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.

Discussion How can you say betabuxxing isn’t true love, when true love between humans is a myth?

ThisWorldIsAMess

ThisWorldIsAMess

Banned
-
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Posts
424
Literally. People here say that betabuxxes who are in relationships are only in them because of their money and the girl doesn’t love them at heart. Of course this is true.

However, isn’t this the same for Chads? Chad doesn’t get true love. He gets lust and admiration for being good looking and tall.

The one thing Chad has on the betabux is a girls visceral reaction to him and his body. I know this is very important. I want to be seen as an attractive male, but isn’t this whole relationship thing shallow asf?
 
One is the lust of a possession that is outside of the person. The money, the status, the property.
One is the lust of a possession that's within the person. Their body, their hair, their looks, their voice, their eyes.

While they don't want the person for who they are inside, they still want the person for what's outside and still a part of them.

It's like canned cheese and processed cheese. They're both terrible, but one is still better than the other one. If you're going to eat one, eat the processed cheese. Betabuxxing is the canned cheese.
 
Literally. People here say that betabuxxes who are in relationships are only in them because of their money and the girl doesn’t love them at heart. Of course this is true.

However, isn’t this the same for Chads? Chad doesn’t get true love. He gets lust and admiration for being good looking and tall.

The one thing Chad has on the betabux is a girls visceral reaction to him and his body. I know this is very important. I want to be seen as an attractive male, but isn’t this whole relationship thing shallow asf?
Your username is the answear.
 
So what if it is shallow, when did shallow become a bad thing?
 
Buxmaxxing is not attraction. Foids throwing their holes at Chad is attraction.
 
So what if it is shallow, when did shallow become a bad thing?
Shallow is bad because it means the girl doesn’t actually like YOU. You could get your teeth punched out and she’ll leave.

Shallow relationships rarely last, nor feel authentic.
One is the lust of a possession that is outside of the person. The money, the status, the property.
One is the lust of a possession that's within the person. Their body, their hair, their looks, their voice, their eyes.

While they don't want the person for who they are inside, they still want the person for what's outside and still a part of them.

It's like canned cheese and processed cheese. They're both terrible, but one is still better than the other one. If you're going to eat one, eat the processed cheese. Betabuxxing is the canned cheese.
Yes that’s true. Money isn’t exactly part of a man. But it’s representative of his success and drive in the world. The ability to persevere with drive in this world is uncommon and is demonstrated through his finances.

A lot of women date/marry rich men, not just because she gets to buy fancy shoes, but because of the status and power the man has.

Both are shallow, but I’d argue it’s pretty close.
 
Last edited:
Shallow is bad because it means the girl doesn’t actually like YOU. You could get your teeth punched out and she’ll leave.

Shallow relationships rarely last, nor feel authentic.
What do you mean by "YOU". What kind of attraction is good then, personality? Personality is a result of my body and can change through brain damage, so it's just as shallow going by your example, not to mention it's not a romantic/sexual attraction.
 
What do you mean by "YOU". What kind of attraction is good then, personality? Personality is a result of my body and can change through brain damage, so it's just as shallow going by your example, not to mention it's not a romantic/sexual attraction.
When I say ‘YOU’ I mean your soul, being and mind. The spirit in you given to you by God. They way you feel, react, think, etc. Her wanting that soul on the inside to be happy and falling in love with it.

This type of love can lead to sexual attraction as long as you meet the threshold. The threshold in this instance would be lower due to her finding you more attractive through her love for you and familiarity with you.
 
because money is not genetics
 
Neither is true love. Romantic love is always conditional and, especially from the female part, extremely fragile and fleeting.

But being "loved" for your looks still beats being "loved" for your money, because your looks are at least a part of you, which is inseparable from you, while your money is not a part of you and can be attained apart from you.
 
Can one truly love the very essence of being within the other?
 
When I say ‘YOU’ I mean your soul, being and mind. The spirit in you given to you by God. They way you feel, react, think, etc. Her wanting that soul on the inside to be happy and falling in love with it.

This type of love can lead to sexual attraction as long as you meet the threshold. The threshold in this instance would be lower due to her finding you more attractive through her love for you and familiarity with you.
This is the part where I don't understand what you are saying anymore because I know neither what a soul or a god is.
But being "loved" for your looks still beats beig "loved" for your money
Can foids even love you for your money?
 
Can foids even love you for your money?
They can't, I should have used extra quotation marks there.

The tripod for female to male attraction to me is: looks (height and frame go here as well), money DARK TRIAD PERSONALITY, status.
 
Betabuxxing is cucked, I agree that Love is fake though.
 
OP raises some good points
 
However, isn’t this the same for Chads? Chad doesn’t get true love. He gets lust and admiration for being good looking and tall.
this worldview is what escortcels keep coping with too. they get hung up on the terms love and romance because they buy into the MSM worldview on relationships that work under 2 false assumptions:

  • physical intimacy (sex) and emotional affection (romance) are distinct and unrelated
  • emotional affection and love are equivalents

If you are a bluepilled soy and believe in love, you expect to gain validation from romance regardless of the presence of sex or not. They are separate entities to you and thus physical intimacy is degraded as something lesser than romance.

The escortcelpill exists in that same bluepilled bubble. They believe these entities (sex & romance) are separate from one another. Only difference to the soys is that escortcels put a different emphasis on these 2 entities. To the escortcel the physical intimacy is all that matters because to them something like validation from emotional affection does not exist.

These are both misinterpretations of the real world.

Romance and love are not the same thing. Love is the belief in some form of unconditional affection or at least something that tries to transcend the material world. A belief in love is preceded by a belief that the physical realm and the metaphysical (spiritual or mental one) are separate from one another. Only this distinction allows for the bluepilled person to make the necessary discrimination that the physical, the materialistic, the tangible is something lesser while the metaphysical must be something great to be aspired towards. Or in the case of the escortcel to make the opposite claim.

Imagine the following: You look at 2 different persons. One is hot. One is average looking. Which one do you want to fuck? The hot one, no-brainer. You feel no sexual attraction to the average looking one, but you could imagine to sleep with them. You automatically begin to create conditions for the average looking one in your head which the person would have to fulfil for you to feel affection for them. The moment you start to feel deep emotional affection for the person, sexual attraction is created. Ignorants would call this standard phenomenon "pansexuality" jfl there is no such thing. If an escortcel fucks a hooker he may tell me that it feels great and it's physical but it's not 'just physical', that they may even experience something like affection for the prostitute they fuck and at times - very rarely - they may even 'fall in love' with the person they slept with or start to build up emotions for them.

What are these 2 phenomenons if not a proof of the reality that physical and emotional affection are directly connected and inseparable from one another? You may claim to me that you fucked a hundred different hot looking persons and that you felt nothing for any of these persons. But you would be able to say that only because you cut the interaction off immediately after the 'transaction'.

In essence what you have done both as soy and as escortcel is you have taken human relations and turned them into an industrially processed good. You went into the wood grounds, tore off the resource (in this case the relationship) like picking a flower or a fruit and then you forcefully destroyed the whole fruit in your separation process in order to get your hands on that one element within the fruit that interested you (sex/romance). You squashed the whole fruit and squeezed and drained the contents of the fruit out, then filtered the juice, the sugar or whatever the fuck you wanted from it, you throw the rest of the contents away and then pretend it never existed and is just garbage anyway.

When i say i want validation from a woman through emotional affection, i don't mean that i want romance as a form of 'love'. Love as defined above does not exist. What i mean is that i want validation from a woman through physical intimacy as an expression of emotional affection. A whore can not give me that because a whore is separating the emotional from the physical. A whore is an industrial worker, who can only offer me fructose but not the whole fruit. I want a whole fruit.

This also goes against another notion. It is not LITERALLY impossible for a woman to be emotionally infatuated with you. Yes love does not exist but the problem with women is not that they are entirely different entities from men. The issue is that women hold themselves to different standards than men and thus don't even attempt to get things sexually and emotionally on with their looksmatches despite having been perfectly capable of bonding with them before they decided to industrialise themselves.
 
this worldview is what escortcels keep coping with too. they get hung up on the terms love and romance because they buy into the MSM worldview on relationships that work under 2 false assumptions:

  • physical intimacy (sex) and emotional affection (romance) are distinct and unrelated
  • emotional affection and love are equivalents

If you are a bluepilled soy and believe in love, you expect to gain validation from romance regardless of the presence of sex or not. They are separate entities to you and thus physical intimacy is degraded as something lesser than romance.

The escortcelpill exists in that same bluepilled bubble. They believe these entities (sex & romance) are separate from one another. Only difference to the soys is that escortcels put a different emphasis on these 2 entities. To the escortcel the physical intimacy is all that matters because to them something like validation from emotional affection does not exist.

These are both misinterpretations of the real world.

Romance and love are not the same thing. Love is the belief in some form of unconditional affection or at least something that tries to transcend the material world. A belief in love is preceded by a belief that the physical realm and the metaphysical (spiritual or mental one) are separate from one another. Only this distinction allows for the bluepilled person to make the necessary discrimination that the physical, the materialistic, the tangible is something lesser while the metaphysical must be something great to be aspired towards. Or in the case of the escortcel to make the opposite claim.

Imagine the following: You look at 2 different persons. One is hot. One is average looking. Which one do you want to fuck? The hot one, no-brainer. You feel no sexual attraction to the average looking one, but you could imagine to sleep with them. You automatically begin to create conditions for the average looking one in your head which the person would have to fulfil for you to feel affection for them. The moment you start to feel deep emotional affection for the person, sexual attraction is created. Ignorants would call this standard phenomenon "pansexuality" jfl there is no such thing. If an escortcel fucks a hooker he may tell me that it feels great and it's physical but it's not 'just physical', that they may even experience something like affection for the prostitute they fuck and at times - very rarely - they may even 'fall in love' with the person they slept with or start to build up emotions for them.

What are these 2 phenomenons if not a proof of the reality that physical and emotional affection are directly connected and inseparable from one another? You may claim to me that you fucked a hundred different hot looking persons and that you felt nothing for any of these persons. But you would be able to say that only because you cut the interaction off immediately after the 'transaction'.

In essence what you have done both as soy and as escortcel is you have taken human relations and turned them into an industrially processed good. You went into the wood grounds, tore off the resource (in this case the relationship) like picking a flower or a fruit and then you forcefully destroyed the whole fruit in your separation process in order to get your hands on that one element within the fruit that interested you (sex/romance). You squashed the whole fruit and squeezed and drained the contents of the fruit out, then filtered the juice, the sugar or whatever the fuck you wanted from it, you throw the rest of the contents away and then pretend it never existed and is just garbage anyway.

When i say i want validation from a woman through emotional affection, i don't mean that i want romance as a form of 'love'. Love as defined above does not exist. What i mean is that i want validation from a woman through physical intimacy as an expression of emotional affection. A whore can not give me that because a whore is separating the emotional from the physical. A whore is an industrial worker, who can only offer me fructose but not the whole fruit. I want a whole fruit.

This also goes against another notion. It is not LITERALLY impossible for a woman to be emotionally infatuated with you. Yes love does not exist but the problem with women is not that they are entirely different entities from men. The issue is that women hold themselves to different standards than men and thus don't even attempt to get things sexually and emotionally on with their looksmatches despite having been perfectly capable of bonding with them before they decided to industrialise themselves.

I wasnt ready for a salvo of 460mm IQpills to be honest...
 
Ye, I think that is why many chads lose their mind as well. Life is shallow as fuck.
 
Ye, I think that is why many chads lose their mind as well. Life is shallow as fuck.
Yes. Actually, women are shallow.

Men are the romantics; willing to die for someone they love. Loving through thick and thin. Women generally speaking don’t do this. Not to mention the fact that Chads still get cheated on.
 

Similar threads

NatsumeSouseki
Replies
16
Views
336
Da_Yunez
Da_Yunez
The Bickler
Replies
2
Views
310
Evangelioncel
Evangelioncel
I
Replies
21
Views
1K
Adolf Kitler
Adolf Kitler

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top