/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14941855
I think we need to go the other way and genetically engineer men to not be over 5'11" and not have any musculature

>>14941856
no its women who need to have their standards lowered. there is no point in increasing mens heights they will just want taller men indefinitely

>>14941859
*or decreasing

bump for science!

>>14941859
The internet has increased the evolutionary pressure on men's height enormously. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a full-blown Fisherian runaway within the next century.

>>14941855
How about you genetically engineer men to be less horny?

>>14941910
sure asexuality for both genders, either that or make women more horny (I personally prefer the later as a horn dog)

>>14941855
selectively breeding them.

>>14941855
We don't have to and we're not going to genetically engineer anyone to fix the stuff women's rights have caused, so help me God.
We will take away every single right that was given to women, and society will go back to not being fucking hysterical.

>>14941855
Horny females with large litters are basically closer to the insect model of reproduction. K-selection vs R-selection, and so on.

>>14941855
use progesterone blockers on women. progesterone reduces sex drive in women.

Real women or cis women?

>he thinks women aren't horny
women are horny all the time
they just aren't horny for (You)

>>14941855
You don't need to genetically engineer that, it can be solved strictly with social engineering.

>>14941855
>Genetically engineer
A scarcity of men would do the same. They're already as horny.

>>14942987
You didn't read the whole post. He asked how to make them horny "for average men", i.e. not only for Chad.

>>14941855
>for the average man?

WHY would she want to breed with Milton when Chad will bed her.

>>14943298
She'll breed with Milton cause she has too much ego to publicly admit that Chad got her. She'll still fuck with him in scret, but she won't have his kids. Cunts are extremely immoral and sneaky and the internet and social media gave them all the freedom to act on that basis.

>>14943304
>She'll still fuck with him in scret, but she won't have his kids.

Opposite is true, she will have Chad's babies but let Milton be the father and husband.
ALWAYS get a paternity test done... always!!

>>14943310
I know but I actually think cunts are too afraid to have a kid with another man for the majority. That's also why women cheat less than men : they want to, but they know their husband would beat them to death if they got caught. That's why women won't have a kid with Chad, but there are probably still a lot of exceptions yes.

you guys are mentally ill, so you'll raise hell if your wife cheats but you have no problem what so ever with men cheating?

>>14943322
Men actually have to have something to be able to cheat : money, talent, fame, power. It's an achievement. Women are just natural born whores who could give it to anyone.

>>14941855
literally just change the gender ratio

>>14943327
what are you talking about? the male sex drive is different men cheat and fuck all the time and nobody minds because "boys will be boys". meanwhile someone finds out a woman was cheating at best shes a whore at worst shes beat or killed in some countries

>>14943336
Yeah people think like this because it's easy for a woman to find multiple partners at a time, so it's a capital sin if she gives in during the relationship when she's supposed to "turn off" her privilege of having access to a lot of other mates. Men on the other hand have to "fight" to find mating partners, so of course when he cheats its more accepted because it helps his social status. There are incentives for men to cheat in society that simply don't exist for women. Women are not men, biologically or socially, so go fuck yourself with your weak tiktok comment arguments about "boys wijll be boys". Pure irrational faggoteries.

>>14941910
Have you noticed that you spend your entire life horny trying to obtain sex.
Your life consists of going to work day after day to make money to impress and maintain females. This is your purpose. Remove sex from the equation and society collapses.

>>14943349
A feature, not a bug as feminists will learn it in the next 50 years

>>14943344
you're low empathy, it doesn't matter that its easier for women to cheat, the fact that consequences are horrible is enough. that was the point but you only think from your perspective being the selfish cunt that you are.

>>14943370
Nah we just examin the two situations with honesty as if we were 3rd party. Truth is that I heard of a lot of realtionships where women got cheated on but then got revenge with the guy's best friend or even one of his family members. On the contrary when a man gets cheated on he rarely has as many options to "get revenge" and recollect some of the lost self-esteem. In all cases it's worse when a woman cheats.

>>14943370
>it doesn't matter that its easier for women to cheat,
That's the only thing that matters. It's worse for a woman to cheat because she doesn't have to "earn" sexual attention. The man who claims her has to fight hard for her, and deserves to keep her.

>>14941855
>how do scientists can make women be interested in subhumans like me so that I can drag down the human species to lower and lower levels of development because I'm a dog who can think of nothing but fucking a hole

>>14941855
As long as humans are a sexually dimorphism species with different strategies, this could never work.

Females maximize their reproductive success by being choosy (the selectors of genetic quality) and males do the same by spreading their seed.

>>14943491
>he thinks female mate selection is good for societal development
Your head is first on the chopping block. But leaving that aside, I've made it a subgoal of mine to see sexbots more or less fully realized in my life to see the female seethe. Not just out of spite or sadism, but also curiosity at the exact nature of the meltdown from the lesser gender

>>14943322
>but you have no problem what so ever with men cheating?
I cant sepak for the degenerates here but I do, stone both adulteress and adulterer.

>>14943327
Shut the fuck up you filthy dog, adulterers deserve death

>>14943524
>he thinks female mate selection is good for societal development
Who said anything about society? The species is what matters, only the cream of the crop of genes may be allowed to pass them on, and research suggests they indeed want good genes

>>14943344

Cuck thinking

>>14943613
Cheerios are mediocre at best
Posting this guy as some kind of diss is a big L, dude is attractive
Men and women with high body counts are fucking disgusting

>>14943619
You're only concerned about male bodycount cus it hurts you when your boyfriend reminds you he fucked other assholes before yours.

>>14943524
Same. I sometimes see posts from delusional feminists saying "soon women won't need men to make babies anymore". Implying it's not more likely that some incel nerd invents an AI sex slave meant to take women's place on earth before that lol.

>>14943619
>Men and women with high body counts are fucking disgusting

Morally true, but in reality you can not un-fuck people.
Typical college student (me) had a new girl every semester and during summer so that is 12 for a bachelors. Grad school was a LOT easier to have sex so double per semester and over summer and add another 12.
So just going to a typical school and getting a master's degree will get you about 24 women.
I am normal... right?

>>14943619

Just become a high-status/wealthy guy. Don’t mope about your physical appearance as a man; that is what MEN select for, but women? They want a leader, a warrior, a victor. They’re “holding out for a hero ‘til the end of the night”. Be that. Hint: it’s harder to be that if you’re being a feline about the shape of your body and face. Try harder, said with love and encouragement!<3

>>14941855
OR... we could rape them?

>>14943580
Based and redpilled

>>14943633
That's probably normal for the current culture. And you can't unfuck people, but it seems like that would impact your ability to want to be monogamous. It loses any semblance of romance after a while, doesn't it? There's also the risk of STI's that may not immediately be obvious or take a while to show up. It's risky behavior, especially when so many people talk about skimping on physical prophylactics.

>>14943734
>impact your ability to want to be monogamous. It loses any semblance of romance after a while

No, I am married to one woman and have ZERO desire for anyone else.
Yes, dating thee women at once is anti-romantic. Mainly you just get tired. You look forward to just sleeping alone. When they want to introduce you to their family it gets weird, because they are just fuck-buddies and you have no intention of forming a long-term relationship with them. That is when you drop them. I finally just dropped down to one person at a time until I met my wife then stopped everyone else.
Yes, neither my wife nor I can name all the people we slept with, but we are 100% monogamous with each other. We both got really tired of the being with other people.

>>14943762
That's good, I guess. What is a deepwater jew though?

>>14943288
I did read the post.
It's just that (You) are below average.

>>14943349
>>14943356
Shallowest take i've ever read, do you think men like Euler, Gauss, etc. made all their discoveries just for pussy? how coombrained do have to be to believe this?
Sex drive has never been the driving force behind anything great, you're simply a slave to your sex drive, you only become great when you get rid of it.
>Have you noticed that you spend your entire life horny trying to obtain sex.
This is you projecting

>>14943762
>my wife is a whore but she is 100% monogamous
This is what some men still actually believe in the current year of our lord... Tragic.

>>14943762
Do a paterny test on your children, if you even have any

I hope whoremongers like you and whores like your wife burn in hell

>>14944015
>>14944395

The AVERAGE good looking educated guy or girl are going to have 30-40 lovers by the time they hit 30 years old.
Just getting a bachelors degree should have the average person with a dozen or so lovers.
A young person fresh out of college with a good job can easily have a new lover each month.

You quickly realize quality beats quantity.
Some people believe pretty girls are bad in bed.
BULLSHIT! One of my fiances was very good looking and was awesome in bed and she understood to keep her man happy. Hand job in the shower every day, come home to her in dressed for hard sex, on long trips we would find a quite area for car sex.

Girls are like books, you can not judge them by the cover.

>>14944461
ok incel

>>14944461
Are you seriously proud of being a whoremonger? And you have no idea why your society is going down the drain, with divorce, adultery and bastards rates at record levels, as well as a crisis in marriage and demographics? You people are fucking retarded and deserve what you created for yourselves, dont be surprised when your daughters receive the same treatment you filthy whoremonger did to others' daughters. Don't be surprised when your sons do not give a shit about you or his biological mother (who might as well be a whore since she married a dog like you) when your elderly, heh, they might even abuse you, why wouldn't they? Their parents have no morality at all after all, why would they have any?

>>14944015
I hope that dude you're replying has antibiotic resistant gonorrhea, and even better if he took the Pfizer clotshot.

I'm tired of filthy animals like him contributing to the further degeneracy of the society I have to live in. Without whoremongers like him fatherless homes wouldn't exist, crimes would be much lower and there wouldn't be fucking birth control chemicals in my water system.

>>14941855
We are going to genetically modify humans to express extreme female biased size dimorphism
Men will be genetically modified to be small and super athletic and women will be made tall and super fecund.
Female biased size mammals naturally eliminate differential reproduction rates for males.

>>14944565
>Are you seriously proud of being a whoremonger?

OK... look I understand you have only been with one or two women.. that is cool... but do not put down other who are more socially adept.
The girl you spent six weeks chasing only to get turned down, will happily open her legs to me in one evening.

>>14941855
you are not an average man by making this thread alone

Have you tried not being ugly and creepy?

>>14943375
This, it's literally the only reason and is the entire point. If I drive drunk I'm a monster, but if my dog drives drunk "Holy shit it's a driving dog!".

My gf is hornier than I am so we have a strange sexual relationship. She's always begging and wondering where she's lacking and I'm just like "I don't have the gas for this today." I guess it's a good problem to have, I simply can't relate when other guys are only getting laid once a month and begging every night.

>>14941855
lmao, it's not hard, it doesn't require genetic engineering.
it's just 75% personality, which is why the average man is fucked, because the average man is a fucking unrepentant asshole after getting handled by our "modern" culture and society. and no, not in a good way. stubborn for the sake of stubborn, cruel for the sake of cruel, greedy for the sake of greed, sadistic for the sake of sadism. generally senseless retard apes.
if you're even partially an actually good person who improves themselves and brings value to those around you, who isn't destructively abusive, women will be horny for your dick. you can even be a fat ugly loser and get some like this. you can even be abusive in non-destructive ways. one of their top biological and hormonal imperatives right before menstruation is getting shot up with cum as much as possible, and if they think your proximity is a passive boon to their life, they want it to be yours very badly.

>>14941855
>that feel horny (emphasis on sexually horny not romantically) for the average man?
they do, normies get laid all the time

>>14944788
Why are you being such a cuck ? 80/20 on Tinder is 75% personality you degenerate pig ? Please borrow your dad's gun and blow your head out for the sake of masculinity

>>14944846
>such a cuck
>Please borrow your dad's gun and blow your head out for the sake of masculinity
yup this is what i'm talking about. pussies within a mile of you just dried up.
it's not hard, lmao. you've just been brainwashed into thinking that being a fuckup like you are is the right way to live.
it's a good scam. trick the male masses into thinking they have to behave like disgusting apes and you get the leftover girls.
functional masculinity in the past was a willingness to independently improve yourself continuously and take total responsibility over your life and the life of your family. your nu-masculinity bullshit is about truck nuts, dodging responsibility, and trying to keep others 'beneath you' in a shitty attempt to appear relatively superior.
the prior works. the latter is unsexy as fuck. to most women, the men who act this way are as unappealing to them as you a 500lb liberal feminist braphog is to you.

>>14943524
>>14943524
Clairvoyant posts. My two main sentiments these days are that allowing female mate choice was a mistake, and that we should encourage dolls and later sexbots to be modeled in the likeness of any woman our hearts desire as the embodiment of "making women property." Imagine the cataclysmic reversal in gender relations if you could store in your closet the anatomically accurate likeness of any random female to with as you please.

>>14941855
>genetically engineer
we have already altered human dna with the vax, and it lead to bodies freaking out and producing skin inside veins clotting them up, stop

>>14943633
>that pic
Lmao, rofl even

>>14941855
fuck this, how do we genetically engineer continuously horny catgirls and catboys.
some 19 year old catboy licking his butthole on the couch and licking his food out of a bowl, please.

>>14944880
Bro go to any other country that has a traditional culture and you'll see what "real masculinity" used to be about. You're a complete pussy who believes women's mouth when you only should believe the way they behave in society. You're a danger for your whole gender.

>>14943374
Revenge is a sin and you know it.

>>14945063
ok. feel free to continue taking no responsibility for your life, yourself, or your family. anything to victimize yourself, buddy. 'cause then it's not your problem, right? if you're not in control, if you're just a weak leaf in the wind, it's someone else doing it to you. you could be a real man easy, ndb, if not for all this stuff tearing you down all the time! i'm sure it's super attractive.

>>14945048
>how do we genetically engineer continuously horny catgirls and catboys.

ROBOTS!

>>14941859
Le Irish Elk
We did it reddit!

>>14945157
Not everything depends on will power you fucking faggot. Generally cucks are completely intoxicated by leftist ideas so they don't serve us the whole "take responsibility for your own life" motivational bullshit. Yet here you are being a right wing cuck. The worst of both worlds really.

>>14945176
>will power
not the same thing as accepting responsibility for your own life, but of course you see it this way, you're so fucking weak. i'm not saying "control everything in your life and be perfect", i'm saying "stop expecting something will come along and fix all your problems for you".
it's not supposed to be "motivational". it's something that, until this wave of modern "conservative" nu-masculine trash came along, was seen as a foundational element of being a human. masculinity was taking responsibility for the state of your own life, environment, family. good and bad.
but modern nu-conservative "men" are more desperate to prove that they're only losers due of elements outside of their control (like those simultaneously insidious yet idiotic liberals, or those damn "modern women") than they are willing to just try fixing their own shit to stop looking like a loser.

>>14945332
So you're saying if you can't get women on tinder just rape them.

>>14945336
lmao. i guess that is what you'd gather from that. anything that doesn't actively involve being a loser, i guess.
desu it's probably the only way you'll ever get any pussy if you keep it up with the standard "woe is me, everyone did me dirty, i'd be such an alpha boss if not for everyone else, why doesn't someone strong come and save me" routine.

>>14945347
Bro has never had a good looking male friend it seems. Oblivious to the concept of living life on easy mode, like all overachievers who cope with their constant failures by "working more", "getting back up on the horse".

>>14945353
>working more
>getting back up on the horse
both also have nothing to do with accepting responsibility for yourself. jesus, you're so unwilling to think like an independent human being it's disgusting. if you moved out into a cabin in the mountains tomorrow with nothing, you'd die of frostbite, cursing the cabin's builders because someone didn't come to teach you how to light your stove and that was their job and you had no responsibility to try.
so, your life's problems are not your fault, it's the pretty people. i highly doubt that if there were no pretty people, you'd be a king, drowning in pussy. it's obvious that more physically attractive people find it easier to fuck. but you using this as an excuse for your shitty victim-complex personality warding pussy away is pathetic. nobody wants to fuck someone so actively seeking to be a loser.

>>14945372
Why do you put women on a pedestal you retarded freak ? I'll give you an example : Im not asian, but it's obvious that Asian women HATE asian men. Regardless of the fact that he's funny or attractive, an asian man just has low probability to be "picked" by an asian woman, let alone a woman from another ethnicity, they'd just directly go for a white guy. Ive dated asian women before and all they do is talk shit about asian men and how small their dicks are.

Are you gonna go to an asian man who can't find a girlfriend and tell him : "so, your life's problems are not your fault, it's the pretty people. i highly doubt that if there were no pretty people, you'd be a king, drowning in pussy" ? That would be fucking retarded because you're accepting the gaslighting women give us about looks and at the same time silence the legitimate complaints of dudes who are in a difficult situation and are treated like subhuman rats by their own people.

The input of people like you is completely useless because you can't empathize with people like you who are having issues, and at the same time, you can't come up with advice that doesn't sound like some bullshit generic take you'd find in a fortune cookie.

>>14945386
>Why do you put women on a pedestal you retarded freak ?
what? nothing about what i've said implies this and i don't believe this. what is wrong with you? you're creating weird projections of people to argue against.
you are completely unable to accept responsibility for your own thoughts, let alone the rest of your life. you're like a child. do you think your negative emotions are inflicted by other people, never yourself? your fears and insecurities are all inflicted by others, never from your own mind? how can you even consider yourself a human, let alone a man, when absolutely every part of you seems built around external validation?
if the asian man without a girl is going around acting like a loudly repulsive piece of shit like you are, yes, i would absolutely tell him that he's the problem. you think people owe you everything and you do nothing but bitch and moan about how if only everyone gave you everything, you'd have it all.

>>14945440
>if the asian man without a girl is going around acting like a loudly repulsive piece of shit like you are, yes, i would absolutely tell him that he's the problem

What the fuck does a woman do on /sci/ ? You belong to the /kitchen/

>>14945458
right, it must be that i'm a woman. it must be that i'm a part of a conspiracy against you, the average, totally acceptable, completely secure, definitely not victimization-obsessed male.
it must only be a vile woman, a conspirator against you personally, that doesn't think sex and submission and authoritarian respect is automatically owed to the statistically average incel with his extremely attractive refusal to accept agency over anything in his life and his expectation that he is automatically entitled to whatever he likes by some kind of birthright.
you're the poverty-stricken welfare queen lotto players of the social world. you spend all your limited welfare money on booze and video poker and delivery food as you constantly, loudly lament how society (especially people with jobs!) has let you down for not getting you set up with that 2022 sedan

>>14945489
No man talks like this unless he's homosexual or a redditor.

>>14945494
whatever helps you feel like you're right, buddy

>>14945500
Kill yourself faggot

>>14945500
To me 4chan is fun cuz it's a place for radical people to be funny and think originally. You sound like an old bald headed faggot only able to have consesual opinions, you're not witty, you can't write for shit and all your arguments are borrowed from the irrational mind of a fat white bitch. You don't deserve to post on this board you lobotomized eunuch.

>>14945503
>words words seethe words cope
lmao
the fact is, if you can't understand the mere concept of having personal responsibility over your own thoughts and actions, you're barely above an animal, and everyone else can smell it.
i hope you continue enjoying the life of a submissive, impotent victim. it's exactly what you've been begging for.

>>14945525
You sound so retarded I suspect you to be asian or indian. Only someone who grew up in a shit culture where individuality is repressed like buddhism or taoism can come up with faggoteries like that.

An incel school shooter falls into your category of people who can't have "personal responsibility" yet it's not really what Id call "passive". Your logic makes no sense because you are retarded rationally and emotionally.

>>14945525
Is your shift key broken or are you ESL? Your use of English grammar is barely above ape-level.

>>14945537
and in your hypothetical, you're viewing this school shooter as someone who has demonstrated personal responsibility for their own thoughts and actions? why are you conflating passivity with simply accepting that other people do not create emotions in your brain. other people do not force you to shoot a school up. you feel insecure and impotent, not other people projecting it into you. you picked up the gun and shot people, chad didn't force you to do it because he was pretty. ordinarily, people are willing to accept that the actions they consciously take are their own doing, but you're so weak that you can't even do that.

>>14945537
Since when is it retarded to be critical of faggots with victim complexes?

>>14945553
>oh thank god, he doesn't use capital letters, i don't have to think about the fact that i'm so pathetic i can't even hold myself responsible for my own actions

>>14945568
I call it like I see it, Sandeep.

>>14945580
>i'm perfect in every way, it's just those damn indians that made me into an unfuckable loser!

>>14945563
Most men who criticize incels are themselves faggots. When a woman says she doesn't fuck under 6', it's an insult to 85% + of men. It has nothing to do with "owning your mistakes" or "having a victim complexe". If all you do as a man is to attack other men who legitimately criticize women for bringing the majority of men down in society, which is just a strategy to reduce the influence of men in society and increase political powers of women, you're a complete bitch that needs to be publicly shamed.

>oh thank god, he doesn't use capital letters, i don't have to think about the fact that i'm so pathetic i can't even hold myself responsible for my own actions

Stop thinking you're some life coach on the internet you loser faggot. See how you use the same tricks leftists and whales use to make a point ? You talk like a mom who deserves to be punched in the face by her 6 year old son for being a cunt.

>>14945592
>If all you do as a man is to attack other men who legitimately criticize women for bringing the majority of men down in society, which is just a strategy to reduce the influence of men in society and increase political powers of women, you're a complete bitch that needs to be publicly shamed.
If you're the dude that bragged about fucking Asian women that did nothing but whine about Asian men, you're part of the same problem you just described. Stop pretending like you have a savior complex for the brotherhood of the downtrodden. You're a piece of shit.

>>14945584
I think you're misunderstanding things. I'm not the person you were arguing with, I just think you're being a bit faggy and that you're probably foreign since your posts are very low quality. You should work on self-improvement and take personal responsibility for your failings in the English language if you want to impress women, or whatever it is a woman told you.

>>14945611
>lmao le reversal
wow nice one!
you might not be the person i was arguing with, but you seem to share the same sad misconceptions about the base concept of responsibility. for instance, you continually equate it with mastery and control for some reason.

>>14945641
You're leading men down the garden path by telling them things like that. The reality is that most men can't improve the parts of themselves that women hate, they can only compensate for them with money and status. You can't make yourself taller, or less Asian as the other anon pointed out.

>>14945668
At this point, having access to sex is just going to make them into even more complacent housecats. Considering how terrible society is at this point, they need a breaking point to try to turn some of this around before it hits the point of burning it all down

Women are obsolete.

>>14945668
>parts [...] that women hate
exclusively immutable parts like penis size and height and race that you're confident all women worldwide share a unified unyielding negative opinion on because "reasons". further, that all women worldwide use these parts as the exclusive metric for relationship viability
>can only compensate for them with money and status
and nothing else, according to studies you've either conducted in your brain, or read about other people with your same perspective conducting in their brains, because it feels good to know that there's nothing you yourself can do to increase your appeal to any degree whatsoever, otherwise it would be your fault, right?
>can't make yourself taller
>can't make yourself [...] less Asian
finally, some reality.
this reality you're so confident in is based on some easily observable truths. these are the things that get men hooked on this hardcore inceldom trash. i'm not going to argue that tall men get more attention, or that men in good shape get more attention, or that women are preferentially considered for all number of things over men. these are just facts.
but those truths are then layered in miles of incorrect generalizations that feel good to believe, and used as excuses for why you were evidently doomed from the beginning and you shouldn't even try, and it's everyone else other than you that's the problem, and there's nothing within your control you can do so you might as well lean in and get angry.

>>14945668
Exactly what that retard can't seem to understand. Women choose height or ethnicity as criteria for men because they're specifically things that can't be improved on, or changed, to make sure they have the final say. Smart men see the trick and complain about it because it's made specifically to shit on men, but cucks on the other hand love to turn into prime Copucius and guilt trip their whole gender for not being this or that.

>>14945641
Please hang yourself in your room and let your mom discover the body you faggot.

>>14944788
If its 75% personality how do you explain women loving serial killers and domestic abusers. Dark triad traits actualy make men more attractive

>>14945784
Cucks just won't listen to that. Their worldview has been completely and deeply contaminated by modern feminism to the point where they accept men to be fat lazy submissive faggots while women fuck tall psychopaths behind their backs.

>>14945784
What percentage of women are gunning for serial killer dick?

>>14945803
A surprising amount actually. Just look at Charles Manson

>>14945803
The only thing to know is that serial killers have way more children than any other inmate in prison, because women don't like criminals, they like murderers.

>>14943336
the fuck are you talking about, retard? you know only a woman can cuck, right? because a man never knows for sure if a baby is his while a woman always knows how many times she's given birth? fuckin retard

>>14945489
if you're so tough you should post your address man :) i'll come handle you personally

enjoy your violent society with leftover males, i'm sure criticizing them more will help!

>>14945869
>>14945872
What do you think the ratio of schizoid/BPD diagnoses to mentally sound ones were? If we eliminated serial killers immediately, we wouldn't have to worry about mentally ill women breeding with them. If we keep them alive, they should be sterilized and the women that visit them for conjugal visits stealth sterilized as well.

>>14945906
True we should just execute publicly psychopaths the moment they get caught. So that more retarded men will try to become psychopaths and all the sluts lusting for them will never be able to visit them. Sounds good to me.

>>14945784
confidence. control. accepting responsibility for their chosen actions without shirking responsibility to an ephemeral other.
things sorely lacking in most modern "men"

>>14945880
lmao

>>14945995
found the tranny

>>14945995
That's a funny way of spelling "dominance and the ability to inspire awe or fear."

>>14944461
30-40 is way too high

>>14941855
They already are
Maybe they're just repulsed by you

>>14945159
Be ashamed for having that saved on your device

>>14944589
I am impressed by your consistency in posting this faggotry on this board.

>>14946451

You like what you like, I will like what I like.

Why exactly would we want to do that?

>>14946219
>30-40 is way too high

There are teenagers in large cities with triple digit numbers of lovers.

Some Gay men have triple digit number of lovers EACH YEAR

Averaging only ONE new lover a year from 16 to 30 will get you 14 people and that would be for a conservative person.

What do you consider sex?
If a lap dancer gives you a hand-job is that 'sex'.

I do not consider a girl 'girlfriend' until we have had sex at least 10 times, otherwise they are just a fling or a one off.

>>14946625
>There are teenagers in large cities with triple digit numbers of lovers.
I don't believe these people are having sex with strangers every 3-4 days that is the minimum that three digits of lover imply. Think of the logistics of that.

>>14946887
That guy is a retard
About 30% of younger and women are virgins between the age of 18 and 30

>>14946887

Start at 14.
On Average two new sex partners per month.
19 -14 = 5 years
5 * 12 = 60 months
2 partners per month = 120 partners
Triple digit partners in your teens.

One 'party' can easily lead to 2 or more sexual partners in a weekend... then back to being a 'good' boy or girl for the rest of that month.

>>14941958
yep
and they tend to kill and consume the males they mate with for nutrients

>>14942029
opposite
progesterone increases sex drive

>>14943370
>women
>consequences
yeah, no

>>14944589
>Female biased size mammals naturally eliminate differential reproduction rates for males.
explain

>>14941855
Guys would literally genetically engineer an entire gender rather than just hitting the fucking gym.

>>14947006
This is what we're going to do >>14944589

>>14947006
>he thinks hitting the gym does anything at all for female sexual attraction
ngmi

>>14947021
It does though. My wife literally said she first started crushing on me when she snuck a peak at my abs during a pool party so there's that.

You niggahs trying all kinds of weird retarded theories about attraction instead of just playing into human nature.

>>14947032
Ok, incel.

>>14947032
women lie, moron
you're the one with the retarded theory
human nature is sexual attraction based exclusively on genetically determined looks
women all know this, but will rarely admit it, and will instead make up bullshit like "yeah, it was the abs, bro"

>>14947039
Is this the horseshoe effect of monke brain?

>>14941855
It's already that way. A few days every month every person is extremely attractive, you just need to use that time to override the rest of the brain that tells them fucking you is a bad idea.

>>14947124
Hacked by birth control. And thank god, since the prospect of just using them as fucksleeves would result in an astronomical number of undesired pregnancies and single mothers

>>14947034
cope faggot

>>14947155
You will never have sex, gymcel. I'm telling you this as a woman.

>>14947000
In mammals with female biased size dimorphism, there is generally less variability in male reproductive success, which is of course true, because males are only much larger than females in species with great reproductive variability.

>>14947182
Oh cool, I didn't know women browsed /sci/
What do you think of the big female small male dimorphism that we're going to genetically engineer into the population in a few years?

>>14947194
You will never have sex, either.

>>14947201
I already have.
So I'm assuming that you don't like the idea? Why not?

>>14947204
It's gross. Stop promoting ped tier shit

>>14947204
>I already have.
Sure, just like every other incel on this board.

>>14947208
It's really not gross. It is the ideal sexual dimorphism and we are able to genetically modify it into the population. Just a few months ago, the university of austin put out a modification of the CAS-9 protein (they're calling it superfi-CAS9) which is able to modify ALL THE GENES IN A GENOME with almost NO ERRORS! (literally less than 1%)

So we literally can modify the ENTIRE GENOME now without mistakes! So from here, we just need to finalize the modifications that we need to perform on the pseudo-autosomal region of the Y chromosome, so that us men remain small and cute forever while you women being large and super fecund (we already know all the genes related to height, bone thickness and structure, ovulation to induce superovulate, etc).

So yea, it's basically already here, we're only about a year away or so. Then we'll need to advance our gene therapy technologies, engineered red blood cells to carry RNA, etc.

By the end of the decade a huge percentage of the population will be giant superfecund women and small athletic men. You should join us because we are the winning team and you don't want to be a loser.

>>14947210
What makes you think all of the people here are incels?

>>14947221
I know what CAS-9 is and you're vastly overestimating it's abilities.
Just stop.

>>14947230
I am not exaggerating it's abilities.
We can modify a million base pairs in zygotes with an error rate of 1 base per edit, and we can modify the entire genome with basically only a single error per edit.
Did you not see the paper a few months ago out of the texas university?

>>14947238
You are. It's still prone to errors. Not to mention your desire to edit for things that don't have full basis in understanding, such as mate preferences.
It was better when it was comic relief.

>>14947249
>You are. It's still prone to errors.
Less than 1% now
>Not to mention your desire to edit for things that don't have full basis in understanding, such as mate preferences.
Preference for large size in males is not genetic, it is a socialized beauty norm. You are not "genetically predisposed" to need to feel small to feel feminine or whatever it is that you feel, that's a social thing that was put into you by society. It doesn't matter anymore.

>It was better when it was comic relief.
I have never been comic relief, or I should say that while you are completely in your right to think that what I say is funny, it isn't going to change the reality that we WILL genetically modify women to be big and superfecund and men to be small and super athletic.

Small men are superior to large ones in every meaningful respect while being cheaper to maintain. Small, 4 foot tall super athletic males are substantially better at modern combat with firearms, they can perform all the labor needed, they require less than half the calories, etc. A society of these guys would absolutely FUCK a society of big "men" and to be honest femanon, it doesn't matter if you'd prefer the large ones in this case. Society and the species as a whole is more important than your preference for height in males.

Giant superfecund women can support the production of litters with their big bodies, so the fecundity of the society is substantially superior to any other societies. the society would expand and dominate the genepool very easily.

How does this not excite you?

>>14947221
>(literally less than 1%)
that's...literally the same amount of our genes that separates us from chimpanzees
doesn't sound very safe

>>14947265
>Preference for large size in males is not genetic, it is a socialized beauty norm.
that's obviously not true
it's rather the exact opposite: there's no longer any social reason for it, but the attraction still exists precisely because it's genetic

>>14947265
>4 foot tall super athletic males are substantially better at modern combat with firearms, they can perform all the labor needed
doubt.jpg

>>14947265
>I have never been comic relief
You've never been taken seriously by anyone.

>>14947293
less than 1% error, so you do the first edit, change all the genes, see where the error was, then edit those out and you have perfectly modified the genome in the cell to be what you want with no mistakes.

>>14947295
Of course it is true. We know this because the preference is not universal for women in or between societies, and human males and females are genetically identical except for the SRY gene on the Y chromosome, so whatever genes would code for height preference in women would have to also code for it in men. Unless you're claiming that just pumping women full of testosterone would cause them to lose the preference (or pumping men full of estrogen would cause them to gain it or whatever) but we know that's not true either.

Preference for tall men is not genetic and it does not matter at all. It does not matter that you like tall men, they are more expensive and inferior and there is no reason to allow them to exist anymore now that our ability to genetically engineer things is becoming so efficient.

>>14947308
>they are more expensive and inferior
Says the man so short he only goes up to chest height on the average human male.

>>14947308
>you do the first edit, change all the genes, see where the error was
sounds incredibly ethical
>Of course it is true.
it's obviously not
the opposite is true
it is absolutely universal for women everywhere, they all prefer tall men (it's literally the #1 sexual criterion of every woman on the planet, even before facial aesthetics)

>>14947299
Child soldiers are better than adult soldiers in combat, an army of child soldiers could be just as well trained and equipped as one of adults, it's just that they're kids so it's immoral and they're also not as mature.
Otherwise, small, super athletic men are in fact superior compared to large super athletic men (a monkey with a gun will kill a gorilla with a gun more often) while also using fewer resources overall. There is no job that only a big man is capable of doing. That doesn't exist. And in a fight, the small man shoots and kills the big man far more often. So big men are obsolete.

>>14947302
Im taken very seriously by my colleagues, and other anons on this board as well as others. You can lie to yourself and try to diminish what I'm talking about but it isn't going to change anything.

>>14947315
>and other anons on this board as well as others
I know this to be empirically untrue. You're laughed at in every thread you enter.

>>14947313
>(it's literally the #1 sexual criterion of every woman on the planet, even before facial aesthetics)
This is actually one of the funniest things to me when it comes to women. I'm a pretty average-looking but above-average height White guy and I can get 8-10/10 Asian women clawing for a piece solely because I'm White and several inches taller than the men they know. Height privilege in dating absolutely exists.

>>14947308
>Unless you're claiming that just pumping women full of testosterone would cause them to lose the preference (or pumping men full of estrogen would cause them to gain it or whatever) but we know that's not true either.
not how it works
sexual attraction is in the brain
you'd have to do that hormonal treatment before birth when those fundamental structures develop (the same types of structures that e.g. recognize snakes by the amygdala bypassing multiple other brain circuits)
sexual attraction is literally hard-wired into the human brain since before birth based on the hormonal exposure at that point

>>14947315
>Child soldiers are better than adult soldiers in combat, an army of child soldiers could be just as well trained and equipped as one of adults, it's just that they're kids so it's immoral and they're also not as mature.
not even remotely true
>>14947322
yes, it's universal to human females
whiteness is totally irrelevant, it's just the height

>>14947312
Modern technology and weaponry has rendered small men superior to large ones in both quality and quantity. This is not going to change no matter how angry it makes you.

>>14947313
>sounds incredibly ethical
How so?
>it's obviously not
>the opposite is true
>it is absolutely universal for women everywhere, they all prefer tall men (it's literally the #1 sexual criterion of every woman on the planet, even before facial aesthetics)
All of this are wrong.
Something like 40% of women use height filters on dating apps (so it's not even universal for that) and we know that the male taller norm changes across cultures.

>>14947317
I receive both support and criticism. You can continue to lie to yourself but it is not going to change anything.

We can modify all the SNPs now, we've mapped almost all the modifications needed, the mathematics is solid, everything is about to fall into place. Were literally only about a year or so away (maybe a year to a year and a half)

>>14947329
>All of this are wrong.
nope, it's all true
>40% of women use height filters on dating apps
and the remainder screen for it manually, which is likely smarter due to men trying to get away with cheating by saying they're taller than they are
>male taller norm changes across cultures
not true, taller males are preferred by women everywhere
again, it's literally the #1 sexual criterion of every woman on the planet, even before facial aesthetics

>>14947326
>not even remotely true
Yes it is, and we're not even talking about children, but genetically modified super athletic men
>yes, it's universal to human females
No, it isn't. Literally just look up "male taller norm" and you will see a litany of literature on the topic.

>>14947329
>Modern technology and weaponry has rendered small men superior to large ones in both quality and quantity. This is not going to change no matter how angry it makes you.
I'm not angry. I accept my superiority to small men and love it. You're the one who wants to edit the entire human race because women and tall men don't respect you for being a manlet with rage.

>>14947331
no, it's not true
and yes, it's universal to human females
>Literally just look up "male taller norm" and you will see a litany of literature on the topic.
lol
lmao even
I thought you of all people wouldn't fall prey to bullshit feminist propaganda
tons of women lie through their teeth and say that height don't matters to them, and yet they are all invariably exposed as liars

>>14947332
This is your last cry. It's over dude, I've won. The ideal dimorphism is starting within this decade, we're only a few years away.
No amount of seething about this is going to change it.

>>14947337
meanwhile in reality women will keep breeding with what they all prefer: taller men
oops

>>14947337
>This is your last cry. It's over dude, I've won. The ideal dimorphism is starting within this decade, we're only a few years away.
Pure copium, the post.

>>14947340
Height is not correlated to reproductive success in men.
Also, in reality, we just gained the ability to modify THE ENTIRE GENOME without error.
It's over. No amount of denying or insulting me or coping is going to change what's coming.

>>14947342
There is nothing that's going to stop nation states from genetically modifying their population to be more resource efficient, have greater fecundity, and more powerful militaries.
Thinking otherwise is extreme cope.

Why did you even start talking to me in the first place when I was talking to the femanon? Or did you pretend to be one of those woman for some reason?

>>14947347
>Why did you even start talking to me in the first place when I was talking to the femanon? Or did you pretend to be one of those woman for some reason?
Because I find your ideas amusing. Why do you keep responding even though posting here clearly makes you angry?

>>14947351
I wasn't angry when talking to the femanon

If you guys consider yourselves to be scientists (if you even are) then why do you get upset at the things I say? You get so angry that you need to start an argument with me when I'm talking to a different anon. If you don't like my posts don't read them, arguing with me isn't going to make me wrong.

>>14947360
If you got no pushback for your silly delusions you might start to think people agreed with you. Then you'd keep shitting up the board with these awful coomer posts.

>>14947323
>sexual attraction is in the brain
Everything in the brain is coded by genes. Genes are absolutely everything. Genes code for messenger RNA which makes phenotype structures, hormones, etc.
If the hormones in the womb cause structural changes in the brain that code for sexual preferences, that would make sense. But it would just mean that we code for different hormone production in the womb. It would make no difference to the end result.

>>14947362
People agree with me all the time.
I'm not angry at what you say, I get angry when people push blatant pseudo science as fact. You don't actually know what you're talking about. That gets annoying, when you feel the need to interject all the time.

>>14947265
>less than 1%
No. This isn't a trustworthy number.
Many things go into human attraction. It certainly isn't merely down to societal norms, nor is it as easily simplified by evolution.
It's comic relief, at best. It's an excellent way to divert threads towards a designated shitting pathway that nearly everyone can rally against. In reality, it's a vile concept. The idea that you would want my own or anyone's children to be considered sexually attractive to adults on a universal level is on par with doing away with age of consent laws. It's nefarious at best, and there is nothing you can say to convince me otherwise.

>>14947347
If you did succeed in this, there would be a huge problem with overpopulation and everything that comes with it (disease, scarce resources leading to endless conflict)

One solution would be to have some females be born infertile and grow to be the same size as males, but by then you've just made humans a eusocial species.

Hope you enjoy being a drone in the human hive fantasizing about fucking the queen, because that's all you'll get if we go down that path

>>14947431
>No. This isn't a trustworthy number.
What do you mean?
>Many things go into human attraction. It certainly isn't merely down to societal norms, nor is it as easily simplified by evolution.
You're right and I agree with you. What I reject is the idea that social structures don't matter in this case about height preferences.
I do not believe that women are caught in some genetic fisherian runaway for male height.
>It's comic relief, at best.
I don't think it's comical.
>In reality, it's a vile concept. The idea that you would want my own or anyone's children to be considered sexually attractive to adults on a universal level is on par with doing away with age of consent laws. It's nefarious at best, and there is nothing you can say to convince me otherwise.
But I'm not talking about children. This isn't an accurate representation of my idea. I've never actually even put much thought into what the males may look like, as when it comes to that part of it I think of the women.
In a different thread a different anon got me to think of it so I looked around and found some images of what I think are decent representations of what the men may look like. Pic related is sort of there, although he is not as muscular as what men are going to actually be.
Does this render look unattractive to you? I doubt it (imagine him more muscular as well)

>>14947347
>Height is not correlated to reproductive success in men.
for tens of millions of years, it's literally been the #1 factor in reproductive success by a wide margin
today it continues to be so due to this genetic imprint
those are the facts, like them or not

>>14947479
It's the features of children. You're rationalizing keeping features of small children for adults. That's the precise argument for loli and shotafilth, that the age is what makes the difference not the appearance. You're trying to genetically engineer a personal fetish that has zero societal benefit, but endless detriments.

>>14947483
https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/how-have-we-changed-since-our-species-first-appeared/

>>14947369
genes in combination with environment
that's what you don't understand
the internal brain structures which determine sexual attraction later in life are constructed while you're in the womb, due to the hormonal differences present depending on whether or not you carry SRY
after that it's done, no amount of testosterone will alter those fundamental inner brain structures later in life
if you're a girl, those structures will be hard-wired to be sexually attracted to men possessing certain traits, with height being the #1 factor for sexual attraction
hate it all you like, it's simply the reality of the matter

>>14947369
>But it would just mean that we code for different hormone production in the womb.
you can do that, but at that point you might as well program us to be dragons or moths
my point was to explain why height is the #1 universal sexual attractor for all females as our genome currently stands

>>14947485
How does it have no social benefits? I have spent like 2 years on this board arguing for the social benefits.
Why would a matriarchy with big families, no domestic violence against women, greater social fecundity, greater economic activity, greater military potential, not be a good thing?
Do you think that these males look specifically like children because they don't to me, they look like a weird in-between thing. And they are not as muscular as they would be, which is also not a neotenous attribute.

>>14947495
Yes. That looks like an 11 year old animated boy, which makes it even more gross.

You can't, cause then you're gonna cry about how women are whores and want to genetically engineer them to have low sex drives. Also that would be dysgenic for the human race. Also transsexuals already do the job. Also what we need to do is to genetically engineer men to be less horny, that would solve many problems

>>14947498
I don't know what to tell you. These males, if a little more muscular, are superior. They would be able to sprint very fast, jump high, do any job, handle any firearm just as well, they weigh like 65-70 pounds, theyre better in every way.
What would it take to make it more acceptable to you?

>>14947495
Didnt come on here to watch gay pedo stuff.

>>14947490
>>14947493
How do you explain human height decreasing despite food increasing?
How do explain the variation of the male taller norm between cultures?
How do you explain the nonexistence of height preference in women in hunter gatherer societies?
How do you explain the variation of the preference for women within a society?
Why are tall women less likely to care about height than short ones?
Why does giving estrogen to a brain in utero force the child to have height preferences? How does this theory work when analyzed against the known variation of the preference between women?
Why do 1 in 20 couples have a woman who's taller than the man if women can only be attracted to tall men?
Why is there no correlation between male height and reproductive success?

If you actually believe an ugly tall man is preferred to a cute short one you have no experience at all with women.

>>14947495
Even if everything you said was true, that wouldn't lead to woman feeling horny for the average man.
Instead of selection based on height, the only men selected would be those at the top of their field and then they'd just be milked to build a genebank.
Eventually, men would be split into different castes and you end up with something like pic related

>>14947335
I didn't see this one
>no, it's not true
Yes, it is
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0738894215570424

https://www.quora.com/How-effective-could-child-soldiers-be-in-actual-combat-if-they-received-the-best-training-equipment-weaponry-and-support-in-the-world?share=1

Child soldiers are entirely capable of functioning at an equal or higher level than adults, in terms of physical ability and potential. Their weakness is maturity and training.

Genetically modified super athletic 4 foot men, with high intelligence and training and who are actual adults, are superior to larger men in literally every respect in the modern and future world. None of us in this thread would be comparable.

>>14947538
>How do you explain human height decreasing despite food increasing?
because the "food increasing" part is misleading bullshit
nutrition today is absolutely abysmal, eating more trash is just going to make things worse
whenever there has been any significant increase in the quality of nutrition, height has also increased
>How do explain the variation of the male taller norm between cultures?
there is no variation, every single woman on the planet prefers taller men
it has nothing to do with culture, and it's not a "norm", it's genetically hard-wired into women due to tens of millions of years of natural selection
>How do you explain the nonexistence of height preference in women in hunter gatherer societies?
there is no such "nonexistence", they prefer taller men, just like every other woman on the planet
>How do you explain the variation of the preference for women within a society?
are you talking about male preference for women now?
the same applies, except instead of height being the #1 factor, it's a joint combination of breast-to-waist-to-hip ratio
women want taller men
men want women with wide hips and large breasts
>Why are tall women less likely to care about height than short ones?
they aren't, they care even more
they just don't have many sufficiently tall men to choose from, and thus typically have to settle for shorter men more often (and are thus more likely to lie about it as well, since anyone who settles tries to psychologically rationalize what they're settling with as their preference, sour grapes, etc.)
>Why does giving estrogen to a brain in utero force the child to have height preferences?
it's not necessarily that simple hormonally, but the reason is ultimately a complex hormonal interaction that has evolved over tens of millions of years
women whose brains reacted to female hormones with preference for tall males were more likely to survive and reproduce
it's basic evolutionary biology, nothing complicated at all

>>14947538
>>14947621
>How does this theory work when analyzed against the known variation of the preference between women?
there's no variation in the preference between women, that's a delusion
>Why do 1 in 20 couples have a woman who's taller than the man if women can only be attracted to tall men?
because many women simply have to settle in order to reproduce
if you're tall and ugly as a woman (i.e. small breasts and narrow hips, and perhaps even an asymmetrical face and other genetic signs of poor genetic health), then you're never going to land the men you actually want
this isn't anything new, dating apps are riddled with women who have totally unrealistic expectations, like middle-aged women who hit the wall a decade ago stating that they will only settle for someone who is 6'3 and earns $100k+
some don't delude themselves and settle for shorter men instead, despite not being what they actually want, just like men also settle for women who are ugly and who have small tits and no hips, despite that not being what they want
>Why is there no correlation between male height and reproductive success?
I already explained that to you earlier, pay attention
it's because there are no longer any social reasons for height to lead to better reproductive outcomes, there isn't remotely the degree of fighting between males that there was where we evolved (the tropical equatorial rainforest), nor pressure from outside threats (e.g. leopards and other wild animals, and so on), nor pressure on height as a beneficial factor when it comes to climbing trees and gathering fruit, which we primarily subsisted on for those tens of millions of years
the genetic hard-wiring for women to prefer it is still there, so even if being taller isn't associated with reproductive success anymore, it's still what women want, and what turns them on sexually
>ugly tall man is preferred to a cute short one
that is exactly the case
women would take a super-ugly tall man over a super-handsome manlet

>>14947515
So they would be like a tiny rape army.

>>14947672
No? Why do you think they'd be rapists?
They'd be safer for women because they could only harm women with the use of weapons. This doesn't matter for men because they'd just shoot another man in a fight, but they wouldn't shoot women or rape them

>>14947719
Why wouldn't they just use their guns to threaten and rape women, keeping them imprisoned like cattle? I thought you said size wasn't good for warfare.

>>14947723
The women wouldn't be able to fight them in armed combat but why would the men want to shoot women? That makes no sense

>>14947734
Why do they shoot or rape them now? What if they're not short enough for the womens' liking anymore, and the ones that are too tall or not muscular enough have been swiped the rejection direction too many times on the sex apps?

>>14947769
>Why do they shoot or rape them now?
Idk I've never wanted to shoot or rape a woman desu but I've wanted to shoot a lot of men before lol
I don't think that the men would hurt the women there's no point. The idea is that the couple is a pair bonded unit who produces litters of babies that they raise together. Why would the men shoot their family?

>>14947792
It's not necessarily the men shooting their families, it's other men that desire what those men have that could be a threat. There's still adulterous behaviors that could signal violence, other terrible things that happen at work, anything. You're not going to CAS-9 out aggression.

>>14947894
I can't eliminate aggression and wouldn't want to.
I'm failing to understand what your point is though. There's potential for small males to hurt women, well there's also that for large males. There is no difference in that sense from the woman's perspective. The difference is between the males, the small males are superior.
This image the male doesn't look like a child. He's about 4 feet tall and 70 pounds and the woman is about 6'4" and 180. Is something like this more acceptable in your opinion?

>>14941855
We have succubi already and their big issue is that all they can define themselves by is sex. They don’t show up in the relationship for anything but sex. They are less than useless. Especially because good mileage on a woman is only like 1-2 dudes before they break (get run through) depends on how bad the dude is.

>>14941855
The average man has access to $200. There are already woman who feel horny for the average man (who can spend $200).

There are already ugly and/or old and/or psychologically damaged women who will spend their legs for anything.

Whatever it is that you want must be something different than what you claim to want, because you already have what you asked for.

>>14948534
spread* their legs

>generically modify women to be assertive, horny, attracted mainly to shotas
>genetically modify men to be masochistic shotas
>instill a femdom world where women dominate men (shotas) sexually
This is a world I consider worth fighting for.

>>14943633
>pic
high-tier writing skills. literal art

>>14948639
This, so much this.

a lot of people here bring up evolution and natural selection to the topic, meanwhile the entire point is about pleasure who cares about natural selection? evolution sucks ass anyways

>>14951425
People's subconscious choices are driven by selection pressure, e.g. women's preference for tall chads and hatred of manlets. It's easier to change society to restrict female decisions than to reorder the human genome to alter mating preferences.

>>14943613
>compares enjoying a new women with eating a bowl of Cheerios
Surprisingly based

>>14943633
>moral standards SHOULD be true, but…
>I have absolutely failed to live up to those standards, not even tried to
>therefore the standards should not exist
You have the mind of a lecherous woman, and the moral code that you preach is the code of Satan. “Not normal” is an understatement—you are a freak, a demon in human skin, everything that you touch is impurer for it. You are an infected wound on the society that you inhabit, and in a manlier era you would simply be put out of your misery

>>14941855
Obviously that would be undesirable. Within 2 generations every man would be an incel.

Sexbot when

>>14953774
never im afraid :(

>>14953774
>Sexbot when
>>14955794
>never im afraid :(

Not too far into the future.
They will be household bots that, just so happen, to be able do lewd things.