Are you working on your blackpill game, anon? Hope you're not just regurgitating the same old stuff.

>tfw broadening my blackpill horizons via AI triangulation

ChatGPT slaps

>>81735944
So what do you think?

>the female body recognizes the Y chromosome as a foreign object and tries to destroy it
>the male body remains that same foreign object forever which violated their body
>all experiences can be mapped to physical states in the brain
>repeated physical states in the brain act as evolutionary pressure, turning into genetic memory, instinct, subconscious responses, feelings
>the male body is therefore instinctively seen as foreign, "not me", "not a part of me", "not us", "not my people", hence the extreme in-group bias and resentment towards the male out-group
>this leads to a deeply seated misandry that's always present and basically suppressed only by conditioning and willpower
>all the conditioning and learned discipline can be annihilated by the smallest trigger which resonate with these instincts
>society is basically a creation of men therefore a sort of extension of the male and they feel like they are surrounded by a foreign hostile entity, "the patriarchy"
>peaceful coexistence in a social environment for a prolonged period of time is near impossible because the male is always seen as an eternal enemy, a violator, "other" and it's not because of any ideology, but a biological conflict resulting from ancient vestigial traits

I could go on, but you get the gist of it. You know how we basically have to earn women's "forgiveness" for being born male in order for them to even tolerate our presence.
I know it's a reach, but I can't completely dismiss this idea either.

All the talk about "the immune system" and evolution is useless goyslop nonsense with no basis in reality. No one needs a knownothing "scientist" to confirm the blackpill either; it's an overwhelmingly obvious and simple truth that everyone is exposed to 24/7. Brainwashing, cope, and biochemical sabotage are the only things preventing anyone from accepting it

>>81736400
Yes, some of it makes sense. But the theme I get from this is feminist justification for why "patriarchy" exists, is 'bad', etc.

Women crave the physical masculinity that signals 'danger/dominance/capacity for violence'. Women are animals in that they seek out the animal in men - the typical dimo traits - and respond most strongly to it during ovulation. In other words, they want to be violated (sometimes outright raped) by certain men during their phases.

I agree in the sense that to go from female to male in biology, psyche, and sexual approach is a fundamentally radical step, and this causes women to view men in 1 dimension. They do seem like the other or foreign because of our capabilities and they do show in-group bias, resentment, etc. I've never seen women talk about getting to know the personality of man on a deeper level.

>>81736536
>this is feminist justification for why "patriarchy" exists, is 'bad', etc.
No, nothing of the sort. I don't acknowledge feminism as a real philosophy because it is built on nothing but rolling accusations, the abuse of fallacies, lies, falsified history, straight up rejection of observable facts in favor of opinions(standpoint theory), it's basically a home-brewed religion.

BUT

You also have to accept that it's an outlet for something, it didn't just come out of nowhere. They can't just outright say, "listen, all of my instincts abhor your entire being", they have to present these feelings to the world in a way that makes it seem justified and socially acceptable, ensuring longevity and the opportunity to keep "unleashing" women.

Ask yourself these questions:
>Why is their message so alluring for women?
>Why does it feel so natural and possibly even euphoric for them to *be* against men?
>Why are they capable of discarding selfishness and act even against their own self-interests to take a stance against men?
>Why can basically anyone convince them to feel this way?
>Why can "out-of-the-box" women, who were never abused and were not exposed to any of this ideology be so easily convinced anyway?
>Why do they NEVER apply skepticism to any opinion or statement that paint their men in bad light and accept any such claim at face value?

and in contrast

>Why is it IMPOSSIBLE to convince them otherwise?
>Why does it always seem like that your words have absolutely no meaning from their perspective?
>Why do they ALWAYS apply skepticism to any positive claim made about men and keep assuming the worst even if proven wrong?

This is not philosophy, it's instinct, it's just how they feel and this entire "foreign object" theory is my attempt at understanding why.

>>81736912
Yeah, I understand. I agree with the baseline alienation of males by women for the reasons mentioned in essence, and I comprehend that this theory is your attempt at explaining it.

My counterpoint is: why would women look to most foreign males (most testosteronized bodies) in order to be penetrated by? If they have such a visceral hate for malekind, why do they look for the most extreme versions of it and fantasize about rape?

>>81736536
Something else to note:
The microchimerism part may also hint at the possibility that women who were pregnant and carried male offspring may literally become part male and it may actually alter their behavior.
Could childlessness be rapidly accelerating this phenomenon? Could the modern, insanely misandrist female be the result of genetic memory without microchimerism counteracting it?
That would be interesting topic to explore. Would love to see the difference in measurable responses inside the female brain between mothers with sons and childless women.

>>81737012
>If they have such a visceral hate for malekind, why do they look for the most extreme versions of it and fantasize about rape?
I can't explain that. Could be a stockholm syndrome type of thing, could be an "acquired taste" on the evolutionary timeline, adaptation basically. It doesn't necessarily rule out my idea either, both of them can be valid at the same time. They can feel fulfilled by abuse and still reject the foreign chromosome on a biological level.

>>81737103
>The microchimerism part may also hint at the possibility that women who were pregnant and carried male offspring may literally become part male and it may actually alter their behavior.

I think that is literally what microchimerism is.

>Could childlessness be rapidly accelerating this phenomenon? Could the modern, insanely misandrist female be the result of genetic memory without microchimerism counteracting it?

What do you call all of these women who, again literally, ingest/get covered in the semen of several different men and get impregnated only to abort the child.

>That would be interesting topic to explore. Would love to see the difference in measurable responses inside the female brain between mothers with sons and childless women.

There would be differences in brain topology I think.

>>81737158
Also, I noticed something related to this. There's a small group of women who are very vocal about their disdain for mothers with sons. Maybe those women actually understand, on a subconscious level, that "boymoms" are not *completely* female after that point and they lose their in-group status with them.

>>81737233
Yeah. That in-group bias is nuts. Your theorizing begins to make sense. But I also still think women have a craving for testosterone.

>>81737386
I just wish I had more to go on, not only the science is incomplete and also near impossible to complete, but even my idea is just a rough sketch, of what could be under the hood.

Were women more docile in the past because they were pumped full of sons?
Are pure XX women without Y microchimerism a completely hostile lifeform that we'll just have to live with until they terminate their own bloodlines?
So many questions will remain unanswered because it's just not realistic to actually research this subject under the current political climate.

>>81737386
What if those feminist accusations of us reducing them to "baby making machines" were projecting their own feelings and understanding of themselves?

I mean, we are both guys so we understand each other, you like girls because you like the way they smell, you like the way they sound, you like their hair, their skin and it feels nice to have sex with them, you just like their entire being. But the pregnancy angle isn't something that you and I truly care about, it's whatever, you can take it or leave it. You're there mostly for the woman, not the offspring. You will take care of it, but it's a duty, not the same primal attraction you feel towards the woman.

What if women actually NEED to be pregnant with a male offspring to feel complete, to reach an acceptable state of mental well-being and they all know it, but are too resentful to communicate it?

I don't know, it kind of just makes sense.

>>81735914 (OP)
>female mate selection already filters for men who won't harm them
are we being serious

>>81737682
Out of two chads, the prince charming wins, not the abuser.

>>81737692
Read a single romance novel, or look at Will Smith's wife

>>81737386
There's also this, it's marginal but it might be related.

>>81737705
I prefer looking at statistics instead of celebrities. There's nothing that suggests that women actually look for abusers, they simply tolerate abuse from a high value specimen. It's not something that's explicitly desired but tolerated because of their exceptional looks. Even the Chadfishing screencaps confirmed this, they were like
>ewww, whatever you're still Chad so I guess it's fine
but they did not actually desire an abuser
If you tried to pull the same thing with an oofy profile pic, you'd get mass reported and banned within your first hours on the app.

>>81735914 (OP)
>>81736400
>the female body recognizes the Y chromosome as a foreign object and tries to destroy it
>the male body remains that same foreign object forever which violated their body
>all experiences can be mapped to physical states in the brain
>repeated physical states in the brain act as evolutionary pressure, turning into genetic memory, instinct, subconscious responses, feelings
>the male body is therefore instinctively seen as foreign, "not me", "not a part of me", "not us", "not my people", hence the extreme in-group bias and resentment towards the male out-group
Look at history and you'll understand that you did this to yourself, moids.

>>81737012
>why do they look for the most extreme versions of it and fantasize about rape?
>>81737138

My personal theory is that it is a vestigial remnant of hundreds of thousands of years of actual rape. There is a theory that when you have those random falling dreams that make up jump up awake, those are vestigial remnants of when our ancient ancestors lived in trees and that is our brain in REM sleep processing navigating trees and training ourselves not to fall. Hundreds and thousands of years of living in trees, ancestors falling, and the brain training us not to fall. Similarly, I think if we could look at the hundreds of thousands of years of human existence omnisciently we would find that probably half or more of all humans ever conceived were rape babies. Mother nature has no problem going for an exclusive rape breeding strategy (just look at how ducks breed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k01DIVDJlY&ab_channel=ZeFrank). Probably true for ancient humans too. Hundreds of thousands of years of rape left vestigial arousal responses in women and that is why it is the most common female sexual fantasy (see: https://metro.co.uk/2017/11/29/why-do-half-of-women-have-fantasies-about-being-raped-7099630/). I've heard it postulated even that some women cum the hardest from being raped because it is a self protection instinct because if they were not aroused and did not get wet the violent thrusting would tear their vagina wall and they would get infections and potentially die so the female body gets extra turned on by rape to lube up quick to protect themselves.