Society "shaming" virgin men

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

hellraider wrote:

If men blindly followed our inate nature we would all be sitting in the floor of a grass hut, roasting an antelope for dinner.

Bulls~~~. It was our nature that lead us to develop tools, to hunt together, to found communities, to build civilizations… to cooperate to exert our mastery over the environment and improve the quality of our lives.

hellraider wrote:

Women are vile, amoral beings in their core.

Also bulls~~~. Women are acting out their nature, just as men are. the only variation is which ones do so with successful strategies and results and which do not.

Again, we may attempt to go against our nature, but we can not simply look at it or the nature of women and call it evil just because it has produced undesirable results for us.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

JollyMisanthrope wrote:

Nature doesn’t care about notches on the belt, it cares as to whether or not your DNA makes it to a new generation or if your line goes extinct. That’s success and failure in the animal kingdom.

Actually you’ve got it entirely backwards. Nature doesn’t give two s~~~s if we go extinct.

We are, as men, imbued with the drive to reproduce but failing to successfully do so confers no penalty to us as individuals… we don’t shrivel up and die any slower or faster if we reproduce or not… nature only gives men a bonus for the effort of TRYING to reproduce.

Female nature DOES care about reproducing… the typical woman has an acute desire to make a baby and those who fail to do so often suffer as a result but male nature ONLY cares about notches on the belt. Whether or not we hand down our DNA, while crucial to the species as a whole, is irrelevant to us as individual men.

This is the fundamental logic of human sexual reproduction and the reason that hypergamy and male disposability exist in the first place. You can’t possibly understand those concepts if you don’t accept the nature of men and women.

And here is the thing… this reality that men do not NEED to reproduce is also what makes it possible for us to go our own way. Women have no “own way” to go. Their way is to find protector providers and make children and they can only succeed or fail at doing so… land a good husband and crap out a brood of cooch turds or live alone in a small apartment full of cats.

We, on the other hand, free of the need to reproduce and self-liberated from the urges to protect and provide for women can take our wealth generating and pussy f~~~ing abilities and sublimate them into anything we want. Art, music, architecture, science, invention, philosophy, self-awareness… even just f~~~ing a bunch of pussy… and be happy.

Women can not do this.

I’m not saying you MUST go out and get laid, but you do have to understand WHY you have the urge to do so and stop trying to suppress it before you will ever be able to channel and re-direct it toward something else.

[Klaus WindamierParticipant 543]

The first step to execute Bachelor Tax after the number of virgins and unmarried man rising up.
It is always began with shaming, same old tricks. Are they out of their creativity?

[SkeptiskParticipant 3679]

Stargazer wrote:

ChaosOverAll wrote:

Nature doesn’t care about notches on the belt, it cares as to whether or not your DNA makes it to a new generation or if your line goes extinct. That’s success and failure in the animal kingdom.

Actually you’ve got it entirely backwards. Nature doesn’t give two s~~~s if we go extinct.

Well, not furthering my DNA ensures a lowered IQ in the population, thus nudging the human specie towards ‘Idiocrazy’. What we’re seeing is de-evolution, the return to the stoneage.

"Expecting to find a decent woman on a dating site is like dumpster diving and expecting to come out with a gourmet meal." Won'tGetFooledAgain

[bob__Participant 946]

Skeptisk wrote:

Doc Fenderson wrote:

ChaosOverAll wrote:

Nature doesn’t care about notches on the belt, it cares as to whether or not your DNA makes it to a new generation or if your line goes extinct. That’s success and failure in the animal kingdom.

Actually you’ve got it entirely backwards. Nature doesn’t give two s~~~s if we go extinct.

Well, not furthering my DNA ensures a lowered IQ in the population, thus nudging the human specie towards ‘Idiocrazy’. What we’re seeing is de-evolution, the return to the stoneage.

If other people can reproduce more than you then you are not the best fit, they are.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

bob__ wrote:

If other people can reproduce more than you then you are not the best fit, they are.

Humanity has become too smart and comfortable for it’s own good and this has perverted the definition of what makes a person fit for reproduction.

We should be breeding for intelligence, emotional stability, radical positive creativity and of course, good looks, health and resistance to pollutants and disease. Instead we are breeding for arrogance, shallowness and stupidity via poor impulse control. Hell, we’d be better off breeding for luck via lottery.

Of course, suggesting that s~~~ty people shouldn’t breed is what got the Reich into so much trouble so I suppose we’ll just have to trust in nature that this curve is leading us someplace we are all going to want to be.

[SkeptiskParticipant 3679]

bob__ wrote:

Skeptisk wrote:

Doc Fenderson wrote:

ChaosOverAll wrote:

Nature doesn’t care about notches on the belt, it cares as to whether or not your DNA makes it to a new generation or if your line goes extinct. That’s success and failure in the animal kingdom.

Actually you’ve got it entirely backwards. Nature doesn’t give two s~~~s if we go extinct.

Well, not furthering my DNA ensures a lowered IQ in the population, thus nudging the human specie towards ‘Idiocrazy’. What we’re seeing is de-evolution, the return to the stoneage.

If other people can reproduce more than you then you are not the best fit, they are.

With lowered IQ’s, the ‘future’ for their descendants is clear. No more Einstein’s, Newton’s and long list of great thinkers.

"Expecting to find a decent woman on a dating site is like dumpster diving and expecting to come out with a gourmet meal." Won'tGetFooledAgain

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Skeptisk wrote:

Well, not furthering my DNA ensures a lowered IQ in the population, thus nudging the human specie towards ‘Idiocrazy’. What we’re seeing is de-evolution, the return to the stoneage.

Dude, stop and think for a moment before you just say absurd s~~~ like this. You speak as though the only way to get genius minds is to breed two near-genius minds. Where do you think the genius minds came from in the first place?

Do you think Einstein or Newton had super-intelligent parents who got together to make a genius kid? No. Genius is not hereditary. Averages are averages but outliers are not.

Our distant ancestors were not geniuses… they probably had IQs comparable to what youd find in current sub-saharan Africa… on a good day… and they did not breed for intelligence, they bred for strength, stamina, bravery and maybe a bit of quick thinking in a pinch plus some luck. But out of that, we got Mozart and Keppler and Sowell.

We’re not in danger of getting stupider… children may not be smart the same ways we were smart, but they are smart in new and different ways.

Keep ringing the bell and claiming the sky is falling if it makes you feel better, I suppose… but dont try to pass it off as a reasoned argument.

[Author]

Posts