new

[Blackpill] Response To: "You're Not Entitled To Sex"

1. Nobody is entitled to anything

Entitlements are a figment of imagination, they exist only in the minds of humans, and function only within societies where they are allowed to function, and are facilitated (usually through tax collection to fund said "entitlement programmes")

Pension, welfare, clean water, education, nobody is really entitled to any of it if were being objective and honest.

2. Incels don't feel entitled to sex, they simply WANT sex

I keep seeing the "entitlement" argument repeated everywhere and it is literally just a strawman argument, propping up a stance so absurd that you can't help but be right being against it, heck even I agree with being against it, because its egotistical and illogical for anyone to think they literally DESERVE anything, a normies reasoning for being against it would likely be more emotionally based though, more like - "women are people too, this is so misogynistic, its so hurtful, etc, etc".

Are there a few incels actually going around saying and believing that they "deserve" sex and are entitled to it, yes, but those men are idiots, they are outliers, any logical person knows full well nobody "deserves" anything. Most incels adhere to the "black pill philosophy", and a key "tenant" of that is basing ones life choices and interpretation of observations, on cold hard logic, so I doubt most incels (or even 5% of incels) actually believe they DESERVE sex

Incels simply just want, just like every other human on this planet that wants, to try and paint incels as this collective of egotistical males, that all think they are entitled to sex (women's bodies) is a falsehood that is often peddled by the media and society at large.

You see because its much easier to simply create a false narrative that can be argued against, than to argue against the actual thing. Paint incels as malicious and egotistical instead of frustrated and suicidal, and its much easier to demonize incels and garner support against them.

3. Disenfranchised Males = Self Destructive Males

There's this african proverb that I think perfectly describes whats taking place between modern society and average/below average males.

"If the young are not initiated in the tribe, they will burn down the village just to feel its warmth."

Modern society is extremely sexualized, there is no escape from sex as a man in these times, which is why it feels like you're being trolled whenever people say the all too cliche phrase "sex isn't the most important thing in life", nice strawman argument, now simply wanting sex because its being shoved down your throat at every waking moment, is equal to thinking its the most important thing in the world. Statements like that are nothing but dismissive shaming and silencing tactics.

Sex is in the news papers, magazines, tv, movies, video games, its in advertisements, bill boards, the internet, etc. People need to try and understand how "dystopian" of a reality this would all seem to a man who is unable to acquire sex due to unrealistic and unfair female standards that only exist due to various societal changes that resulted from feminism. Its like a sick joke were forced to live through. Everyone is telling us to just "get over it" while ironically enjoying sex lives themselves and boasting/talking about it at every waking moment.

Imagine if you woke up and basically everyone on the planet had an expensive sports car, all you see are people around you driving it, everyone with a sports car gets treated differently than those who don't, they have higher social status, etc. For some reason you can't get one no matter how much you adhere to the advice suggested by sports car owners. Everytime you complain about the biased system that keeps you from getting one, someone tells you - "there are more important things in life than sports cars", they then later proceed to talk with their friends about all the awesome sports cars they drove, post about the current sports car they have leased, and make instagram and other media posts about how great their sports car driving life is and how great they are at driving sports cars.

Quite obviously these people are being disingenuous, they know your complaints are legitimate, they don't actually follow their own words and they glorify sports cars and ownership of it ad nauseum, really they just want people without sports cars to STFU and deal with it, live without having a sports car and stop ruining the experience for the rest of them. Its really fucked up but that is societys mindset towards men who can't get sex, they know that argument is BS, they know they are lying and sex is of the utmost importance to every human (its not the most important thing, but its really really up there on the list, some might argue 2nd or 3rd place). They only repeat this BS because its really just about shaming and silencing men for daring to make society even feel a tad bit guilty or responsible for our current state of being disenfranchised. They really just expect incels to "STFU and take one for the team".

Sex is clearly a vital part of every humans existence, a man doesn't even "become a man" in a sense within society until he has sex, in essence a lot of men have not undergone their "right of passage" to become part of the "tribe" that is modern human civilization.

This is why all of these mass shootings are taking place, its started to branch off into other things like the "Thot Audit", more and more things like this are going to keep happening until society finally acknowledges this problem and begins to make changes.

So as it stands we now have a significant and growing pool of sexually starved men, who due to this are angry, violent, irritable and suicidal, seriously how does society expect this to play out, the most dangerous animal is the one backed into a corner with nothing to lose, when someone doesn't care if they die, worse yet they want to die just so their sad existence can end, there is no reasoning with that person, they are on a "war path", you either kill them, give that person what they want, or you get out of their way as they proceed to claim what they want.

Society expects us not to burn the village down when it won't initiate us into the tribe, that's whats truly outrageous, not the violence of disenfranchised men, but the fact that society actually expects us to just remain docile and accept this reality that has been forced upon us.

4. Women aren't entitled to safety

People don't seem to understand the danger of looking the collective male populace in they eyes, and telling them they aren't entitled to something that not too long ago they would just taking by force as a norm.

Men reformed themselves and created societies with laws and codes of conduct because it benefited the collective, especially the collective male populace, this was the function of "patriarchal societies". To manage a safe and fair distribution of resources, and that includes sexual and reproductive resources.

Virginity was a prerequisite for a woman to be "marriage material" because men wanted to be sure that when they married a woman she would be less likely to cheat, as she'd be more likely to be satisfied sexually with her partner due to lack of "sexual experience". It also ensured that your investment would be worth it as you aren't footing the bill for "used goods", that may sound cruel but men have to basically invest a lot into a woman's very being, even more so today, get divorced once and half of your wealth goes to another person, and these days the women aren't even virgins, marriage is truly a raw deal in this modern era.

Marriage as an institution existed for various reasons, it was used to create familial ties, for political reasons, etc, but most importantly to give a sense of assurance to men that the children their wives gave birth do were indeed theirs (hence virginity being the key defining trait of "marriage material"), and they could pass down their name and wealth to their children.

For the same reason Female Promiscuity was shamed and led to social ostracization. Womens hypergamy had to be kept in check otherwise the relationship dynamics between men and women would fall apart and so would the "family unit" which is basically the "building block" of society.

Crimes like Rape were especially frowned upon because it made a woman unfit for marriage and ruined her entire life, it also went against the civility agreement between men who as a collective all wanted their respective women in their lives to be safe and remain "their women" and not be "tarnished" by another man.

I hope people get the point here, the purpose of these laws and societal norms were to ensure a code of conduct amongst men, so that we would as a collective agree to allow each other to pursue and court women in a safe and organized manner, unimpeded by other men in an "unfair" manner, we all had a fair chance. There was a "social contract" at play here.

In these modern times the social contract is no longer functioning, expecting men not to regress and go back to the days of rape and violence when the contract is no longer being enforced and/or adhered to, is what is truly outrageous, and not the acts themselves. Men aren't entitled to sex?, true I agree, but women aren't entitled to safety either, they never were entitled to it and they never will be, it was a "provision" offered by men to women for co-operating with men to facilitate the social contract. The safety resided within the rule set of the social contract, which is no longer at play here, so a significant and increasing number of males are seeing no reason to function as "civil" men, there's no logical reason too, why be civil when you essentially are not even part of civilization, civility its no longer to our benefit. Women's actions have thrown the entire system out of order, and the violent responses of men today are retaliatory. Society is basically trying to make average/below average males into somewhat of a "slave class" that offers their labor and utility, contributes to society, all while being barred from enjoying a basic pleasure that all the female citizens get to enjoy despite contributing less and having to risk their lives less.

Ask yourself who are really the crazy ones, the men who go out committing acts of violence or "opt out" of society, or the society that expected these men not to do this, despite significantly ruining the quality of life for the collective male populace, and having the gall to ask them to keep up their end of the social contract and be "good little boys and contribute to society as upstanding citizens" :feelskek:. Are you fucking serious, no wonder men are opting out of society, no wonder men are going out on murder rampages.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2017/03/09/american-men-are-giving-up-on-jobs/

There's no real motivation to bother trying, to be a "hard worker", to be "civilized", when your reward at the end of the day is to get married to used goods who is likely only settling for you because she's aged past her prime and has a ton of baggage, to top it off with no fault divorce laws she can easily just leave with half of your wealth, and modern society actually celebrates and endorses female promiscuity and cheating on men, so that great investment you made isn't even guaranteed to be solely yours to enjoy JFL. Men have literally no motivation to be "good people", anyone who thinks people should be "good" for the sake of "being good" is an illogical idiot that doesn't get how reality actually works.

In the bible there's heaven and hell, in human laws there are cash rewards for helping law enforcement with certain tasks, and there are fines and jail time for committing crimes or breaking minor laws.

GOOD AND EVIL CAN ONLY BE TRULY (OBJECTIVELY) DEFINED BY THE FACT THAT THERE ARE REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS ASSOCIATED RESPECTIVELY, that is how we truly distinguish a good act from a bad one, if we rely on subjective opinion based criteria then anyone and everyone is both right and wrong, good and bad, based on their own personal reasonings and whims. If the bible said that no matter what you do everyone goes to heaven, but "please still don't sin" nobody would give a fuck about the rules, most every Christian would be sinning without any restraint or repentance, rules mean nothing without a reward and punishment system in place.

To address another cliche statement - "where have all the good men gone", I ask "by what objective criteria are you ascribing the label "good" ". Reinstate a sufficient "rewards system" for males and you'll see all those men come running back.

Sheep-pig Hybrids

imageA sheep-pig hybrid? - As shown in a BBC article

EUGENE M. MCCARTHY, PHD GENETICS, ΦΒΚ

And so if, as you recently told me, a lamb with a pig’s head was born, then it is because a boar mated with a sheep.

—Polydore Vergil
Dialogues on Prodigies, III, xxvi*

Caution: This disparate cross needs further confirmation, particularly from controlled breeding experiments.

It’s well documented that sheep and pigs sometimes will mate (videos >>). Indeed, even the ancient Akkadians knew that pigs and sheep do sometimes engage in such activities (Freedman 2017, p. 6). It’s a common barnyard occurrence. And text-mining of old newspapers shows that hybrids occur as well, as indicated, for example, in the reports at right.

At one time, unusual births such as pig-sheep hybrids were regularly reported in newspapers as “freaks of nature,” an English translation of the older term lusus naturae. But at about the time of the first world war, a movement arose to suppress freak shows and news reports about such creatures as well. It was distasteful and offensive, even cruel, opponents argued, to put such things before the public. The movement was successful and after the twenties, freaks rarely came before the public eye. As a result, it has been forgotten even by biologists that strange hybrids do occur. This societally enforced ignorance results in people interpreting animals that look like sheep-pig hybrids, such as the animal pictured above, as a wooly breed of pig.

For example, in 2010 stories about woolly sheep-like pigs and sheep-pig hybrids surfaced on the internet because a zoo in the UK (Tropical Wings Zoo, South Woodham Ferrers, Essex) announced that it had imported rare “Mangalitza” pigs and that they planned to breed them. Many people thought they were sheep-pig hybrids. But a BBC story assured the public that the Mangalitza was only a breed of pig:

An extremely rare breed of curly coated pig is to be bred for the first time at a zoo in Essex.
The three Mangalitza pigs, which bear a striking resemblance to sheep, arrived at the Tropical Wings Zoo in South Woodham Ferrers, just before Easter as part of a programme to save the breed.
“At first sight people perhaps think they are sheep” said education co-ordinator Denise Cox.
“It’s not until they turn around and you see their faces and snouts that you realise they are in fact pigs.”
The breed is thought to be native to Austria and Hungary.

But how did this breed of pig obtain a fleece like a sheep’s? It seems it would take some very clever breeding to start with a near naked, bristly pig and somehow select for a dense sheep-like coat of hair. And it seems no genetic study of these “pigs” has been made. After seeing this story, a Spanish geneticist whose former lab sequenced the genomes of some Mangalitza pigs said that, although the results of the study had been compared to other breeds of pig, he did not think any comparison had been made to sheep. So it seems that it has not been shown that Mangalitzas are not sheep-pig hybrids, although it’s clear from comments on the various stories around the internet that many people think they are.

The BBC subsequently published two brief stories on “Mangalitza pigs” (in these more recent articles, by the way, they use the spelling “Mangalica”).

One of these articles, by BBC World Service broadcast journalist Lucy Hooker, is about efforts to save the breed. In that article she comments that

To the uninitiated it is a sheep-pig. In reality it is the Mangalica, a comical but appealing breed that is taking the food industry by storm.

What this comment fails to recognize is that it is well known that many breeds of domestic animals were originally produced from hybrid crosses. I discuss this fact at length, among other places, in my reference work on hybridization in birds (Handbook of Avian Hybrids of the World, Oxford University Press, 2006) and elsewhere on this website. So really, it’s entirely possible that these pigs are not only a breed, but also of hybrid origin. The two are by no means mutually exclusive, as Ms. Hooker seems to suggest.

Since this is an old breed, which has apparently existed for centuries, its origin seems to be unknown. To determine the nature of that origin, it will be necessary to carry out investigations. One obvious way of gaining information about whether these animals might be sheep-pig hybrids is genetic analysis, as mentioned above. Another is experimental mating to see whether such hybrids can be produced. It is even conceivable that breeding records survive describing how the breed was produced (as is the case with many domestic breeds derived from hybrid crosses). Certainly, there are reports about sheep-pig hybrids being produced in Mexico (see below).

But the BBC’s implication that only the uninformed would suppose that these animals might be sheep-pig hybrids (i.e., “To the uninitiated it is a sheep-pig.”) seems premature. I am a geneticist and I know about hybrids, and yet I think they probably are hybrids of that sort. Moreover, I gently object to Ms. Hooker’s statement. It treats the unknown as known and therefore tends to dampen the spirit of investigation.

The other article, which is very short, was written by Tim Muffet, a reporter for BBC Breakfast. It’s really just a bit of text to accompany a video showing how these pigs are being used to restore heath land. From the standpoint of the sheep-pig question, this video is of interest primarily because it demonstrates beyond doubt that animals, such as the one pictured at the top of this page, do actually exist. Mere pictures can easily be faked. Videos, especially videos from a reliable source like the BBC, cannot.

The video evidence is also relevant because individual variation can be seen in the animals shown, with some looking identical to the very sheep-like animal shown above with its curly white fleece, to animals with sparser straight, black pelts more similar to that of European boars. This is exactly the sort of variation that occurs in a wide variety of hybrid crosses, where some individuals are more similar to one of the two parents that originally crossed to produce them, while others are more similar to the other. Such variation is especially characteristic of later-generation hybrids, the descendants of the first-generation, or F₁, hybrids produced by the original cross.

In the video accompanying Ms. Hooker’s article, it can also be seen that these animals have dark red meat like that of a sheep, not the light-colored meat typical of most pigs.