random

sleazygirlapproacher:
A woman's CADAVER is the first sign of interest for me, that's not to say I won't get to like her. And "why go for hot women" I go for women I find attractive, that's what a man does. Who's to say an UNATTRACTIVE woman would have more in common with me, than an attractive one?

There ARE lines between genders, btw. The two genders are about as different as can be, whilst being in the same species.

Females are very different to men, not socially, but biologically and that is why there will always be natural gender roles.

very_big_books:
Okay so you clearly don't have any awareness of gender and women. You just showed to everybody why women don't want you. Gender roles are bullshit. Internal differences btw the genders are imaginary and arbitrary as they have changed over the last centuries to represent vastly different norms and expectations, not to mention the variations within cultures of the same era. Read a history book.

Can you imagine having a chat with a woman that doesn't lead to you fucking her? I said to you that you need to engage with women without the goal of getting them naked first before you can actually be seen as someone who is worthwhile. Women do actually have thoughts, ambitions and feelings. If you can't accept that, you really have answered your own questions. Grow some self awareness. Seek therapy. Have a conversation with a woman without calling her a "female" or else live alone and unloved. Your call.

sleazygirlapproacher:
"Gender roles are bullshit." Women aren't hunters, they are nurturers. Men hunt. Women nurture. That is hardcoded in DNA. You can't escape that, no matter how much feminist mental gymnastics you engage in. Men are programmed to act, women are designed to be acted up on. Which is why all of this feminism is making it impossible for men to interact with women.

"Can you imagine having a chat with a woman that doesn't lead to you fucking her?"

I've gone 30 years with barely talking to women, of course I can. I wouldn't even know how to get to fucking her, that's the problem and the source of my rage.

I can't relate to feminine energy.

very_big_books:
I don't know what century you live in. Women are not "designed". Why is it all easy for normal ppl? Why have I never had an issue talking to men on an equal level? Or acting on my own without relying on a man to fix things for me? I've lived alone for the last six years and can easily fix a vaccuum cleaner or attach a shower curtain. You aren't special for having a penis. My vagina doesn't make me a senseless object to be "acted upon". You fail at the most basic level. You don't know the first thing about women and it shows. Engage with one. Talk to her. Listen to her. Don't move in with your bullshit that no educated person would ever believe in.

Most men have a very easy time talking to women. I've only met one dude like you who couldn't look me in the eyes without starting to tell me how inferior I am to him and how much he resents all """females""" for being shitty to men and guess what, he is also an incel. Maybe stop acting like an incel to stop being an incel. You are being provided with solutions to your problem yet you are too stubborn to see them.

sleazygirlapproacher:
If it came down to survival, it is YOU who would be failing at the most basic level, begging a MAN to take you under his wing.

Your biological programming is not suited to finding solutions to problems, I'm not putting you down, it's simply a fact. I've attended approaching women on the street and it never goes well. I've even recorded the reactions I get, to prove my theory.

If it wasn't for my testosterone making me want to do things to a woman's body, I wouldn't be interested in them in the first place.

At the end of the day, all women go for in a men is LOOKS. This is enabled by society, allowing her to chase chad.

If society fell away, women would quickly attach themselves to the most useful man in close proximity, like the leeches they are.

Google’s recent “doodle” announces to the world that Google is gaga over homosexuality-affirming propaganda for minors. Google’s doodle pokes a virtual rainbow-colored flag in the eye of Russian president Vladimir Putin for signing into law a bill that protects minors from homosexuality-affirming propaganda. A financial blockbuster of a company with roots in the country founded to “promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty” pro-actively endorses the propagandizing of children while a corrupt totalitarian cockalorum opposes it. Curiouser and curiouser.

The fanciful notion that having “two mommies” is ontologically and morally indistinguishable from having a mother and a father is not a fact. Presenting that non-fact to, for example, five-year-olds in government schools is propaganda. And presenting this non-fact to children is not a loving act even if it “feels” good to “educators” who don’t think about or discuss the issue deeply.

[...]

Physical assaults on homosexuals, like physical assaults on any human being, are reprehensible and should be punished in accordance with laws prohibiting assault. But there is no evidence—to my knowledge, at least—that the legal prohibition of propagandizing to minors causes violence.

And here in the United States, there is no evidence to substantiate the related “progressive” claim that orthodox Christian doctrine and those who love Christ cause violence. The fact that hateful people may quote and misapply Scripture in defense of violent physical assaults or ugly verbal assaults on homosexuals no more means they’re Christians than the fact that someone quotes and misapplies Scripture in defense of same-sex “marriage” means they’re Christians. Humans have for hundreds of years abused Scripture for their own sinful ends.

Exposing minors to homosexuality-affirming propaganda is nowhere more troubling than in our public schools where neither children nor teachers are encouraged to study in depth all sides of issues related to homosexuality. Quite the contrary. Curricula and supplementary resources and activities are controlled by “progressive” dogma, the kind of dogma promulgated by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). (Privately, “progressive” teachers actually scoff at the suggestion that there are sides other than theirs worthy of study.)

[...]

Ask any conservative public school teachers if their colleagues or administrators ever present resources that challenge “progressive” ideas about homosexuality in professional development meetings. And ask them if they feel as free to express their moral and political beliefs in faculty meetings (or in the classroom) as their “progressive” colleagues do.

“Agents of change,” secure in their tenured positions in public schools, share a certain esprit de corps with totalitarian regimes. They all hatch plans sub rosa to control the beliefs of others. Unfortunately, those victims—I mean, students—happen to be other people’s minor children.

Until our publicly subsidized educators relinquish their white-knuckled grip on curricula with their de facto enforcement of censorship, perhaps we need an anti-propagandizing-to-minors law.