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.

SuicideFuel I cant stop thinking about Faelid gigastacy from my school

  • Thread starter AngryUbermensch
  • Start date
AngryUbermensch

AngryUbermensch

卐Antarctic Communism卐
-
Joined
Dec 10, 2023
Posts
1,701
She was very introverted, and i regret SOOO much that i didnt even try to fuck her.

Its not that i have romantic feelings for her(because im aromantic), but its just that i have never seen another foid like her IRL. Ive seen a few faelid foids in internet, but not IRL, because faelid race is really rare these days.

And unlike all other foids, i actually respect faelid(and tronder) foids, because they have high T and dont act like foids, but rather act like men.

Men who dont find Faelid foids attractive are probably very low T.
 
Isn't this lgbtq?
I dont think so. I think the majority of men are aromantic. The majority of men just want sex, they dont want "love"
 
I dont think so. I think the majority of men are aromantic. The majority of men just want sex, they dont want "love"
That's only you my guy, and apparently it is part of the LGHDTV+
 
Not believing in it and not feeling it is totally different.
I dont understand why would a men want to be obsessed with one foid if he could fuck a new foid every day and go on?

The only reason why i think about her is because she is really rare racially. If nazis won then there would be millions of foids like her, but these days its just EXTREMELY rare.
 
I dont understand why would a men want to be obsessed with one foid if he could fuck a new foid every day and go on?
It's called pair bonding nigga you need 2 people to support a child.
 
And unlike all other foids, i actually respect faelid(and tronder) foids, because they have high T and dont act like foids, but rather act like men.

Men who dont find Faelid foids attractive are probably very low T.
:feelssus: :feelssus: :feelssus:
 
Not believing in it and not feeling it is totally different.
I don't feel it and I barley feel any sexual attraction to anything. I only seek to reproduce.
 
It's called pair bonding nigga you need 2 people to support a child.
I believe that children shouldnt have any authority figures and families should not exist AT ALL. Families are evil, because they separate the people of one tribe into small groups. Families were invented by capitalists to control people more easily.

Children should be free, so they can think for themselves and create something new.
 
What is a "faelid" ?
 
Free as in? The community raising them?
Yeah, something like that. The whole tribe should contribute to raising children equally.
 
Its suspicious you like high T foids who act like men.
Unrelated but tronder foids mog faeld
I like faelid foids a bit more than tronder, but tronders are also very sexy, and quite smart
 
Its suspicious you like high T foids who act like men.
I just really hate the feminine way of thinking. A lot of men think like foids too btw. But high T foids are free from this degenerate way of thinking, and are less emotional.
 
I dont think so. I think the majority of men are aromantic. The majority of men just want sex, they dont want "love"
Either a desperate cope boyo or a tryhard attempt to from a guy who recently joined to fit in among “le scary psychopathic inkwells”

Yeah, something like that. The whole tribe should contribute to raising children equally.
Biologically impossible. You will never get people to support and treat strangers’ children the same way they treat their own children. Humans, and dozens of other species, are hardwired to prefer their own biological offspring, and that’s why pairbonding and love exist. You and the children’s mother are the only people who are biologically hardwired to treat them the best, and that’s why there’s a biological mechanism to get you to like being together so that the children can grow up in a safe environment.

Check out “The Cinderella Effect”. Having a step-parent is the greatest risk effect to a child being abused, and it’s not even close, while adopted kids only report feeling like they are a part of the family half of the time, and just in 25% of cases when they are adopted by a different race.

IMG 4397



Absolutely nothing beats a child being raised by its two biological parents.

The fact that this is not what happens a lot of times IRL thanks to how degenerate the world is now doesn’t change the fact that it is what is supposed to happen.

That's only you my guy, and apparently it is part of the LGHDTV+
Not believing in it and not feeling it is totally different.
 
I just really hate the feminine way of thinking. A lot of men think like foids too btw. But high T foids are free from this degenerate way of thinking, and are less emotional.
Doutzen kroes amfar

Faelid Stacy,
 
I think you're hardcore coping with the aromantic thing and faelid foids are just nothern germanic foids, so blonde and blue eyed. Also no such thing as introverted foid. Their privilege makes the extroverted and they profit a lot from it.
 
I think you're hardcore coping with the aromantic thing and faelid foids are just nothern germanic foids, so blonde and blue eyed. Also no such thing as introverted foid. Their privilege makes the extroverted and they profit a lot from it.
She was very introverted. She almost never spoke to anyone. I also think that she may be autistic.

This is true than faelid phenotype is most common in NorthWestern Germany. They are still quite rare though.

Günther wrote that around 10% of Westfalia(thats where the name comes from) population are faelids. The other part of name "Dalo" comes from the region of Dalarna in Sweden, where according to Hans Günther, around 5% of population are faelids.

Both 10% and 5% are a really big percent compared to other countries. I have seen only one dalofaelid(the foid i was talking about) in my country.
 
Either a desperate cope boyo or a tryhard attempt to from a guy who recently joined to fit in among “le scary psychopathic inkwells”


Biologically impossible. You will never get people to support and treat strangers’ children the same way they treat their own children. Humans, and dozens of other species, are hardwired to prefer their own biological offspring, and that’s why pairbonding and love exist. You and the children’s mother are the only people who are biologically hardwired to treat them the best, and that’s why there’s a biological mechanism to get you to like being together so that the children can grow up in a safe environment.

Check out “The Cinderella Effect”. Having a step-parent is the greatest risk effect to a child being abused, and it’s not even close, while adopted kids only report feeling like they are a part of the family half of the time, and just in 25% of cases when they are adopted by a different race.

View attachment 1083844


Absolutely nothing beats a child being raised by its two biological parents.

The fact that this is not what happens a lot of times IRL thanks to how degenerate the world is now doesn’t change the fact that it is what is supposed to happen.
Couldn't there be a cultural component rather than biological? I wonder how much you could separate the variables.

If you take a baby and separate it from the parents at birth then twenty years later the child comes across the parents but they don't know how they are related to each other, could you say with 100% certainty the parents would treat this supposed unknown person better? Because if it was biological this had to be true, that the parents would automatically treat this unknown person better because of some pair bond they created years ago, unless you object this statement, this is why I believe there is a cultural component to it. Creating culture is unique to humans, it separates us from primates and other species, and through culture we are able to progress and create a sophisticated society, this is why some societies have different outcomes to others, because of differing cultures. A country will innovate more if its people have the culture to do so (risk taking behaviour), a country will be clean if its in people's culture detest a dirty environment etc , certain cultures have adopted different cultural values over the course of time and as a result, separate parts of the world have shown differing outcomes throughout the centuries.

Why can't this reasoning be extended to the family system?

A small example is how a Hindu believes giving prasad to attain enlightenment from his Gods will be beneficial for him, in his dimension he has lifted his ego, he may gain various chemicals in his brain from this interaction and due to this he performs better in other areas of life, even though the initial action was simply placing food under a statue, you can't explain this scientifically except for the chemical release in the brain part, it is more a cultural reason. And up until recently almost the entire world believed in some type of mythology/religion/spirituality which may have helped them in their lives one way or another, this is better "outcome" is explained through culture than biology. Nowadays you can do the opposite, you can use recent data to explain why religion is fading as a country becomes developed, but its still attributed more to culture, because adopting irreligious culture is more suited to getting ahead in the modern world.

I believe love works the same way, outcomes can be explained more through culture than biology. It is expected in our culture to care for our own child, we treat the child better for the cultural expectations, we abide with norms that shape our behaviour and relationships within the family system. On the contrary, one may be careless to treat someone else's child because its not expected in our culture to treat someone else's child to the same standard, hence the poorer outcome. Also these actions of conforming to societal norms may completely be subconscious rather than intentional, as humans have a remarkable ability to absorb and internalise the values and behaviours of their cultural environment without knowing it.
 
Last edited:
Couldn't there be a cultural component rather than biological? I wonder how much you could separate the variables.

If you take a baby and separate it from the parents at birth then twenty years later the child comes across the parents but they don't know how they are related to each other, could you say with 100% certainty the parents would treat this supposed unknown person better? Because if it was biological this had to be true, that the parents would automatically treat this unknown person better because of some pair bond they created years ago, unless you object this statement, this is why I believe there is a cultural component to it.
True, in that case, I wouldn't expect much. I've seen some claims of how people can supposedly tell when someone is a long-lost relative of theirs, but I don't really buy that yet.

To be a bit more specific, I'm talking about when people know that a child is their biological child, or they meet someone years later as adults and know that.

Creating culture is unique to humans, it separates us from primates and other species, and through culture we are able to progress and create a sophisticated society, this is why some societies have different outcomes to others, because of differing cultures. A country will innovate more if its people have the culture to do so (risk taking behaviour), a country will be clean if its in people's culture detest a dirty environment etc , certain cultures have adopted different cultural values over the course of time and as a result, separate parts of the world have shown differing outcomes throughout the centuries.

Why can't this reasoning be extended to the family system?

A small example is how a Hindu believes giving prasad to attain enlightenment from his Gods will be beneficial for him, in his dimension he has lifted his ego, he may gain various chemicals in his brain from this interaction and due to this he performs better in other areas of life, even though the initial action was simply placing food under a statue, you can't explain this scientifically except for the chemical release in the brain part, it is more a cultural reason. And up until recently almost the entire world believed in some type of mythology/religion/spirituality which may have helped them in their lives one way or another, this is better "outcome" is explained through culture than biology. Nowadays you can do the opposite, you can use recent data to explain why religion is fading as a country becomes developed, but its still attributed more to culture, because adopting irreligious culture is more suited to getting ahead in the modern world.

I believe love works the same way, outcomes can be explained more through culture than biology. It is expected in our culture to care for our own child, we treat the child better for the cultural expectations, we abide with norms that shape our behaviour and relationships within the family system. On the contrary, one may be careless to treat someone else's child because its not expected in our culture to treat someone else's child to the same standard, hence the poorer outcome. Also these actions of conforming to societal norms may completely be subconscious rather than intentional, as humans have a remarkable ability to absorb and internalise the values and behaviours of their cultural environment without knowing it.
It's not impossible, though given in how many other species you also see this behaviour (which is why I mentioned that before) I genuinely doubt that it wouldn't be to a great extent biological.
 
True, in that case, I wouldn't expect much. I've seen some claims of how people can supposedly tell when someone is a long-lost relative of theirs, but I don't really buy that yet.

To be a bit more specific, I'm talking about when people know that a child is their biological child, or they meet someone years later as adults and know that.
Yep, which is why I'm suggesting there could be a cultural component to it, because they might know the child is theirs and this leads to one subconsciously adhering to cultural norms, at the end treating the child better and producing better outcomes
It's not impossible, though given in how many other species you also see this behaviour (which is why I mentioned that before) I genuinely doubt that it wouldn't be to a great extent biological.
other species good examples to look at, but its far too reductive imo because humans are the only species where you could say cultural norms outweigh biology in many important areas, humans are too complex for us to look at other species and justify our behaviours like that, we actively restrict our biological instincts for the greater good (culture), which makes civilisation possible in the first place, otherwise we'd simply be behaving like chimps
 

Similar threads

AngryUbermensch
Replies
3
Views
192
AngryUbermensch
AngryUbermensch
AngryUbermensch
Replies
28
Views
404
Puppeter
Puppeter
Skoga
Replies
6
Views
514
Fire.
Fire.
AngryUbermensch
Replies
29
Views
590
straww577
straww577
XDFLAMEBOY
Replies
26
Views
1K
XDFLAMEBOY
XDFLAMEBOY

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top