We should give EVERY man a qt 3.14 virgin, loyal girlfriend once

>>35193168
Or we could invest in AI and sexbot technology and get rid of the curse of flesh forever.

So we'd need a deficit of males for this strategy right?

If you're arguing every man should have a cute girl there can only be as many men as there are cute girls in existence.

So we'd need to cull what, 50% of guys?

Being totally serious, I think we should have some sort of moral guideline to replace religion.

I'm pretty sure Christians had it almost right with the whole no sex before marriage thing.

It's not really beneficial for society to have the Chads and Stacies fucking around all throughout their 20s especially when they ruin others with them.

A typical Chad will probably ruin the life of countless foolish girls who will think he actually is going to settle for them, only to abandon them at the last moment.

>>35193185
This is ideal, but those are a long time off and it's likely they'll take even longer because of lack of popular buy in. Many men would be far more receptive to a human qt than a programmed qt, even if they couldn't tell the difference if they didn't know.

>>35193260
No, no culling required. Men would be entered into a lottery and get their qt as soon as one came of age and available. He could still fuck less attractive women until his qt came of age and he was alloted one. The less attractive women will be sterilized, of course. Eventually eugenics will ensure that only qt girls come to be, leading to the problem equalizing itseld.

You could also have state mandated brothels for roastie sluts, so men who are waiting their turn can't vent their sexual desires until such time that a qt is alloted.

>>35193295
I wouldn't be opposed to that idea. I'm an atheist myself, but I can't deny the moral and social positives (in a stable society) that religion can bring. Hook up culture is poison, even for many of the "winners" of it.

>>35193341
>lottery

Fuck you. That will only give inferior males like you a chance to breed. The only way to improve the human race is to ensure your genes are not passed on. Which is the status quo and working just fine.

>>35193341
You're forgetting a lot of things.

1. Eugenically breeding for specific female traits will result in drastic changes to the male population as while women and men do interpret genes slightly differently most genes are not sex linked.

2. Removing men's agency in obtaining someone they want in specific over just "some cute girl" will cause an equal if not greater amount of backlash

3. That queue would be a lifetime long

4. Standards are relative. If all girls are cute by todays standards only the top 50% will be cute by tomorrow's.

>>35193408
>>35193341
Just a thought: ugly men will produce not cute daughters.

Better let Chadsperm be used as the sole stock for breeding. Don't bother telling the uggo men and let them assume it's their own.

>>35193341

I'm atheist as well and have lived in both religious and pretty much atheistic countries.

The dating scene is religious countries is much more sane. Sex for normies only happens when they get to know each other well and there is no hook-up culture. The expectation is always that you intend to build a relationship that lasts. Only sluts hook-up with each other. If a person has too many short term relationships it also reflects bad upon them so people are not too quick to go into a relationship after 1 date gone well.

>>35193168
Your shitty genes have no need to be passed on, sorry.

>>35193168
www.reddit.com/r/freeuse
I think you'll like this. Careful though some of the linked tumblr blogs have trans shit.
Tumblr is useful for porn. Like bing!.

>>35193397
Roastie shill fuck off.

>>35193408
1 is a good poiny, but I don't think 2 3 or 4 will be true.

>men can still fuck unattractive women and brothels if so desired. The qt is theirs personally.
>increasing birth rates of attractive women would ensure a reasonable wait
>Beautiful is beautiful, and what was beautiful in England 100 years ago would still be beautiful today.

>>35193442
Artificial insemination of superior seed isn't a bad idea to ensure a beautiful society, even if you're just a cuck shill roastie pushing a terrible fetish.

>>35193509
Why should society give you a qt gf just because it's your own fault you can't get one? Either become Chad or shut up and die alone a bitter virgin.

>>35193458
Huh, maybe I should move to a more religious area. My one and only woman I wanted to marry (yes, I had a long term relationship before, no that doesn't make me a normie) was very religious, naive, and a virgin so I think that just lends more credence to the idea.

Casual sex has also been shown to lead to less stable long term relationships and a less happy sex and romantic life as well. Really it's the best example of short term reward leading to long term consequence.

>>35193483
I just made a post saying that artificial insemination of Chad genes isn't a bad idea. It just can't be a fag cuck fantasy. The goal here is to improve human happiness and security.

>>35193522
Toasty roastie.

>>35193531
>improve human happiness

No it's not, liar. You want to make genetic trash like you happier at the expense of the actual men whose genes deserve to be passed on.

women have minds too though, what about that?

>>35193583
This roastie is gonna get burnt at this rate.

>>35193589
Monogamy in a long term marriage and low partner count is the biggest indicator of women's happiness in life, just as it is for men. Like I said, it's a win win, even if I only focused on male issues.

>>35193509
>you're just a cuck shill roastie pushing a terrible fetish.
Not so, I just figured you'd find that objectionable. Either way visual eugenics don't work if you're enforcing half of the genetic material to not undergo any selective pressures.
>increasing birth rates of attractive women would ensure a reasonable wait
Why would this increase to be precise- I'll give you the benefit of "we're controlling what sperm we use" idea instead of letting the bottom 50% of males breed. Would you abort male children- if not you'd just produce more demand and probably those males who find they have to wait until they're 50 to come to their turn would revolt en mass (rather than just isolated shooters).

I feel like you'd literally need to genetic facility mass manufacture these cute girls to meet your model here.

>Beautiful is beautiful, and what was beautiful in England 100 years ago would still be beautiful today.

Eh, it depends. The most picturesque art from the past is idealized to appease the subject. The average person back then would be ugly as sin today even if they were given our standard of hygiene. There might be some rare beauties who would hold up today but I doubt it.

That said- human standards literally are fluid and relative to what we see. It's how the physiology of our brains work. If you see amazingly beautiful girls every day you'd naturally fancy the most beautiful on a primal level. I could link you studies but just think about it- suppose there were girls who never knew Chad, and only knew malnourished shit skin men- an r9k beta could swoop in and have his pick.... oh wait that's literally happened (before globalization) with rich travellers and the third world.

Even you, if you hadn't spent so much time looking at roastie Stacies here on the Internet would have lower standards.

I genuinely can't think of anything a feminist might disagree with here.

>>35193168

you forgot a bullet point

>average iq of a brick
>no motivation for technological progress

Is that the kind of future you want? Your average autist beta is more motivated and intelligent than the retarded slacker/wageslave Chad. Without us, the society is fucked.

tl;dr of OP:

>I'm a bitter kissless virgin who should be given a qt virgin gf without me making any effort for it

>>35193583

It's "genetic trash" like us who synthesize the plastics that hold your house together, and the shit you put on your face to not look like a monster. Oh, and we engineered your food too. You've got one hell of a pair of balls for a lady to trash talk us when we can snap off your supply like an umbilical cord on birth.

>>35193632
>Would you abort male children- if not you'd just produce more demand and probably those males who find they have to wait until they're 50 to come to their turn would revolt en mass

You can control the gender of a child with IVF. May be expensive, but if implemented worldwide the price would plummet due to increases in efficiency and lowered production and processing costs. No need to subject the mother and father to a traumatic abortion when you can simply ensure they have a daughter from the get-go.

>I feel like you'd literally need to genetic facility mass manufacture these cute girls to meet your model here.

Mandatory births based on a lottery plus genetic modification of embryos (a field that would advance much faster with actual support behind it) would accomplish that easily. Lottery is the fairest system, and you could also have people opt in if they wanted to, which would lower the lottery needs.

>Eh, it depends. The most picturesque art from the past is idealized to appease the subject. The average person back then would be ugly as sin today even if they were given our standard of hygiene. There might be some rare beauties who would hold up today but I doubt it.

Sure, but people in general are far more attractive today, largely due to better health and nutrition. Even if you were right and there was an uptick in the average standard of beauty, that standard would rise with the beauty of all, as historic examples ahve shown.

>Even you, if you hadn't spent so much time looking at roastie Stacies here on the Internet would have lower standards.

My physical standards aren't that high. I have high standards for quality of person, such as integrity, loyalty, intelligence, humor etc. I'd be fine with a 5/10 with a nice smile and a good mind. I think most men would. It's just that the average quality of woman emotionally has plummeted, so physical beauty is prized higher. I used "qt" as a general term for an appealing woman.

>>35193753
You didn't do any of that. You shat in your pants while watching Alf and didn't clean it up until both the A and B storylines were resolved.

>>35193641
Men being happy and secure, most likely.

>>35193644
How so? Healthy marriages and monogamous women have been the hallmark of every advanced civilization, and their downfall has often been linked to social decay, including the downfall of monogamous women and marriage. The West is the most recent example of this. What support do you have for your claim?

>>35193693
No need to samefag, roastie. We all know you're burning.

>>35193797
Not that anon, but I'm a mechanical engineer working in wastewater. I'm the reason you have clean aquifers, rivers, lakes, and oceans, and the reason you aren't living in your own shit like the Indians. Even if I am not Chad attractive, I objectively have more worth than him to society and humanity as a whole.

>>35193797
t. Chemical engineering student. Now, what have you done, yourself?

>>35193857
I'll have you know that I shat in my pants while watching Alf, but I paused it and cleaned up right away. I look down my nose at people who shit in their pants while watching Alf and sit in it until the end of the episode. Don't take that away from me.

>>35193753
You're a NEET. You have never accomplished anything.

>>35193943

>NEET
>not in employment, EDUCATION or training

orgi