Pro-casual sex likely to be psychopaths + Chad myths

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/darwins-subterranean-world/201902/why-are-there-so-many-jerks-in-the-world

The Chad trope has no actual basis in psychology. Journalists lie.

http://www.epjournal.net/articles/bodily-attractiveness-and-egalitarianism-are-negatively-related-in-males/

Anti-equalism is politics, not personality.
Attractive men are likelier right-wing (genetic attractiveness) and they didn’t study personality but attitudes.
Political attitudes.

Left-wing men score ‘better’ on generosity games because they believe resources are infinite, this does not make them kinder people. Lab conditions are not reality.
Actually when competing in studies, socialists cheat.

Attitudes are not personality.
“People who tended to favor their group over themselves were scored as more altruistic/egalitarian.”
Measure of self-loathing or social desirability bias/lying.
The fatter men would score higher…

“People who preferred socialism more were scored as more altruistic/egalitarian.”

See the bias?
POLITICAL STUDY.

If anything socialists are more selfish, but they didn’t study sense of personal entitlement.

Attractiveness actually correlates to IQ which correlates to earnings. Extremes mean nothing for the population.
Some of the most bitter men are not lookers, saying hot men are ‘mean’ because they know the history and purpose of socialism is just blatant envy and disinfo.

SJWs always lie.

Despite the rigged method, “Results indicated a moderate, statistically significant negative relationship”
MSM lies, don’t trust headlines.

CHECK. What did they actually test?

“there was a strong tendency of raters to perceive that more attractive men and women would be less altruistic and egalitarian in real life.”
Bias. Attractive people have to reject more, from the one person asking they don’t see how often that person is pestered. Thinking there’s something wrong with a person saying No to you doesn’t make them mean, it makes the entitled show up why the source was right to reject. I’ve seen ugly women or slutty women try to force a man to date them or touch them, only to explode in rage at the simple assertion of a right to refuse.

“After all, why wouldn’t we expect for attractive people to be less selfish and more altruistic?”
Dehumanizing and bitter.
Control for SES, attachment style, parent/childhood quality?
Mean people can be typical narcissists and clean up well, their temporary attractiveness doesn’t make them mean.
Genuinely attractive are nice if you respect their rights. Due to wrong ideas about their stupidity, they have a low tolerance for controlling bullshit.

“In any case, I can’t pretend these results were too surprising to us, since we did after all hypothesize that most of them would be true.”
Not science. You’re supposed to not bias it?

“Our hypotheses were based on the theory that because attractive people tend to (a) be highly valued by others as mates and allies, and (b) benefit from inequality, they have reduced incentives to (a) increase their value to others by being altruistic and (b) support egalitarian norms.”
It’s an equalism study, Harrison Bergeron bullshit.

Egalitarianism is meritocracy. Equalism is not.

“Our results were also consistent with related research which has hinted at lower altruism among attractive people, and especially among attractive men.”
Context? [And no, it doesn’t, plus studies don’t hint].
“Why is this tendency more evident in men than in women?”
Then it can’t be sexual.
Why should you be forced to give your property away to others?
Burden of proof.

I can only speculate, but it may be related to the increased tendency of attractive males to pursue short-term, low-investment, low-empathy mating strategies.”
Wrong, more men see themselves married one day than women.
“Because they are more appealing to women as short-term mates”
Sexist and women are the less shallow sex in studies.
“attractive men are more likely to succeed with (and hence to pursue) such strategies”
Actually the most attractive men and women don’t sleep around, disgusted with other’s superficiality.
And hence to pursue – non sequitur. Men can think.
“Less attractive men, in contrast, need to be kinder and more high-investing in order to attract a mate.”
Look at the typical domestic abuse case. Not lookers. Criminals in general are uglier. This was found in the Victorian era.
Psychopaths, as covered prior, actually have a totally average IQ. They’re compulsive liars.
There’s also a confound of going to the gym (nurture) because genetic facial ‘hotness’ has nothing to do with your biceps.
Plus he’s implying all men fake being decent, which isn’t actually a Nice Guy.
Unless you mean r/niceguy
“Women also can pursue either short-term or long-term mating strategies, but unlike men, their strategy of choice seems unrelated to how attractive they are to the opposite sex ”
False. The sluttiest women are around 4-6 trying to poach 7-9. Sex is all they offer. The ugly mistress is actually more spiteful, having few sexual opportunities.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-006-9151-2
Men are more shallow, as as sex.
“On average, men ranked good looks and facial attractiveness more important than women did (d = 0.55 and 0.36, respectively), whereas women ranked honesty, humor, kindness, and dependability more important than men did (ds = 0.23, 0.22, 0.18, and 0.15). “Sex-by-nation ANOVAs of individuals’ trait rankings showed that sex differences in rankings of attractiveness, but not of character traits, were extremely consistent across 53 nations and that nation main effects and sex-by-nation interactions were stronger for character traits than for physical attractiveness.”

Good husbands are hotter.

Biased researchers assume everyone is desperate and r-selected.

“Attractiveness as a result of having certain personality traits”

https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03333351

Reputation is important.

Surprising no one, alcohol increased male lechery.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-017-0876-2
The Bible did say not to get drunk.

Old men are more petty and embittered than young ones in rating women, who are fair and more realistic.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10410621
“Both younger and older judges showed an attractiveness bias and downrated the social desirability of younger unattractive targets. Younger judges rated younger and older attractive targets as equal in social desirability. Older male judges rated older attractive targets as less socially desirable than younger attractive targets. Results are discussed in terms of cultural expectations of beauty.”
Classic projection, by being harsh on their own age group they felt better about their own aged situation.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1025894203368
“Physical Attractiveness and the “Nice Guy Paradox”: Do Nice Guys Really Finish Last?”
TLDR: No.
Do men like other men who aren’t douches? Women aren’t another species. They avoid Mean Girls too.
“Overall results indicated that both niceness and physical attractiveness were positive factors in women’s choices and desirability ratings of the target men.”

Facial attractiveness higher in the not-angry.
Weak men can think acting up by being angry or passive-aggressive will attract women. No. Abnormal behaviour is abnormal for a reason. Personality disorders, real or faked, aren’t attractive.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914003626
“We find that “what is good is beautiful,” with personality reflecting desired traits as facial attractiveness. This phenomenon can also be called the “halo effect.” We can thus presume that personality traits may contribute to judging facial attractiveness and that the personality traits desired in a person are reflected in facial preference.”

Think about it, alpha males don’t have to be insecure.
Judging all men off American teens is ridiculous.

And bullies? Insane reasoning.

The equalist guy’s topic was already covered. This is why you must check up.

e.g.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071129145852.htm
“The study finds that individuals — both men and women — who exhibit positive traits, such as honesty and helpfulness, are perceived as better looking. Those who exhibit negative traits, such as unfairness and rudeness, appear to be less physically attractive to observers.”

Note: on a one-to-one personal interaction basis, not political.

“Nice guys finish last” – consider the source.

The ugly angry men are literally trying to claim they have a “great personality”. It’s absurd. Having a bad boy persona won’t make up for their genes.

The halo effect is based on something real. A true stereotype.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12147-015-9142-5
And rule-breakers are considered uglier.

Bad ‘boys’ are the balding smelly guy at the bar with a pot belly ten years after high school.

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/education/childhood-bullying-adult-health-wealth-crime-social-outcomes-longitudinal/
“Involvement with bullying in any role — bully, victim, or bully-victim — was associated with negative financial, health, behavioral and social outcomes later in life.”
They are at high risk of low IQ habits.
“Bullies were at high risk for later psychiatric problems, regular smoking, and risky or illegal behaviors, including felonies, substance use and self-reported illegal behavior. …All groups were at risk for being impoverished in young adulthood and having difficulty keeping jobs. Both bullies and bully-victims displayed impaired educational attainment. There were no significant differences across groups in the likelihood of being married, having children, or being divorced, but social relationships were disrupted for all subjects who had bullied or been bullied.”

The unstable men who try to make others (including women) absorb their anger are simply defective.
Bullies haven’t actually matured. They’re just weaklings, all groups have them. Low emotional intelligence.
http://www.keepyourchildsafe.org/bullying/consequences-for-bullies.html

“What happens to many bullies is that their social development becomes stuck at the point where they win power and prestige through bullying, and they tend not to progress toward individuation and empathy as adolescents usually do. They get left behind.” – Sullovan, Cleary & Sullovan

“They are more likely to commit acts of domestic violence and child abuse in their adult life”
“Bullies are more likely to commit crimes, with a 4-fold increase in criminal behavior by age 24. By this age, 60% of former bullies have at least one conviction, and 35% to 40% have 3 or more.
(Sources: Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1992; Smith, 2010)”

The death penalty used to address this.
Emotional retards who can only be aggressive and have criminal kids. When they’re eventually losers, this is just the consequence of their anti-social behaviour.

Who wants to be like that? What woman wants a guy likelier to abuse her and their children?

Back to personality, EI also (as covered previously) predicts occupational success.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4873083/
“Research on personality has shown that perceiving a person as attractive fosters positive expectations about his/her personal characteristics. Literature has also demonstrated a significant link between personality traits and occupational achievement. Present research examines the combined effects of attractiveness, occupational status, and gender on the evaluation of others’ personality, according to the Big Five model. The study consisted of a 2 (Attractiveness: High vs. Low) x 2 (occupational Status: High vs. Low) x 2 (Target gender: Male vs. Female) between-subjects experimental design (N = 476). Results showed that attractive targets were considered more positively than unattractive targets, and this effect was even stronger for male targets. Occupational status influenced perceived agreeableness (lower for high-status targets) and perceived conscientiousness (higher for high-status targets).”

Perceptions. Not reality. And they’re probably judged by the average earner and comparatively less attractive, a bitter bias. Like the average woman who calls all better-looking ones slutty despite how that’s actually less likely.

Men are deluded about the importance of genetic looks and refuse to believe in their own ugliness despite world cues.
https://psmag.com/social-justice/louis-c-k-assortative-mating-men-overestimate-level-attractiveness-83197
“Generally, the fewer men at a level of attractiveness, the fewer total messages women sent. The fours, for example, constituted only two percent of the population, and they got only four percent of all the messages.”
As a group, women know their league and most of them are smart enough to date in it.
Men are rejected so much by an ignorance of their league.
Maybe in both sexes the exceptions are personality disorders e.g. histrionic, narcissistic, borderline entitlement.
“What about those with so-so looks? Women rated as twos received only about 10 percent of the messages sent by men. But men at that same level received 25 percent of the messages women sent. The women seem more realistic.”

Average and ugly men actually ignore average and ugly women.
They choose to be alone.

Deny assortative mating all you like, marriage studies prove it.

Fixing the inbred face

I was going to do this on Prince Harry but managed to resist.

JUST.

Like I said here, it’s all about the chin.

Using the most primitive corrections, you’ve probably seen this guy.

Well I felt bad about pointing this out and also wanted to demonstrate why jaw surgery is by far the most extreme of all. Like, it shouldn’t count as the same person for legal (and genetic) reasons.

In most cases, if the genes were otherwise good, there’s little wrong with the central face.

All you need do is add back the bone’s structures (corrected for race and sex), reduce and slim the ears and actually, he could model!

His jaw would be broader than this but the bare minimum structure has the same effect. This is what I wanted to show. Jaw surgery can turn what we’d normally consider “hideous” people into model material.

So Prince Harry’s children could easily be better-looking than he is because his wife’s strong masculine features would dominate his inbred ones!

The worst living case is Zuckerberg. He looks permanently ill in every photo. The chin causes the lower lip to protrude in a classic gormless expression. There is historical precedent for his look.

Socialists, the small-time dishonest

Oh, you might try to pretend this video doesn’t apply to you.

Like you’re too good to need a boost.

It applies to everyone, don’t lie.

Oh, but you might say, this has nothing to do with the half-way slide from socialism to Communism, which killed hundreds of millions of people.

Well, aside from missing the point, they have studied it.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/22/socialists-are-cheaters-says-new-study

An ideology pushed by rationalizing thieves, which produces more of the same.

Until, eventually, the bandwagon effect means the whole system collapses.

All producers become parasites.

Communism and socialism are great ways of burning up resources.

Problem is, you can’t stop it. Don’t blame the hedonic treadmill, it’s rentseeking group competition. It’s a thieve’s arms race. One group gets X, your group needs, nay, DEMANDS, X+1. Because the resources are still finite so you not only have no choice (WORKERS’ FREEDUMB!) but to participate but you must also be aggressive (immoral).

Communism kills jobs via the security of the labour itself (no trade unions if there’s no boss to depend on) and the fruit (income, savings).

Why so many champagne socialists?

Well, they believe the workers are too dumb to take advantage or they could outcompete. An argument to IQ.

This would be correct if numbers were not worth more in such a system.

You have one man stealing 1 million from the workers.

You have a thousand men stealing a thousand. Which represents the greater problem in society?

Sure, both. But one caused another, didn’t it? Eventually it’s dog eat dog, every man for himself and his family. This sounds like capitalism but too corrupt to have true signals. There is no full rebound. I wonder how that feels…

What about the quality of people involved in this?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5520657/Troubled-kids-likely-favour-radical-socialist-policies-adults.html

Mentally maladapted for the world, they cannot honestly compete.
So far, so r-select.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/05/least_surprising_academic_study_of_2017_physically_weak_men_tend_to_be_socialists.html

Yep.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/tories-attractive-socialists-conservatives-labour-study-wealthy-good-looking-a8186836.html

TOLD YA SO.

Ugly men encourage cheating

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559901/

If bad genes would put one sex off, it’d be the party that would have to carry them. Tend them. For decades. You know, the one putting money down if this is a gambling analogy.
Much better not to shack up with the uggo in the first place, which is what women have been doing (avoiding ugly men) since parental set-ups ended. Putting an end to arranged marriages is one of the most eugenic things to ever happen, second only to giving r-types the Pill and other abortfacients.

They’d be most likely to miscarry such children regardless, so a naturalistic fallacy doesn’t apply. This is a reversal of a dysgenic societal pressure with freedom of choice, not a natural pressure. There is a real-world consequence to mating (marrying) such low-quality men that used to be disposed of in endless wars: lower fitness than the parents, a biological death-knell.

There are more bachelors than ever because women aren’t forced to marry anyone who’d support them. If the woman can do it better for herself (given equal opportunities), the man is too poor quality to deserve fecundity. Men purchase rights to a woman’s reproductive decisions with marriage, that’s literally the whole premise. Monogamy had to be imposed to avoid unrest and rebellion against rulers, because it’s better for low-quality males (they actually get to breed and don’t ‘resort’ to rape – not an excuse) and worse for all females, since the natural exclusion (men used to be kicked out of the tribe at age) of the shit-tier doesn’t occur to the gene pool either they or their children and grandchildren will marry into… Naturally, the uggos in question hate this. Inferiority in humans is often connected to misogyny, despite how women are the life-giving, less violent and kinder sex (aliens would view those as objectively superior traits). Happy men don’t have to take anything out on women (displacement) because they are secure.

Narcissism and other personality disorder is always preceded by insecurity.

It reminds me of the bad husbands who complain of sexless marriages. Anyone with an ounce of empathy or life experience with women, happy couples, would laugh at such a concept, since sex in a marriage is a symptom, an outcome, a barometer. As in, they expect not to change but their marriage to improve, magically, for purely selfish reasons. Like it’s them + sex toy, no union, no greater labour required from the ‘master’ of the house. Rarely do the men in such marriages carry just their financial weight (the one entailed in the vows, also why pre-nups are anti-Christian since you swore until death you’d be responsible). Incompetent men used to be screened before they could marry, in the courtship stages interacting with the parents. Now, divorce is common because courtship has been shortened and too superficial. If they can’t be married, successfully, the marriage cannot continue. It’s a job. Rather than correcting their fellow men, to be capable husbands and fathers, they complain about women being shallow (projection). I suppose it’s the r-selected urge to appease other men and avoid real conflict, which they know women are too good to really instigate. Wife-beaters aren’t sneered at from sexism, it’s because a man hitting a woman knows it isn’t a fair fight. He knows his risk of death is almost nil. That’s cowardice.

Damaging the one human you swore to protect? Evil.

Hypocrisy doesn’t work long-term. Only an anti-honour culture like ours would think this.

You don’t deserve shit. Like, does a fat SJW deserve a 6ft model with a 6-pack because she got bullied for years? Exactly, it’s shit, you know it’s bullshit, sit down and stop.

You cannot be entitled to a human. They’re autonomous. An atheist cannot expect a Christian. A slut cannot expect a virgin. You get your level. That’s the red pill – you deserve what you get.

So technically, unequal pairings encourage cheating. Common sense?

What is the cost of being an ugly man?

Since this topic is popping up again, I’ll indulge you a piece of new research.
The cost of being an ugly man?
$186k.
Yes, K.
The thing you won’t be after reading this.
Remember, if you’re offended, that must mean you’re ugly.


http://bigthink.com/dollars-and-sex/do-women-really-value-income-over-looks-in-a-mate

My students often interpret this result as saying that women really care about money, but that is not what it says at all$186,000 is a huge difference in income. If women didn’t care about looks and only cared about money, the figure would be much, much lower. This says that despite the impression that on the marriage market women really care about income, the evidence suggest that they also care about looks. They just care about income too.”

They care about not starving in the street after being abandoned. The fact it’s common this abandonment happens in our time is a bountiful supply of evidence that the fear is just.

Sample bias in the gold diggers versus everyone else. The pool wanting looks is all, the pool willing to overlook Darwinian fitness (good genes, high IQ correlates to good looks) for cash is a minority, and would that minority be faithful? Look at adultery stats, no. So really they do get both, just by lying about the looks thing to secure cash first. Most women are too honest to cheat, so they go right for the looks as long as he’s stable and sane.

Sex should not be confused with breeding. Marrying someone doesn’t mean breeding with them nowadays, in the era of the starter marriage. If they ask non-gold diggers about who they would breed with, in either sex, the number would soar because it’s critical to your baby’s health that they possess good genes.

Which sex invests more metabolically, again?

Ignore the lookism at your peril. Women naturally gravitate toward better-looking men (better genetic fitness) during times of hardship, for multi-layered protection. You want women to give you a chance? Fix the economy.

The manopshere won’t tell you things like this (and without twisting the findings) because they want shekels more than your wellbeing.

Link: The stupidity of ‘White Sharia’, it’s anti-reality

They’re the type of kid at school who just lied lied lied lied lied and expected everyone would just go along with it.

In a little kid, it’s passable. In men over the age of 21, it’s a mental illness.

I’d bet a lot of them are male borderlines, considering their neurosis over wife abandonment. They get hostile if you question it, there is such a thing as a happy marriage, just not one that involves them. They are the problem.
They don’t mention most of the worst divorce stories are actually inter-racial, white husband and Asian wife.
You’re not supposed to ask, it triggers their narcissistic rage when you question their brain. There isn’t much in there.

https://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2017/06/white-sharia-alt-right-at-war-with.html

It actually came from the manosphere, not the Alt Right. They bled over here and want to bring their dindu Muh Dick ways with them. They think this is mature and manly, as opposed to the shameful self-control of a bonobo.
The woman question? Is that the best name they can come up with? That sounds like a pathetic attempt to draw focus.

Oh, what would that look like?
Like, most rapists are women?
Most murderers are women?
Most deadbeat parents are mothers?
Er… yeah, it isn’t a *woman* problem, is it?

It comes down to – women won’t be my free whore, the problem is women, the whores. 

They want to control the return to traditionalism because they’re too scared of women to be nice to them and perhaps maybe marry and pass on their shit(skin) genes.

Look up the Iceland strike. They’d die without female cooperation. They deserve to, by Parental Investment Theory. Humans need both parents or they’re messed up. A lot of these guys love/hate their mother, especially if their father cheated on her. To this day, they blame her for his fuck-ups, literally.
Sharia only works on the low IQ, it’s designed to keep them from killing each other. The high IQ have meritocracy and cooperation and that’s why we’re civilized. The Ice Age improved our genome past that point, see A Troublesome Inheritance.
The history they claim has never existed, they believe in the mommy-wife apron Fantasyland that only existed in 50s vacuum cleaner adverts. And if women are homemakers, men must be soldiers. You don’t get to sit on your ass in the unions or be a paid-up party man.

They are totally ignorant of ancient and European history but spout off about white people. The keyboard alphas there are 9/10 non-white, it’s the dirty secret of PUA – brown man seeks white harem.

Let’s take a few of the rationalisations;

“Women’s sexual desires, almost universally, are straightforward and one-dimensional; they desire the physically strong and dominant man.”
Biology says that’s men with simple lust, quit projecting. You can’t even get a woman to orgasm, don’t pretend you know how we work. In long-term mate selection studies, women choose the ‘Dad’ model and reject the ‘Cad’, you are literally 180-degrees wrong.
“Therefore, race is not a romantic factor for women. They simply want the strongest.”
White women miscegenate the least in all dating website studies. On theapricity forum, for example, many of the ‘white people preservation’ men, are dating Asians.
“And white men are pussies, which is why white women increasingly prefer non-white men.”
Would a white man write that? Who planted that idea? Disciple of Roosh?
Who told you who they prefer?
Where’s your data? Your opinion is not valid, at all.


Why all the assaults and harassment and rape gangs if the white women actually wanted them?

“Anglin attempts to pound his readers into submission by aggressively insisting his claims are settled science—this is a common tactic people use to try to cover for the fact that they’re full of crap. You’ll notice, for instance, that nowhere in the article does he link to a single scientific study. (Although he does provide links for his readers to purchase steroids.)”
Oh, steroid brain. It reduces your humanity.

If it’s settled, you must have a list of studies with cracking methodology.
…..They never do.

But they’re definitely projecting because as this genius links

They have Yellow Fever and want to pretend the white women didn’t want them first.
https://meetville.com/blog/the-uncomfortable-racial-preferences-revealed-by-online-dating/

Instead of attacking White Fever, they attack women.
Almost as if the men writing it….have it?
divide and conquer, cleave the white man from women, and the women are defenseless…
POS r-types

Their greatest enemy is chivalry, which is actually human decency.
Chivalry also applied to other gentlemen, like, they don’t even bother knowing what words mean, the illiterate brown bastards. It existed in the upper classes because they lugged around the big weapons…like cops carrying guns now. They follow a code, right? What do you think that is?

“The only consistent messages from the data is that the majority of women want a man who (1) is taller than them and (2) is not a fat slob.”
where they fail us
they think they can raise an incest baby grown in a fake womb
but they lack the time out of their busy schedule of bile to lose the chub

Women are sexist if they don’t want a short, balding, lazy fatass.
– they’re literally fat acceptance feminists with the sexes inverted

They don’t know how repulsive they are. It’s the entitlement. They think Patriarchy would entitle them to a wife. Like, what, fathers care so little they hand out coupons?

And I bet Mr 3.5 thinks he would get a cute, 17yo white 8.

You prove financial stability, the woman provides her fertility, idiot.
Women do provide – life. You can’t print life at the bank.

In Biblical times, men had rites of passage. You didn’t pass? You didn’t pass on your genes. Stop crying, baby.
They don’t actually study how patriarchies worked, especially with white people.
You’d get strung up for defiling someone’s daughter – for some reason they aren’t too keen on listening to rape victims…. acting like the rapist is the Real Victim Here.
They use fake screen names and no photo because you’d see the racial composition here, and the lower average IQ of those groups.

“Are you beginning to see just how far the ideology of the neo-patriarchic Alt Right is disconnected from reality?”

the word is ‘psychotic’, Gerry

“Just try to think about the real world for ten seconds. Which of these statements do you honestly think is closer to the truth: (A) The most attractive 5% of women tend to date the most attractive 5% of men. (B.) The most attractive 5% of women tend to date the toughest 5% of men. Of course, there is some overlap between these two categories of men, but clearly (A) is the right answer. If you’re an adult and haven’t noticed this by now, you’re either dumb as a rock or have very eccentric tastes in women.”

They are too dumb to believe in Darwin. Roosh actually reviewed a book of philosophy by a modern writer and thought he disproved evolution. You see, Darwin would mean women are right to have standards – the peacock displays, not the peahen.

They don’t believe in male beauty or more literally, the manosphere refuses to believe in their own ugliness.
They can’t rub testosterone cream over their mug and look like Brad Pitt.

Practically, none of this will ever happen.

How are you gonna get these women from their fathers? Is that not pedophilia? How can you marry someone without consent? Won’t they just throw themselves down the stairs if you rape them pregnant?

The lookism guys are much smarter and genuinely self-improving. The PUAs hate those guys, because they get results.

They know deep down it’s about them and their deep ugliness but this makes them bitter. They have to cheat, like an Asian chick getting tit implants to get a white boy interested. For the first time in history, the low SES have a voice online.

“This Manosphere/neo-patriarchy stuff isn’t just embarrassing because it’s so thoroughly wrong, it also comes off as really pathetic. The Alt Right is supposed to be a serious ideological movement, not a self-help seminar. For a movement that spends so much time worrying about trying to appear as the “cool kids” (way too much time), you’d think people around here would be sensitive to how “beta” this looks to most people. You live in a country where women consider white men to be most attractive, so if you’re having a hard time out there, I’m sorry brother, but that’s on you. Don’t taint the ethnonationalist cause by associating it with your sexual frustrations.”

They are not Alt Right.
They are MGTOW who reject K-selected unions and never want to marry.
They are genetic suicides who don’t want children unless they can abandon them to a nanny.
There is nothing traditional in them. They think it will oppress or upset women, that’s their motive, to hurt women in revenge. [cough Elliot Rodger cough]
Since when has a good husband and motherhood upset a K-woman????
WHEN?

These losers call themselves redpill but ignore any data that isn’t cherry-picked to cater to their feelings.
Oh, but women are special snowflakes because …periods?
What’s their excuse, broflakes? They’re like Trigglypuff if you mention the world doesn’t revolve around their micropenis.
They can’t attract women because they hate women. Duh.
“Since ideological truth is subjective, you can base your ideology on anything, but just because you can, doesn’t mean that you should. One thing the neo-patriarchists should do though, is man-up and admit they were wrong.”

They’re Peter Pan fuckboys, they’re trash. They’re so passive aggressive they’ve sabotaged their own lives, let them go and destroy themselves. They have the right.

The strangest thing about these discussions?

They deny HBD (on race) but then try to mouth off on HBD topics…. with no awareness of how HBD findings are compiled or any real, good data.

They’re sub-100 IQs trying to pass themselves off as mathematically literate.
Milo started this with one (literally one) article on an IQ finding.

He didn’t want to be scientific and get a psychometrician in, just punch down (as he sees it). It’s like a 13yo’s view of strength, the bully model.
Their role models are a Jewish homo and Roosh, who supposedly has both Jewish and Muslim blood…. that explains the nose job, frankly…

yeah, these guys wanna bring in Christian patriarchy, we can trust them!

Bonus: the sad autism of notch counters.

The phenomenon pointed up here with our lad is that of the “notch count.” In his case, the notches are for amusingly inconsequential things: hugging his cousin, having an internet “girlfriend” for a week or so, etc. Our lad exults in his “success” with the ladies, when in truth his supposed achievements have been minimal to non-existent.  But to chortle at his embarrassingly unearned exultation misses the broader critique implied here. Even if that which counts for legitimate “notches” in our lad’s estimation doesn’t amount to much in our perception, his degradation doesn’t consist in his absence of “legitimate” action; rather, it lies in the fact that he, like many men, base their feeling of masculine self-worth on the number of “notches” they have obtained.

from https://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2015/10/autistic-notch-count.html

They’re trying to be the popular girl…. by being sluts.
Manwhores have the dignity of jailbait. Look how much of a fake they can be, to get women to laugh!
It’s counterphobic, they hate/fear women so spend all their spare time… literally fucking women over.

The bad women couldn’t control men without sex. Feminists told men that being sluts was something to brag about….. figure it out. I hate to see adult males demean themselves.

Link: Women are visual creatures

http://www.dangerandplay.com/2011/09/12/women-are-visual-creatures/

“If women aren’t visual creatures, why are they choosing to be with men who are attractive – indeed, men who are just as attractive as they are? The reality completely contradicts the PUA myth.”

He gets it.

applause clap clapping yes well done

The manosphere loses plenty of opportunity because admitting something would hurt their ego short-term, it’s the sign of a blue pill.

Consider how pathetic it is that so many men think improving their looks is girly? That looking sexually appealing is a feminine thing? They don’t want the pressure to look good, they’re too lazy, oh, but they’re happy to foist their insecurities on us.

A man seeks in a woman what he cannot obtain himself. A man who believes he has a shot with models generally thinks he is ugly.

Note the self-delusion from men in this one.

http://www.dangerandplay.com/2012/05/09/what-kind-of-body-do-women-prefer/

The whole lower row is disgusting in the same way fat feminists are. Exact same way. You can’t talk around it or try to argue the anomaly excuses your poor dietary choices. 1 is too skinny, looks anorexic and like he’s about to drop dead. Most women find bodybuilders (5) off-putting, all the veins and high maintenance where they can’t live like a normal person due to gym hours or eat normal people food because they almost have an eating disorder fear of sugar.

Anything between 2-4, easily obtained by some form of regular exercise, will be preferred by most women. Notice how those are the healthiest and quite low maintenance (especially 2, swimming isn’t hard). The majority of women will prefer that minor demonstration of physical presence, the majority, whose opinion on matters of beauty is the only one that matters, as the manosphere often tells us.