Quote: (05-19-2013 12:04 PM)scorpion Wrote:
These "incels" (or more accurately, hopeless omega losers) need to realize that they aren't entitled to any female attention. If, for whatever reason, you have completely failed at attracting the opposite sex, that is nature's way of informing you that your genetic package is unfit for reproduction.
Why should an omega loser have any access to pussy? Pussy ain't free. You've got to work for it one way or another. If a man cannot successfully achieve access to pussy, why the fuck would any woman want to mix her genes with his defective Y chromosomes? It's a sign of gross evolutionary unfitness if a man cannot find some way to access pussy. A woman would have to be out of her mind to want anything to do with a loser like that, because she'd be handicapping her children's chances of reproduction by mixing her genes with those of an unfit man.
This is the reason that women absolutely despise lower betas/omegas. Their hatred runs so deep that these men are, in effect, totally invisible to the average woman. That's by design. The male sex is nature's laboratory. The Y chromosome evolves the fastest out of any human genome, because of this very phenomenon. Fit men mate. Weak men are ignored.
Nature doesn't give a fuck if you are short or tall, muscular or weak, etc....at the end of the day all that matters is if you're able to get your dick wet, because that's the only way your genes get a ticket to the next generation. If you can't do that, then you don't deserve a ride, and you sure as fuck don't deserve big daddy government to lend you a helping hand just to get your nut off.
Disagree with everything posted above. There is no such thing as someone who deserves to get laid. There is no such thing as someone who does not deserve to get laid. There is no morality of sex.
The idea that women choose mates based on fitness is also laughable. Women fuck losers over successful men everyday. I know tons of doctors, programmers, lawyers, engineers, who can't get sex to save their lives.
The Huffington Post article raises a good point - there is no reason why women should have sex with one man or another. Women are merely attracted to the "winners," so if the government, as the head alpha male, suddenly declares men who are socially useful as the "winners" and give large subsidies for them to spend on dating women then it would be good for society writ large as there would be strong sexual incentives for men to do socially productive work.
This idea is not without historical precedence, either, as Ancient Athens used to have state subsidized prostitution for any male citizen, on top of the vast array of female (or male) sex slaves they could purchase, on top of the many marriage options the average man back then had. In Ancient Sparta, successful soldiers were the ones who got the most sex as well.
In Rome, victorious soldiers would be paraded around the city as a massive boost to their value, thereby guaranteeing their sexual success. This also used to occur in America before the Vietnam War. (One of the many reasons why vets of WW2 and Korea actually were successful in life compared to the homeless broken vets of Vietnam and after.)
The strong do what they can while the weak suffer what they must. If a state wishes to promote the sexual success of one group of men over another, then that's totally within the prerogative of the state since they have the power to do so. That's why the mark of a healthy state is one that promotes the interests of it's most useful men while doing its best to marginalize the bums and criminals.
Contributor at Return of Kings. I got banned from twatter, which is run by little bitches and weaklings. You can
follow me on Gab.
Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.