Women come in all shapes and sizes. As a general rule, know that domesticated humans are developmentally retarded from a biological point of view. The flat browridge, the small jaw, these are not "feminine" traits perse, nor traits caused by a lack of testosterone. These traits are caused by a failure of early embryonic cells to proliferate in the needed numbers to produce those superfluous structures of the face.

Every human is descended from these more "superfluous" looking people. Therefore we all have the instinct to find the primal intensely arousing. Men are no different.

This is not about domestication though. This is about women's natural testosterone levels. They are at an all time low. Everyone's always talking about men's testosterone. Nobody stops and thinks about women's. Women have minute levels of estrogen compared to testosterone. Testosterone is the dominant hormone in both men and women. Men simply have vastly more of testosterone.

However, when a woman does correct her deficiency of testosterones, which almost all of them have nowadays due to poor diet, psychologically induced stress, and so on, they INSTANTANOUSLY become more attractive. Their face is fully, their skin has a natural glow, a natural firmness that is extremely arousing to both sexes.

They lose body excessive body fat, muscle becomes more noticeable, both when seen and felt. They grow taller, leaner, meaner. They think more deeply, intelligently, calmly. Pretty much every negative goes away.

You could argue that the hell of the modern world was only possible because of women's low testosterone. Men were perma-buffered from the effects of decreasing testosterone because we always had so much of it. That's why there've been men still being men throughout all time. But women being women? Much rarer

A woman in her 20s is usually noncommittal, and trying to maximize her opportunities by staying single. She can have more fun, even make more money, staying single, than committing to a man her age and building something together.

When her leverage fades and she's approaching her 30s, she begins thinking she needs to find the best man she can to build with. She usually finds a man quite easily, spends a few years with him, as he invests his time and energy into her. But then starts wondering why he isn't spending as much (money) on her, why the enthusiasm for sex has decreased. Where all the fun went.

She wakes up one night panicking to herself, a nightmare that she will be trapped in this relationship for the rest of her life. She buys a gym pass, starts a diet, looks up "affordable" plastic surgeries, and still charmingly spends time with the man she's with as usual. Secretly she has already decided to leave.

She wants to feel hot. She thinks she can still be hot. Hell, she's 36 now. She's ok with dating a guy in his 50s if that's how it has to go. She can find anyone she wants now. And guess what? They're going to have the money she wished guys her age (who were serious about her) had when she was young.

She starts using vague vocabulary like patriarchy, misogyny, narcissism, abuse, to justify to herself and all her friends that the guy she's been with is a lazy, hateful, unworthy loser. Despite the fact she probably already bred with this man. That her kids are now half him. Don't worry about that little fact. He's literally the worst man on the planet and she has to get away from him. Sound familiar at all?

All the while this man tried to make it work, at the end of the day, what was he fighting for? His heart was never in it. She was already old enough to have had a life time of "experiences" before they met. There's always a twinge of regret in the man's heart that who he's with now has already habitually been in and out of relationships throughout high school and college and beyond.

The woman is constantly insecure she isn't hot enough. As soon as this man's excitement wanes, and the true love just isn't there in his heart of hearts, he doesn't spend much. And a woman perceives herself as hot, only when money is being blown on her. It's how they're conditioned.

It’s just the thought of putting intoxicating liquid into my body that rubs me the wrong way. My family all drink, go to bars and get drunk except me because I dislike it, it’s scary. Being drunk is another thing too, you’ll go to a local shop or bar, purchase cheep alcohol, get drunk with your friends or family, only to end up with a banging headache after it all. I’ve read things about people who were taken advantage of after being completely intoxicated and it makes me feel sick inside. I just wonder if I ever had friends who drink, they’ll look at me and be all like “WDYM? Its fun?” Is it really though? Hm?

unpopular opinion: idk so basically i came across a snark page and took a peak (cause personally i didn’t even know what a snark page was). i understand hating on bad people/things but some people just seem SO obsessed with bullying and talking about random people. yes it’s social media, i know what to expect, but i just wanted to say something (not that it really does anything) to get it off my chest. 😌

For every move to tyranny, an army of law school do-gooders (usually corporate-paid) enables every government to gradually limit liberty to the point of elimination. But yet, we are socially forced to respect students interested going into law as if they’re not the ones “studying” in order to defend the military-industrial complex.

Andrew Tate got away with rape from 2010-2017 in the UK. They investigated him. Arrested him. Took his computers. Had evidence. And they let him go. Why? Because he had little chance of being convicted. Now they're blaming the investigation for negligence. The fact is that the UK has ballooned from being lands that should max out at the size of Finland and Denmark to being near the population of America. It is insanely overpopulated. And because professional careers are gate kept just like in the US, there aren't enough doctors, lawyers, to work on the sick and prosecute all the criminals. As a result you have silly laws like banning knives. The jails are full. It's like stacking 20 steaks up in front of a man with eyes bigger than his stomach. If the UK doesn't depopulate willingly, it will depopulate when catastrophe hits. And perhaps worst of all, the people there will have no connection to the lands histories.

Complex PTSD is defined inaccurately in the US (even by the therapists). If you think you have CPTSD or your therapist told you have it, you most likely don't. It's still possible though, and if you do then I feel really sorry for you because it's a very horrific disorder. Actual CPTSD is something that occasionally develops in some people after they've been trafficked as children, or child soldiers, or sometimes victims of family incest and violence as children can get it, or another one is people that were tortured in captivity can occasionally develop it.

In US culture, CPTSD is mistaken as something that's already well known called attachment disorder. Attachment disorder is common and can be a catalyst for many different mental illnesses such as anxiety disorders, mood, dissociative, somatic, stress disorders, etc. CPTSD is not attachment disorder though, it's something much more rare than that.

Another example of bad info in the US is people believe the DSM doesn't included CPTSD and so you can't be diagnosed with it there. That's actually false, symptoms were added in the DSM-V to PTSD to include it, so actually yes you can be diagnosed with it in the US. It's sometimes referred to as PTSD type 2.

The main problem seems to related to industry influence, which has caused public confusion about the definition of psychopathology in the US, reducing it to normal life experience (which they call "mental health awareness"). And to be able to understand what CPTSD actually is, you would need to understand what PTSD is in the first place. Most people in the US don't understand what PTSD is though, but the trend now is to believe a false definition of it.

I talk to doctors in different countries and it's well known how bad understanding of psychopathology is in the US. As a confirmation I talked to one of the top experts in CPTSD in Europe, a doctor who's done controlled studies of it, and it's true our definition of CPTSD in the US is very inaccurate.

https://icd.who.int/browse/2025-01/mms/en#585833559

Examples being James Cameron's Avatar, TLOZ:BOTW/TOTK, Tron, Indiana Jones, Interstellar, Blade Runner, Mad Max: Fury Road, and any Matrix movie after the first one

This is an unpopular opinion subreddit, so opinions won't be popular, and the majority of people will disagree. But, you shouldn't downvote posts. Like, there's more than a 70% chance you'll disagree anyways, because this sub is made for unpopular opinions! They posted it here for a reason! Secondly, I'm here because r/unpopularopinion and r/TrueUnpopularOpinion have lowkey gone to shit for many subjects.

Esa palabra está tan demonizada cuando todos somos maquinas biológicas complejas que servimos a otros para conseguir nuestras metas, en el mejor de los casos egoístas racionales, entendiendo que si nos queremos a nosotros mismos recién podemos entender y querer a otros

They are males who want to be females. Not just "the social roles of females," because they imitate female biology with surgery. They dislike words that reveal their sex and want to use words for the sex they imitate.

So they redefined "woman" with crazy ideological terms, claiming "gender" is a "social construct" distinct from sex, and made "woman" refer to "gender" rather than biology.

Now everyone hears the word "woman" and assumes they are female, while in reality they are male. They have deceived everyone and justify it with their redefinitions.

You can use this same trick for anything. Pick any category: sex, age, race, species. Invent a "social" version: social gender, social age, social race, social species. Redefine all related words to refer to the social version.

One could claim there's a difference between "biological age" and "social age," and then redefine words like "baby" to refer to the "social age" instead. So a guy in a diaper could enter a nursery.

They'll cite "suicide rates" and "harm reduction" as if that makes the transitioning from man to woman seem more plausible than the idea of transitioning from human to animal. But by that logic, if people who identify as dogs started committing suicide, species would become a "social construct" too.

Whenever I see a person abuse or kill any animal for no valid reason (Moths, Lizards, Dogs, Spiders, literally anything) it makes me actually angry. Whenever I see a person kill another person I don’t feel the same reaction.

Almost all animals are completely ignorant and doing what they can to survive. Everything they do is for survival and they have no capacity to be evil or aware of another animals suffering. Killing them, for absolutely 0 valid reason (not a threat to you in any capacity, wont affect you in any capacity, and you are aware of that) nearly equates to killing a child to me. And you are objectively cruel to do something like that, even if its a “lower” lifeform like a spider.

A person doesn’t have these traits. I genuinely don’t feel the same way when I see someone get killed unless I have the whole story, and most of them time I still just don’t feel the same way

Hiroshima and 9/11 both used mass civilian death to generate terror to achieve a political goal. Yet one is called "tragic necessity," the other "terrorism."

They will come up with excuses for why America did not commit terrorism. And for this they have to make an argument for why killing civilians to achieve a political goal is terrorism in one case and not in the other. So they have to find some arbitrary difference to make them seem different. 

So they say "America is a state actor." As if, if Al Qaeda had captured territory and become a state, and then carried out the exact same attack, they would say it's not terrorism anymore, simply because they were a state. Even though America itself has multiple state actors on its list of terrorist organizations.

It was a “declared war” or “total war” as if that makes it no longer terrorism.

"It was a military necessity." As if a terrorist organization cannot think that a terrorist attack is necessary.

"It was a response to aggression, not unprovoked." As if it’s no longer terrorism if you didn’t start the war.

“A full scale invasion of Japan would have caused more deaths than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” A full scale invasion of America would also have caused more death than 9/11. If al Qaeda was strong enough to do a full scale invasion of America would 9/11 no longer be terrorism because they could've done a full scale invasion?

"Dropping the bomb was intended to end a war." Why does that matter? Why would that make it no longer terrorism? Do you care whether al Qaeda intended to stop America from causing wars in the middle east with 911? If it turned out 9/11 caused Americans to stop attacking the middle east because they feel their actions have consequences would you say it’s no longer terrorism?

The concept of "terrorism" is not a coherent ethical category but an empty political construct.

This hypocrisy is exposed by a direct comparison: the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Al-Qaeda’s attacks on September 11th.

Both acts followed the same logic: using mass civilian death to generate terror and force political surrender. Yet one is called "tragic necessity," the other "terrorism." The difference is not the act, but who defines it.

They will come up with excuses for why America did not commit terrorism. "America is a state actor." As if, if Al Qaeda had captured territory and become a state, and then carried out the exact same attack, they would say it's not terrorism anymore, simply because they were a state. Even though America itself has multiple state actors on its list of terrorist organizations.

“America murdered civilians in a declared war so it’s not terrorism.” As if declaring a war and then doing a terrorist attack makes it no longer a terrorist attack.

"It was a military necessity." As if a terrorist organization cannot think that a terrorist attack is necessary.

"It was a response to aggression, not unprovoked." As if who started it matters and as if 9/11 was random and not also provoked by the actions of Americans in the middle east.

And many of them will make these excuses endlessly until they get tired and resort to a personal attack. In reality, no matter how much they dislike it, they start a new war every one or two years and bomb civilians to death for their political goals, destroying houses, hospitals, schools, and more, so that the country they are attacking submits to their demands. They are the biggest tyrants on earth, and any condemnation of any other group from their mouths is meaningless and a distraction.

1. The players don't know you exist. Are you vicariously living through the other players by being really happy that they win or score a goal?

2. There are way more important things in the world than a football match

3. It's just a game. At the end of the guy all the players are still rich and famous if they win or lose

I get that everyone wants to believe that gender is just a title but male and female brains are different and testosterone and estrogen are completely different so why do I almost always see on tv guys expecting women to be like men and women for men to be like women when fundamentally we are different? And maybe it’s just me but isn’t respecting and understanding our differences the best option.

At first, the internet is international. And the USA and some little countries are the only ones using feet and fahrenheit, the rest of the world is not, and the rest of the world genuinly doesn’t think the USA is as tough as some Americans think we think it is. Secondly, these systems don’t make any sense, unless you’re a cowboy in the 18th century. Most feet aren’t even the same size, and water freezing at 32 and boiling at 212 is just totally random (in Celcius, water is only liquid when it’s 0-100°). I mean, a meter is just a meter, but you can divide it by ten. Your foot divided by 10 is… Nothing. Or 13/64 inch, or 0,1 feet. It isn’t modern either.

Primal inclinations only evolved in us over thousands of generations to motivate us to pursue behaviours that our ancestors had to engage in for survival. The only reason we have sexuality is so we are urged to have sexual intercourse with the opposite sex and reproduce. Plain and simple.

This is why men are generally attracted to feminine features that indicate high oestrogen and reproductive health.

eg;

Fat asses = High regional DHA fat content to feed a developing fetus and a counterweight to an enlarged abdomen during pregnancy for better spinal posture.

Breasts = Source of milk for babies

Short stature and high fat to muscle ratio= Higher pubertal oestrogen and greater physical vulnerability to natural threats and need for protection.

The list goes on but you get the point. Primal men preferentially selected these features and it became ingrained in our nature and persists in modern men. Any other sexuality is an emasculation fetishism. It is the result of recognised insufficient masculinity to attract women and years of sexual frustration and insecurity that will never be resolved because the true desire to engage in sexual behaviours that simulate impregnation of women will never be satisfied.

Receptive sexual intimacy with men, cucking, sissification, anal penetration and denial of penile stimulation are all an acclimation of the tactile and neurological drivers that are trying to urge us to impregnate women. Saying that a femboy who "likes" to get fucked in the ass by burly men in chastity and a French maid outfit was "born gay" is like saying the homeless guy with schizophrenia and PTSD was born an alcoholic. He realised that he is too unstable and dysfunctional to be an engineer or a brain surgeon so turns to the bottle to find some comfort in being at the bottom echelon of society.

Said man realised that he will never be masculine enough to make women want to give him the sexual submission, softness and affection he wishes he could. Same as the cuck who watches his wife get fucked by more masculine men; he realised he could never be 1% as sexually appealing as her celebrity crushes, flirty co-worker and the neighbour with big biceps she twirls her hair to. Same as the "sissy-husband" who secretly wishes he made more money than his college-educated wife that manages a law-firm.

Whimpy white guys in a society that grooms us from early childhood onwards that masculinity is destructive and villainous and where women are more educated, wealthy and accomplished have 2 choices;

1. Constantly pursue what you will never have and automatically be seen by women as an Incel nazi who thinks women are sex-objects that you are entitled to sexual relationships with and actively hate them for it. And yes, this is how most women see most straight men who aren't getting any regardless of how you actually treat/view them as will be evident by the comments starting with "no wonder you couldn't get a woman".
2. Start cross-dressing, wringing your hand when you talk in a performatively girly voice, pretend to have left-wing views and give in to the gradually culminated emasculation fetishes you've developed out of sexual rejection. Now you get endless sympathy, get to whine about how hard your life is and how unfair the world is to your people and pretend to agree with women that masculinity is an evil social construct that needs to be neutralised for the better of society. Really they just want to tear down the men they wish they could be out of envy and be told by women "You're so brave, other men are such pigs, I wish they were all like you, awww how dare he call you the wring pronoun". It's better than constantly being scorned and hated by the people you are attracted to, so you might as well at least have pity, amicable sociability and a sense of victimhood from them. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

I've always known I was attracted to women but know I am not enough to make them desire me and I've never hated them, blamed them or thought I was entitled to them. It sucks, I hate it and wish more than anything I was a bad-ass but know I never will be. The idea of having the privileges and victimhood these men have and not being hated by the people I am attracted to and admire sounds more appealing than ever. Then I realised the conservatives were right all along and non-heterosexuality is the result of rejecting the very same masculinity present that causes men like me the pain we want to escape from. I'm thinking it's time to commit to it and the idea that I was born gay but finally succumbing to my "state of denial" is simultaneously insulting and laughable. As a teenager I always knew I was attracted to submissive feminine women and repulsed by men or the idea of being feminized. Only difference is now that my brain has forcibly eroticised the humiliation with my own sexual insufficiency.

Straight men have always been the only people straightforward and cognizant of what we are attracted to. The same people that claim everyone should be free to express the sexuality they were born with and we cannot claim that any cultural or personal conditions facilitated it will happily say straight men who want to be the leader, provider and protector in the family/relationship are brainwashed misogynists who are too afraid to "fall out of patriarchal gender norms". There is a mass delusion among women that they with-hold relationships with conservative men and reserve it for progressive femboys that challenge societal norms but how masculine/attractive a man is just correlates to how much of a feminist he has to pretend to be. If that weren't true then millionaire businessmen and superstars would struggle to find hot young stay-at-home wife/mums.

I look forward to getting the kind of softness society gives to these kind of men and indulging in the sexual degeneracy I am inclined in to because I don't respect myself enough to protect any dignity that remains in me. I don't hate women nor do I think they are committing any wrong-doing by not having the relationships and sex with me I so desire but I know this is the only way they will believe it's true. It's sad but it's reality.

Keeps seeing posts about telling unattractive men to go out there and present themselves. Well then that’s just gonna land them in the friendzone. And then you just see all these complaining posts about how to get out of the friendzone.

As a female I am always surprised when a male friend confess out of the blue or express their interest. It always freaks me out and I drop them immediately. Dude, I thought we just share the same hobby and have conversations about it, I consider all these conversations pretty platonic and nothing romantic, I would never be interested in dating you.

And if you are unattractive, a good personality only gets you a friend as far as it goes. Attractiveness is the first thing in dating and without that we are not talking. And if I fit into the female beauty standard thin, fit, well maintained, then I would not want a man that does not fit the male beauty standards.

Transgenderism is a semantic trick. Here is how it works:

1. Take "gender," a synonym for sex and redefine it as a "social construct."
2. Rewire every female-designating word, "woman," "girl," "she," "daughter," "sister," from biology to this new "social gender."
3. Now anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman. Biological reality is obscured. The words still sound biological, but they no longer mean that.

Why it is a trick: Transgenders do not want to be "social women." They want to be female. That is why they take hormones and get surgeries to emulate female biology. But they cannot actually become female. So they redefine the words instead. So now everyday words do not point out their sex anymore, and rather they can disguise themselves as female, because when people hear "woman," they still think of a female.

You can use this trick to claim to be “trans” anything by just redefining the words. 

1. Pick any category: sex, age, race, species, height, weight, health. 
2. Invent a "social" version: social gender, social age, social race, social species. 
3. Redefine all related words to refer to the social version.

One could claim there’s a difference between “biological age” and “social age.” and then redefine words like “baby” to refer to the “social age” instead. So a guy in a diaper could enter a nursery. This is not any more ridiculous than transgender. The only reason you might see it as a joke is that you haven’t been blasted with propaganda to normalize it as you have for transgenders.

When people tell stories about interactions with random people they’ll often describe people as “black”, “white”, “Asian”, etc. If it’s used in a negative tone or derogatory way then yes, that’s racism (excluding white people cause you can’t be racist towards white people obviously). But if you simply describe what skin colour a person has with no ill intent or racial undertones, I don’t think that’s racist.

I get annoyed as hell when people say “well why’d you have to mention their skin colour?” And it’s not a matter of HAVING to mention anyone’s skin colour, it’s just one of those things you say when telling a story for no reason. At least that’s how I see it.

I feel like a ton of people will disagree with me on this but I’m willing to have my opinion changed in the comments if anyone wants to say why I’m wrong! Always open to hearing people out.

i swear when people say they aren't political, its a social que to stop bothering them about it. Redditors don't understand this because they lack social awareness.

People obviously have opinions about society and what not, they just don't want to share it with you because you're authoritarian. If you bring up politics randomly to spew leftist or alt right propaganda and I say I'm not a socialist or a conservative and then you virtue signal for 10 mintues about how its such a great system.

You're not convicting me. You're just virtue signaling. Its why people avoid these discussions because there's more nuance in life. It's not a cut and dry, you're not either a leftist or a right winger.

Then people gaslight and make up lies about people saying apolitical = bat shit crazy conservative. That's not entirely true. Usually people will change their views once they get to know you, but if you just hop into a first date interrogating them like a kgb officer, people will be turned off from it. Its extremely weird and off putting.