Women care way more about emotional connection than lust, men are the opposite

What are the origins of this bullshit and how can we debunk it?

Other urls found in this thread:


Human nature, obviously.



Kill yourself.


It's more or less accurate. Individuals vary but by and large this is true of the genders due to what reproductive strategies worked best. We used to live in big communal tribes where everyone could fuck anyone. Men went for the most physically fit women (not just for genes but also because childbirth was extremely dangerous). Women went for men who could support babies and women going through the pain/discomfort involving reproduction.

Genetics influences your health more then it influences your intelligence. Neuroplasticity and other problems poke holes in evolutionary psychology one by one.


Why are leftists so hell bent on making men and women interchangeable anyway?

Men and women are NOT the same deal with it you repugnant androgynous abominations.

it sure is Holla Forums in here

Yeah. Different male and female hormones don't do anything to the brain. Nuh uh.
But whatever, believe in whatever makes you happy.

I don't know OP, how can we make sure people know that hormones and our evolutionary past have 0 effect on the human brain? We're just too intelligent to be affected by biology.

Who said anything about intelligence? We're talking about sexual cues.
Sex drive is about as fundamental as you can get so it would tend to be more ingrained than most things.

Gender roles and sexual arousal are different things, and I never said evolution is the only factor, just pointed out that it is a factor. Go on and call me a reductionist, but I don't disagree that society shapes these things.


Sure, that's the way it's been for a long time, but remember, biology isn't static and those who treat it as such are fools.


I have to side with the women here.

Sex drive and how its expressed is different throughout the world. To say otherwise is complete bullshit that invalidates human's creative capabilities.

Basic biology is what you disagree with.

Even if you were to argue these differences are purely the effect of socialization, that does not make them any less real for all practical intents and purposes within the context of the society in which we live.


Sure, there's a lot of variation. But expression of a trait is separate from the trait itself and a product of that trait and the social context. Don't conflate the two. The trend of men being attracted to women's physical bodies vs women being attracted to men's availability emotionally and provisionally are pretty universal. How they're expressed varies a lot, but again that's the trait plus the social context giving you the roles that become established and stable over time.


It is.

Stop abusing the Stirner meme please and thank you. Social constructs usually exist as a way of enforcing power dynamics, which are very real. Whether or not the social construct is "real" is a semantic argument. The point is they interact with the "real world" in such a way that they're relevant if only to make them targets that must be destroyed.

Why not? If civilization expresses things differently throughout the globe, it invalidates all interpretations of how static it should be

Maybe try going outside some time. Social norms and the various ideologies and roles people internalize don't go away because you consider them invalid.

If it's not real, why should it be in any way materially justified for me. Why should I obey it if all evidence to the contrary proves a different point about these problems existing differently locality to locality.

I do.

There are various demographics throughout even the smallest places that would surprise you. Generalizing what radical spaces look like, where communists congregate, isn't something you seem experienced in. All kinds of people.

This picture is true, especially for modern culture.

Men are now told it's okay to be sex-positive and fuck as many people as they please. Women however know better than this.

Look, just because biology is generally one way right now (concordance) doesn't mean it always was/will be that way (stasis). Why are you mixing these two? Civilization has not been around very long and has not had enough time to affect human evolution as much as our history pre-civilization.

If other people obey a social construct then it doesn't matter what you personally do. Acknowledging that other people obey a social construct and acting accordingly is not the same as obeying it yourself. To ignore other people's obedience to spooks in the name of not being spooked yourself is a form of being spooked - on the idea that you're not spooked.

Paleolithic culture was, as far as we know, completely alien to anything we currently have. For all we know in Eurasia they worshiped animal power and fertility, for good reason. Everything melted down from there. But it's different elsewhere.

People adapt behaviorally to their material conditions.

I think you're just huffing your own farts at this point.

And those people still had penises and vaginae that worked the same way modern ones do pretty much. They still had hormones that functioned like ours do. They still had brains that were anatomically modern even if the culture the brains used was not.
Yes, but biology has much more limited capacity for adaptation, and a good deal of our behavior is limited by biology. For a very different example, human societies around the world see and describe colors very differently even though we all have the same rods and cones picking up red, green, and blue light.

If anyone's huffing his own farts it's the person who's denying the existence of spooks-as-domination in the pursuit of avoiding being dominated by spooks. The whole point of spooks is that people give themselves over to the spooks. To recognize this is not being spooked; it's merely defining spooks. Declaring that spooks-as-ideas are false and therefore the spooks-as-domination do not exist is to misunderstand the idea of a spook.

Debatable. Our Neuroplasticity is a hell of an ability. How our behavior is effected by biology is extremely scrutinized by academia because of possible cultural or life bias. Often times, it gets criticized because it doesn't meet the cut.

Which agrees with materialism. Cultures evolve to meet the needs of those around them. And it is no mystery that culture rapidly changed with agriculture. If you were right, then this shift from neolithic cultures and their interactions with Greece etc wouldn't be so drastic.

The fact is people not only respond to material conditions, but respond to them differently.

I have no faith in a genetic understanding of this, I only have faith in genetics being able to predict health concerns, likelihood of cancer or other diseases.

We are not born computers, we do not obey strict programming. Cultures across the world express femininity and masculinity differently, not concretely

Femoid lies. Women are not attracted to beta men, but to alpha men like Ted Bundy. She will drop all that personality bullshit for the chance to lick Chad's cum off the toilet.

Why do other cultures have different standards of masculinity? Inferiority because they're not Western? But it pokes holes in the Enlightenment era scientific thought you're hooked on, that all cultures are similar. Before these cultures were mapped out.

It reeks of a fusion of enlightenment era and colonial era understanding, and Abrahamic worldview. Both of which are in contradiction to how man responds to material conditions.

It's all studied.

Nice coping there beta.

What is a beta? Ho do you know I'm not a woman? Or if I was, how would you know I'm not wrong? You can only gleam so much from an image board.

I would rather converse with you on the topic you seem to be interested in, then hear you completely misunderstand the topic you skimmed a Holla Forums info graph over.

What I'm saying is you seem to be infested with all sorts of idpol

Seems fair tbqh.
Just like men aren't attracted to fugly hamplanets.

Right. Personality literally doesn't matter. It is Chad genetics all the way down. Anything else is female lies designed to keep the betabux population from suiciding.

And being a retard who whines about it 24/7 is just as ridiculous as when fugly hamplanets try to force the idea that fat is beautiful.

I actually argue it IS your personality that is getting in the way of you actually being a respectable person.

Ted Bundy.
Jeremy Meeks
The list goes on. Attraction to serial killers is almost exclusively found in femoid populations. Being reputable doesn't help. Being a good looking rapist will have women swarming over you. Stop coping.

Don't worry, bro.
When we achieve socialism we will parry you with someone suitable of your league.
Someone like pic related.


Socialism will fail as it always has, primarily because it is the philosophy of femoids. Females are incapable of building good civilizations, so I will enjoy watching you all starve because you decided to white knight on the internet.

Lmao the fact that a guy stole some shit and you think that's worthy of the same derision as Ted fucking Bundy says it all really

What the fuck is this

Socialism was made by men

They both have shit personalities cuck. That is what they are attracted to. End of story. The nice guy meme is purely a meme.

Who the fuck said anything about "nice guys"?

Are you the guy that claimed that the Ptolemaic dynasty didn't exist and that Alexander the Great didn't build anything in the other thread?

We either have one really dedicated incel beta shitting up this board or there's a bunch of them that got bootyblasted by something we did recently

We also used to kick feminists out of our movements.

Still though the incel is right about women and sexual selection. He just hasn't learned to stop obsessing over it.

Is this guy the same nogf nazi we had before or is it another guy? I posting style is very different

At least I find solace in the knowledge that my teacher raped me because of my supposed qualities which she valued.

They got triggered by Chapo and leftychads making fun of right wing incels

There was a big incel thread, the one with the guys bowing down to anime images I think. They didn't get the "sympathy" or "empathy" that they think they should get for being "genetic losers." Now they're Virgins with Rage on an eternal crusade against the thots they despise but desperately want to fugg.

I think nogf nazi either became or inspired nogf sucdem.

If I'm going to be honest, I think Marxism is too dismissive of the human nature factor. It's not as bad nowadays in as much as many admit that it exists at all, but still. It's disturbing how having some substances in your bloodstream while in the womb can shape you as a person. It's as materialist as it gets, yet many leftists try to ignore it.


WEW the strawman

My autism prevent me from understanding that scene. Is this genuine porn or an elaborate joke?

No, we have both. Some people, me included, here really are bothered by the non-chalant, SJW-y way some fags here dismiss robots, incels and other modern alienates. At the same time, there's at least one persistent Return-of-Kings-like "male supremacist" fagging up the board, but he's so stereotypical that I'm convinced it's a Holla Forums troll.

Bullshit. The research you're talking about gets dogpiled on purely because of political reasons (i.e. it undermines the blank slate model), and so scientists opposed to the idea that genetics influence human behaviour find any and every excuse to undermine or dismiss such research, and project their political issues onto the scientists involved.

You're telling me, sincerely, that the majority of those involved in neuroscience would happily admit that there's a genetic basis for sexual differences in behaviour "if only" the proponents could marshal enough evidence to justify that hypothesis?

What about racial differences? Would geneticists happily admit that Africans are inclined towards more impulsive behaviour if a flurry of studies came out proving it? Or would they pore over those studies for any flaw or error to justify dismissing it outright as "bad science used to justify a preexisting prejudice"?

They'd do this, exactly this. As a published neuroscientist I can testify, because that is what scientists do, they meticulously pour over any and every study published looking to discredit it, because that is science. It takes numerous studies, numerous confirmations for something to be considered a biological phenomenon, and then it takes consensus and then models and theories are generated to explain the results. When new evidence presents itself that contradicts the model or hypothesis, it is meticulously inspected until additional evidence is present. And then, a new model is constructed to explain the hypothesis. Repeat ad nauseum and you have science.
Neurological differences in regard to sex are well established and generally accepted.

Women are shit m8.

Women are the meme gender

Why do you care about this so much?

so what if men lust more? lust can be dealt with masturbation, need for emotional intimacy, however, is just as strong in men as it is in women.

Because I don't want anons to suffer needlessly.

I don't buy that last pic. Females were controlled by the exact same kind of alpha chad that is being derided in that pic. That shit doesn't hold any water.

Can you give me a rundown of the 1st pic? I'm not gonna read all that shit

I think its the one where some bitch cheats on her bf, and her bf gets back at her by fucking her sister and cousin, all the while the cheating gf tries to pay victim.

Would have been more interesting then to read the follow up posts

you do realize that people like ted bundy were know to have likable personalities at first, they just did stuff like that to lure in victims. Lots of serial killers like that have shown to have high intelligence and can use it trick people.

Don't really buy that 2nd pic. Anyone, man or women, who is new to a culture like that will be thrown off until they get the hang of it. Tbh ironically insulting each other is something any real friend does, it's not a "guy thing."

t. exposed to retard hormones in the womb

Femoids actually started sending him marriage proposals once he was caught. Same pattern is observed with other serial killers. Look it up, femoid slave. You deny basic human nature, which is why your movements always fuck up majorly.

Daily reminder that women love rape and see you as less of a man if you don't.

Daily reminder women love hot spaghetti and if you don't pour it in your pants you're not considered a man

you are dumb as shit my dude

lol unreal how long it took to lock this



I am merely exposing the true nature of the femoid beast. People always hate the truth, but it is still my duty to carry on.

Actually, women marry rapists and serial killers all the time. Look it up if you are not afraid of the truth.

If the alt right pushes fascism under a mask of irony, women push their gynocentric lust for Chad by dismissing it as "just a fantasy guies". Same logic, different people.


Daily reminder if you boil your testicles in hot sauce you gain testosterone points


tbh I think you need more testicular sriracha

Your humor is shit and it is painfully obvious you have no good response to these pics. You hide behind irony while secretly wondering if these are really true. Don't be afraid. Break through the veil and embrace the Outside. Take the black pill.

this but unironically

the defining characteristic of humanity is our ability to surpass physical boundaries by means of knowledge

But it's true. If you expose yourself to women, it shows them you have testosterone, and double if you expose yourself and then pour ghost pepper oil on your cock. You become a genetic beast and you start turning into the chad of your dreams.

What are you afraid of? Burning your balls?

Be a fucking man

Is "this but unironically" the new cool meme?

Lol kys