STUDY PROVES WHAT WE ALL KNOW: MEN ARE THE MORE ROMANTIC SEX, CONTRARY TO WHAT WOMEN WOULD WANT YOU TO BELIEVE

>We propose that relative to women: (a) men expect to obtain greater benefits from relationship formation and thus strive more strongly for a romantic partner, (b) men benefit more from romantic relationship involvement in terms of their mental and physical health, (c) men are less likely to initiate breakups, and (d) men suffer more from relationship dissolution.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/romantic-relationships-matter-more-to-men-than-to-women/52E626D3CD7DB14CD946F9A2FBDA739C

>men do everything better than women
no shit

>>82108133 (OP)
Everybody who has ever actually interacted with a woman or Chad who can easily get women knows this. Even the ones that claim
>I am so emotional and romantic my heart is so fragile
Will swear undying fealty to the most attractive man they see regardless of how they're treated. That's the idea of love to women, doing whatever a hot guy says.

>>82108156
>That's the idea of love to women, doing whatever a hot guy says.
It's so fucked up how true this is.

>>82108181
I have a tallchad friend, he has a pretty good looking girlfriend, she told him
>I'd still love you regardless of how bad you treat me
Fucking insanity. No matter how much a woman matters to you as a person, she'll only ever see you as a representation of your genetics

>>82108133 (OP)
Why are women so COOOHHOOHHOOOOOLD BLOOOOOOOODED?!

>>82108133 (OP)

Of course this is the case despite whatever propaganda normies push to the contrary to maintain their rose-tinted fantasy of women. It was a man who wrote Romeo and Juliet. Also consider when men were ruling the world under "le patriarchy" 500 years ago. We had concepts such as chivalry and self-governed ourselves to not openly permit or even condone harems or anything else opposed to monogamy despite Christianity making reservations for such behavior. Today, the modern term for chivalry is simping. Chivalry never really went away despite what modern men or women say. It's actually still here, just under a new label. And without the subjugation of women as a man's property, we get to see firsthand how women really feel by their actions towards chivalry.

It's crazy because men back in the day were, according to modern thought, so much more misogynist and chauvinistic, and if you think about it, that's because men knew the true nature of women deep down back then and were not afraid to recognize it and subjugate women for it. Yet, there was also a part of us that desired more, that desired to see women as these beautiful and innocent and pure creatures we wanted to pretend they are, and so man invented chivalry to entertain himself. Women were forced to go along because what was a woman going to do if a man bought her flowers, a heart-shaped box of chocolates, and kissed her hands and feet back then? Absolutely fucking nothing because women were property back then. Got the ick? Too bad, bitch! I fucking own you. So I'm going to suck your toes and you are going to like it, and get slapped if you don't. Marital rape was also not a thing because men back then probably also knew what women were capable of if given sexual freedom in marriage. Our ancestors were smarter than we give them credit for. Men knew the truth about chivalry and women's true opinions towards it because we see it made fun of in old media like video-related

>>82108234
I'll just keep dropping this everywhere.

under the supervision of the reverse vampires?

>>82108133 (OP)
Here's another study OP. This one shows that men are very attracted to kindness and empathy in women, but women aren't attracted to the same behavior in men, it actually has a negative effect on attraction to be kind as a man.

That's the thing. Foids are such a nightmare to deal with that I'd happily be content fucking and giving creampies to a barren foid in her fifties if it meant dispensing with all the woman and dating bullshit. I could literally do the same hag for several years, if it meant I got my regular nut and didn't have to deal with someone new. Sadly, I am too incel for even that low bar.

>>82108310
Thanks anon, notice how there are supposedly no females in here because actual facts are being discussed. If one comes in here she'll just resort to insults and calling men trash and all of us incels

>>82108341
Yep, I'm making videos on these studies so I hope they reach a wider audience and more men understand the research that has been done. My first vid got me like 30 subscribers so I'm pretty optimistic about it.

>>82108341
When women were put under a bogus polygraph test their number of sexual partners increased from 2.6 to 4.4 partners on average.

>>82108509
4.4 is still probably a low ball which is even worse

>>82108133 (OP)
>>82108310
>>82108509
collecting jpegs of studies to justify why I'm gay and don't have a gf

>>82108542
You know it's funny, the only thing people like you have to insult others with is their sex life or their sexuality. You personally attack someone without addressing anything they've presented, because there is no proper refutation.

>>82108560
It's a coping foid or white knight lmao they're gonna resort to personal attacks because the actual facts contradict their "women are perfect and have no flaws" worldview

>>82108133 (OP)
Every single day I'm reminded that I should just kill myself, but I don't, I cling to life with a death grip so firm it'd give you ED.
At this point it's a display of my own masochism, I will never have what I want out of life, and yet here I am.
Thank you for posting yet another blackpill, OP, women will deny it, normalfag men will cope, the cycle will persist.

>>82108598
If you're a struggling blackpilled incel like me, just focus on getting rich and in the best shape possible. I haven't given up yet I just know that it will be rough out there for me
>Thank you for posting yet another blackpill, OP, women will deny it, normalfag men will cope, the cycle will persist.
Trvthnvke

>>82108560
yes because it's fun
anyways I'll be the science nerd for a minute

oh whoops I can't even access the full study as a civilian

but the point is the same, a single study or a handful of studies are completely meaningless. There are thousands of studies about gay trans lesbians and all sorts of silly goose shit that you people would (rightfully) never recognize as a proven objective truth of life. Like that one study about how straight men are turned on by gay porn.

Studies and their results aren't reproducable one minute, and the next minute another study contradicts those results.

There's like a million studies done by a hundred million scientists about climate change and yet they're unable to reach a 100% consensus - but 4 or 5 jpegs of the headlines of studies is enough to act as undeniable scientific proof just because it supports your opinions and personal experiences.

Yall probably the kind of guys who tells girls that they love them before they've even gone on a date, and in your mind that's why/how men are more into romance than women when that's just now how romance works.

>>82108614
Some of the most blackpilled people I know are Chads that have been with many women. They eventually understand how vapid and shallow women are. I think you can only really understand the true nature of women once you've seen them in action doing everything the blackpill says.

>>82108633
You say this although you've definitely cited studies before to prove whatever bullshit narrative you were pushing.

>>82108573
>the actual facts
jpegs of headlines are not actual facts.

studies are not actual facts.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-016-0837-9

According to this, straight men jack off to gay porn.

>>82108642
Agreed, the friend I mentioned in >>82108218 is pretty blackpilled himself, agrees with incel talking points, but gets plenty of girls because he's tall and decent looking

>>82108645
yes, because it's fun.
I'm not actually trying to convince anyone of anything or making some sort of change happen in the world.
I just want to win the funny internet argument and either get the last (You) or get a "oh shit I guess you're right"

>>82108633
>Picrel
Just because you don't understand Math doesn't mean it's useless. Non-euclidean geometry was initially developed in the 1800s as something abstract, but was used by Einstein to describe gravity as the curvature of space-time. GPS satellites now use this math, and without it they would be off by several kilometers every day. Again, there's no point arguing with a midwit like you.

>>82108650
>821 men who completed an online survey in 2015
Lol
>as 20.7 % of heterosexual-identified men reported viewing male same-sex behavior
So 1 in 5 straight men have watched gay porn before? That's not a crazy claim

>>82108642
>>82108659
>as a normie who has several Chad friends
uh as a Black man

>>82108642
Your words are true.
The most blackpilled person I ever knew had women in real life and online throw themselves at him because he was extremely handsome, he would treat them like disposable trash, send me the nudes, and none of it would deter them.
The bell curve for blackpilled individuals is incels and top tier Chads on either end, and normalfag men who cope in the middle, that is the truth of this world.

>>82108133 (OP)
All this says is that men *benefit* more from romantic relationships.
Probably because women are better partners.
Conclusion: men can't into romance.

>>82108671
that was just a funny meme pic, measuring the gravity of satellites has nothing to do with sociological studies and worshipping jpegs of the headlines of studies as the word of God.

>>82108678
>821 men who completed an online survey in 2015
At least this study is fully available and lists its polling method and how many people it polled, etc.
>So 1 in 5 straight men have watched gay porn before? That's not a crazy claim
Imagine if 1 in 5 vegans reported eating chicken wings and bacon strips.

By definition, they would not be vegans,

That's the problem with sociological studies. Nothing means anything.

I would really love to see OP's proper study and not just the jpeg of the headline >>82108133 (OP)
really curious as to how they quantified the concept of romance.

>>82108730
>Imagine if 1 in 5 vegans reported eating chicken wings and bacon strips.
1 in 5 vegans cheating on their diet is a totally believable claim, just give up on this one bro.

>>82108754
>claiming to be straight
>cheating on your straightness by jacking off to gay porn
?????

>>82108730
>I would really love to see OP's proper study and not just the jpeg of the headline really curious as to how they quantified the concept of romance.
Go to scihub instead of crying you lazy fuck

>>82108758
I don't jack off to gay porn that must be projection on your end faggot

>>82108650
Anonymous online survey with no verification at all. For all we know it could literally be trolling ffs. Also many of the participants were recruited from an app called scruff guess what it is. An app for MEN SEEKING MEN.

>>82108542
They do a good enough job at making me wish I was gay, honestly.

>>82108133 (OP)
>Women project when they accuse men of only wanting sex
More news at 11.

>>82108794
>Also many of the participants were recruited from an app called scruff guess what it is. An app for MEN SEEKING MEN.
kek loling

>>82108794
So you understand that there are dozens of variables to consider in the polling method, the sample size, the population the sample was polled from, the questions they were asked, how did they define the terms in those questions, etc.

And yet, with this thread STUDY PROVES WITHOUT A DOUBT WITH IRREFUTABLE SCIENTIFIC SCIENCE PROOF THAT WOMEN ARE EVIL OR WHATEVER

singular studies prove nothing, you have to look at hundreds if not thousands of them to get a general idea of what the overall trends might be about the topic it tried to deal with.

>>82108845
I read every single study in this thread and none of them have the glaring flaws your homosexual porn study has.

>>82108778
but the STUDY PROVES that straight guys jack off to gay porn

>>82108133 (OP)
2d girls WIN AGAIN

>>82108855
please go ahead and share them, I'd love to read more than just a jpeg of their headlines.

Regardless, 4 or 5 studies is still not proof of anything. You need hundreds to see what the overall trend might be like.

>>82108858
It shows that 20% of their sample has which isn't a crazy claim to make. Your little gay ragebait tactics don't work, go to a different thread

>>82108845
So provide better studies showing the opposite. You can criticize the lack of data, but handwaving them away because you don't like them is worse than what you're accusing us of doing.

>>82108297
Fascinating, i like seeing the progress.
I dont have much time to spend here but please keep posting these

>>82108642
True. I have a friend I've known since high school (we're both 30 year-old now). He's always been very successful with women and he views most of them as subhumans. They love him for it and he told me that the sex is ALWAYS better when he openly shows disdain for them. It's actually insanely blackpilling but the logic is clear: the less he cares about them, the more it shows confidence, it implies he has options and that he's successful. Though obviously this only works well because it's not just an act, he really does have options. And women eat that shit like candy. He told me a story about how he was scolding his gf and out of nowhere she suddenly started to suck him off lmao. She's so submissive she gets turned on by him scolding her like a kid. It's like she has zero dignity. Female sexuality is really fucked up and honestly it kinda grosses me out. Like that other anon said, their idea of romance is being a hot guy's fucktoy.

>>82108891
Do you have anything to add to it, perhaps? Some obscure but relevant zoology/biology/evopsych paper?

>>82108895
Yep, the guys I know have no intention of ever getting married but they might have some children at some point. They literally just pump and dump girls every week, and all their dms are full of girls proclaiming how much they miss them and love them after getting dumped.

>>82108133 (OP)
>STUDY PROVES WHAT WE ALL KNOW
At least you don't pretend its a grand relevation.
>>82108234
Perhaps being showered with so much positivity makes them immune to it and being too dumb to realise it doesn't apply to men makes them treat men even harsher.
>>82108598
I suppose i'm similiar though i get feeling in this lifetime we're going to have alternatives and if we don't i'll just make one.

>>82108884
>It shows that 20% of their sample has which isn't a crazy claim to make. Your little gay ragebait tactics don't work, go to a different thread
You don't think it's crazy for so-called straight dudes to be jacking off to porn?
That's very progressive of you I suppose, but really it only further muddies the waters of the definition of "straight"

>So provide better studies showing the opposite. You can criticize the lack of data, but handwaving them away because you don't like them is worse than what you're accusing us of doing.

it still wouldn't PROVE anything.

If you all want to jump on those 4 studies and cling onto them like the word of god written in stone, go right ahead.

>>82109036
>You don't think it's crazy for so-called straight dudes to be jacking off to porn?
*to gay porn
just to be clear

>>82108633
>I don't like where the evidence is pointing therefore there is no such thing evidence.

>it doesnt matter DUDE just having a little bit of fun trolling DUDE I dont actually care DUDE
>is in the thread for hours writing multiple walls of text
Every time with the autistic retards on this board

>>82109400
It's probably a woman or troon who has no response to the actual studies so they just say
>well we can never know anything
Lol

>>82109345
evidence is not proof

they teach you this in like "science basics for retards 101" class

>>82108133 (OP)
This was inuitively a no brainer. Sad that we need studies for it. Our civilization was build from controlling women.
Adam and Eve isn't a fake story

>>82109582
>no response to the actual studies
studies are worthless (e.g. straight dudes jack off to gay porn)
thus concludes my wall of text for this hour

>>82108542
faggot, the woman hate is understandable but still, you're a faggot

>>82108297
Hated reading this because it made complete sense from my years of observation and dialogue with women.
Intuitively we men default to wanting to fall in love and treat them well, to defend them.
The hate comes once you learn they don't want that. Its pure insanity, what they really want as opposed to the bullshit they feed you

>>82108725
men created romance

>>82109751
>The hate comes once you learn they don't want that.
This times 1000. I became super blackpilled by simply talking to women. You learn what they really desire in a man and it contradicts the very idea of romance.

>>82108297
Im a female with a male twin and I think women like me are exceptions to this because we are exposed to Y chromosomes and testosterone in the womb. Theres some evidence in animals that exposure to male hormones in utero can slightly masculinize female behavior or anatomy
I have an easy time making friends with males and I think the exposure in the womb combined with growing up with a male twin that I saw as an equal helped diffuse any traits of misandry
I have a female friend who also has a male twin and we have never discussed or bonded over a shared hatred of men whereas if I'm in a big group with female friends who arent fraternal twins, the topic of misandry is bound to come up
But this is just my personal experience, not anything concrete

>>82109866
No this totally makes sense, they also tend to be more athletic and are more likely to be lesbians.

>>82108874
but they aren't real

>>82109866
>Im a female with a male twin and I think women like me are exceptions to this because we are exposed to Y chromosomes and testosterone in the womb.
I am not yet ready to discuss the implications of microchimerism because the psychological effects of it are not yet fully understood and there's barely any material available to incorporate into this theory.

However, if this theory has any merit and this cytokine flood inspired androphobia is indeed a polygenic trait then it would imply the possibility of x-x crossover which means that by now it's a universal trait in both the female and the male brain as it had no negative selective pressure on females who would always get pregnant either way.

You being "more male" doesn't imply that you are less affected by this, not on a genetic level anyway because it's possible that male on male hostility and territorial behavior is also shaped by this immune driven mechanism, so it's a trait that would dehumanize the male from the perspective of both sexes.

The high pre-natal T most likely made you more independent, less likely to conform to female groupthink, not necessarily less androphobic, not in the way it is implied by this theory anyway.

Are you sexually attracted to women or men?

>>82110069
>it's possible that male on male hostility and territorial behavior is also shaped by this immune driven mechanism
So even males might be coded to view other males as "less human"?
Grim

>Are you sexually attracted to women or men?
Men

>>82110211
>So even males might be coded to view other males as "less human"?
Of course.
The entire point of this theory is to define male disposability beyond the logistics of reproduction as modern times have shown that it has nothing to do with that. Male disposability is a set of feelings and that's what I want to explore.

>>82110361
Do you have any formal education or are you an armchair scientist? Not discrediting you I'm just curious

>>82110417
dropout, on and off NEET, not even an armchair scientist but an enthusiast for this specific subject

>>82108297
Fantastic read, cheers anon

To be honest - as a female - 19 - I think its lonely people that are the most romantic because its something they crave and cannot have easy access to - I dont necessarily think its a male vs female thing - lonely men I know are typically very sweet and crave romance and marriage - however it is the same with the women, difference is who has it worse I guess - I think men definitely struggle with lonliness to a more crippling extent than women but women get used rather than simply neglected which also fucking sucks - at the end of the day love is pretty much dead and we all want what we cannot have in a modern era - I say appreciate the life you have because it can always be worse

>>82110069
>then it would imply the possibility of x-x crossover which means that by now it's a universal trait in both the female and the male brain as it had no negative selective pressure on females who would always get pregnant either way
Never thought about that, I just figured the whole thing is due to women having more of a burden for pregnancy. Childbirth can be deadly and she has to be with the kid when it comes out unlike the male.

>>82110476
>Never thought about that
It fits. I think the way men perceive other men is also shaped by this mechanism.

>>82110475
You don't have it as difficult as any of us as you can simply talk to any of the lonely anons here and date them. However, you won't.

>>82110573
No one has attempted to reach out so how can I - plus either way low self esteem is a bitch and puts you in an echo chamber of self doubt and self pity - I hope you find someone though genuinely and that everyone here does - nobody deserves lonliness it fucking sucks

>>82108289

Very interesting read. There is no point of replying to that, but have a (you) my good sir.

>>82110633
If you want to talk to someone add me at kri.llan on dc

>>82110633
You sound kind fembot, same to you also

>>82110458
Glad you enjoyed it, if you have anything to add to it like relevant papers about phobias then just drop their title, or pubmed ID/DOI and I'll go through all of them.

>>82108375
fucking link it!

>>82110791
I do have one question: if your theory is correct, how does this aversion account for women voting against border security and general regulation of immigration? I would assume based on your thesis, they'd be most hostile to those least genetically like them. I know indoctrination plays a part in this but I thought I'd ask anyway.

>>82110475
Why not just change things? Stone adulterers of both genders
Bring back community shame for people who go through more than 1 partner and have them only pair up with someone who also had a previous partner

This will teach people to work together and suck it up because there is no "better", so its more prudent to help boost each other up

Things worked well before, not with this fucking shame that is called dating leaving everyone a broken mess that can no longer pair bond

I just don't agree with your sentiment of "this is the best there is"
We CAN change things

>>82108310
> it actually has a negative effect on attraction to be kind as a man.
Yes. Women typically find kindness to be repulsive.

>>82108633
>oh whoops I can't even access the full study as a civilian
imagine being this much of a normalfag
lmao

>>82109607
>evidence is not proof
retarded today arent we

>>82108310
>why do men like nice women?
>don't don't men like being abused?
what kind of retarded study is this?

>>82108310
>why do men not wanted to be treated like shit?
>it's a scientific mystery

>>82108530
>high is low
yikes

>>82110686

>There is no point of replying to that

Thank you for the gold, kind stranger, although I'm curious as to what you mean by this?

>>82108633
>just denying science they don't like
Is this the end game for lying cunts and their simps?

imagine trusting (((science))) lmao

>>82112819

the euphemistic lying that appears at the intersection of women and jewish science is rather compelling.

>>82112827
Don't forgot "Munchausen syndrome by proxy."
Women make their kids sick for attention. This explains trannies.

>sociology studies
lmao

>>82113008
>coping beta male because his worldview is false

>>82113356
>sociology
*laughs in hard science

>>82108289
>Romeo and Juliet
my dude the whole story is a joke and making fun of all the dumb aristocatic romances. you literally fell for an ancient meme

>>82108671
imagine being such a fucking midwit pseud that you get threatened by an obvious joke. trust me, every single mathematician worth their salt would laugh their ass off but no, you who can barely add two numbers together feels insulted by it

>>82113425

I didn't fall for anything. The modern zeitgeist considers Romeo and Juliet to be a romantic cultural trope regardless of whatever anachronistic satire you are currently trying to bring up.

>>82113467
you argued that it was a man who wrote a romantic story to underline the point that men are the romantic gender. but R&J is obviously a comedic satire and performed in front of the common folk who couldn't afford to indulge in endless courtship let alone kill themselves because they didn't get to fuck someone.

so this specific example actually goes against your central point because it was a man who wrote a play that mocks the idea of romance. you fell for a meme and embarrassed yourself.