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.

Venting I would be very happy with a plain Jane

Ellsworth

Ellsworth

Chad but they let me post here anyway
★★★★★
Joined
May 23, 2019
Posts
14,988
Sure I would like Stacy but I would be perfectly happy with a plain Jane. Today I went to a Turkish food cart and the girl working there was cute to me but overall pretty avg. kinda nerdy and Turkish with glasses. I’m sure she’s Chad only but fuck, why can’t I even get plain Jane Turkish girl. :feels:
 
I just want my looksmatch, and I don't mind if she's made in china
 
I want my 4/10 ethnic looksmatch
 
Ironically, once you think that she is plain, feminists will tell you she's out of your league. Schrodinger's attractiveness.
 
All slim petite Plain Jane's and butterfaces are being fucked by massive bulls or Chads. I can only dream of holding a 110lbs ugly-faced girl with a 24" waist at this point.
 
Cope.

Chad only
 
I know. Sorry bro. Been there many times.
Plain cute girls are the worst because your brain tries to tell you that they are special and innocent.
 
Plain cute girls are the worst because your brain tries to tell you that they are special and innocent.
It also tells me that maybe she doesn’t get hit on much be we all know otherwise. Chad fucks her in all 3 holes.
 
I just want on that isn't a whale
 
What's a plain jane?
 
Yup. I'm attracted to any girl that is 3+
 
If a female has a vagina then I can find something attractive about her
I remember some of my male family members would play this game, I guess?, of "Would you fuck her?" and then pick a celebrity of a local girl from the market

They would all hate me because I'd pretty much answer yes to everyone. That's how desperate I am
 
With the landwhale epidemic in full swing, any foid with normal body weight automatically gets +3 to her attractiveness score making her inaccessible to sub 6 men. The game was rigged from the start boyo.
 
An unattractive foid can become a plain Jane with enough makeup slathered on. Be careful, you never know how they really look underneath all that crap.
 
Plain Jane wouldn't be happy with you.
My former oneitis was also a plain jane, somewhere between 4/10 and 6/10, depending on one's private judgement.
She's with a 8/10 Chadlite now. She never would have been happy with anyone lower.
 
Plain Jane wouldn't be happy with you.
My former oneitis was also a plain jane, somewhere between 4/10 and 6/10, depending on one's private judgement.
She's with a 8/10 Chadlite now. She never would have been happy with anyone lower.

This is PURE SUIFUEL thank you for making me feel less motivated to approach my looksmatches :feelscry: :cryfeels:
 
If a female has a vagina then I can find something attractive about her
You know, this is one of the problems that we are here.
It is enough for any man that a woman has only a pussy.
Thus, the price of any pussy rises, but the value of any man, even Chad, is not so high. Well, our value has already begun to have negative values.
 
I'd be happy with an average or low average woman. I don't have high standards.
 
hopefully I can have my very own unused, morbidly obese loli with average face one day :feelsokman:
 
I've always desired plain janes. They look like good gf material
 
I'd be happy with an average or low average woman. I don't have high standards.
even. this?
6F709BED 15AD 46C6 B94B 4164C5504121
volcel if no
 
My oneitis is plain Jane. I'd be gigahappy. I would be very happy also if I just get my ethnic looksmatch goddammit.
Ironically, once you think that she is plain, feminists will tell you she's out of your league. Schrodinger's attractiveness.
Elab for low iq
 
It also tells me that maybe she doesn’t get hit on much be we all know otherwise. Chad fucks her in all 3 holes.
I can relate to this. Its brutal
 
Elab for low iq
Schrodinger's cat is a thought experiment challenging quantum superposition. Since I'm not great at physics, this is my by-retards-for-retards version:

1 - Some eggheads shines a light at a photoelectric material (basically a solar panel). They saw these two things: the higher frequency (how wavy the light is) the light, the higher the current (electron go fast.) The higher the intensity of the light, the higher the voltage produced (electron go harder.) This matched the light=wave idea pretty well, but they also noticed that, if the frequency was too low, then no voltage / current would be produced, even if intensity was high. If light was really just a wave, then keeping the light there for long enough would transfer enough energy to make some voltage / current.
2 - Some other egghead suggested that light is a discrete package of energy. If electrons can also only move up/down one discrete package of energy (depending on metal), then some frequencies can't move the electron up or down one level, so the photon is not absorbed and nothing happens. SO that solves it, right?
3 - But wait! They also shined a light at a board with two slits on it. If you do this with eaves, you get funny patterns on the wall behind it (called interference patterns), while if you do this with a bb gun, you just get two lines of holes. Light made funny patterns. This is weird, because if light is a particle, each particle then has to be taking more than one path at a time (eg, from both slits simultaneously, and canceling each other out).
4 - Imagine a box with a cat in it, and some magic device that can see where the photon is going If it goes left the cat isn't shot. If goes right, the cat is shot. Some dude said the photon can't be a particle, because then the cat is literally both dead and alive at the same time, since if we actually measure which way each photon goes, it either goes through the left slit, making a line of light on the left, and the cat lives, or it goes through the right slit, making a line on the right, and the cat dies. As far as we know, this is the reality - once you actually measure the photon's path (eg, give physical consequence to the path, not the eventual hitting of the wall), the cat is either alive or dead, but before you measure it, the cat is both, simultaneously.

Like the cat, any female is both in your league and out of your league simultaneously. If you measure her attractiveness as high and recognize that a lifetime of absurd privilege given due to her looks has made her utterly and basically unlike you, then her attractiveness collapses into "she's in your league", in that she has the same problems as you and she can understand you. If you measure her attractiveness as low, then her attractiveness collapses into "she's out of your league", because obviously you don't deserve her.
 
We all would be, but according to IT and incel documentaries we only want stacies. Meanwhile if you do a poll, 90%+ would be more than happy with their looksmatch

Its another tool of cognitive dissonance they encorporate to keep their just world delusions intact: "if these hateful inkwells would just start respecting woman and lower their standards they would also get woman". Because the world is all good and fair and ugly man can get woman without problems if they want :) :) :)
 
Last edited:
Schrodinger's cat is a thought experiment challenging quantum superposition. Since I'm not great at physics, this is my by-retards-for-retards version:

1 - Some eggheads shines a light at a photoelectric material (basically a solar panel). They saw these two things: the higher frequency (how wavy the light is) the light, the higher the current (electron go fast.) The higher the intensity of the light, the higher the voltage produced (electron go harder.) This matched the light=wave idea pretty well, but they also noticed that, if the frequency was too low, then no voltage / current would be produced, even if intensity was high. If light was really just a wave, then keeping the light there for long enough would transfer enough energy to make some voltage / current.
2 - Some other egghead suggested that light is a discrete package of energy. If electrons can also only move up/down one discrete package of energy (depending on metal), then some frequencies can't move the electron up or down one level, so the photon is not absorbed and nothing happens. SO that solves it, right?
3 - But wait! They also shined a light at a board with two slits on it. If you do this with eaves, you get funny patterns on the wall behind it (called interference patterns), while if you do this with a bb gun, you just get two lines of holes. Light made funny patterns. This is weird, because if light is a particle, each particle then has to be taking more than one path at a time (eg, from both slits simultaneously, and canceling each other out).
4 - Imagine a box with a cat in it, and some magic device that can see where the photon is going If it goes left the cat isn't shot. If goes right, the cat is shot. Some dude said the photon can't be a particle, because then the cat is literally both dead and alive at the same time, since if we actually measure which way each photon goes, it either goes through the left slit, making a line of light on the left, and the cat lives, or it goes through the right slit, making a line on the right, and the cat dies. As far as we know, this is the reality - once you actually measure the photon's path (eg, give physical consequence to the path, not the eventual hitting of the wall), the cat is either alive or dead, but before you measure it, the cat is both, simultaneously.

Like the cat, any female is both in your league and out of your league simultaneously. If you measure her attractiveness as high and recognize that a lifetime of absurd privilege given due to her looks has made her utterly and basically unlike you, then her attractiveness collapses into "she's in your league", in that she has the same problems as you and she can understand you. If you measure her attractiveness as low, then her attractiveness collapses into "she's out of your league", because obviously you don't deserve her.
I tried, but I still didn't understand, though it's too late, I might read this on holidays.
Like the cat, any female is both in your league and out of your league simultaneously. If you measure her attractiveness as high and recognize that a lifetime of absurd privilege given due to her looks has made her utterly and basically unlike you, then her attractiveness collapses into "she's in your league", in that she has the same problems as you and she can understand you. If you measure her attractiveness as low, then her attractiveness collapses into "she's out of your league", because obviously you don't deserve her.
I like this idea, although, I think it's a cope, it has some redpilled vibe
 
Schrodinger's cat is a thought experiment challenging quantum superposition. Since I'm not great at physics, this is my by-retards-for-retards version:

1 - Some eggheads shines a light at a photoelectric material (basically a solar panel). They saw these two things: the higher frequency (how wavy the light is) the light, the higher the current (electron go fast.) The higher the intensity of the light, the higher the voltage produced (electron go harder.) This matched the light=wave idea pretty well, but they also noticed that, if the frequency was too low, then no voltage / current would be produced, even if intensity was high. If light was really just a wave, then keeping the light there for long enough would transfer enough energy to make some voltage / current.
2 - Some other egghead suggested that light is a discrete package of energy. If electrons can also only move up/down one discrete package of energy (depending on metal), then some frequencies can't move the electron up or down one level, so the photon is not absorbed and nothing happens. SO that solves it, right?
3 - But wait! They also shined a light at a board with two slits on it. If you do this with eaves, you get funny patterns on the wall behind it (called interference patterns), while if you do this with a bb gun, you just get two lines of holes. Light made funny patterns. This is weird, because if light is a particle, each particle then has to be taking more than one path at a time (eg, from both slits simultaneously, and canceling each other out).
4 - Imagine a box with a cat in it, and some magic device that can see where the photon is going If it goes left the cat isn't shot. If goes right, the cat is shot. Some dude said the photon can't be a particle, because then the cat is literally both dead and alive at the same time, since if we actually measure which way each photon goes, it either goes through the left slit, making a line of light on the left, and the cat lives, or it goes through the right slit, making a line on the right, and the cat dies. As far as we know, this is the reality - once you actually measure the photon's path (eg, give physical consequence to the path, not the eventual hitting of the wall), the cat is either alive or dead, but before you measure it, the cat is both, simultaneously.
The cat isn't "alive and dead at the same time", it's alive, as it was all the time, and as soon as the state change happens through observation she will either go "keep living/nothing happens" or "get killed". Before the observation she is just in the same state as before, and not in some weird magical dual-state.

It's just a thought experiment based on determinism and quantum uncertainty as a true RNG.

Anyway, I don't see or get how this relates to womans perceived attractivity even with your example and think it's a bad analogy, just wanted to clear that up.
 
The cat isn't "alive and dead at the same time", it's alive, as it was all the time, and as soon as the state change happens through observation she will either go "keep living/nothing happens" or "get killed". Before the observation she is just in the same state as before, and not in some weird magical dual-state.

It's just a thought experiment based on determinism and quantum uncertainty as a true RNG.

Anyway, I don't see or get how this relates to womans perceived attractivity even with your example and think it's a bad analogy, just wanted to clear that up.


It's been a long time since I actually studied this stuff, so I'll defer to your explanation. My brain is fried.
 

Similar threads

Whitefeminineboy
Replies
18
Views
629
Namtriz912
Namtriz912
Q
Replies
16
Views
478
Qwertyuiop99
Q
NorthernWind
Replies
18
Views
663
Confessor
Confessor
PersonaPimp
Replies
15
Views
686
Incline
Incline
Whitefeminineboy
Replies
32
Views
1K
RussianIncelminator
RussianIncelminator

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top