Freeze Peach 🍑 𝖡𝖾𝖺𝗋 𝖧𝖺𝗆𝗆𝖾𝗋'𝗌 𝖻𝗅𝗈𝗀 ʕ ● ᴥ ●ʔ

[Bear Hammer]

@Frosty Fetus and @Home

 

[Bear Hammer]

The only autistic women that exist to me are the ones who have a 80 iq or below and can't speak besides grunts and screams, and need a care taker following them around.

I figured out long ago that unless the so called "autistic woman" isn't so retarded she needs to wear a helmet around, that no matter how fucked up they may be (physically and otherwise), there lives are just simply completely unaffected by it on the count of them being women.

They will always have a man wanting to date them, they will always be able to make friends with easily, they will get to enjoy all the female privileges normie women enjoy

It's just not like that for men for obvious reasons.

Is it even worth diagnosing these bitches with autism if they are not completely retarded? What's the reason? How is them liking hazbin hotel and browsing tumblr debilitating for them in a meaningful way?

/r9k/ - This is how autistic women feel about autistic men - ROBOT9001 - 4chan

This is how autistic women feel about autistic men - "/r9k/ - ROBOT9001" is a board for hanging out and posting greentext stories.

boards.4chan.org

 

[Bear Hammer]

He's heard nothing but great things about Israel????

https://twitter.com/x/status/2023129879114571854

 

[Bear Hammer]

Yawn

 

[Bear Hammer]

>the foulest brony of all time
>tier 2 basic beginner level degeneracy

 

[Durin]

>the foulest brony of all time
>tier 2 basic beginner level degeneracy

View attachment 107887

I AM SURROUNDED BY TWO MARES, I AM LITERALLY CUCKOLDING STARLIGHT!

I miss Dansburst.

 

[Bear Hammer]

Seeing a lot of beta males getting extremely mad at this tweet.

Getting mad at women for liking anti social dominant men is the same as feminists getting mad at 60 y/o guys who are attracted to 18 y/os.

You're getting pissy over things that women simply cannot control.

It's just apart of evolutionary biology, there's really no reason to get mad at it. Women just like that because men like that were usually the ones who adapted really good in almost any environment they were in.

Just adapt and change yourself, learn from what women find attractive and learn from it.

Because crying about it is just going to make you feel bad for no reason, and it's not going to make women like you.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2022894853965930704

 

[Kylar The Loner]

‘Amn

 

[Frosty Fetus]

@Frosty Fetus and @Home

View attachment 107885

Based

 

[Frosty Fetus]

Seeing a lot of beta males getting extremely mad at this tweet.

Getting mad at women for liking anti social dominant men is the same as feminists getting mad at 60 y/o guys who are attracted to 18 y/os.

You're getting pissy over things that women simply cannot control.

It's just apart of evolutionary biology, there's really no reason to get mad at it. Women just like that because men like that were usually the ones who adapted really good in almost any environment they were in.

Just adapt and change yourself, learn from what women find attractive and learn from it.

Because crying about it is just going to make you feel bad for no reason, and it's not going to make women like you.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2022894853965930704

I dunno bro this seems kinda retarded.

Women and their poor judge of character will throw themselves to awful people, get treated poorly become a feminist and say crazy shit.

Theirs nothing wrong with people pointing out the stupidity.

Also how does "women liking anti-social dominant men" an evolutionary mechanism? Didnt humanity form society for better chances of survival? This seems like an evolutionary misstep similar to how men simping is also an evolutionary misstep.

Most importantly; how did you get any of this from a post of a woman talking about rejecting three men?

 

[Bear Hammer]

Also how does "women liking anti-social dominant men" an evolutionary mechanism? Didnt humanity form society for better chances of survival? This seems like an evolutionary misstep similar to how men simping is also an evolutionary misstep.

I think the issue with that take is you're treating sexual attraction like it evolved to optimize society, when it didn't. It evolved to optimize individual gene replication, even when that conflicts with group stability.


Humans forming societies doesn't mean every instinct got rewritten to favor good citizens. A lot of traits that helped genes spread in chaotic, violent environments are actively bad for modern life.


Women are attracted to antisocial/dominant men, i'm not saying society works better that way or that it's morally good. But there is an obvious pattern in sexual selection (to where it's even kind of a meme that women like assholes), a small minority of dominant, aggressive men historically reproduced way more than average men. That's just how power worked for most of history.

There's a reason broad shoulders are consistently rated as the most attractive male trait across cultures. Upper-body strength correlates with fighting ability. Women obviously aren't consciously thinking "this guy would be good at raiding a village," but attraction isn't run by the conscious mind anyway.

 

[Bear Hammer]

Also how does "women liking anti-social dominant men" an evolutionary mechanism? Didnt humanity form society for better chances of survival? This seems like an evolutionary misstep similar to how men simping is also an evolutionary misstep.

You're missing the point.

Sexual arousal doesn't evaluate character the way morality or long-term planning does. Womens libido responds to cues tied to dominance, power, and threat potential, even if those traits make someone a bad partner or a bad person. That's why what women say they want and what actually turns them on often don't line up.


Calling this an evolutionary misstep doesn't really mean much either. Evolution isn't trying to produce enlightened, cooperative modern humans. It's really fucked up, slow, and full of tradeoffs. Humans still crave sugar and novelty for the same reason, it used to be adaptive. Now it causes problems.

Same thing with men simping, honestly. Both sexes have instincts that don't map cleanly onto modern society anymore. That doesn't mean they're imaginary or socially constructed.

But overall, I am just trying to say that you can either seethe about the men women are attracted to, which gets you nowhere, or take notes from them.

 

[Bear Hammer]

Osama needs to add more commentary to his streams.

Just reading direct posts with very little commentary is boring as hell.

Make some fucking jokes faggot, god.

 

[Frosty Fetus]

I think the issue with that take is you're treating sexual attraction like it evolved to optimize society, when it didn't. It evolved to optimize individual gene replication, even when that conflicts with group stability

So how does being anti-social affect this? How does being anti-social show the quality of one's own genetic material?

 

[Frosty Fetus]

), a small minority of dominant, aggressive men historically reproduced way more than average men. That's just how power worked for most of history.

1. Thats likely because most of them died in wars started by those dominant and aggressive men. 2. Oftentimes the victims of wars, tragedies, and disasters are men.
3. I'd hazard to guest that 50% or more of these women were victims of rape.

 

[Bear Hammer]

So how does being anti-social affect this? How does being anti-social show the quality of one's own genetic material?

Because anti-social is kind of a modern moralfag label, not the trait being selected for. What actually mattered evolutionarily wasn't whether someone followed social norms, it was dominance, threat potential, and the ability to take and hold resources from other people. In a lot of historical environments, those traits look antisocial and immoral from today's perspective, violence, intimidation, rule breaking, but they were strong signals of power. Power translated into protection, resources, and most importantly, sexual access, which is how genes get replicated.


It's not that being antisocial itself proves good genes, it's that traits correlated with antisocial behavior (physical strength, fearlessness, willingness to violate norms, low inhibition, high assertiveness) were reliable cues that a man could win most conflicts and impose his will. Those men reproduced more regardless of whether they were good community members. Modern society penalizes those traits, but sexual attraction didn't evolve for modern society, it evolved in environments where survival and reproduction often favored the guy who was an extremely evil asshole.

1. Thats likely because most of them died in wars started by those dominant and aggressive men. 2. Oftentimes the victims of wars, tragedies, and disasters are men.
3. I'd hazard to guest that 50% or more of these women were victims of rape.

None of that actually contradicts my claim tho, it actually kind of reinforces it.


Yes, a lot of men died in wars. That's why reproduction skewed so hard toward a small subset of men. High male mortality and polygyny and coercive power means fewer men passing on genes, not more. The dominant/aggressive men were often the ones starting and surviving those conflicts, and then monopolizing access to pussy afterward. Evolution doesn't care that other men died, that's exactly how variance in male reproductive success gets extreme.

I'd hazard to guest that 50% or more of these women were victims of rape.

Again, sexual selection isn't a moral process. If rape led to offspring, those genes still entered the pool. Saying "many women were rape victims" is true, but guess what? It still results in the same outcome, a minority of powerful men fathering a disproportionate number of children. That's how reproduction actually worked for most of human history.


You have to understand, human sexuality does not care about morality, what's good for society, the welfare of women, or even what's good for humanity in general. It just cares about spreading copies of your genes into the next generation as much as possible. No matter what.