Incels say that it is all about Looks, Money and Status

I would lick that chicks asshole clean
slavery should be legal

Here's something that will blow your mind: all women have different tastes.

I want the opinion of the users of this shithole

I think you know the answer already.

Attached: 121654151.jpg (625x621, 82K)

A squared skull gives more room for the brain to expand. A round skull with a more sloped forehead just doesn't have enough volume inside to fit a full brain, so it's obvious a person with this skull will be more stupid on average compared to the square skull guy.

Example:
Germanic people compared to Africans

They claim so, but in the 99,999% of the cases they act in the same way.

If you cant figure it out get fucking TOPPED faggot incel

Well high status gets you things. Whether it's access to places or the people you can meet, status affects your life. If you had low status and then saw famous actors or rich businessmen in London with the women you desire, but can't attain, why wouldn't you connect status with attraction?
Obviously I know from real life that there are plenty of examples where status didn't matter, but being high status has more benefits than being low.

I wonder if women would care if a guy only had Looks and Money. Ultimately I can fix my looks and become a 6-7/10 and making money shouldnt be much of a problem. Status is something I've always had trouble with and I see no improvement with that in the future.

Something something animals something something.
Why do you want a girlfriend anyway?

Attached: 1560302734486.png (1279x712, 611K)

money and status are more important when you are in your late 20s and beyond. Most "incels" are people that are 17-23 years old and in college. College is a very egalitarian atmosphere, where everyone generally has the same amount of wealth, and generally has the same amount of acomplishments. In that leveled playing field, only Chads get to slay pussy, as modern women are essentially "Okay" with sharing the same men as opposed to fucking genetic deadweight who haven't proven themselves yet. If you look at how women view men sexually, they rank about 90% of men as "unattractive," and then the top 10% as wildly, fuck me in all holes now, sexy. While for men, it follows the expected bell curve of how they see women. About the top 20% of men fuck 80% of women, leaving 80% of men fighting over 20% of women, during the "find myself" years of college, and shortly after. And as I stated, after the late 20s come, and that man the women previously rejected is now making 100k and has a house, they are suddenly a lot more attractive, because the playing fields aren't artificially kept even during college/high school years. This really isn't that hard to understand. Women want wild men and beasts, generally, when they are young, and safe, protective, secure providers when they are ready to bare children. There is nothing wrong with that, even. It is just human nature. Humans are "mostly" a monogamous species, but in the short term, women are more than happy to share a man, and often times, share that man at the same time. As an aside, women are far more likely to be "casually lesbian" than men are to be casually gay. That is, when they are fucking the same man, even if they are straight, a woman might kiss or suck on the other woman's tits while in the heat of passion, as she plows the frat boys. Women are also addicted to attention, so that probably is part of the reason..

Attached: 1560869360105.jpg (532x800, 71K)

Stop projecting user, it isn't healthy.
I'll have you know that i'm at my 3rd gf

>secure providers when they are ready to bare children
But they want to make children with the genes of the wild beasts while extracting resources from the providers user.

All you have stated are the causes of new (1950s+) contraceptive methods. It is not like this naturally, simply because of risk.

Attached: 1560135259459.jpg (473x480, 57K)

yeah somewhat. In nature, they would still have most children with the provider, and few excursions into the wildman, cucking the provider. Having only 1-2 children isn't a thing historically. Average woman had 6-10 children, and probably 2-3 were cucked from cheating with traveling Chads. That's why I said human sexuality is mostly monogamous, but is opportunistically polygamous. It is just human nature. Religion mostly tries to stop it, and meld it, but it is an impossible task on the grand scale. You just can't see it as much, because of how much birth control is used, and how people have 1-3 children (or none) instead of 6-10.

Attached: 7b4f5773a0c81e4c90a1ff07e184edeada4bb3a1137df9522805c4bb1bae23b8.jpg (960x937, 174K)

i just accidentally read your mind, and already responded to you, before seeing your post. "cucking" a couple children, when you had 10 was basically the norm. Mostly monogamous, opportunistically polygamous. You just are getting a distorted version of it because of modern society, and as you also said, birth control.

Attached: 1560616217129.jpg (800x448, 54K)

What if you are an actor but you don't have any real friends?