpai, I'm getting bored of this, the answer is:
>one-particle states are isolated pole on the real axis corresponding to m^2
This is the so-called pole mass
>States of 2 or more free particles give a branch cut
>while bound states give additional poles

I've never seen such a great example of Dunning-Kruger.

>>35099249
This is because dating sites are for loser men and regular women. It's not women rating men too low. It's just full of shitty men.

>>35100045
This is actually a really interesting argument, but even in those times chads were raiding, pillaging and raping settlements, and the beta males would be more likely to die in a war because they were weaker. Famine did prevent men from getting too tall though. The whole reason manlets survived was because they required less food, but with society going the way it is, height is just gonna go up and up with less malnutrition and unmarried women making more than unmarried men, freeing them to choose mates based on physical factors.

>>35100046
>everyone settles
Women don't.
You aren't banging any quality women just because you can pretend some gutter trash skank is "settling" for your fat ass

>>35100074
Science is to create wisdom based on reason and evidence that can be reproduced infinitly with the same results under the same conditions. It's is the search for reason for the phenomenons of laws that decide why things happen as they do in this world.

Sextus Empiricus (latin form of his name) a Sceptic of his time in Ancient Greece. After him the scientifical method is called.

>>35100145
>>35100142
I see I hit a Dogma here.
>Tell that to every analytical chemist on the planet.
I won't be able to do so. I am a experimental physicist. We also work mainly with statistics. But you don't see my work as really scientific since it will never tell me why does what we observe behave as it does.

Also difference here is that we can count on millions and billions and more measurments compared to the 100 students asked in a poll for a sociology study.

The human person is also way more complex than some sub atomar structures.

>>35100191
No, literally everyone does, pal. Sorry.

>>35100086
>Or you can try to open your mind for a bigger world as you know it.
No thanks, I have enough on my plate without opening myself to the "inspirational quotes trump hard data" school of logic.

>>35097212
What are you talking about? men are always shamed for wanting "stacy"

Most of the time when I guy goes for girls out of his league hes seen as a creep by women and other guys tell him he has to lower his standards because he will never bee good enough to get the women he wants.

women on the other hand are praised and told they shouldn't have to settle for no one, its why in most cases the women is always dating up someone above her league since women never settle and men do.

Women are only shamed for wanting Chad on /r9k/ really.

>>35100243
Thanks, obvious virgin.

In the real world, literally 100% of people who date want to do better.

ITT people asshurt that nobody likes them. Jesus Christ. By the time I was 14 I was able to figure out and easily come to terms with the fact that I would die a virgin and alone, I just went on with life instead of writing paragraphs about why women are terrible. The whole shitstorm with the physics was funny. Cant more of us be like that because its atleast fun to watch
>Hurr durr I have a degree
>Solve this
>Ok, but u solve dis
>I didnt like ur answer or your question
>Hurr durr brainlet
>But muh wiki link
As pathet

>>35100245
If you think Donald Trump settled, you're delusional. Stop trying to make yourself feel better. You failed so you settle.

>>35100235
Yes but we didn't reward Chad for raping and pillaging and we DID reward ALL MEN for being a part of a beautiful civilization.

What you're seeing now is men giving up becuase there's no reward anymore.

>>35099874
>taking my post this much out of context
I'm talking about the fags that knee jerk that wealthy people have money, that beautiful people are desired and that charming people succeed. Like the anons here that get angry at "normies" over shit like they get laid or just have an easy life. There angry over envy and nothing else. The shit you brought up happens all the damn time with all types. Just recently a kid rape a 13 year old and was not charged due to a technicality of how the information was discovered. Should we just hate lucky people?

>>35100257
This is true. Nobody is as shallow as a typical robot.

>>35100247
Then continue looking at your astrolgy that only aproves what you already know to gain the satisfuction for your ego to be always the pittied loser in an unfair world. A victim of his circumstances.

>>35100265
That's bitter loser logic. Explains why you're here.

>>35100232
Same things happend with randomly picked photos.

>dating sites are for loser men and regular women
That's putting the cart before the horse. More men will be losers than women because of the way women and men evaluate potential partners.

File: Lies_and_pipelines.jpg (160KB, 914x379px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 914x379px

>>35100166
It's called:
>Gender Roles and Pressure to be Truthful:
The Bogus Pipeline Modifies Gender
Differences in Sexual but Not Non-sexual
Behavior

I can't find where I downloaded it from (perhaps try scholar) Anyway the results are pic related.

>>35100244
>dogma
You don't know what that word means.

>I am a experimental physicist.
Are you the autistic brother of the "physics master" anon?

>it will never tell me why does what we observe behave as it does
That's not the point of statistics you ninny

>>35100274
He could do better too. He;s on his third wife bro.

>>35100244
>It's is the search for reason for the phenomenons of laws that decide why things happen as they do in this world.
So you agree that those surveys if even they are not empirical evidence are the closest we can get to the information we are looking for? Even if there is no clear causation we have strong correlations to decide what is more likely to happen when we interact with women.

>>35100298
No, it's realistic. Again, go outside sometime.

>>35100268
>The whole shitstorm with the physics was funny.

Do you got to /sci/ often? That's a typical exchange.

>>35100275
The reward was in the raping and impregnating the conquered women plus the loot gained from pillaging. No, not all men were rewarded for being part of civilization, many were unfairly punished/killed under rule of some psychopathic lord/monarch. Someone with autism would have been though a retard in those times and family members would have to work at keeping those people hidden and doing some menial task until they freak out or something and get hung as a result.

On the whole, I do agree that there isn't much reward for men for participating in society anymore, but early civilizations were hardly fair or humane.

>>35100310
He decides what's best for him. He has a choice, unlike you.

>>35100265
>t. incel
See, it isn't that hard to get a girl you're content with when you aren't some autistic neckbeard defending m'ladies on 4chan.

>>35100300
>randomly picked photos

Oh

No, it's explaining why there is a difference.

>>35100295
>Statistical data, rhetoric 101 and basic logic are "astrology."
>Fortune cookie tier oblique statements and calling people pathetic is "opening your mind to wisdom."
Top kek, you're alright buddy.

>>35100308
>That's not the point of statistics you ninny
But it's the point of science.

You statistic will be more and more accurate the more generalized it gets until every falls under it and you call it a truth. Just as the text in a astrology page in the news paper. Every of those text basically can apply to everyone what doesn't makes it a truth.

>>35100326
No, it's pathetic. Accept you're a failure and move on.

>>35100336
Well you're talking mostly ancient/medieval but there was a whole lot of time that passed between those times and the 1960's.

And even Rome and some of the greatest cities of Medieval times weren't as bad as you describe.

>>35100339
I don't have a choice? What does that even mean.

Also, the fact he's on his third wife completely destroyed your point. Sorry man.

>>35100324
>So you agree that those surveys if even they are not empirical evidence are the closest we can get to the information we are looking for?
No I disagree. This is the furtherst we can get to obtain a real understanding. Just look how much controvery I created ITT by stating that statistical science is not science. Superstition is the believe in bullshit out of naivity. It promotes this Superstition.

>>35100350
Uh, I'm not defending women. I'm making fun of virgins like you.

>>35100366
Wow you're triggered.

>>35100357
>it isn't science unless it comprehensively explains the mechanism of the observable
TIL gravitational physics isn't science

> the more generalized it gets until every falls under it and you call it a truth
"Durrhuurrrrrr but u can manipulate statistical analysis" is not an argument against the validity of statistical analysis, pea brain

>>35100379
You don't, that's why you have to settle.
> the fact he's on his third wife completely destroyed your point
It doesn't, it affirms it if anything because he can constantly choose better for himself. You're just an idealist who wanted something unattainable for you and develops a defeatist mentality when you fail, typical of losers.

>>35100423
>"Durrhuurrrrrr but u can manipulate statistical analysis"
That's not a manipulation but the conclusion out of what it is.

I see. Today I rustled many jimmies. But whatever. If you feel comfortable with your Stacey/Chad dualism then be it.

>>35100393
>I'm not defending women
Then why are you saying stuff that only a groveling virgin bitchboy could come up with?

>>35100455
I was the one saying people look for better, and you were the one saying people don't. You're the idealist, and wrong, pal.

>>35100415
>y-you mad bro??
Nice defensive mechanism. It would save you from the truth of your failure.

>>35100377
Sure in times of peace, but when Rome fell, you can bet your ass there was a fuck load of rape and murder. And crime rates were way higher than they are today, since no one had to worry about video surveillance. Psychopathy ran amok. One good thing about the world now is that extreme psychopaths are often caught and imprisoned.

>>35100480
That men also want to do better? It's because I've dated girls. Sounds like you haven't.

>>35100469
>the conclusion out of what it is
If you're too stupid to conclude anything from the spread in >>35099249 you have clearly never stepped foot in a lab.

>rustled many jimmies
pretendingtoberetarded.jpg

>>35100481
People can look for better but that's not the same as choosing better. So no, you're wrong. The concept of settling is for bitter losers like you.

>>35100502
That's fedora tip-y even for r9k.

>>35100307
whew. thanks, broski.

>>35100508
>That men also want to do better?
If you want to do better, you're just a loser that can't pull any decent girls.

Not my problem that the only women who will date you are sows.

>>35100530
That literally is choosing better. I think you forgot what you were arguing during your little manbaby tantrum.

>>35100531
You'd know something about that, wouldn't you?

>>35100506
Yeah but one of the reasons Rome fell was because of weakness and degeneracy on the inside.

This is why I reject the whole "We must protect America from Islam on the basis of protecting feminism, degeneracy, and liberalism on the inside." I don't want to protect the walls of our Rome just to ignore the enemy already on the inside.

>>35100535
np famalam.

Fucking robot

File: 913.jpg (152KB, 1750x2500px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1750x2500px

>>35100531
>"fedora tip-y"

>>35100559
Um, there's always someone better.

It's pretty obvious you've never had sex that wasn't paid for.

>>35100560
>wanting is choosing
Wow, bitter failure really takes its toll.

>>35100586
>You're settling if you're not dating the best woman on the planet
You're this autistic, and you expect me to believe you've ever been on a date?

>>35100599
Nobody said wanting.

>>35100518
kek. Triggered hard.

>>35100617
You're the one who said that. How embarrassing.

>>35097451
>92.6% of males aged 15-44 have had sex within the last 12 months
I don't believe this, and I'm basically a normie.

>>35100627
>le triggered
I'll give you that. Mouth breathing losers on 4chan who claim to be physicists that are unable to analyze a normal distribution trigger the fuck out of me

>>35100638
>You're the one who said that.
No I didn't, you BTFO'd failure. Quote the post.

>>35097290
You just assume that you would settle for a fat or unattractive girl because you're so lonely and desperate for female affection that you'll say or believe anything that might secure it for you. If you were dating a fat, ugly girl with a great personality and Stacy Sugartits walked up to you and told you she'd fuck you forever if you dumped her, you would ditch the poor girl without so much as a second guess.

Here's the secret behind all human romance: we are a shallow, visual species. Our sexual nature is entirely based around finding desirable evolutionary traits in our partners and breeding with them. Nobody WANTS to settle, it defies our nature. We settle because we're given no other option and we need to pass our genetic material on before we're no longer capable of doing so. We lower our standards and start seeking less overtly attractive traits in partners such as kindness, a sense of humour, intelligence, etc. because, while not nearly as appealing as physical traits, they still provide evolutionary advantages to our hypothetical offspring.

We're all just animals rutting on a spinning ball of dirt, desperately trying to keep our species going for another few thousand years, anon. You just have to learn to accept that you're either one of the losers who gets slowly phased out of the genepool or work on developing more desirable traits so you can play the game too.

>>35100685
>can't even read his old post

Sad man.

>>35097212
>tfw you were in love with Ashley Artist
>tfw you liked Miranda Megaspunk
>tfw like Karina Kindness
>tfw even had a crush on Carolyn Cuteness

Biology is just applied chemistry which might as well be applied philosophy

>>35097461
You're such a piece of shit. Fuck off.

>>35097212
They're only shamed on this site because we are a bunch of angry, depressed, funguses, sexually starved young MEN.

A female /r9k/ equivalent would hate men for wanting Stacey the same way we shame women for wanting Chad.

File: fembots.jpg (142KB, 296x1600px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 296x1600px

>>35097212
watch literally any girl movie and observe as the heroine blows off her dorky long time friend and rebuffs every advance as a cute joke while pining after a mega chad who barely notices her and is framed as an asshole for going over his social status equivalent until the end when he realizes omg average girls are actually the best!
All the while the heroine who doesnt even know the chad and just wants his hot bod is never ever questioned for her motives, only pitied for lack of success

Fuck you

>>35097212
It's because what men want doesn't matter. Men are expendable.

>>35097212
uu

i dont want stacy - she isnt a virign. I want a nice loyal 5/10 virgin.

File: hm.png (945KB, 1024x678px) Image search: [Google]

945KB, 1024x678px

>>35097290
who do "most men" settle with if "100% of women" won't settle for anyone less than chad

File: bf.png (5KB, 338x339px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 338x339px

>>35097212
Men are attracted to most women, just not as much as they are attracted to Stacy.

Women are not attracted to betas at all, but society denies it so betas fruitlessly pander to women and are there when Norma is a bit older and Chad loses interest. Society is built to exclude betas, it is an unwritten rule that you invite every girl you can to parties, even the fat annoying chicks, but not the awkward boys. We've all experienced it, we try to socialize and Chad gives you this disgusted look and says "is he bothering you" then Stacy giggles "ugh, did he try to talk to you".

It is like wild packs of chimpanzees where the beta males are pushed to the periphery of the group if not simply beaten to death for being an outsider.

You know, in a way you are right. They are just following their biological imperative. I have been alone so long I am basically an alien to most people, it is a lot to expect them to even give me the time of day and I should be thankful for anyone patient enough to give me a chance. Some people even seem scared of me, I look like a freak and creep people out just by my appearance. I shower and be polite to keep it to a minimum, but it is their natural instinct to fear the strange guy and nothing can help it. In our evolutionary history the sudden appearance of male strangers was usually followed by dozens of people being killed.

The problem is society lies about this. They expect us to "validate" their emotions instead of confronting these truths while telling us things like "it is not really love" or "quit whining" when we are in depths of despair and are made miserable every day of our livees. They don't like to be told they hate us because they are animals, they want to believe it is justified, that they are good wholesome people. Maybe I am not "entitled" to be treated like everyone else, but you can't expect me to deny the truth. That's not going to happen.

>>35102076
>The problem is society lies about this. They expect us to "validate" their emotions instead of confronting these truths while telling us things like "it is not really love" or "quit whining" when we are in depths of despair and are made miserable every day of our livees. They don't like to be told they hate us because they are animals, they want to believe it is justified, that they are good wholesome people. Maybe I am not "entitled" to be treated like everyone else, but you can't expect me to deny the truth. That's not going to happen.

Fucking bravo.
Now we have the internet and people like us will push the redpill down their throats would they like or not.

>>35100713
>Here's the secret behind all human romance: we are a shallow, visual species. Our sexual nature is entirely based around finding desirable evolutionary traits in our partners and breeding with them. Nobody WANTS to settle, it defies our nature. We settle because we're given no other option and we need to pass our genetic material on before we're no longer capable of doing so. We lower our standards and start seeking less overtly attractive traits in partners such as kindness, a sense of humour, intelligence, etc. because, while not nearly as appealing as physical traits, they still provide evolutionary advantages to our hypothetical offspring.
Claps.