Blackpill German Book about Blackpill

Footmat

Footmat

Recruit
★★★
Joined
Oct 7, 2018
Posts
253
Online
2d 11h 12m

The writer speaks about the Fakt, that in the future, most men will get no access to sex and we live in a society, where only woman control the access to sex.
 
Lizardman

Lizardman

Recruit
★★★
Joined
Dec 13, 2020
Posts
274
Online
5d 12h 25m
Bet the writer will soon be accused of a bunch of heinous shit or will have an "accident"
 
Autismaxxed

Autismaxxed

Recruit
★★★★
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Posts
311
Online
7d 6h 35m
She is right though. Women are bottle necking the progression at this point. Men are free falling and accept anything women propose. It's really how far will women take their sexual selection.
 
Black Soul

Black Soul

tired
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Posts
1,992
Online
31d 18h 58m
Bet the writer will soon be accused of a bunch of heinous shit or will have an "accident"
the writer is foid :feelskek: nothing will happen to her if that's right
i wonder what is her purpose by publishing "blackpill book" it's not make sense so i guess it's full of lies
 
Mountainbikecel

Mountainbikecel

Genetiker und Evolutionspsychologe.
★★★
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Posts
752
Online
20d 18h 16m
very based. except she proposes to accept this new world order, and give incels prostitutes and pornography. whereas i would say we forgot some solutions here. given that in its extreme form, 80% of men would be unhappy, they would have quite some political power. i propose to limit who is allowed to have children: only long term monogamous couples whose kids wont be a burden to society. if we dont do this, the 80% would simply start collaborating and subdue the 20% who hord pussy.

at this point, i think still 50% of men are satisfied, so no beta uprising yet.
 
G

GermaniaIncelia

incel vortex
-
Joined
Dec 27, 2020
Posts
2,845
Online
23d 14h 10m
it's a review of a book by your stereotypical feminist eugenicist. her text starts with the implicit false assumption that we live in a patriarchy.

she says nature is all matriarchies, therefore the way humanity has lived in monogamous relationships under patriarch rule in order to give men more equal access to sex is an unnatural cultural development and she appeals to the reader that the natural order ought to be restored.

she concludes that this natural order will be restored in the future although she doesn't state any reason how she comes to that conclusion aside from it being 'how things ought to be'.

she states 'incels' exist in nature too, the males who don't get to reproduce. she paints her dream fantasies of how a post-patriarchical society will need to look like. mkay. as if we didn't already live in that kind of society today.

1. she rants about marriage, oppression blabla. i guess that means she doesn't see monogamy in the future.
2. men get compensated by prostitutes, porn is accepted as necessary evil and "sexual assistants" whatever the fuck that is she doesn't detail.

that's it. truly visionary. she takes what already exists right now and just goes one step down the road on that same linear trajectory. and we all know how linear trajectories irl are, you just plan something and then you always end up exactly where you planned. :feelsokman:

jfl the last paragraph is dedicated to the feminist (as all journalists are) jerking herself off to the book author's splendor as a writer :feelskek:
 
Last edited:
Kaisercel

Kaisercel

Recruit
★★
Joined
Dec 27, 2020
Posts
101
Online
2d 4h 15m
The other German speaking users who commented before me pretty much nailed it: she is a feminist who thinks it's totally ok if 80% of men are excluded from the sexual market. At least she has the honesty to recognize a trend that most feminists wehemently deny.
Of course, she is delusional in thinking such a society could be sustainable.
 
SirIncel

SirIncel

Veteran
★★★★
Joined
Jun 17, 2018
Posts
1,388
Online
20d 22h 11m
"Stoverock denkt über Sexualassistentinnen nach"

Sexual assistants . Hey that could be my government-assigned girlfriend. :)
 
S

SoloAlex

Greycel
Joined
Feb 14, 2021
Posts
27
Online
1d 17h 23m
Ok, when she wants a society where only the top 20% male can reproduce, like the nature want it to, I guess the other 80% of the male population are allowed to answer this with violence. You know, like in the real nature. I am fine with that. Lets go!
 
Lebensmüder

Lebensmüder

Proponent Of Incel Ochlocracy; Incel With Hate
Joined
Aug 21, 2018
Posts
2,052
Online
73d 15h 52m
Ok, when she wants a society where only the top 20% male can reproduce, like the nature want it to, I guess the other 80% of the male population are allowed to answer this with violence. You know, like in the real nature. I am fine with that. Lets go!
 
PotatoTomato

PotatoTomato

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Posts
6,264
Online
100d 5h 47m
>Sex is a limited resource for males that the females control. That males try often and persistently to establish sexual contact with females, and that females almost always refuse these attempts, is not a fault of the system - it is the system.
>So what happened that we live in a male civilization today? In a nutshell, Meike Stoverock explains it as follows: Around 10,000 years ago people settled down with agriculture and women disappeared into private homes, where they looked after the children. From then on, men decided on the distribution of women. They invented marriage to contain male sexual competition and to secure access to sex.
>"This oppression [...] is the foundation on which today's states, political systems and cultures stand."
>"Culture, not evolution, has so far made women available to men - and women are breaking with it now."
>Men have to be brave when reading this book - because the biologist assumes that many of them will no longer find a partner.
>The biologist is likely to be right with her observation that the so-called Incels, the involuntarily celibate men, can be dangerous. Incels also exist in the animal kingdom.
>“They are the 'rest', the non-premium males who remain after the evolutionary screening process and have no chance of reproduction. This phenomenon has only been suppressed to this day by the male civilization that controlled and disenfranchised women."
>Now Meike Stoverock makes suggestions as to what the coexistence of men and women could look like in a post-male civilization, a world order in which women tend to choose several alpha men in the course of their lives, but in which not every pot has a lid. She reckons with the institution of marriage, in which she sees an instrument for the oppression of women, and calls for a departure from the romantic notion that men and women can be happy in lifelong monogamy.
>Men who can no longer find women in this new world order should be cared for in other ways - Stoverock thinks about sex assistants and the role of prostitution, she describes pornography as a possible “socially acceptable support” for men.
>"Men who never or only very rarely find sex partners must be given ethical and socially acceptable ways of meeting their sexual needs."
>"A world order in which women tend to choose several alpha men in the course of their lives, but in which not every pot has a lid."

It's over
 
S

SoloAlex

Greycel
Joined
Feb 14, 2021
Posts
27
Online
1d 17h 23m
And who will raise up all the chad children? Does she really thinks the non chad males will do anything to support a society like that.
On the other hand she is a evolutionary biologist and has obviously no idea of sociology.
 
Last edited:
PotatoTomato

PotatoTomato

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Posts
6,264
Online
100d 5h 47m
This thread needs more attention tbh
They're completely admitting the blackpill here. Just saying "yeah bro you're gonna be miserable bcuz of nature, it just b like dat lol ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, female superiority is the future YASSSS KWEEN SLAYYY!"
Ok, when she wants a society where only the top 20% male can reproduce, like the nature want it to, I guess the other 80% of the male population are allowed to answer this with violence. You know, like in the real nature. I am fine with that. Lets go!
It's funny how when the blackpill is finally accepted by a woman, she starts spewing appeals to nature.
"This is natural so it's the way things should be!"
Bitch, rape is natural and I don't see you advocating for it :lul:

edit: found some translations (?) on another website

An interview:
ON INCELS AND HOW SHE EXPECTS A DRASTIC INCREASING NUMBERS

ZEITmagazin ONLINE:
You describe the aggression of sexually frustrated men. But wouldn't it increase if, as you suggest, we return to the principle of choosing women to get out of this toxic situation? Large parts would not be chosen by women, but would be left over and had to resort to pornography and sex workers, for example.

Stoverock: One pattern of Female Choice is that 80 percent of women choose 20 percent of men. The ones that make the most of civilization. But the others don't necessarily have to be pathetic or pathetic. If we go back to the animal world, then the male who cannot find a partner is the norm. The premium male, which has no problem reproducing, is the exception. With all this consideration of basic biological patterns, one has to keep in mind that none of us has chosen this. Neither women chose to have the children, nor did the men choose to have women choose their partners.

ZEITmagazin ONLINE: What would it look like in the present when we return to Female Choice?

Stoverock: I think the number of Incels would increase dramatically. The violence against women that has been observed up to now would then only be the beginning of a dramatic, socially endangering development. We must therefore take prompt action to catch these involuntarily abstaining men.

ZEITmagazin ONLINE: And how could that happen?

Stoverock: By changing the narrative. We have to find ways in which men can become respectable as men even without sexual success. Anyone who is successful with women is automatically a great pike, while the other is a poor sausage. Whether he's funny, a great musician, a fantastic storyteller: these qualities don't count. And that leads to the fact that even a boy who does not find a girlfriend in his school days grows up feeling like a failure. In principle, the core of this entire male culture for 10,000 years was getting a 1: 1 supply. Every man gets a woman.

ZEITmagazin ONLINE: But isn't initmacy also important, for both men and women? Isnt life more then satisfying basic needs [for suvival]?

Stoverock: Exactly. The need for intimacy and contact is gender-independent. But physical automatisms also play a role in sexuality. Because, on the one hand, men feel that involuntary abstinence is accompanied by an increase in frustration and aggressiveness. Sex breaks down testosterone, the hormone that can also lead to aggression. And I believe that at the beginning of the sedentary lifestyle, men felt that they had to get this potential for aggression under control in order to live permanently in a large community of men and women in one place. Otherwise they would be toxic to such a society. And that's why it was so important to provide men with basic sexual care.

ZEITmagazin ONLINE: If women would vote again, which men would they choose according to the female choice principle - tall, broad-shouldered, good teeth, in order to really go into the cliché?

Stoverock: Individual preferences can be different, but there are observable patterns that persist. The fact that men are on average six inches taller than women today shows that women have preferred tall men for likely hundreds of thousands of years. And there is research showing that when women are ovulating and their whole bodies are ready to reproduce, they want athletic daredevils. Outside of this evolutionary phase, however, they definitely choose the reliable type of provider that does not cause any trouble at home.

ZEITmagazin ONLINE: According to the female choice principle, far fewer men would become fathers, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the birth rates will decrease. You take Norway as an example, where the number of men who do not have children has increased from 12 to 23 percent in the last 30 years. At the same time, the number of "recycled" men who have women with several children has increased. Sounds difficult for those who can't find a partner.

Stoverock: I'm not saying that female choice makes living together easier. But it would be of great help if this whole socio-political discourse also opened up to biological facts. Sedentary civilization has lasted 10,000 years now, but we are faced with injustice on every nook and cranny. Neither have I yet found an answer to how one can really combine the positive from male civilization - art, science, medicine - with the positive from natural female sexuality. And the positive in the men's world was only possible through oppression and exploitation, that is the structural imbalance. Monogamous marriage only clears the man's mind - free from sexual competition. So that he can go out and devote himself to his big thoughts.

[...]
ON CUCKING AND HOW ITS NATURAL FOR WOMEN TO STOP LOVING THEIR PARTNER AND TO CUCK THEM

Stoverock:
Many people don't even realize that this is a normal phenomenon: the female libido has something like an expiration date. Of course, the bond is particularly close as long as the child is small and the woman is therefore very dependent on support. But as soon as the child becomes independent, that changes. In native peoples it is completely normal for a woman to have children from several partners who are born three to four years apart. That is the biological pattern. That does not mean that it cannot be otherwise and that a woman does not have all the children with a partner with all her heart. But it is just not typical of our biology. And I find it highly problematic that a natural biological pattern is pathologized. In fact, it is more women who lose lust, who no longer desire their partner. And they are then persuaded that you have to create more situations as a couple to get in the mood.

ZEITmagazin ONLINE: And how is it with men?

Stoverock: For men, decreasing desire is almost never a problem. Many men still want to sleep regularly with their partner even after many years of relationship. Here you can see that the lifelong partnership was created with the purpose of basic sexual care for men and not out of love. The man really just needs regular access. As long as there is enough sex, he has no reason to change anything about the arrangement. That is why women are also the most likely to file for divorce.
Some excerpts from the book (?):
So how does the Female Choice maiting system works? The most important characteristic for our considerations is that the males have to a certain extent apply for sex, and the females choose. The choice does not always take place actively and is therefore often not immediately recognizable, but the performance of the sexual act for males always depends on the requirements of the females. The competition is so always on the male side. Charles Darwin called this "sexual selection." Female Choice is based on two completely different reproductive strategies of the sexes. The need to have sex in order to reproduce does not mean that males and females pull together. On the contrary: to put it bluntly, the male goes on mass, trying to mate with as many females as possible. The female, on the other hand, goes for class and only mates with the best male. So the male has to get as many sexual partner as possible, the female only goes for the genetic high quality partner and has to fend the rest off. The consequence of these different strategies is an inextricable conflict between the sexes, a strong contradiction in sexuality. The imaginative biologists call these opposing reproductive strategies "sexual conflict". One of the most important features of the Female Choice is that the majority of males do not find any mates, or only very rarely. What sounds like evolution has done a bad trick on males and females is by far the most widespread and most successful reproductive model in the entire animal kingdom. The sexual selection by the picky females is at the same time the tool and the origin of evolutionary adaptations; it is the adjusting screw that determines the success of individuals and species. For this reason, sexuality in simple species proceeds according to similar patterns as in highly complex mammals, the differences between the various species are only variations on the same theme. This system also applied to humans until we settled down and is still in our genes.

[...]

But especially for the males, female choice is an incredibly time-consuming principle because they have to put almost all of their energy into finding and convincing female partners. This ties up so much capacity that the rest of the time only allows self-support: procure food, ward off predators and find a place to sleep. But people want more. A man who wants to improve his own life and increase his chances of survival by building something, inventing something, plowing his environment must first ensure that the capacity that is normally used up for sexual competition is free. Put simply, the man must have better access to sex (and thus reproduction) so that he can even turn to progress. Limiting the principle of female choice was therefore one of the most important steps in the early days of civilization that men took in the transition to sedentarism. Agriculture, and with it the ability to accumulate possessions, gave them a means of almost completely controlling sex as a resource. Men denied women the right to property, excluded them from the public sphere by banishing them to the cramped world of private households to raise their children. The institution of marriage ultimately made women almost 100 percent dependent. The fact that women could not prevent pregnancies due to a lack of safe contraceptives was very beneficial to men. The decision about how and with whom women should reproduce was no longer with women, but with men. In this way, men were able to shape the structures of the outside world - trade, economy, politics, work - which are the basis of our society to this day, without considering female (sexual) needs. Civilization was made for men by men: it is androcentric (from the Greek andrós for man).

[...]

It is only for a short period of time in evolutionary terms that women have had the opportunity to gain economic independence and control pregnancies themselves, for example through birth control pills. And since then they have been making giant strides into the androcentric system. What we are currently experiencing worldwide is the reckoning of the oppressed with a male dominated civilization. That turn is very painful for men. Not only does it have to feel to them as if what they have created over millennia and declared to be correct is being torn before their eyes, they also lose control over sex, an existential resource for them. Almost incompatible needs - especially in the area of sexuality, but not only there - collide. Sociology distinguishes human needs into five categories, from basic existential needs such as food and clothing to luxury needs such as self-fulfillment. The model is called Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The most urgent needs are below, the less important ones above. The aggressiveness with which people struggle to meet a need depends on their position in the pyramid and thus on their necessity. The problem is that the needs model is based on a certain equality between people. But the needs of people and especially those of men and women are not placed in the same place in the pyramid. Due to the different reproductive strategies of the sexes, sexuality is lower in the pyramid for men and is therefore more urgent than it is for women. The aggressiveness with which men react to the impending loss of control over this resource is correspondingly higher. With the invention of the birth control pill, their access to reproduction was severely restricted, but as long as women entered into loyal partnerships, at least sex remained secure. The increasing emergence of alternative relationship models also threatens this certainty. It is therefore not surprising that the male-dominated conservative parties in particular plead for the preservation of traditional marriage and the nuclear family. The influence of sexuality on the shaping of our civilization, and thus on today's conflicts, is rarely dealt with or categorically left out in social discourse. In general, most discourses have a biological void. Just as if man were not a physical being, but consisted only of his spirit.
 
Last edited:
I want to believe

I want to believe

I enjoy self-destruction.
★★★
Joined
Sep 15, 2020
Posts
740
Online
14d 13h 42m
>Bitch, rape is natural and I don't see you advocating for it :lul:
That's a good observation.
But the explanation is, women are very hypocritical creatures.
 
FlyFace

FlyFace

Memento Mori
★★
Joined
May 3, 2018
Posts
4,174
Online
21d 15h 20m
And who will raise up all the chad children? Does she really thinks the non chad males will do anything to support a society like that.
It's like what male horses do in nature. If the female horse hasn't mated with just one of the male horses around her she can't fib to him about how the baby is theirs. The male horse will attack and kill the foal that is produced.
They're completely admitting the blackpill here. Just saying "yeah bro you're gonna be miserable bcuz of nature, it just b like dat lol ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, female superiority is the future YASSSS KWEEN SLAYYY!"
"Oy Vey Boyim just accept your suffering!"
Bitch, rape is natural and I don't see you advocating for it :lul:
Foids really don't understand that they can't have their cake and eat it too. They are so deluded into believing everything is going to go so well for them, when historically such situations have obviously turned out real bad for them.

War is also natural too. When resources get to low, Men go to war. Resources being fertile females. The ruler of an empire would sooner have an abundance of Males without wives away from the capital and being someone else's problem, lest his head be on a pike.
 
PotatoTomato

PotatoTomato

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Posts
6,264
Online
100d 5h 47m
bump
this is an interesting situation
 
BPJ

BPJ

Greycel
Joined
Jan 30, 2021
Posts
87
Online
2d 5h 46m
in principle, she is right. of course, her premise is utterly biased and in favor of gynocentrism...still an intresting read..we arent used to such honestly from the ''empathic'' gender
 
L

Laplace

Greycel
Joined
Feb 11, 2021
Posts
17
Online
17h 36m
Got article about this suggested today. Made me almost cry. But i think all this is just "fuck you" to men. It's just her utopia where men suffer.