LOL lookism.net got featured in german public tv

Joined
Oct 7, 2018
Messages
219
Reputation
87
okay there seem to be a big difference between veronika kracher and meike stoverock (probably because the first studied social sciene and the later biology)

meike stoverock just dropped incel knowledge in an interview with germany biggest newspaper:



https://www.zeit. de/zeit-magazin/leben/2021-02/female-choice-frauen-ungleichheit-geschlechter-evolutionsbiologie-meike-stoverock/komplettansicht
she knows
 
Joined
Oct 7, 2018
Messages
219
Reputation
87
There is a paywall can’t read it
Translation:

ON INCELS AND HOW SHE EXPECTS A DRASTIC INCREASING NUMBERS

ZEITmagazin ONLINE:
You describe the aggression of sexually frustrated men. But wouldn't it increase if, as you suggest, we return to the principle of choosing women to get out of this toxic situation? Large parts would not be chosen by women, but would be left over and had to resort to pornography and sex workers, for example.

Stoverock: One pattern of Female Choice is that 80 percent of women choose 20 percent of men. The ones that make the most of civilization. But the others don't necessarily have to be pathetic or pathetic. If we go back to the animal world, then the male who cannot find a partner is the norm. The premium male, which has no problem reproducing, is the exception. With all this consideration of basic biological patterns, one has to keep in mind that none of us has chosen this. Neither women chose to have the children, nor did the men choose to have women choose their partners.

ZEITmagazin ONLINE: What would it look like in the present when we return to Female Choice?

Stoverock: I think the number of Incels would increase dramatically. The violence against women that has been observed up to now would then only be the beginning of a dramatic, socially endangering development. We must therefore take prompt action to catch these involuntarily abstaining men.

ZEITmagazin ONLINE: And how could that happen?

Stoverock: By changing the narrative. We have to find ways in which men can become respectable as men even without sexual success. Anyone who is successful with women is automatically a great pike, while the other is a poor sausage. Whether he's funny, a great musician, a fantastic storyteller: these qualities don't count. And that leads to the fact that even a boy who does not find a girlfriend in his school days grows up feeling like a failure. In principle, the core of this entire male culture for 10,000 years was getting a 1: 1 supply. Every man gets a woman.

ZEITmagazin ONLINE: But isn't initmacy also important, for both men and women? Isnt life more then satisfying basic needs [for suvival]?


Stoverock: Exactly. The need for intimacy and contact is gender-independent. But physical automatisms also play a role in sexuality. Because, on the one hand, men feel that involuntary abstinence is accompanied by an increase in frustration and aggressiveness. Sex breaks down testosterone, the hormone that can also lead to aggression. And I believe that at the beginning of the sedentary lifestyle, men felt that they had to get this potential for aggression under control in order to live permanently in a large community of men and women in one place. Otherwise they would be toxic to such a society. And that's why it was so important to provide men with basic sexual care.



ZEITmagazin ONLINE: If women would vote again, which men would they choose according to the female choice principle - tall, broad-shouldered, good teeth, in order to really go into the cliché?



Stoverock: Individual preferences can be different, but there are observable patterns that persist. The fact that men are on average six inches taller than women today shows that women have preferred tall men for likely hundreds of thousands of years. And there is research showing that when women are ovulating and their whole bodies are ready to reproduce, they want athletic daredevils. Outside of this evolutionary phase, however, they definitely choose the reliable type of provider that does not cause any trouble at home.

ZEITmagazin ONLINE: According to the female choice principle, far fewer men would become fathers, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the birth rates will decrease. You take Norway as an example, where the number of men who do not have children has increased from 12 to 23 percent in the last 30 years. At the same time, the number of "recycled" men who have women with several children has increased. Sounds difficult for those who can't find a partner.



Stoverock: I'm not saying that female choice makes living together easier. But it would be of great help if this whole socio-political discourse also opened up to biological facts. Sedentary civilization has lasted 10,000 years now, but we are faced with injustice on every nook and cranny. Neither have I yet found an answer to how one can really combine the positive from male civilization - art, science, medicine - with the positive from natural female sexuality. And the positive in the men's world was only possible through oppression and exploitation, that is the structural imbalance. Monogamous marriage only clears the man's mind - free from sexual competition. So that he can go out and devote himself to his big thoughts.

[...]
ON CUCKING AND HOW ITS NATURAL FOR WOMEN TO STOP LOVING THEIR PARTNER AND TO CUCK THEM


Stoverock:
Many people don't even realize that this is a normal phenomenon: the female libido has something like an expiration date. Of course, the bond is particularly close as long as the child is small and the woman is therefore very dependent on support. But as soon as the child becomes independent, that changes. In native peoples it is completely normal for a woman to have children from several partners who are born three to four years apart. That is the biological pattern. That does not mean that it cannot be otherwise and that a woman does not have all the children with a partner with all her heart. But it is just not typical of our biology. And I find it highly problematic that a natural biological pattern is pathologized. In fact, it is more women who lose lust, who no longer desire their partner. And they are then persuaded that you have to create more situations as a couple to get in the mood.



ZEITmagazin ONLINE: And how is it with men?



Stoverock: For men, decreasing desire is almost never a problem. Many men still want to sleep regularly with their partner even after many years of relationship. Here you can see that the lifelong partnership was created with the purpose of basic sexual care for men and not out of love. The man really just needs regular access. As long as there is enough sex, he has no reason to change anything about the arrangement. That is why women are also the most likely to file for divorce.

i also dont have acess but iam talking about this
 

SeanO'God

Regular
Truecels
Joined
Nov 21, 2017
Messages
2,014
Reputation
845
"when we return to female choice"

these dogs argue with 0 basis in reality, insane
 

SEPRAY

SAVANT
Joined
Mar 6, 2020
Messages
3,436
Reputation
2,236
okay there seem to be a big difference between veronika kracher and meike stoverock (probably because the first studied social sciene and the later biology)

meike stoverock just dropped incel knowledge in an interview with germany biggest newspaper:



https://www.zeit. de/zeit-magazin/leben/2021-02/female-choice-frauen-ungleichheit-geschlechter-evolutionsbiologie-meike-stoverock/komplettansicht
"We have to find ways in which men can become respectable as men even without sexual success"

100% sure in 10 years people will spin it so hard that women dont matter for men, MGTOW will be MASSIVE (obviously as a cope)
 

SeanO'God

Regular
Truecels
Joined
Nov 21, 2017
Messages
2,014
Reputation
845
her entire argument is absurd

there wasn't some chimp hunter-gatherers where one guy horded all the women, most men fucking died before they got the chance to reproduce - thats why theres less male ancestors

female choice never happened but these dogs act like it did in the past - insane
 
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
1,800
Reputation
996
the blackpill is going mainstream boyos

soon studies like this will be discussed on the big medias


also huge blackpill she dropped on norway - didnt knew that



norway is also the country with high taxes and high social benefits. it allows women to be not dependend from betabuxxers and follow their natural instinct. the consquences: a society where single males with no partners have to pay extremely high taxes to finance single mums who got pregnant by chad. JUST LOL.

only islam can save the west now.

post full artcile
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
220
Reputation
263
post full artcile
i cant im not paying for that. the first 2hours or so it was visible for everyone after that they seem to have decided to put it behind a paywall

however if you speak german you can read the introduction to the book here:


i translated a few bits for non german speakers:
Wie funktioniert nun das Paarungssystem der Female Choice? Das für unsere Betrachtungen wichtigste Merkmal ist, dass die Männchen etwas leisten müssen, sich gewissermaßen um Sex bewerben, und die Weibchen wählen. Die Wahl findet nicht immer aktiv statt und ist daher oft nicht gleich zu erkennen, aber der Vollzug des Geschlechtsaktes hängt für Männchen immer von den Anforderungen der Weibchen ab. Die Konkurrenz liegt bei der Partnerwahl, also stets auf männlicher Seite. Charles Darwin nannte das »Sexuelle Selektion«. Das Fundament der Female Choice bilden zwei völlig unterschiedliche Reproduktionsstrategien der Geschlechter. Die Notwendigkeit, Sex zu haben, um sich fortzupflanzen, bedeutet nämlich keineswegs, dass Männchen und Weibchen an einem Strang ziehen. Im Gegenteil: Plump ausgedrückt geht das Männchen auf Masse, es versucht möglichst viele Weibchen zu begatten. Das Weibchen geht dagegen auf Klasse und paart sich nur mit dem besten Männchen. Das Männchen muss also viele rumkriegen, das Weibchen viele abwehren. Die Folge dieser unterschiedlichen Strategien ist ein unauflösbarer Konflikt zwischen den Geschlechtern, eine starke Gegenläufigkeit der Sexualität. Die fantasievollen Biologen nennen diese gegenläufigen Reproduktionsstrategien »Sexueller Konflikt« (sexual conflict). Eines der wichtigsten Merkmale der Female Choice ist, dass die Mehrheit der Männchen keine oder nur sehr selten Partnerinnen finden. Was sich anhört, als habe sich die Evolution einen bösen Streich mit Männchen und Weibchen erlaubt, ist mit Abstand das verbreitetste und erfolgreichste Fortpflanzungsmodell im gesamten Tierreich. Die Sexuelle Selektion durch die wählerischen Weibchen ist gleichzeitig das Werkzeug und der Ursprung evolutionärer Anpassungen, es ist die Stellschraube, an der sich der Erfolg von Individuen und Arten entscheidet. Aus dem Grund läuft die Sexualität bei einfachen Arten nach ähnlichen Mustern ab wie bei hochkomplexen Säugetieren, die Unterschiede der verschiedenen Arten sind nur Variationen des immer gleichen Themas. Dieses System galt bis zur Sesshaftwerdung auch für den Menschen und steckt uns noch immer in den Genen.
[...]
Doch vor allem für die Männchen ist Female Choice ein unglaublich zeitraubendes Prinzip, weil sie fast alle Energie in das Finden und Überzeugen von Partnerinnen stecken müssen. Dadurch werden so viele Kapazitäten gebunden, dass die restliche Zeit nur noch Selbsterhalt erlaubt: Nahrung beschaffen, Fressfeinde abwehren und einen Schlafplatz finden. Der Mensch aber will mehr. Ein Mann, der sein eigenes Leben verbessern und seine Überlebenschancen steigern will, indem er etwas errichtet, etwas erfindet, seine Umwelt beackert, muss erst einmal dafür sorgen, dass die Kapazität, die normalerweise für die Sexualkonkurrenz draufgeht, frei wird. Vereinfacht gesagt, muss der Mann besseren Zugang zu Sex (und damit Fortpflanzung) haben, damit er sich überhaupt dem Fortschritt zuwenden kann. Das Prinzip der Female Choice einzuschränken, war daher einer der für die Anfänge der Zivilisation wichtigsten Schritte, den Männer am Übergang zur Sesshaftigkeit unternahmen. Die Landwirtschaft und mit ihr die Möglichkeit, Besitz anzuhäufen, gab ihnen ein Mittel, die Ressource Sex fast vollständig zu kontrollieren. Männer verweigerten Frauen das Recht auf Besitz, schlossen sie aus der öffentlichen Sphäre aus, indem sie sie zur Aufzucht der Kinder in die beengte Welt des Privathaushaltes verbannten. Durch die Institution der Ehe wurden die Frauen schließlich in eine nahezu hundertprozentige Abhängigkeit gebracht. Dass Frauen Schwangerschaften mangels sicherer Verhütungsmittel nicht verhindern konnten, kam den Männern sehr entgegen. Die Entscheidung darüber, wie und mit wem sich die Frauen fortpflanzen sollten, lag nun nicht mehr bei den Frauen, sondern bei den Männern. So konnten die Männer die Strukturen der äußeren Welt – Handel, Wirtschaft, Politik, Arbeit –, die bis heute Grundlage unserer Gesellschaft sind, ohne Berücksichtigung weiblicher (Sexual-)Bedürfnisse gestalten. Die Zivilisation wurde von Männern für Männer gemacht: Sie ist androzentrisch (von griechisch andrós für Mann).
[...]
Erst seit evolutionsbiologisch kurzer Zeit haben Frauen die Möglichkeit, sich wirtschaftliche Unabhängigkeit zu erarbeiten und Schwangerschaften selbst zu kontrollieren, etwa durch die Antibabypille. Und seitdem machen sie Riesenschritte in das androzentrische System hinein. Was wir aktuell weltweit erleben, ist eine Abrechnung der Unterdrückten mit einer einseitigen Zivilisation. Das wiederum ist für Männer sehr schmerzhaft. Nicht nur muss es sich für sie anfühlen, als würde vor ihren Augen das zerrupft, was sie über Jahrtausende geschaffen und als richtig deklariert haben, ihnen entgleitet darüber hinaus die Kontrolle über die für sie existenzielle Ressource Sex. Nahezu unvereinbare Bedürfnisse – vor allem im Bereich Sexualität, aber nicht nur dort – prallen aufeinander. Die Soziologie unterscheidet menschliche Bedürfnisse in fünf Kategorien von existenziellen Grundbedürfnisse wie Nahrung und Kleidung bis zu Luxusbedürfnissen wie Selbstverwirklichung. Das Modell nennt sich Maslowsche Bedürfnispyramide. Die dringendsten Bedürfnisse stehen unten, die weniger wichtigen oben. Die Aggressivität, mit der Menschen um die Erfüllung eines Bedürfnisses kämpfen, hängt von seiner Position in der Pyramide und damit seiner Notwendigkeit ab. Das Problem ist, dass das Bedürfnismodell von einer gewissen Gleichheit der Menschen ausgeht. Doch die Bedürfnisse der Menschen und besonders diejenigen von Männern und Frauen stehen nicht an gleicher Stelle in der Pyramide. Aufgrund der unterschiedlichen Reproduktionsstrategien der Geschlechter steht Sexualität bei Männern weiter unten in der Pyramide und ist damit dringlicher als bei Frauen. Die Aggressivität, mit der Männer auf den drohenden Kontrollverlust über diese Ressource reagieren, ist entsprechend höher. Mit der Erfindung der Antibabypille wurde ihr Zugriff auf die Fortpflanzung zwar stark beschränkt, aber solange Frauen sich in treue Partnerschaften begeben, blieb wenigstens der Sex gesichert. Das zunehmende Aufkommen alternativer Beziehungsmodelle bedroht aber auch diese Gewissheit. Es überrascht deshalb nicht, dass vor allem die männerdominierten konservativen Parteien für den Erhalt der traditionellen Ehe und Kernfamilie plädieren. Der Einfluss der Sexualität auf die Gestaltung unserer Zivilisation, und damit auf die heutigen Konflikte, wird in den gesellschaftlichen Diskursen kaum behandelt oder kategorisch ausgespart. Generell weisen die meisten Diskurse eine biologische Leerstelle auf. Gerade so, als sei der Mensch kein physisches Wesen, sondern bestünde lediglich aus seinem Geist.

translation:

So how does the Female Choice maiting system works? The most important characteristic for our considerations is that the males have to a certain extent apply for sex, and the females choose. The choice does not always take place actively and is therefore often not immediately recognizable, but the performance of the sexual act for males always depends on the requirements of the females. The competition is so always on the male side. Charles Darwin called this "sexual selection." Female Choice is based on two completely different reproductive strategies of the sexes. The need to have sex in order to reproduce does not mean that males and females pull together. On the contrary: to put it bluntly, the male goes on mass, trying to mate with as many females as possible. The female, on the other hand, goes for class and only mates with the best male. So the male has to get as many sexual partner as possible, the female only goes for the genetic high quality partner and has to fend the rest off. The consequence of these different strategies is an inextricable conflict between the sexes, a strong contradiction in sexuality. The imaginative biologists call these opposing reproductive strategies "sexual conflict". One of the most important features of the Female Choice is that the majority of males do not find any mates, or only very rarely. What sounds like evolution has done a bad trick on males and females is by far the most widespread and most successful reproductive model in the entire animal kingdom. The sexual selection by the picky females is at the same time the tool and the origin of evolutionary adaptations; it is the adjusting screw that determines the success of individuals and species. For this reason, sexuality in simple species proceeds according to similar patterns as in highly complex mammals, the differences between the various species are only variations on the same theme. This system also applied to humans until we settled down and is still in our genes.

[...]

But especially for the males, female choice is an incredibly time-consuming principle because they have to put almost all of their energy into finding and convincing female partners. This ties up so much capacity that the rest of the time only allows self-support: procure food, ward off predators and find a place to sleep. But people want more. A man who wants to improve his own life and increase his chances of survival by building something, inventing something, plowing his environment must first ensure that the capacity that is normally used up for sexual competition is free. Put simply, the man must have better access to sex (and thus reproduction) so that he can even turn to progress. Limiting the principle of female choice was therefore one of the most important steps in the early days of civilization that men took in the transition to sedentarism. Agriculture, and with it the ability to accumulate possessions, gave them a means of almost completely controlling sex as a resource. Men denied women the right to property, excluded them from the public sphere by banishing them to the cramped world of private households to raise their children. The institution of marriage ultimately made women almost 100 percent dependent. The fact that women could not prevent pregnancies due to a lack of safe contraceptives was very beneficial to men. The decision about how and with whom women should reproduce was no longer with women, but with men. In this way, men were able to shape the structures of the outside world - trade, economy, politics, work - which are the basis of our society to this day, without considering female (sexual) needs. Civilization was made for men by men: it is androcentric (from the Greek andrós for man).

[...]

It is only for a short period of time in evolutionary terms that women have had the opportunity to gain economic independence and control pregnancies themselves, for example through birth control pills. And since then they have been making giant strides into the androcentric system. What we are currently experiencing worldwide is the reckoning of the oppressed with a male dominated civilization. That turn is very painful for men. Not only does it have to feel to them as if what they have created over millennia and declared to be correct is being torn before their eyes, they also lose control over sex, an existential resource for them. Almost incompatible needs - especially in the area of sexuality, but not only there - collide. Sociology distinguishes human needs into five categories, from basic existential needs such as food and clothing to luxury needs such as self-fulfillment. The model is called Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The most urgent needs are below, the less important ones above. The aggressiveness with which people struggle to meet a need depends on their position in the pyramid and thus on their necessity. The problem is that the needs model is based on a certain equality between people. But the needs of people and especially those of men and women are not placed in the same place in the pyramid. Due to the different reproductive strategies of the sexes, sexuality is lower in the pyramid for men and is therefore more urgent than it is for women. The aggressiveness with which men react to the impending loss of control over this resource is correspondingly higher. With the invention of the birth control pill, their access to reproduction was severely restricted, but as long as women entered into loyal partnerships, at least sex remained secure. The increasing emergence of alternative relationship models also threatens this certainty. It is therefore not surprising that the male-dominated conservative parties in particular plead for the preservation of traditional marriage and the nuclear family. The influence of sexuality on the shaping of our civilization, and thus on today's conflicts, is rarely dealt with or categorically left out in social discourse. In general, most discourses have a biological void. Just as if man were not a physical being, but consisted only of his spirit.
 
Joined
Apr 27, 2019
Messages
1,801
Reputation
1,004
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
220
Reputation
263
You actually translated all that? Jfl mirin.
yes its very insightful and quite blunt. we are still apes, incels need to truly understand it. there is no moral, only social darwinism. everything is allowed. nothing forbidden. the content and translation (her interview, the book) should be posted on every incel forum
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
220
Reputation
263
JUST LOL SHE GAVE THAT INTERVIEW TO DEUTSCHLANDFUNK WHICH IS THE BIGGEST GERMAN NATIONAL RADIO STATION

Nun macht Meike Stoverock Vorschläge, wie das Zusammenleben von Männern und Frauen in einer female choice Zivilisation aussehen könnte, einer Weltordnung, in der Frauen im Lauf ihres Lebens tendenziell mehrere Alphamänner auswählen, in der aber nicht jeder Topf einen Deckel findet. Sie rechnet ab mit der Institution der Ehe, in der sie ein Instrument der Unterdrückung von Frauen sieht, fordert eine Abkehr von der romantischen Vorstellung, dass Männer und Frauen in lebenslanger Monogamie glücklich werden können.

Männer, die in dieser neuen Weltordnung keine Frauen mehr finden, sollen auf andere Weise versorgt werden – Stoverock denkt über Sexroboter nach und bezeichnet Pornografie als mögliche „gesellschaftsverträgliche Stütze“ für Männer.

TRANSLATION:

Now Meike Stoverock makes suggestions as to what the coexistence of men and women could look like in a female choice civilization, a world order in which women tend to choose several alpha men in the course of their lives, but in which not every pot has a lid. She reckons with the institution of marriage, in which she sees an instrument for the oppression of women, and calls for a departure from the romantic notion that men and women can be happy in lifelong monogamy.

Men who can no longer find women in this new world order should be cared for in other ways - Stoverock thinks about sex robots and describes pornography as a possible “socially acceptable support” for men.


DO YOU GET IT BOYOS??

THERE WILL BE NO MERCY FOR YOU, jUST BRUTAL COLD (SOCIAL) DARWINISM.
 

Noopetorope

when will we be free
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
1,134
Reputation
854
JUST LOL SHE GAVE THAT INTERVIEW TO DEUTSCHLANDFUNK WHICH IS THE BIGGEST GERMAN NATIONAL RADIO TV SHOW



TRANSLATION:
JUST LOL SHE GAVE THAT INTERVIEW TO DEUTSCHLANDFUNK WHICH IS THE BIGGEST GERMAN NATIONAL RADIO TV SHOW



TRANSLATION:




DO YOU GET IT BOYOS??

THERE WILL BE NO MERCY FOR YOU, jUST BRUTAL COLD (SOCIAL) DARWINISM.




DO YOU GET IT BOYOS??

THERE WILL BE NO MERCY FOR YOU, jUST BRUTAL COLD (SOCIAL) DARWINISM.
Lol she wants to overthrow the rules we created in order to make it more fair for society and give more chances to average man if we take away these things we will not be contend with robots, rapes would sky rocket
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
220
Reputation
263
Lol she wants to overthrow the rules we created in order to make it more fair for society and give more chances to average man if we take away these things we will not be contend with robots, rapes would sky rocket
she not only expects incels to be content with sexrobots but also to be content with providing ressources for all the single mums and their bastard children. not directly but through tax payer money

otherwise they should just accept their fate, everything else would be misogynistic
 

Noopetorope

when will we be free
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
1,134
Reputation
854
she not only expects incels to be content with sexrobots but also to be content with providing ressources for all the single mums and their bastard children. not directly but through tax payer money

otherwise they should just accept their fate, everything else would be misogynistic
She just has rape fantasies I think tbh most women do
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
220
Reputation
263
accept islam buddy boyos



its time
 

Basicinstinct

Tyrone Barrett
Shitposters
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
2,612
Reputation
1,866
How the media sees incels:

How chads,normies, and stacies see incels:

How incels see themselves:

Who they really are:
 
Last edited:
Top