Many of the world's problems would be solved if women could love men the same way men love women.
i want a foid to rape me but she needs to be stacy
>>85449769You mean "lust" over. Not love.
>>85449777This is cope. Men "love" in line with their lust. I don't know where people get this idea that men just want to fuck and don't desire women romantically.
>>85449786Because their experience with men is Chad, who has been blackpilled on women his entire life, and they are blaming bluepilled betabuxxers for Chad's behavior.
>>85449777Men sometimes (obviously not always) sacrifice their own lives or put themselves in danger for the sake of women. That's love. The reverse is *extremely* rare.
>>85449769>Many of the world's problems would be solved if women could love
>>85449769women love men more than men love women. that's the real truth
>>85449769>begging for lovepeak shitgened, incel mentalityNo wonder women want to see your bloodline die with you along with 90% of other subhuman men. Women are innately more valuable than men for the simple reason that they carry wombs. Only the bottom 10% of women could be deemed too valueless & dysgenic but even then they mog the 50th percentile man. Sorry incel, but the 90% of you should just die or do what you can with the bottom of the barrel women while the majority of us women just share the top 10% men and continue pushing the species forward. Just come to terms with your innate inferiority and commit seppuku as it would be a whole lot easier for all of us
>>85449786>I don't know where people get this idea that men just want to fuck and don't desire women romanticallythat literally describes most men under 35. they aren't actively courting, it's either hookup to hookup, just keeping to yourself and staying at home, or they're gay. if you need proof just look at declining birth rates. literally zero incentive to get into committed relationships or marriage unless the person you're seeing is 100% without a doubt your soulmate. and thats a good thing to me, it just means less unhappy marriages and kids being born into that mess because "that's just what you're supposed to do"
>>85449816Nice b8. However...
>>85449816>while the majority of us womenIt doesn't work when your post reads like the most airheaded gynoraped conservacuck to ever live.
>>85449830Why don't you try raping then? You're a faggot and you know very well you'll get btfo'd the moment you try to lay your hands on a woman you shit gened, cowardly subhuman.The top 10% of men do indeed protect majority of women out there and do the needful impregnation while you subhuman sissies either rot or seethe watching your own blooldline die. All the state has to continue doing is recruit the top 10% of men to protect women and reward each of them with 2 wives and 2 mistresses. No amount of beta uprising incel coping can save you from the wrath of the top 10% dudes. You will die a lonely subhuman incel and you will feel sad & bitter about it every single second till your last breath. HAHAHAHAHAHA
>>85449828You can't count staying at home as not desiring women romantically, just browse this board. Also declining birth rates doesn't mean men don't want marriage, last I heard young men want marriage and families more than young women do.
>>85449851You're trying way too hard and making it WAY too obvious.
as sexual objects
>engaging in this divisionist shitnever change r9k
>>85449875>Subhuman gets outed as a subhunan coward>"Trying way too hard"What can one even try with a brainlet, sissy, subhuman like u though?
>>85449894>noooooooo this is divisionist or somethingIt's just facts. Despite how much mainstream media tries to shift the narrative, men generally just like women, because they're a bunch of lustful simps. Women are generally ambivalent towards men, or worse.
>>85449809Umm source? Im fairly sure this has been debunked
>>85449921>hands shaking so hard he can't even type properly award>tried baiting but somehow baited himself awardKekk
>>85449894>Uhhh cut it out with the divisive rhetoric, stopp falling for the psyopPeople only ever use this as a cop out when a group they favour is clearly the one causing an issue
If women did that civilization would end lmao.Men are shit, and extremely lucky women still love them somehow.
>>85449987>t. the women in >>85449966
>>85449987This this this.If 90% of men out there died, nothing will change. God I love being blessed with a womb that is literally built to carry chad's child
>>85450011Yeah? Post it with timestamp.
>>85449769that never happened in human history. >>85450005liberals would more likely go to a shrink tbdesu. they "trust the science".
>>85449769Mine does but it's the fretting overthinking kinda crazy puppy love I'm the same I adore her
>>85449769>be attracted to them and resent them for it>date them and call them whores>use them if they don't meet certain criteria and discard them after >secretly despise themwe're halfway there
>>85449793It's also extremely rare for women to severely beat or kill their male partners, even in countries with very open firearm access.The worst acts are mostly by men, and the most heroic acts are mostly by men. Is what it is.
>>85449769But things are this way for a reasonHaven't you considered that humans evolved to be this way in order to surviveThese problems that exist only exist because humans were able to survive as a result of their nature
>>85450536They don't severely beat because they can't. They still initiate violence at higher rates than men.A normal guy doesn't just beat a woman for no reason. You have no idea how many evolutionary and cultural barriers have to be overcome for that to happen. He must be either a psychopath (her fault for picking wrong) or he was attacking in retaliation to physical and verbal attacks from the woman (happens all the time).
>>85450546There isn't good legal evidence women initiate violence at higher rates than men, and even if they did, while it's wrong, it's not as impactful as the severe stuff. And severe damage doesn't take that much strength. A woman could get a cast iron pan and smash it on a guy's head in his sleep. Do they do that often? No, it's not common in female nature.There are bitches who do things like smack their husband, but let's not pretend that's remotely comparable to the kind of severe DV that gets people killed or nearly killed and that goes to trial.Another reason this doesn't fully hold up is vecause as I said, even in countries where women can get guns just fine, women still rarely kill their spouses. Women's psychology is just less likely to be prone to heavy violence, even when they have the tools to do so.>A normal guy doesn't just beat a woman for no reason.A normal guy doesn't beat a woman without her consent EVER.
>>85450544Yeah well now populations are collapsing globally, so clearly we've hit some kind of hurdle where it's no longer working if that's the case.
>>85450571Here's my source:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1854883/>Among violent relationships, nearly half (49.7%) were characterized as reciprocally violent. Women reported a significantly greater proportion of violent relationships that were reciprocal versus nonreciprocal than did men (women = 51.5%; men = 46.9%; P< .03). Among relationships with nonreciprocal violence, women were reported to be the perpetrator in a majority of cases (70.7%), as reported by both women (67.7%) and men (74.9%). To look at the data another way, women reported both greater victimization and perpetration of violence than did men (victimization = 19.3% vs 16.4%, respectively; perpetration = 24.8% vs 11.4%, respectively). In fact, women's greater perpetration of violence was reported by both women (female perpetrators=24.8%, male perpetrators = 19.2%) and by men (female perpetrators = 16.4%, male perpetrators = 11.2%).>Women's psychology is just less likely to be prone to heavy violence, even when they have the tools to do so.I agree that women are less likely to kill, but you're trying to paint a picture of innocent women being killed by their loved ones for no reason at all, which is not the case. Women simply suck at violence so the man never lets her go too far.>A normal guy doesn't beat a woman without her consent EVER.So women are these sacred cows that filthy moids dare not touch? How about we treat each other equally? Fuck around and find out.
>the world would be better if stuff was betterprofound take, this is what you'll have and you're just going to have to accept it
>>85450626Again, none of this is about severe violence, not the kind that goes to criminal court. It's also one study, and that difference isn't that big even when you conflate all violence in one category.>picture of innocent womenNo, i mentioned there are bad women that smack their husbands and such, but I pointed out the difference between this and the severe DV that's life threatening.>women simply suck at violence Yet again, you refuse to engage with the argument. Guns exist and are readily available. Even other weapons like knives, pots, and pans don't take that much strength to use against an intimate partner say in their sleep. Using a gun also doesn't take much force or aim on someone in their sleep.Women just aren't as seriously violent psychologically speaking. If you don't accept this, you're just not engaging with reality.
>>85450626>scared cowsNo, you're just a violent pre-evolved moid if you're considering hurting anyone when you don't have to., male or female>treat each other equallyYes... Hitting a man or a woman is illegal.... Regardless of if you're a man or a woman.
>>85450817>Hitting a man or a woman is illegal.... Regardless of if you're a man or a woman.love it when I get baited into posting my favorite screencaps
>>85450867>anecdoteObviously horrible case though. California is terrible on criminal justice. She should've gotten life/death or NGRI with a decades long minimum.
>>85449769They never will because of biology. How we used to deal with this fact is not allow them to work or make money independently of their fathers and husbands, not allow them to be educated, and shame and provide consequences for acting on the worst parts of their nature and sexuality. We also did not have large welfare states and preferential towards women family courts and social media all of which promote and outright cripple family formation, which is the building block of society. You are right that if women were capable of loving men like men love women we would not have all these fucked social problems, but that is impossible so instead the solution is to make women have to need men individually, otherwise the men that arent needed will destroy your civilization or at least allow it to be destroyed by not contributing to a system that does not benefit them.
>>85449816Your theory would only make sense if women also were not passing along their shit genes. Also if people were getting smarter when in fact they are getting dumber. Look up the reverse Flynn effect.
>>85451015I'd already made it clear that it's our wombs that make us infinitely more valuable than you, so you're in no position to be dictating terms as it's us women who act as the gatekeepers of reproduction and by extension evolution.>Muh artificial wombsYeah pal, 2 moar weeks right? lmao.What's even worse is that as more women get redpilled on their innate superiority and men's innate inferiority, the faster would be the decline in areas like the supply side of the surrogate industry simply because a lot of us aren't even obliged to help men. We can easily jack up prices anytime we want and get even more richer and accelerate the already brutal wealth gap between men & women. So long subhuman incels as your days are numbered. This does not even factor in the demographic decline that'll make things even worse. The future is unironically female. Our genes will survive, yours will get wiped within this generation. You will be lonely, and you will be sad without having any ability to resist it. No amount of betabuxxing can save you.
>>85451247Are you a retard or something? Do you understand what genes are and that you carry genes from both your mother and father and that a large number of women carry inferior genes from their fathers and would continue passing those genes on in your little foid brain fantasy. Eugenics only works if you control both the male and female selection of genes. What will happen instead is a social collapse because the social contract between men and women has broken which will either lead to a civilizational collapse which will bring back patriarchy or we will be conquered by an outside civilization that has figured out how to reward and incentivize low status and average men to contribute. Either that or technological conditions get so good that womens monopoly on sex and reproduction will be a thing of the past.
>>85451303Eugenics does work unidirectionally i.e. selecting for best traits in one gender. The amount of "good genes" is going to increase with such mode of selection, because chad fuxx not only stacey, but also becky and femcel as well. You'll get pure blooded chads and half bred chads, but the amount of chad genes within the genepool is going to increase across the whole genepool. Tough luck incel, but this beautiful system is here to stay. You're already seeing this play out in places like denmark where 1% of all births happened due to chad's donated sperm
>>85451427It is not enough to offset all the bad genes being passed down. You would literally have to engineer a totalitarian state with breeding camps and Chad harems to get the effect you are looking for at scale and even then you would need to make sure some women dont reproduce. You are coming up with copes to justify some sort of weird sexual fantasy you have. It would be better just to admit it
