Okay, but you're not doing it with slut shaming, or you're doing it very unintelligently. A woman feeling guilty because she fucks a lot of Chads isn't going to make her fuck incels. She's going to fuck one Chad.
If men had the same rights and privileges as foids, sub6 men's smv would increase as well, then men will be repulsed to even think of fucking foids more than a point or two below their looksmatch. That's why we need to get rid of the cucked laws and stop paying taxes to fund the gynocentric government. Then sluts will run back to their looksmatches for protection when the cucked government and soyciety won't be there to bail them out after being dumb whores.
There aren't enough chads to go around.
Chad can fuck a lot of women, though I'd agree with you that Chad is not numerous enough to satisfy the entire female population. Women would (and do) seek out normies as a surrogate for Chad instead, and there are plenty of them to go around, which is why they are "normies." You cannot make women want to fuck undesirable men. At best you can manipulate or force them into doing it, but you have to make it so that undesirables are their only option. This was traditionally accomplished by making women economically dependent on men. This will not ever be accomplished by making women feel guilty for sleeping around.
Its one and the same thing, someone having excess and showing that they do and being proud about it, is someone being glad that someone else has less, excess of something means that someone else could have some, if incels exist simultaneously while sluts exist, then that means that there is an excess of sexually resources that a group of men and women are hoarding
Its all connected
You reminded me about something I said recently in another thread:
People like to think of their satisfaction as independent from others but the world is more cruel than that, in many ways ones satisfaction is connected to anothers dissatisfaction
Did you enjoy that subway sandwich, some worker had to help farm the ingredients for crap pay, then some wage cuck had to smile and give you "good service" and prepare that sandwich for you, there's always a tradeoff taking place, shoes are one of the best examples, some chinese worker in a sweatshop had to slave away for cents for a lot of people to enjoy wearing and showing off their brandname shoes
This is why immodesty is treated with such vitriol, its rubbing in other peoples faces that you have excess, and that excess could have been theirs
Their "happiness" could have been someone elses "contentedness", they would merely also have to become "content" and sacrifice a bit of their satisfaction so that somebody else could at least get some of it
People don't want to think of the world this way because they don't want to feel guilty, but its something were all going to have to accept at some point, right now I'm comfortable in my room, eating snacks, and messaging you on a computer (quite an expensive device), there's a lot of dirty shit that took place behind the scenes, outside of my knowledge so I could be here doing this, a lot of people suffered and were sacrificed so I could enjoy these conveniences, its the same for you
Also there's no such thing as just a slut, all sluts are pretty much SELECTIVE SLUTS, if sluts were "fair" and mostly every guy got a chance to fuck, nobody would shame sluts, because sluts would be like a "societal good". Slut shaming isn't just about shaming women for being promiscuous, its about shaming women for being selectively promiscuous and expecting no consequences
Do you really think if sluts were fucking any and every guy society would be complaining?
Women might complain a bit, but not men
JFL I call BS, men and women aren't the same, men have realistic standards and a strong libido, women have ridiculously high standards and a weak libido
Last edited:
Women get quotas and special lower standards in jobs. That's why there are so many femoid cops and firefighters who are worse than useless, only hired to fill a gender quota. In the past foids were able to make money if they wanted, but the majority could only get crappy jobs because there were no pussy passes in the work force, so they just decided to stay home being housewives. Plus they knew if they failed in the work force and became old, no man will want them anymore.
Slut shaming is very effective. Why do you think cucked facebook and youtube take down slut shaming pages? Because butthurt used whores complain and don't want their future beta cucks to shame them, and see them for the used cum buckets they are. When millions or billions of men learn to slut shame it will be very effective.
Those aren't normies who allow their wives to become surrogates for chads, those are grade A soyboy cucks. And thank goodness because as the blackpill spreads the number of cucks decrease.
They might physically be able to fuck them, but they will have no need to because they'll already be with their looksmacth, and society wouldn't be cucked so they wouldn't want to take from another non-chad.
Last edited:
I agree with basically all this, but I don't see how it runs counter to anything I've said. It does not seem argue against incels being jealous of the sexual excess of sluts, it clarifies how and why. I think the miscommunication here is rooted in in the idea that what is moral is the amelioration of suffering, and because sluts run counter to that, they're immoral, so therefore moralizing about sluts is not a cope. This is not a line of thinking I agree with, because I basically think that a morality that's oriented around the amelioration of suffering is an incel morality and a cope in itself. This kind of ethical standpoint is what I've referred to before as a virgin insurrection. It takes someone who suffers because they're weak and builds a world around accommodating them while moralizing against the strong in an attempt to cripple unless their strength is in line with accomodating weakness. This is not "justice" or the rightful state of things, it's weakness trying to poison strength out of self-interest. I am not against this, but it ought to be acknowledged that this is what it is. Without this acknowledgement, any strides made for the incel cause are strides that are equally against the incel cause. Obtaining power by moralizing about how repression of power is good and that power finds its origins in deprivation for someone else that you should feel guilty about it is pathological, sick, and self-cannibalizing.
Last edited:
They're the ones hindering our strength so they can be glutenous pigs. They aren't doing anything productive for society and haven't earned the lives they have. They have to put down sub6 men with cucked laws and robbing their tax money in order for their cucked society to briefly function.
They didn't make you ugly.
Ugly doesn't mean useless. There are plenty of ugly foids, and ugly men in the past didn't have a hard time finding wives nearly as much as today. Being ugly shouldn't be a death sentence for men because used whores feel like running around chasing chad dick and using the government for support their husbands should be giving them.
Women are free to do what they want, which is chase Chad, because they work so they have their own money. It isn't the government. Incels only got married in the past because women were economically dependent on men.
The problem with your argument is that there is no strength being demoralized, and no weakness being moralized, women can only be sluts because there are police officers, laws, etc protecting them
Chad's can only monopolize women for the same reason, because without those protections incels would just kill them, there are more low tier males than high tier males, just by numbers alone we'd win
They don't have any strength, their strength is as artificial as the morality cope you argue incels have
What we have is a rigged game, and ridiculous rules that are geared towards individuals who otherwise would be forced to be modest by their own choice due to fear or by the rest of us forcing them
So its kind of disingenuous to argue as if cries against immodesty are just the weak complaining about the strong, remove all these "civil rules" and like magic the weak are now the strong because they have more numbers and are no longer limited in their choices
I hope you get what I'm saying, think of it like the "you can't hit a woman rule", I've had to deal with a good few women who have exploited that BS to taunt me and other men, attack those men physically, etc, shit they would not do if not for society's protection and allowing them to get away with it, if we complain about that behavior, are we now the "weak" protesting their "strength"?
The rules are literally geared in their favor, same with sluts and Chads, the laws and rules of modern society allow them to do as they do without any consequences, without fearing reprisal
There is no strength there, its an illusion, sluts can be sluts because rape is illegal and enforced as such by men, Chad's can monopolize the sexual market because the laws have changed allowing them to do so (in the past if you fucked a man's wife you had to pay him, also in France [1975] it was legal for a husband to kill a cheating wife)
You get my point?, there is no strength there, because losers are always the majority and they always have strength in numbers, the "strong" only have an artificial strength that is ironically enforced through laws and sanctioned by the losing majority for the sake of "being civil"
So were stuck playing with a set of unfair rules in a rigged game, our complaining doesn't make us "weak", it makes us trapped playing their game
Last edited:
Take away the gynocentric government, increase slut shaming, and remove the cucked laws and I guarantee the number of chad chasing whores will be cut down significantly. Foids still depend on men for money today even with all the cucked shit.
I understand what you're saying, but we're working with different ideas of what strength is. When I refer to strength I am not referring to law-of the-jungle brute strength, especially for us moderns, because this kind of strength is largely useless in an office cubicle. In the final sentence of my post I mentioned that you can become strong by moralizing, for example. I do not think this is artificial strength, as you've conceived it. It is genuine power and it can be destructive if wielded with a deft hand. This is why I think this spiritual and psychological revolution is more likely to lead to a successful incel rebellion. Obviously if you take away the conditions in which a certain person can thrive they will no longer be strong, but so long as the conditions persist, so too does the strength.
When I refer to sluts as having strength, what I have in mind is their ability to extract money from men, their diplomatic ability, their ability to use men for sex, and above all, if they are favored enough by God to possess it, their beauty. They can wield their sexuality like a weapon, not only to affirm themselves as desirable, but also to gain genuine advantage (fucking their boss for a promotion for example). It is a rigged system, certainly, but I never suggested that it was fair, though I am suspicious of the idea that being powerful because you're able to physically overcome someone is less rigged than being powerful because you're more physically beautiful than them, to the extent that I believe in fairness.
Last edited:
Yep, unfollowing this cucked user.
Simply having beauty isn't enough to mean you deserve all the things they have today. They are only able to manipulate men because of the cucked laws and the bluepill brainwashing, telling men "real men date single moms" and "real men like curves." As I said, take away all those things and there will be much less whores.
Similar threads
It's Over
The biggest problem with this forum is that it’s no longer blackpilled, nor is it catered to incels
- ForeverGrey
- Inceldom Discussion
LeFrenchCel
Users who are viewing this thread
