Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Blackpill [Hard to Swallow Edition] Enforced monogamy would need a lower standard of living and restrictions on technology to work; women would still resent you

  • Thread starter Deleted member 27204
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 27204

Self-banned
-
Joined
Jun 26, 2020
Posts
28,255
Many people here are in favor of enforced monogamy as a solution to inceldom. But in the process they dismiss possible means of not having to rely on women or convince them of things. @Mainländer is one of them.
Enforced monogamy is the tested and approved solution for inceldom. All the rest is unrealistic (legalized rape, etc) or transhumanistic cope (dolls, robots, artificial wombs, etc).

But as pointed out by many here, enforced monogamy cannot be "enforced" if social media and online dating apps exist because when those platforms starting gaining use is when the last hopes of many normies having long lasting relationships began to fray and it became easier for women to cheat and leave relationships if they chose.

Such people then say dolls, robots and artificial wombs are a cope. But how is expecting society to revert back technologically any less of a cope? How is expecting women to again be bound to men they are not attracted to and them not to object in any way not cope? Undoubtedly there will be pushback to revert aspects of society not just from women but from many men that like the current level of technology and the quality of copes it affords them. They would also argue that even in a time of enforced monogamy, still not every man would be able to get into a relationship.

Again how do you allow for socially enforced monogamy while social media and online dating exists? You can't. It's just LARPing because with that kind of technology women can still easily choose to leave men if they choose because such platforms give them so many dating options. Also how far back do you want to go before your dream of socially enforced monogamy is feasible? Some will argue cellphones and easy public transportation also increase women's options. People here like @Emba have argued that mass media (television, movies, pop culture) showing other people's lifestyles is one of the things that made it difficult to socially enforce monogamy because it is with that technology that women came to believe they could do better if they wanted and that they had alternatives. If you truly want socially enforced monogamy you have to institute a society wide return back to those times. That means a complete ban on social media and online dating and very heavy restrictions if not outright bans on mass media, pop culture, and common modern technology that can be used for communication and spread of ideas like computers and the internet.

Also the argument @Mainländer makes about how the only solution is to put women back in their place ignores how that is how feminism arose in the first place. Women didn't want to romantically, financially or socially associate with men they were not attracted to and wanted the option of having more opportunities to exercise free sexual choice. When that opportunity came they took it, with little help needed from "elites" to convince them. And with the successive waves of feminism that followed it was obvious that this desire to lash out at men came from anger at not having enough sexual choice in the past. Now some people want to put the genie back in the bottle and act like women will agree if it is the standard. But that ignores how unless women willfully choose to obey and submit to a man (which they won't unless they are physically attracted to him), there will be generational resentment that builds and fuels revenge on all men in future waves of feminism. Traditionalism and feminism are a vicious cycle and @NoCopeNoHope has talked about this. The definition of insanity is to repeat the same mistakes and expect different results. What makes you think that trying to bring women back into some role is not going to engender resentment, violence and anger or that this hasn't been tried in the past?

Even before when women had fewer choices but to be legally bound to men there were poisonings, disappearances and murder of the husbands. The husbands that were not murdered were still not treated that well or shown much consideration or love. This is apparent even today in dead bedroom arranged marriages which many South Asian and Middle Eastern males have seen @tehgymcel420 @Subhuman Currycel @Subhuman100 .

Beside that it's probably not the first time men tried to enforce monogamy and get women to go along. It came with a lot of compromises the least of which required men to be providers and protectors no matter what and to fight for women and children more than they are required to today.

Critics of sexbots, sex dolls and alternatives to women aren't completely addressing this.

TL;DR: Socially enforced monogamy would require drastic reductions in life quality, technology and mobility. Even if these measures succeeded without significant opposition to block them, it would not guarantee that women now having less options but to be with men they were not attracted to would just accept the situation. Many of the problems of the past would emerge. Eventually the instated traditionalism would give way to successive waves of feminism again dooming another generation of men to suffer through the same things people here suffer through.

Critics of sexbots, sex dolls, artificial wombs and alternatives to women ignore or downplay this. You overestimate the agreeableness of women and think they will just submit if a strong enough force tells them to and all resentment from this on their end can be stifled indefinitely. That's pure :redpill: cope.
 
Last edited:
Even monogamy wouldnt fix my situation. I am too broken inside and outside to have a gf that is attached to me. All is left to do is rot.
 
Yeah foids murdering dudes was a thing long ago too... https://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com
Even on this forum people have discussed old writings from back at the beginning of the 20th century on how bleak things were even back before the first wave of feminism succeeded.

From Wikipedia
The term gynocentrism has been in use since at least 1897 when it appeared in The Open Court stating that Continental Europeans view Americans "as suffering rather from gynocentrism than anthropocentrism."

In 1914, author George A. Birmingham stated that "American social life seems to me gynocentric. It is arranged with a view to the convenience and delight of women. Men come in where and how they can." - George A. Birmingham, From Dublin to Chicago: Some Notes on a Tour in America(George H. Doran Company, 1914)
 
Last edited:
I agree that "enforced monogamy" is nearly impossible in our current conditions. I also agree that artificial wombs, sex bots, etc are sci-fi fantasies and sub-par copes anyway- men want sex and companionship from flesh and blood women.

Women of the past stuck to the 'traditionalist' setup, not because they liked it, but because their very survival depended on it. Women have no reason whatsoever to stick to that setup today, when the entire system and social order is tilted in their favor. However, sex bots, artificial wombs, and other high-tech copes will never materialize because we don't have the energy and resources. We're infinitely more likely to go back to 7th century living standards than a high-tech Jetsons future.
 
I agree that "enforced monogamy" is nearly impossible in our current conditions. I also agree that artificial wombs, sex bots, etc are sci-fi fantasies and sub-par copes anyway- men want sex and companionship from flesh and blood women.

Women of the past stuck to the 'traditionalist' setup, not because they liked it, but because their very survival depended on it. Women have no reason whatsoever to stick to that setup today, when the entire system and social order is tilted in their favor. However, sex bots, artificial wombs, and other high-tech copes will never materialize because we don't have the energy and resources. We're infinitely more likely to go back to 7th century living standards than a high-tech Jetsons future.
I'm not saying there is a solution. That's also part of the blackpill. There's no clear solution here either way whether the traditionalist or tech route. You can't force women to love and lust after men they are not attracted to but there's also not feasible way to completely replace the love, sex and companionship they can offer.
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying there is a solution. That's also part of the blackpill. There's no clear solution here either way whether the traditionalist or tech route. You can't force women to love and lust after men they are not attracted to.
In the past, people simply didn't care about that. Female love and lust were utterly irrelevant. Note how in the Bible, it is commanded that men love their wives, but no such command exists for women to their husbands. It is only commanded that women obey their husbands.
 
Kinda offtopic but I think its impossible for "sexual communism" to exist and also work. Its either

1. the men restrain everything, take away women's rights and prevent society from evolving (since as youve said a lot of progress would need to be halted so that feminism doesnt drown everything again).
2. the men leave everything as it is and the women win, because a free sexual market is one where women win, or more specifically the top % of chads who get to fuck all of them.

There's really no solution that doesn't involve immense sacrifices.
 
In the past, people simply didn't care about that. Female love and lust were utterly irrelevant. Note how in the Bible, it is commanded that men love their wives, but no such command exists for women to their husbands. It is only commanded that women obey their husbands.
The problem is that's another issue where you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Yeah once romantic love was not accepted and lauded as today but now that it is the culture, music, social activities that have grown up around it are inescapable. It's essentially become part of the human experience of relationships even if it wasn't that way in the past or originally an evolutionary adaptation in courting.
 
This is why I said robot foids are the solution. We get all the mathematicians, engineers, bean counters etc in one room and provide a unique foid for everyone. Since every man is working on the project, there will be robots in every household.
 
That last link was funny
Cunts cant be responsible for serious crimes, but they can vote?

Madness.

After looking atca few things above, i would change my mind about "how far back" we would have to go to get "our women back."

Mid 1800s before the jews took over media and arts.
 
Kinda offtopic but I think its impossible for "sexual communism" to exist and also work. Its either

1. the men restrain everything, take away women's rights and prevent society from evolving (since as youve said a lot of progress would need to be halted so that feminism doesnt drown everything again).
True.
2. the men leave everything as it is and the women win, because a free sexual market is one where women win, or more specifically the top % of chads who get to fuck all of them.
Women and cucks are preventing that from taking hold too. You are required to pay for their lifestyles indirectly through taxes and through being part of a society where they have more of a voice, resources, times, energy and effort dedicated to their issues than any man does.
There's really no solution that doesn't involve immense sacrifices.
Yeah. The best solution at this point is to lessen the power of social media or make this current image obsessed society fall out of favor somehow. Because it's not just dating but life itself (career, social opportunities not directly related to dating, networking) that is stacked against ugly men more than ever with social media. Trump could have done a lot with this to get the ball rolling but ofc he didn't do it at the right time (leading up to an election could have ruined his chances among younger voters).

Twitter is perhaps the worst and biggest offender. Anything that lessens the power of social media like twitter, instagram and video sharing apps is welcome at this point.
 
The problem is that's another issue where you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Yeah once romantic love was not accepted and lauded as today but now that it is the culture, music, social activities that have grown up around it are inescapable. It's essentially become part of the human experience of relationships even if it wasn't that way in the past or originally an evolutionary adaptation in courting.
All this stuff is a bizarre abberation, not a permanent feature of human society.
 
That last link was funny
Cunts cant be responsible for serious crimes, but they can vote?

Madness.
The madness goes so far back.
After looking atca few things above, i would change my mind about "how far back" we would have to go to get "our women back."

Mid 1800s before the jews took over media and arts.
True gold standard, no federal reserve, people still resisted conscription mandates (look up the Civil War draft era riots). Wild west. Still had guns.

But again not possible to go back without a strong reversion in technology and communication. Also you'd have to brainwash people into forgetting all aspects of the modern world ever existed because otherwise some vestige would remain.
All this stuff is a bizarre abberation, not a permanent feature of human society.
NTs being very whimsical and creatures of habit have come to like this bizarre aberration nonetheless and will continue to vie for its dominance in social affairs and conventions even if they know it's based on a lie and propaganda.
 
I think you're overestimating the role of the technological advancements of the digital area in this pitiful state of things we have today concerning sex, relationships and especially marriage and the relationship between the sexes in general. I don't deny it played a huge role in facilitating people's access to degenerate stuff, be it finding people to fornicate/commit adultery with, find porn, etc. But the main reason why we degenerated so much in that regard was the fall of religion and its substitution for scientificism, evolutionism and especially cultural marxist ideologies, the most perilous of which being feminism.

Had culture and religion not degraded so much, we would never be able to sink that low, even with the easiness of digital technology. It didn't happen as an accident either; those post-modern movements were carefully planned by the elites and were and are still financed by billionaires like Soros to this day.

Want an example? Most young men nowadays are internet-savvy enough to know where to find CP and download it easily, but the vast majority of them won't do it, even if they feel like doing it, be it for legit attraction or merely by curiosity. Why? Because they know the current culture abhors such content and that the punishment for it is harsh, even when it makes no logical sense (you just downloaded an image/video from the internet without paying for it and watched it).

So, if adultery, fornication, hypergamy, etc, were as curbed as some occuring aspects of male sexuality are, of course societies would never be able to get rid of them 100%, just like western societies don't get rid of CP 100% despite all the harsh measures against it, but it would be reduced by A LOT, more likely than not allowing traditional marriage to flourish again.

That said, I agree with you that it won't happen. It would take a lot of time to make a cultural change of those magnitudes (that if the work got started now, which isn't the case). It certainly won't happen within our lifetimes, and as a bible believer, I don't even think we have that much time anyway. Also, the bible says things will only get worse in terms of degeneration before the end comes.

But I never said it could be done in the near future, I just said it IS the solution to inceldom. The only potentially feasible and working solution we know as of now.
 
Last edited:
Well. All this tech is really just a temporary freak chance and very fragile. Not sustainable at all. It's basically just a blink in geological history.
 
I think you're overestimating the role of the technological advancements of the digital area in the pitiful state of things we have today concerning sex, relationships and especially marriage and the relationship between the sexes in general. I don't deny it played a huge role in facilitating people's access to degenerate stuff, be it finding people to fornicate/commit adultery with, find porn, find drugs, etc. But the main reason why we degenerated so much in that regard was the fall of religion and its substitution for scientificism, evolutionism and especially cultural marxist ideologies, the most perilous of which being feminism.
Again I'm not arguing it as a complete solution. But it's a compromise that has some people like @NoCopeNoHope and @mNFwTJ3wz9 on board. That's better than going back to trying to convince women to be with you and to love being housewives to men they are not attracted to.
Had culture and religion not have degraded so much, we would never be able to sink that low, even with the easiness of digital technology. It didn't happen as an accedent, those post-modern movements are were carefully planned by the elites and are financed by billionaires like Soros to this day.

Want an example? Most young men nowadays are internet-savy enough to know where to find CP and download it easily, but the vast majority of them won't do it, even if they feel like doing it, be it for legit attraction or merely by curiosity. Why? Because they know the current culture abhorrs such content and that the punishment for it is harsh, even when it makes no logical sense (you just downloaded an image/video from the internet without paying for it and watched it).

So, if adultery, fornication, hypergamy, etc, were as curbed as some common aspects of male sexuality are, of course societies would never be able to get rid of them 100%, just like western societies don't get rid of CP 100% despite all the harsh measures against it, but it would be reduced by A LOT, more likely than not allowing traditional marriage to flourish again.
You need to get rid of social media and online dating at the very least. Adultery was far more frowned upon and less normalized before that technology came about.
That said, I agree with you that it won't happen. It would take a lot of time to make a cultural change of those magnitudes (that if the work got started now, which isn't the case). It certainly won't happen within our lifetimes, and as a bible believer, I don't even think we have that much time anyway. Also, the bible says things will only get worse in terms of degeneration before the end comes.

But I never said it could be done, I just said it IS the solution to inceldom. The only potentially feasible and working solution we know as of now.
Okay. If potentially it could be done history has shown that with enough restraints to people's lifestyles it is a solution yeah but anywhere near feasible comparable to allowing some guys to branch off to alternatives to women? I don't think so. But again there's no one size fits all approach here which is why there is no clear solution going forward. But like everything else people need to learn from the mistakes of the past and things they didn't take into account or missed in hindsight so that those things have a lesser chance of occurring again in the future.
Well. All this tech is really just a temporary freak chance and very fragile. Not sustainable at all. It's basically just a blink in geological history.
Don't look for solar flares soon imo there's been some pretty quiet solar cycles in the last few decades. It's usually during the more active cycles that there are CMEs that can knock out the power grid. But even that is a sudden reversion and the grid will come back on at some point even if a lot of people perish in the months or years before it comes back on.
 
Again I'm not arguing it as a complete solution. But it's a compromise that has some people like @NoCopeNoHope and @mNFwTJ3wz9 on board.
If some men want to fuck dolls or find other transhumanistic/technological copes, let them do it as far as I am concerned. I'm not a "man the fuck up" cuckservative type, please do. I understand. It's just that I don't consider it a solution, I consider it a cope.

That's better than going back to trying to convince women to be with you and to love being housewives to men they are not attracted to.
I have already mentioned the following many times in discussions with you, but you leave me no choice other than hitting on that key again: women are conformists. Many people here severely understimate that female characteristic. If society tells women that they marry the guy their fathers chose for them and stay married or else they are whores and deserve stoning, they go with it. They'll kiss such guys, have sex with such guys, get impregnated by such guys and find it natural. But again, I know such extreme cultural change is not coming for the west.

Women are MASSIVELY influenced by the status quo and society. The same women who wave BLM and "refugees welcome" signs now would be waving "Juden raus" signs in nazi Germany and "I don't want my kids to go to school with niggers" signs in the US 100 years ago. So yeah, they are intrinsically very flawed, but clown world society makes it go on roids.

You need to get rid of social media and online dating at the very least. Adultery was far more frowned upon and less normalized before that technology came about.
Yeah, those things would be shunned to the deepweb in this alternative reality, just like CP sites are nowadays,
 
Last edited:
If some men want to fuck dolls or find other transhumanistic/technological copes, let them do it as far as I am concerned. I'm not a "man the fuck up" cuckservative type, please do. I understand. It's just that I don't consider it a solution, I consider it a cope.
It's a cope for now but for some guys if they are able to perfect that technology it might become closer to a feasible alternative. Not perfect but good enough to get by. Again there's no utopian solution here.
I have already mentioned the following many times in discussions with you, but you leave me no choice other than hitting on that key again: women are conformists. Many people here severely understimate that female characteristic. If society tells women that they marry the guy their fathers chose for them and stay married or else they are whores and deserve stoning, they go with it. They'll kiss such guys, have sex with such guys, get impregnated by such guys and find it natural. But again, I know such extreme cultural change is not coming for the west.

Women are MASSIVELY influenced by the status quo and society. The same women who wave BLM and "refugees welcome" signs now would be waving "Juden raus" in nazi Germany and "I don't want my kids to go to school with niggers" signs in the US 100 years ago. So yeah, they are intrinsically very flawed, but clown world society makes it go on roids.
Women will not submit to men they are not attracted to and will look for every opportunity to harm the men they are forced to be with even if that force is just purely social pressure. South Asian and Middle Eastern males in countries with arranged marriage know this very well. Women are never going to back that setup as far as these races and culture of men are concerned. Maybe they would be willing to settle back into this situation if white and black normies were concerned. But even then they will be looking for any chance to rebel and then punish all men for letting circumstances come to it how they had to humiliate themselves by dignifying men closer to their looksmatch.

You overestimate how much women are influenced by the status quo and society. There's a limit. It's just like how a short, small framed Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi male will never be taken seriously by a woman if he tries to thugmaxx or act like he is in charge.
Yeah, those things would be shunned to the deepweb in this alternative reality, just like CP sites are nowadays,
No not as little as being shunned or moved to the deepweb. Outright banned everywhere with all the social media and online dating app companies put out of business and any similar alternatives prevented from ever gaining foothold again.
 
It's a cope for now but for some guys if they are able to perfect that technology it might become closer to a feasible alternative. Not perfect but good enough to get by. Again there's no utopian solution here.
I don't think it will come to a point where it can be considered a real solution and now just a cope, but like I said, I don't oppose such endeavors. Let men do what they need to deal with this lamentable state of things. I'd be a hypocrite to say otherwise since I myself give in to porn and other sinful copes to deal with inceldom, even though I don't consider it healthy, moral or let alone optimal.

Women will not submit to men they are not attracted to and will look for every opportunity to harm the men they are forced to be with even if that force is just purely social pressure. South Asian and Middle Eastern males in countries with arranged marriage know this very well. Women are never going to back that setup as far as these races and culture of men are concerned. Maybe they would be willing to settle back into this situation if white and black normies were concerned. But even then they will be looking for any chance to rebel and then punish all men for letting circumstances come to it how they had to humiliate themselves by dignifying men closer to their looksmatch.
I'll give it to you that the current living women might be a lost case to a significant extent. Maybe many would rather rebel and do violent actions or even rope than be forced back into their proper place in a civilized society (I still think not many would; women are not only conformists but also cowardly and weak).

If you look at history, what tends to happen is a collapse before things can start being built towards a proper civilized state again. So, many generations go by in the process, and many generations end up as "lost generations".
 
Last edited:
I don't think it will come to a point where it can be considered a real solution and now just a cope, but like I said, I don't oppose such endeavors. Let men do what they need to deal with this lamentable state of things. I'd be a hypocrite to say otherwise since I myself give in to porn and other sinful copes to deal with inceldom, even though I don't consider it healthy, moral or let alone optimal.
Agreed you can't expect every guy to be on board or find it a satisfying substitute. But it's a compromise that at least helps some low SMV males so that's often the best you can hope for.
I'll give it to you that the current living women might be a lost case to a significant extent. Maybe many would rather rebel and do violent actions or even rope than be forced back into their proper place in a civilized society (I still think not many would; women are not only conformists but also cowardly and weak).

If you look at history, what tends to happen is a collapse before things can start being built towards a proper civilized state again. So, many generations go by in the process, and many generations end up as "lost generations".
The easiest thing to do is to somehow restrict image oriented social media. How this can be done is anyone's guess but it would involve bringing up concerns about privacy, defamation, character assassination, stalking, misrepresentation and the like. Only problem is now that there is an expansive tech lobby and surveillance and sousveillance industry that has built up around social media and ubiquitous smartphones and cameras. Any attempts to limit social media no matter what the concerns are going to met with many lawsuits, dismissals by biased and corrupt judges, pressure from business groups, corporations, even possibly some nation states.

Look how heavily tech companies dictate social policy in western countries now. Even the easiest step is not so easy to implement.
It might also involve making the concerns about women. For instance there was a law against taking upskirt pictures put in place in just days after articles came out how such pictures violated women's privacy.

But again not so easy: it can be argued that restricting image oriented social media is restricting women's right to post pictures of themselves and express themselves in the ways they deem fit. And what's held more sacred than ever today? Women's absolute right to choose.

Maybe start by making at will employment less powerful by making it so that what you post is inconsequential. Also discourage use of online image reputation companies as sleazy and corrupt scams. Just make social media the useless blather that is and don't try to hold it up to be a reflection of someone's character or a record of their actions like now. Social media is held too consequential to public life currently and that enables it to pervade more aspects of people's lives.
 
Last edited:
Agreed you can't expect every guy to be on board or find it a satisfying substitute. But it's a compromise that at least helps some low SMV males so that's often the best you can hope for.
It has some noble intentions, I give you that. Like, taking morphine is not good for you, but I would never oppose giving it to a guy in extreme pain in his deathbed to help soothing it.

The easiest thing to do is to somehow restrict image oriented social media. How this can be done is anyone's guess but it would involve bringing up concerns about privacy, defamation, character assassination, stalking, misrepresentation and the like. Only problem is now that there is an expansive tech lobby and surveillance and sousveillance industry that has built up around social media and ubiquitous smartphones and cameras. Any attempts to limit social media no matter what the concerns are going to met with many lawsuits, dismissals by biased and corrupt judges, pressure from business groups, corporations, even possibly some nation states.

Look how heavily tech companies dictate social policy in western countries now. Even the easiest step is not so easy to implement.
That's definitely not happening. The elites have the steering wheel of western societies for a good white, and now, with the covid excuse, more than ever before. We're bound for the end. Things will undoutedly only get worse in the near future. It's easier to expect some kind of worldwide magnetic event that destroys all digital technology than that goal being accomplished somehow by a quick cultural shift.
 
It has some noble intentions, I give you that. Like, taking morphine is not good for you, but I would never oppose giving it to a guy in extreme pain in his deathbed to help soothing it.
Again it's not for everyone but that's part of how there's no ideal solution that will satisfy everyone here. In this life there are compromises and things that can be accounted for to learn from past mistakes at least. That's as good as it is going to get.
That's definitely not happening. The elites have the steering wheel of western societies for a good white, and now, with the covid excuse, more than ever before. We're bound for the end. Thimgs will undoutedly only get worse in the near future. It's easier to expect some kind of worldwide magnetic event that destroys all digital technology than that goal being accomplished somehow by a quick cultural shift.
As posted in the previous response one way is ironically enough to make social media less consequential to public life and online reputation management companies gain a sleazy reputation. If nothing you post on social media can get you fired, arrested or used against you in court then social media becomes completely inconsequential that way. Also restrict companies from advertising people contacting them on social media networks because you see that all the time on ads
"hashtag blahblahblah"
"check out our facebook/twitter"
"follow us on instagram"

Maybe pass laws against requiring someone to have a social media page to have a job (that's been brought up by people applying for positions like a waiter how they need a facebook account or are asked for their facebook account).
Make businesses requesting your celllphone number or social media for free deals something that is frowned on or restricted.
 
You speak of women as if they were some kind of uncontainable force or something. Feminism exists because men have allowed it and because the elites have orchestrated it. Women are naturally more agreeable than men and they have a stronger survival instinct so they would definitely submit if men did things the right way. And you wouldn't need to ban all social media to keep women from cheating, just regulate that shit and make laws that restrain women and enforce those laws. You don't need to go backward technologically.

As for you being afraid of bitches killing their husbands, that's ridiculous. A lot of women nowadays commit crimes like that cuz they know they have a chance to get away with it, they are not afraid of the system cuz they know the system is designed for them. If we had a system that actually deters women then the only housewives doing reckless shit would be the crazy ones (a minority).

To me, it seems like you are the one overestimating women's capability to fight back, which doesn't surprise me given the fact that a few days ago you were saying that shaming simps (foid worshippers) was not ok. Maybe it wasn't your intention to worship foids with this thread but that's exactly what you're doing man. Take a look at this shit:
You overestimate the agreeableness of women and think they will just submit if a strong enough force tells them to and all resentment from this on their end can be stifled indefinitely. That's pure :redpill: cope.
Imagine a feminist foid reading this shit. You're stroking foids egos. You're basically encouraging foids to rebel and slay, and discouraging men from trying to restrain them. You're being a fucking idiot tbh.

@Dregster666 thoughts?
 
You speak of women as if they were some kind of uncontainable force or something. Feminism exists because men have allowed it and because the elites have orchestrated it. Women are naturally more agreeable than men and they have a stronger survival instinct so they would definitely submit if men did things the right way. And you wouldn't need to ban all social media to keep women from cheating, just regulate that shit and make laws that restrain women and enforce those laws. You don't need to go backward technologically.

As for you being afraid of bitches killing their husbands, that's ridiculous. A lot of women nowadays commit crimes like that cuz they know they have a chance to get away with it, they are not afraid of the system cuz they know the system is designed for them. If we had a system that actually deters women then the only housewives doing reckless shit would be the crazy ones (a minority).

To me, it seems like you are the one overestimating women's capability to fight back, which doesn't surprise me given the fact that a few days ago you were saying that shaming simps (foid worshippers) was not ok. Maybe it wasn't your intention to worship foids with this thread but that's exactly what you're doing man. Take a look at this shit:

Imagine a feminist foid reading this shit. You're stroking foids egos. You're basically encouraging foids to rebel and slay, and discouraging men from trying to restrain them. You're being a fucking idiot tbh.

@Dregster666 thoughts?
Just a terrible turn of events tbh :feelscomfy:

You speak of women as if they were some kind of uncontainable force or something. Feminism exists because men have allowed it and because the elites have orchestrated it.
this tbh.. us men as a collective group could literally take everything back and put foids in their place in a single day. What fucks us over is bluepilled soycucks being a majority and allowing foids to do whatever they want on top of the system fueling their arrogant ways.
Women are naturally more agreeable than men and they have a stronger survival instinct so they would definitely submit if men did things the right way.
this too, I think users on here underestimate how weak they actually are overall when you leave them high and dry and force them to fend for themselves.
And you wouldn't need to ban all social media to keep women from cheating, just regulate that shit and make laws that restrain women and enforce those laws. You don't need to go backward technologically.
I would be on board on taking that technological step back unless us males would be able to supervise their respective cattle's online activity.

As things are, social media is cancer, an unnecessary luxury overall

As for you being afraid of bitches killing their husbands, that's ridiculous. A lot of women nowadays commit crimes like that cuz they know they have a chance to get away with it, they are not afraid of the system cuz they know the system is designed for them. If we had a system that actually deters women then the only housewives doing reckless shit would be the crazy ones (a minority).

To me, it seems like you are the one overestimating women's capability to fight back, which doesn't surprise me given the fact that a few days ago you were saying that shaming simps (foid worshippers) was not ok. Maybe it wasn't your intention to worship foids with this thread but that's exactly what you're doing man. Take a look at this shit:

Imagine a feminist foid reading this shit. You're stroking foids egos. You're basically encouraging foids to rebel and slay, and discouraging men from trying to restrain them. You're being a fucking idiot tbh.

@Dregster666 thoughts?
No comment on this
 
You speak of women as if they were some kind of uncontainable force or something. Feminism exists because men have allowed it and because the elites have orchestrated it. Women are naturally more agreeable than men and they have a stronger survival instinct so they would definitely submit if men did things the right way. And you wouldn't need to ban all social media to keep women from cheating, just regulate that shit and make laws that restrain women and enforce those laws. You don't need to go backward technologically.
Feminism is a political manifestation of women's wishes. Feminism exists because women want it to exist. Saying otherwise is shifting the blame off women and to some boogey man "elites". It's letting women off the hook and allowing them to blame a third party who conveniently enough are mostly men.

Just like now many radfems are jumping ship and cozying up to tradcons to keep their biological and social privileges from being female intact and blaming the "elites" for harming women while still portraying and spreading unflattering views about the average man.

Yeah you would have to ban social media. Social media and online dating is what enabled the stigma against cheating and leaving relationships if they are not working out to proliferate. Before then shame could be enforced without a woman running off to be consoled by receptive voices on social media and by thirsty men on online dating sites. Before that shame at a women breaking their vows carried some weight and there wouldn't be an easy option to run off with someone else.
As for you being afraid of bitches killing their husbands, that's ridiculous. A lot of women nowadays commit crimes like that cuz they know they have a chance to get away with it, they are not afraid of the system cuz they know the system is designed for them. If we had a system that actually deters women then the only housewives doing reckless shit would be the crazy ones (a minority).
That system existed even before the first waves of feminism and was put in place as a compromise to women so that they would agree to being yoked to a man. It's part of a man being a provider and protector and in turn women agreeing to be in a committed relationship with them even if they are not sexually attracted. So such a system and double standards would be a necessity and there would not be an easy way of preventing women from doing reckless things because all the responsibility would have to fall on the man to make sure things go right. Otherwise it would just be taken as a unfortunate turn of events and a reflection of man's failure to lead.

Also your argument ignores how not all men are physically stronger than every woman and that when armed with weapons or sneaking chemical additives into food, women can easily kill or severely injure men they don't want to be around with.
To me, it seems like you are the one overestimating women's capability to fight back, which doesn't surprise me given the fact that a few days ago you were saying that shaming simps (foid worshippers) was not ok. Maybe it wasn't your intention to worship foids with this thread but that's exactly what you're doing man. Take a look at this shit:
Underestimating women's capability to fight back is what brought men into this mess. Men have constantly underestimated how much women can strike back and have hence gotten blind-sided by them. And as a result every man that fails to have a woman have unquestioned loyalty to him is seen as a personal failure rather than the inevitable consequence of women never being satisfied with men they are not physically and sexually attracted to.
Imagine a feminist foid reading this shit. You're stroking foids egos. You're basically encouraging foids to rebel and slay, and discouraging men from trying to restrain them. You're being a fucking idiot tbh.

@Dregster666 thoughts?
As if that's relevant. I wasn't addressing them. I was addressing the idea that some have here that women can be told to go back to being in committed relationships with men they are not sexually attracted to and that their resentment at this can be stifled indefinitely. Forget feminism. That's just not in the nature of women to accept. There will be consequences down the line and all men will be blamed and marginalized when women have enough power to do so. It's already happening right now.
 
Last edited:
Yeah you would have to ban social media. Social media and online dating is what enabled the stigma against cheating and leaving relationships if they are not working out to proliferate. Before then shame could be enforced without a woman running off to be consoled by receptive voices on social media and by thirsty men on online dating sites. Before that shame at a women breaking their vows carried some weight and there wouldn't be an easy option to run off with someone else.
Just criminalize adultery and prohibit women from talking to other men online. You don't need to ban everything altogether, just ban the shit that encourages foids to be whores.
Also your argument ignores how not all men are physically stronger than every woman and that when armed with weapons or sneaking chemical additives into food, women can kill or severely injure men they don't want to be around with.
Most men are physically stronger and smarter than women. You're still overestimating foids man wtf
Underestimating women's capability to fight back is what brought men into this mess. Men have constantly underestimated how much women can strike back and have hence gotten blind-sided by them.
Again, giving unnecessary credit to foids. Foids are not "fighting back", they are manipulating men who don't do anything to put bitches in their place cuz they're too afraid of being sexless. If men opened their eyes and did what they had to do then there wouldn't be such a thing as feminism or any of that bullshit.
As if that's relevant. I wasn't addressing them. I was addressing the idea that some have here that women can be told to go back to being in committed relationships with men they are not sexually attracted to and that their resentment at this can be stifled indefinitely. Forget feminism. That's just not in the nature of women to accept. There will be consequences down the line.
>Be afraid of wiminz inkler, they're strong, smart, willing to fight back, and you shouldn't underestimate them. Don't make them mad.

Don't you wanna add "slay kweenz" to your signature too?
 
Just criminalize adultery and prohibit women from talking to other men online. You don't need to ban everything altogether, just ban the shit that encourages foids to be whores.
You do need to ban social media and online dating to prohibit women from talking to other men online. Otherwise they are going to find ways around it like with proxies.
Most men are physically stronger and smarter than women. You're still overestimating foids man wtf
With weapons women can still harm you. You think a weak man can't kill you if he has weapons or chemicals with him?
Again, giving unnecessary credit to foids. Foids are not "fighting back", they are manipulating men who don't do anything to put bitches in their place cuz they're too afraid of being sexless. If men opened their eyes and did what they had to do then there wouldn't be such a thing as feminism or any of that bullshit.
Wrong. That's a simplistic cope that assumes all men have to do is be violent and women will fall in line. You will sooner be murdered by one of their orbiters or family members than that working out successfully.
>Be afraid of wiminz inkler, they're strong, smart, willing to fight back, and you shouldn't underestimate them. Don't make them mad.

Don't you wanna add "slay kweenz" to your signature too?
In your original response you even brought up some thing that bothered you about how I said that shaming simps is just a way normies are using to prevent ugly guys from shooting their shot with women and as a way to reduce male competition. You are then trying to portray that as me worshipping women. I was not and I was saying that the way "simp" is being used is not as it's original definition (someone who (regardless of their relationship status) pedestalizes and prefers special treatment for women) is now more used in the sense of shaming "niceguys" and "neckbeards.", making simp shaming just another anti male shaming tactic.

Do you want to stop picking fights? Because all of you've done since joining here is picking fights with others and then blaming it on your autism. You keep going even though no one wants to entertain your ramblings and starting shit. Then when no one else wants to engage further you chalk it up as a victory despite just insulting people and being aggressive for no reason other than that you are bored.
 
Last edited:
The solution is the destruction of western society, lack of resources, wars etc. Fortunately we have a bunch of those coming in our way, we just need to observe and probably die in the process.
 
The solution is the destruction of western society, lack of resources, wars etc. Fortunately we have a bunch of those coming in our way, we just need to observe and probably die in the process.
Peace is underrated. Peace is boring yeah but the reverse isn't necessarily any better. No matter how bad things get men always suffer the brunt of it getting bad. That's the case in wars, economic recessions/depressions, famines and so on.
 
Peace is underrated. Peace is boring yeah but the reverse isn't necessarily any better. No matter how bad things get men always suffer the brunt of it getting bad. That's the case in wars, economic recessions/depressions, famines and so on.
Yes, we probably won't get any benefits from this. But those who come after and can survive will
 
Yes, we probably won't get any benefits from this. But those who come after and can survive will
That's cucked in itself. Basically it's just telling the current generation of nonchad men that they may have to die so future generations can benefit. Again there's no solution but to keep things from getting worse and to look for alternatives to women and try things that don't have a track record of failure. Because for sure this isn't the first time in history something like this has happened to men but they fix they came up for this has obviously stopped working and potentially backfired.
 
Last edited:
You do need to ban social media and online dating to prohibit women from talking to other men online. Otherwise they are going to find ways around it like with proxies.
Ban online dating yes, but you don't need to ban all methods of online communication. Just make laws that regulate its usage and prevents women from being whores. Have a little bit of imagination.
With weapons women can still harm you. You think a weak man can't kill you if he doesn't have weapons or chemicals with him?
Men can harm people too, we have a ton of reasons to start a revolution right now yet we don't do it cuz we're afraid of the consequences. Women are afraid of the consequences too and even more than men. You thinking we should fear women in a patriarchal society is ridiculous.
Wrong. That's a simplistic cope that assumes all men have to do is be violent and women will fall in line. You will sooner be murdered by one of their orbiters than that working out successfully
So by your logic it is impossible to keep men in line as well? It is impossible to make laws and force people to be civilized through coercion and violence? Cuz that's exactly what every society does buddy.
In your original response you even brought up some thing that bothered you about how I said that shaming simps is just a way normies are using to prevent ugly guys from shooting their shot with women and as a way to reduce male competition. You are then trying to portray that as me worshipping women. I was not and I was saying that the way "simp" is being used is not as it's original definition (someone who (regardless of their relationship status) pedestalizes and prefers special treatment for women) is now more used in the sense of shaming "niceguys" and "neckbeards."
You think shaming simps is not ok and you are indirectly worshipping foids in this thread. I'm not taking anything out of context.
Do you want to stop picking fights? Because all of you've done since joining here is picking fights with others and then blaming it on your autism. You keep going even though no one wants to entertain your ramblings and starting shit. Then when no one else wants to engage further you chalk it up as a victory despite just insulting people and being aggressive for no reason other than that you are bored.
I've posted a lot of stuff and I rarely argue with other users. It seems to me you've already made up your mind about me and you just dismiss everything I say cuz you don't like me. If you get too stressed when someone confronts your opinions here then that's your problem. I'm expressing legitimate thoughts here and I don't give a fuck if you're too sensitive, I will tell you my opinion if I want.

Also, one thing is being autistic and another thing is being an oversensitive bitch. You have no excuse for the latter my man.
 
Enforced monogamy is a meme unless pretty much all tech gets banned
 
do you think that we could make a system that abuses foids so much that they are scared of and serve us?
 
Ban online dating yes, but you don't need to ban all methods of online communication. Just make laws that regulate its usage and prevents women from being whores. Have a little bit of imagination.
Online dating of course but also social media because again it's through social media too that women find fallback options and consolation for whatever acts they carry out. In the past they didn't have that so shaming them for being adulterous and breaking their vows carried more weight.

Also it is through online communication that women are able to convince each other to set their standards progressively higher. They lose that ability to do that on such a wide scale if social media and online communication at large is heavily restricted. As seen from the "no girls on the internet" trope a lot of them didn't even participate in doing this until image oriented social media sites like facebook but more so twitter, instagram and then tiktok became popular. So along with online dating, image oriented social media (which is all social media) should also be banned.
Men can harm people too, we have a ton of reasons to start a revolution right now yet we don't do it cuz we're afraid of the consequences. Women are afraid of the consequences too and even more than men. You thinking we should fear women in a patriarchal society is ridiculous.
Here are the closest things today to societies that are patriarchal: societies that still have arranged marriage. Are women anymore afraid of men or the consequences? Not really. In places like India with arranged marriage there is an MRA movement largely because women still treat the men (that they have little option but to be with) there horribly. The Middle East is a bit better but that's changing rapidly with social media, re-interpretation of Islamic scriptures in a more pro female way and others on this site have pointed this out with the westernization aspect and how "Islam cannot compete with the smartphone." Violence is just temporary. You cannot use it as a means indefinitely unless you have monopoly on it. And even in past societies men didn't have sole monopoly on violence. The tribe and the woman's family did.
So by your logic it is impossible to keep men in line as well? It is impossible to make laws and force people to be civilized through coercion and violence? Cuz that's exactly what every society does buddy.
It cannot be done indefinitely. And it's not realistic for men to do this on a mass scale if men can't even say one unflattering thing about women online without being considered terrorists.
You think shaming simps is not ok and you are indirectly worshipping foids in this thread. I'm not taking anything out of context.
Because shaming "simps" nowadays entails the same thing as shaming "niceguys" and "neckbeards". Now the notion among people that aren't incels is that simp means a thirsty guy donating to streamers or more commonly an ugly guy shooting his shoot by being nice to a woman. Well that's just another way normies use to cut down on male competition, since an ugly guy is unfortunately only going to have any chance of luck by pandering to women in some ways or being excessively nice to them at first. So why should I be okay with shaming simps when "simp" itself is not being used in the proper context and has become just another way of shaming low SMV males?
I've posted a lot of stuff and I rarely argue with other users. It seems to me you've already made up your mind about me and you just dismiss everything I say cuz you don't like me. If you get too stressed when someone confronts your opinions here then that's your problem. I'm expressing legitimate thoughts here and I don't give a fuck if you're too sensitive, I will tell you my opinion if I want.

Also, one thing is being autistic and another thing is being an oversensitive bitch. You have no excuse for the latter my man.
You are bringing up something I said about how "simps" isn't used in the same context as it was originally intended and trying to make that out to be worshipping women. You obviously didn't like what I said in that thread but you had to bring it up here as a personal attack and with it having no relevance to this discussion.
 
You don't even have to "enforce monogamy"

Just make adultery with evidence a way for men to keep all their shit in a marriage and their children

Get rid of no fault divorce.

Done.
 
Enforced monogamy is a meme unless pretty much all tech gets banned
What Jordan Peterson meant by enforced monogamy imo is the time when cheating, serial monogamy and setting standards too high was actually heavily looked down on and had social penalties. Now it's just the opposite. It's encouraged and that is largely a result of women having way more choice and outlets for a receptive audience through social media and online dating.
You don't even have to "enforce monogamy"

Just make adultery with evidence a way for men to keep all their shit in a marriage and their children

Get rid of no fault divorce.

Done.
That would also be an option but without bans on social media it would eventually become toothless as women take to challenging it or undermining in it in whatever ways they can however trivial those ways seem at first. Once women group up with together and decide to collectively raise their standards for things there's little way of going back unless you cut off their association. Which is why even a lot of more bluepilled people say that when your woman's friends are a bad influence you have to convince her to cut them off in order to have any chance of saving your relationship.
 
Last edited:
Online dating of course but also social media because again it's through social media too that women find fallback options and consolation for whatever acts they carry out. In the past they didn't have that so shaming them for being adulterous and breaking their vows carried more weight.

Also it is through online communication that women are able to convince each other to set their standards progressively higher. They lose that ability to do that on such a wide scale if social media and online communication at large is heavily restricted. As seen from the "no girls on the internet" trope a lot of them didn't even participate in doing this until image oriented social media sites like facebook but more so twitter, instagram and then tiktok became popular. So along with online dating, image oriented social media (which is all social media) should also be banned.
Social media nowadays is fucked up yes but that doesn't mean all forms of communication are fucked up and should be banned. It's like saying we should ban all methods of transportation cuz women use cars to go visit their lovers. You're not even thinking of ways to fix the problem.
Here are the closest things today to societies that are patriarchal: societies that still have arranged marriage. Are women anymore afraid of men or the consequences? Not really. In places like India with arranged marriage there is an MRA movement largely because women still treat the men they are forced to be with there horribly. The Middle East is a bit better but that's changing rapidly with social media and others on this site have pointed this out with the westernization aspect and how "Islam cannot compete with the smartphone." Violence is just temporary. You cannot use it as a means indefinitely unless you have monopoly on it. And even in past societies men didn't have sole monopoly on violence. The tribe and the woman's family did.
You're blaming the effects of (((globalization and western influence))) on patriarchal systems. It's hard to make a good society nowadays when you have superpowers like the US influencing other countries and infecting their societies like they've been doing for decades.
It cannot be done indefinitely. And it's not realistic for men to do this on a mass scale if men can't even say one unflattering thing about women online without being considered terrorists.
I agree that it is unrealistic but I don't agree with some of the reasons you've given. I don't agree that women cannot be tamed, I don't agree that we should fear them in a patriarchal society, I don't agree that going back technologically is the only solution, and I don't think it is a good idea to make a thread that will stroke foids egos if they read it.
Because shaming "simps" nowadays entails the same thing as shaming "niceguys" and "neckbeards". Now the notion among people that aren't incels is that simp means a thirsty guy donating to streamers or more commonly an ugly guy shooting his shoot by being nice to a woman. Well that's just another way normies use to cut down on male competition, since an ugly guy is unfortunately only going to have any chance of luck by pandering to women in some ways or being excessively nice to them at first. So why should I be okay with shaming simps when "simp" itself is not being used in the proper context and has become just another way of shaming low SMV males?
I'll just quote what I replied to you a few days ago (which was totally ignored by you btw)
Men acting like simps are one of the main reasons we're in this mess in the first place. As long as men continue to be simps and cucks we'll continue to live in a gynocentric shithole. Normies being weeded out from the dating pool will only add to the general frustration among males and increase the chances that these idiots do something about it. Keep in mind that normies don't give a flying fuck about you, incel, so stop feeling sympathy for them.


You are bringing up something I said about how "simps" isn't used in the same context as it was originally intended and trying to make that out to be worshipping women. You obviously didn't like what I said in that thread but you had to bring it up here as a personal attack and with it having no relevance to this discussion.
At least I got you to reply this time, didn't I? Yeah, and it does have relevance because when you say stuff like "shaming simps is not good" you give me the impression that you're a foid worshipper (especially when you don't even make an effort to deny my reply and clarify you're not a simp) and if on top of that you make a thread overestimating foids and giving them unnecessary credit then of course I'll bring it up and make you explain yourself. What did you expect?
 
Social media nowadays is fucked up yes but that doesn't mean all forms of communication are fucked up and should be banned. It's like saying we should ban all methods of transportation cuz women use cars to go visit their lovers. You're not even thinking of ways to fix the problem.

You're blaming the effects of (((globalization and western influence))) on patriarchal systems. It's hard to make a good society nowadays when you have superpowers like the US influencing other countries and infecting their societies like they've been doing for decades.

I agree that it is unrealistic but I don't agree with some of the reasons you've given. I don't agree that women cannot be tamed, I don't agree that we should fear them in a patriarchal society, I don't agree that going back technologically is the only solution, and I don't think it is a good idea to make a thread that will stroke foids egos if they read it.
A complete ban on social media where you can post your face and gain followers for whatever you say is the only way to cut down on women inflating their egos and standards and having an easy outlet to justify every action they take. Before when they couldn't do that relationships lasted a lot longer and women didn't feel as bold to cheat openly like they do now.

The example of arranged marriage failing in India is an example of how there is a limit even in terms of when men are more forceful to what women will agree to go along with and how grudgingly they will just accept it. Were things different maybe the odds of taming women and preventing them from straying would be more hopeful but most men don't make the cut for that to happen. Or even if they do that still doesn't include every man. Globalization and western influence isn't easily restricted once put out and women feel they can do better. It isn't even a question if whether they can do "better" is realistic or not. Once that possibility is there they won't forget it and will always strive for it.

I don't care about women that read things here that might make them happy because they are not the intended audience and I don't think about how they would react to what they are reading. By that logic of not making threads that will stroke women's egos, people here shouldn't discuss their despair at all because it makes some women feel happy to see a portion of men feel so helpless.
I'll just quote what I replied to you a few days ago (which was totally ignored by you btw)


You are giving most of the blame to "simps" as normies define them though. Those "simps" as normies define them are usually average to below average looking men that know they have to appeal to women and be nice to them at first to even have a shot at getting in a relationship with them. That kind of behavior has been going on forever. It's just an unfortunate part of the courtship process for uglier guys.

These "simps" as normies define them aren't guys that no matter what their relationship status pedestalize women and give them special treatment in all or most aspects of life. That was the original definition of a simp but it's been corrupted by normies and normies shaming "simps" as they define it is just punching down. Of course I'm not okay with that.
At least I got you to reply this time, didn't I? Yeah, and it does have relevance because when you say stuff like "shaming simps is not good" you give me the impression that you're a foid worshipper (especially when you don't even make an effort to deny my reply and clarify you're not a simp) and if on top of that you make a thread overestimating foids and giving them unnecessary credit then of course I'll bring it up and make you explain yourself. What did you expect?
Shaming "simps" as normies define them is just punching down on desperate guys that have little to no power anyway. Those guys are an easy target to mock but it does nothing by shaming them when it's already a safe option. Chads that date down, take pleasure in stealing away average looking male's wives and girlfriends and women that encourage casual hatred of men for fun are way more to blame for how things are compared to those desperate guys that normies label as "simps". It doesn't even come close. It's blame shifting to easy scapegoats and that's why I oppose it. I'm not going to respond to your accusations about me being a foid worshipper if I don't even think that accusation is worth addressing because of how I don't see the basis in it.
 
Last edited:
A complete ban on social media where you can post your face and gain followers for whatever you say is the only way to cut down on women inflating their egos and standards and having an easy outlet to justify every action they take. Before when they couldn't do that relationships lasted a lot longer and women didn't feel as bold to cheat openly like they do now.
You're not including the anti-whore/anti-adultery laws in your thought experiment. What I'm saying is that making laws against the type of social media we have today along with laws that restrain women's behavior is better than just banning all methods of online communication. We could have social media and live in a patriarchal system but obviously social media would not be what it is today.
The example of arranged marriage failing in India is an example of how there is a limit even in terms of when men are more forceful to what women will agree to go along with and how grudgingly they will just accept it. Were things different maybe the odds of taming women and preventing them from straying would be more hopeful but most men don't make the cut for that to happen. Or even if they do that still doesn't include every man. Globalization and western influence isn't easily restricted once put out and women feel they can do better. It isn't even a question if whether they can do "better" is realistic or not. Once that possibility is there they won't forget it and will always strive for it.
Pedophiles will always try to fuck little children, that's why we have laws against pedophilia. We need laws against whoring and discourage slutty behavior socially. But yeah, most men are cucks and simps and won't allow it (that's why I think simp shaming is good)
I don't care about women that read things here that might make them happy because they are not the intended audience and I don't think about how they would react to what they are reading. By that logic of not making threads that will stroke women's egos, people here shouldn't discuss their despair at all because it makes some women feel happy to see a portion of men feel so helpless.
One thing is venting and another is making a thread saying women are strong and that we should be afraid of them cuz we can't tame them, that's some cuck shit man. Also, weren't you saying a month ago that we shouldn't have arguments here cuz normies lurk the forum and they find it entertaining? it seems you care about lurkers only when you want to convince users to stop doing stuff you don't like.
You are giving most of the blame to "simps" as normies define them though. Those "simps" as normies define them are usually average to below average looking men that know they have to appeal to women and be nice to them at first to even have a shot at getting in a relationship with them. That kind of behavior has been going on forever. It's just part of the courtship process.

These "simps" as normies define them aren't guys that no matter what their relationship status pedestalize women and give them special treatment in all or most aspects of life. That was the original definition of a simp but it's been corrupted by normies and normies shaming "simps" as they define it is just punching down. Of course I'm not okay with that.
Normies will use whatever they can to compete in the sexual market. Them using the word simp to eliminate competition does not make simping a good thing. If you wanna convince me that praising bitches is beneficial for men as a whole then show me an example at least.
Shaming "simps" as normies define them is just punching down on desperate guys that have little to no power anyway. Those guys are an easy target to mock but it does nothing by shaming them when it's already a safe option. Chads that date down, take pleasure in stealing away average looking male's wives and girlfriends and women that encourage casual hatred of men for fun are way more to blame for how things are compared to those desperate guys that normies label as "simps". It doesn't even come close.
Chads and foids are to blame too but if the majority of men did things right and stopped being cucks we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with. Chads are a minority and you can't expect jack shit from foids so imo simps and cucks are responsible in great part. You said it yourself in this thread, the solution is unrealistic because a lot of men wouldn't get on board. Why wouldn't you want to shame those men then?
 
You're not including the anti-whore/anti-adultery laws in your thought experiment. What I'm saying is that making laws against the type of social media along with laws that restrain women's behavior is better than just banning all methods of online communication. We could have social media and live in a patriarchal system but obviously social media would not be what it is today.
Maybe but imo such a system would have to go all the way because obviously the alternative is putting even more restrictions when weaknesses in that system become exposed. You have to tie up all the loose ends.
Pedophiles will always try to fuck little children, that's why we have laws against pedophilia. We need laws against whoring and discourage slutty behavior socially. But yeah, most men are cucks and simps and won't allow it (that's why I think simp shaming is good)
But the definition of "simps" is the issue here. It no longer means a man that panders to woman and privileges women over men regardless of their relationship. It means a thirsty, desperate usually ugly guy that acts nice to women in hopes of getting laid.
One thing is venting and another is making a thread saying women are strong and that we should be afraid of them cuz we can't tame them, that's some cuck shit man. Also, weren't you saying that we shouldn't have arguments here cuz normies lurk the forum and they find it entertaining? it seems you care about lurkers only when you want to convince users to stop doing stuff you don't like.
It's just acknowledging the reality. I'm not saying to be afraid but that taming women in the long term hasn't proven to be feasible and will probably backfire. This generation of men is experiencing the backfiring from men in the past trying to tame women when the women weren't entirely enthusiastic about being with those men.

I still believe people here shouldn't get into pages of heated arguments because it provides entertainment for normies. That doesn't mean that I think that certain topics shouldn't be discussed because it might make women feel better about their lives.
Normies will use whatever they can to compete in the sexual market. Them using the word simp to eliminate competition does not make simping a good thing. If you wanna convince me that praising bitches is beneficial for men as a whole then show me an example at least.
It's not beneficial but it's the lesser evil and imo men that pander to women without much success are just wasting their time. Really the word "simp" as they use it just punching down on ugly guys shooting their shot and mis-using the term from how it was originally intended so of course I have a problem with that kind of "simp" shaming.
Chads and foids are to blame too but if the majority of men did things right and stopped being cucks we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with. Chads are a minority and you can't expect jack shit from foids so imo simps and cucks are responsible in great part. You said it yourself in this thread, the solution is unrealistic because a lot of men wouldn't get on board. Why wouldn't you want to shame those men then?
Chads might be a minority but high tier normies that are sexually attractive to women are still a fairly large number and they also do things like dating down for easy pickings, to flex on uglier guys and to increase the chances of the woman they are with being easier to deal with. In that way they still carry out the same role as chads.

Shaming simps and cucks as normies define them has little effect because women don't care what happens to those guys or how they react to them. If they cared about men they weren't attracted and what those men thought then MRA and mgtow would be way more successful than now.

That men don't expect anything from women is also a part of why things are bad. Women shouldn't have it both ways. Are they accountable or are they not? The way it is now society leaves them off the hook for some things and blames the nearest man if a woman messes up or does something bad. It's never just her fault alone. No such excuse is given for men. Men should expect women to stop opportunistically hating on and mocking nonchad men. That's entirely within women's control to stop. But most men just dismiss it.
 
But the definition of "simps" is the issue here. It no longer means a man that panders to woman and privileges women over men regardless of their relationship. It means a thirsty, desperate usually ugly guy that acts nice to women in hopes of getting laid.
Men being "nice" to women in the hopes of getting laid are the reason very few men speak up and protest against gynocentrism. What I don't understand is why you care so much about normies being weeded out of the sexual market when you yourself are not even competing. The more thirsty angry men out there the more chances that those men do something about it.
It's just acknowledging the reality. I'm not saying to be afraid but that taming women in the long term hasn't proven to be feasible and will probably backfire. This generation of men is experiencing the backfiring from men in the past trying to tame women when the women weren't entirely enthusiastic about being with those men.
Dude, who the fuck are you gonna have a wife if she doesn't wanna be with you? you use force. If you don't want the shit to backfire then do things right.

And you are saying to be afraid, you literally said that your wife could kill you.
I still believe people here shouldn't get into pages of heated arguments because it provides entertainment for normies. That doesn't mean that I think that certain topics shouldn't be discussed because it might make women feel better about their lives.
You can post whatever you want as long as it's not gay or bluepilled shit for all I care. But if you're gonna worship foids indirectly like you're doing in this thread then I'll call you out.
It's not beneficial but it's the lesser evil and imo men that pander to women without much success are just wasting their time. Really the word "simp" as they use it just punching down on ugly guys shooting their shot and mis-using the term from how it was originally intended so of course I have a problem with that kind of "simp" shaming.
still no example so open to interpretation.
Chads might be a minority but high tier normies that are sexually attractive to women are still a fairly large number and they also do things like dating down for easy pickings, to flex on uglier guys and to increase the chances of the woman they are with being easier to deal with. In that way they still carry out the same role as chads.

That men don't expect anything from women is also a part of why things are bad. Women shouldn't have it both ways. Are they accountable or are they not? The way it is now society leaves them off the hook for some things and blames the nearest man if a woman messes up or does something bad. It's never just her fault alone. No such excuse is given for men. Men should expect women to stop opportunistically hating on and mocking nonchad men. That's entirely within women's control to stop. But most men just dismiss it.
What I'm saying is that we already know foids are stupid evil cunts and they need to be kept in check by men. That's the only way it works. If you wanna shame women then I'm all for it but if you're gonna talk about a hypothetical solution then we talk about what men can do. Foids will never stop being foids, men can at least use their brains and find a solution. Tho tbh I'm just as pessimistic as you and I have no hope that this world will ever change for the good so fuck it

I'll just leave this happy gypsy song to cope with the negativity and stop discussing shit tbhngl

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY8VXynNCPs
 
Men being "nice" to women in the hopes of getting laid are the reason very few men speak up and protest against gynocentrism. What I don't understand is why you care so much about normies being weeded out of the sexual market when you yourself are not even competing. The more thirsty angry men out there the more chances that those men do something about it.
It's not that. I don't think that guys should be faulted for trying to court women in a bluepilled way since that's the only thing that will work for them. By shaming those guys for just trying to get with women it in effect increases the power of chads to pull "asshole" game and by their halo make guys that try to be nice to court women more vilified. This has already happened by how "niceguys" being vilified has increased the appeal of better looking guys being cocky as being more "real" and "down to earth."

More angry thirsty men out there doesn't directly translate to action to do something about current issues. Most likely they will just fight among each other and try to look for ways to avoid addressing women by blaming things on nebulous social breakdown, religous/political/economic conflict or other forms of long winded escapism and resort to systematic thinking, making them vulnerable to being recruited and used by political groups. All it really guarantees in the end is social dysfunction and frustration. Which women never incur the physical effect of and that all nonchad men suffer through in some way or the other (even if it's as minimal as stress or increased worry about the future.)
Dude, who the fuck are you gonna have a wife if she doesn't wanna be with you? you use force. If you don't want the shit to backfire then do things right.
This isn't like a time where you can call the police and ask them to use force to put upstarts in line. This is consistent nagging, refusal to obey you even if you physically discipline her matters we are talking about. Using force becomes less effective over time as it becomes something that men have to resort to to force women to behave. It loses its leverage. It can't be upheld forever.
And you are saying to be afraid, you literally said that your wife could kill you.
I'm not saying to be afraid but that there is a possibility and historical precedent for woman killing men that they are socially pressured to be with against their own will. And in the mean time they are just as likely to make the man's life a living hell so that in the end one of them walks out of the "relationship" or drops dead. That's how much they don't want to deal with men they are not sexually attracted to.
You can post whatever you want as long as it's not gay or bluepilled shit for all I care. But if you're gonna worship foids indirectly like you're doing in this thread then I'll call you out.
Again I'm not worshipping foids directly or indirectly. But I'm saying that shaming thirsty guys that try to get the attention of women is picking at easy targets and not addressing the root causes of other women and chads encouraging women (through their actions and words) of not only dating up but putting down men that they exclude. By comparison thirsty guys have little to no effect. They have always existed throughout time and no one has ever taken them seriously. But they are an easy target to blame because of how they behave and ironically enough how many women are put off by their supplicating ways.
still no example so open to interpretation.
I gave the example when I said that "simp" as used by normies is used in the same way as "niceguy" and "neckbeard": a dorky, sexually frustrated low SMV male that is unsuccessful with women. That's not what the original definition of the word simp meant and I object to that mise-use along with normies shaming "simps" because it's normies punching down and engaging in opportunistic behavior. It helps only normies and women when they do that not low SMV males.
What I'm saying is that we already know foids are stupid evil cunts and they need to be kept in check by men. That's the only way it works. If you wanna shame women then I'm all for it but if you're gonna talk about a hypothetical solution then we talk about what men can do. Foids will never stop being foids, men can at least use their brains and find a solution. Tho tbh I'm just as pessimistic as you and I have no hope that this world will ever change for the good so fuck it

I'll just leave this happy gypsy song to cope with the negativity and stop discussing shit tbhngl

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY8VXynNCPs

I'm saying we shouldn't always look to the past when things haven't worked as well as is thought upon further examination. And while the following is an argument feminists use there is truth in how a lot of the anger women have at men now is a form of generational revenge for women being socially pressured to be, associating with or having to rely on men they weren't sexually attracted to in previous generations. In many ways this is being held over the heads of men today as a justification for why many men are suffering. But as the times drift further from sexually unattractive men having any leverage or equal footing with women their argument and justification loses steam. And they know that which is why they try with increasing lack of success to find new things to blame men for like "emotional labor." It's a sick twisted game to them of punishing all men for the actions of a few they felt they or their past female friends or relatives were humiliated or used by. They consider themselves better than many of today's men but the sooner they start looking like out of touch aristocrats in every way the better. They gain privilege from being shown as victimized in any way and furthermore a large portion of men buying into that.

As time passes they are running out of excuses. This is seen by how a lot of men can't take complaints about "emotional labor", #metoo, the concept of enthusiastic, retroactive consent and so on seriously. Just as women abandoned nonchad men, nonchad men should look for alternatives to reconciling with women when from history it's obvious that reconciling with women never worked out long term and women were looking for the first opportunity to again be free to choose and exclude men at will without any social pressure or shame and for any reason.
 
Last edited:
Tis true ? :feelswhere: :feelswhere: :feelswhere:
What OP doesn't see is that that's the way I make friends. For example, look at you, I've had heated arguments with you in the past and now we're best buddies (I'm literally your best friend and you can't deny it). I'm sure OP will be adding me to his list of most important people in his life after this :feelzez:
 
What OP doesn't see is that that's the way I make friends. For example, look at you, I've had heated arguments with you in the past and now we're best buddies (I'm literally your best friend and you can't deny it). I'm sure OP will be adding me to his list of most important people in his life after this :feelzez:
Maybe :waitwhat:

I never had anything against you tbh the banters were more for entertainment :feelsmage:
 
Maybe :waitwhat:

I never had anything against you tbh the banters were more for entertainment :feelsmage:
:feelsautistic: if it worked with you I'm sure it'll work with @your personality too!! I just have to harass him for a couple more months and he'll eventually like me :feelsaww:
 
No it would just require men as a united group and seeing women as inferior yes there will be resistance but it will still be better then what we have now also husbands shoul be obligated to there wife's body
 
dn rd but what if the foids beat you up? Foids weren't as fat back before McDonald's that's why they couldn't beat people up back then
 

Similar threads

Buried Alive 2.0
Replies
5
Views
202
Buried Alive 2.0
Buried Alive 2.0
Balding Subhuman
Replies
6
Views
262
lifeisbullshit95
lifeisbullshit95
GurneyBoy
Replies
9
Views
347
Den66kj
Den66kj
Logic55
Replies
8
Views
179
Jud Pottah
Jud Pottah

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top