What are your opinions on the philosopher and artist Henry Flynt's concept of the "Creep Theory"?

What are your opinions on the philosopher and artist Henry Flynt's concept of the "Creep Theory"?

"When Helen Lefkowitz said I was "such a creep" at Interlochen in 1956, her remark epitomized the feeling that females have always had about me. My attempts to understand why females rejected me and to decide what to do about it resulted in years of confusion. In 1961-1962, I tried to develop a theory of the creep problem. This theory took involuntary celibacy as the defining characteristic of the creep. Every society has its image of the ideal young adult, even though the symbols of growing up change from generation to generation.The creep is an involuntary celibate because he fails to develop the surface traits of adulthood--poise and sophistication; and because he is shy, unassertive, and lacks self-confidence in the presence of others . The creep is awkward and has an unstylish appearance. He seems sexless and childish. He is regarded by the ideal adults with condescending scorn, amusement, or pity."

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=EFnJMPQow7A
archive.is/tCclF
psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201305/the-allure-aggressive-men
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347207000565
psypost.org/2017/03/personality-traits-no-influence-initial-romantic-attraction-study-finds-48362
reis.cis.es/REIS/PDF/REIS_159_07_ENGLISH1499424514902.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Cont.

"Because he seems weak and inferior in the company of others, and cannot maintain his self-respect, the creep is pressed into isolation. There, the creep doesn't have the pressure of other people's presence to make him feel inferior, to make him feel that he must be like them in order not to be inferior. The creep can develop the morale required to differ. The creep also tends to expand his fantasy life, so that it takes the place of the interpersonal life from which he has been excluded. The important consequence is that the creep is led to discover a number of positive personality values which cannot be achieved by the mature, married adult. During, the period when I developed the creep theory, I was spending almost all of my time alone in my room, thinking and writing. This fact should make the positive creep values more understandable.

1. Because of his isolation, the creep has a qualitatively higher sense of identity. He has a sense of the boundaries of his personality, and a control of what goes on within those boundaries. In contrast, the mature adult, who spends all his time with his marriage partner or in groups of people, is a mere channel into which thoughts flow from outside; he lives in a state of conformist anonymity.

2. The creep is emotionally autonomous, independent, or self-contained. He develops an elaborate world of feelings which remain within himself, or directed toward inanimate objects. The creep may cooperate with other people in work situations , but he does not develop emotional attachments to other people

3. Although the creep's intellectual abilities develop with education, the creep lives in a sexually neutral world and a child's world throughout his life. He is thus able to play like a child. He retains the child's capacity for make believe. He retains the child's lyrical creativity in regard to self-originated, self justifying activities.

4. There is enormous room in the creep's life for the development of every aspect of the inner world or the inner life. The creep can devote himself to thought, fantasy, imagination, imaging, variegated mental states, dreams, internal emotions and feelings towards inanimate objects. The creep develops his inner world on his own power. His inner life originates with himself, and is controlled and intellectually consequential. The creep has no use for meditations whose content is supplied by religious traditions. Nor has he any use for those drug experiences which adolescents undertake to prove how grown up they are, and whose content is supplied by fashion. The creep's development of his inner life is the summation of all the positive creep values."

Cont.

"After describing these values, the creep theory returned to the problem of the creep's involuntary celibacy. For, physical reasons, the creep remains a captive audience for the opposite sex, but his attempts to gain acceptance by the opposite sex always ends in failure. On the other hand, the creep may well find the positive creep values so desirable that he will want to intensify them. The solution is for the creep to seek a medical procedure which will sexually neutralize him. He can then attain the full creep values, without the disability of an unresolved physical desire.

Actually, the existence of the positive creep values proves that the creep is an authentic non-human who happens to be trapped in human socialbiology. The positive creep values imply a specification of a whole non-human social biology which would be appropriate to those values. Finally, the creep theory mentioned that creeps often make good grades in school, and can thus do clerical work or other work useful to humans. This fact would be the basis for human acceptance of the creep.

In the years after I presented the creep theory, a number of inadequacies became apparent in it. The principal one was that I managed to cast off the surface traits of the creep, but that when I did my problem became even more intractable. An entirely different analysis of the problem was required.

My problem actually has to do with the enormous discrepancy between the ways I can relate to males and the ways I can relate to females. The essence of the problem has to do with the social values of females, which are completely different from my own. The principal occupation of my life has been certain self-originated activities which are embodied in "writings." Now most males have the same social values that I find in all females. But there have always been a few males with exceptional values; and my activities have developed through exchanges of ideas with these males. These exchanges have come about spontaneously and naturally. In contrast, I have never had such an exchange of ideas with females, for the following reasons. Females have nothing to say that applies to my activities. They cannot understand that such activities are possible. Or they are a part of the "masses" who oppose and have tried to discourage my activities."

Cont.

"The great divergence between myself and females comes in the area where each individual is responsible for what he or she is; the area in which one must choose oneself and the principles with which one will be identified. This area is certainly not a matter of intelligence or academic degrees. Further, the fact that society has denied many opportunities to females at one time or another is not involved here. (My occupation has no formal prerequisites, no institutional barriers to entry. One enters it by defining oneself as being in it. Yet no female has chosen to enter it. Or consider such figures as Galileo and Galois. By the standards of their contemporaries, these individuals were engaged in utterly ridiculous, antisocial pursuits. Society does not give anybody the "opportunity" to engage in such pursuits. Society, tries to prevent everybody from being a Galileo or Galois. To be a Galileo is really a matter of choosing sides, of choosing to take a certain stand.)

Let me be specific about my own experiences. When I distributed the prospectus for The Journal of Indeterminate Mathematical Investigations to graduate students at the Courant Institute in the fall of 1967, the most negative reactions came from the females. The mere fact that I wanted to invent a mathematics outside of academic mathematics was in and of itself offensive and revolting to them. Since the academic status of these females was considerably higher than my own, the disagreement could only be considered one of values.

The field of art provides an even better example, because there are many females in this field. In the summer of 1969 I attended a meeting of the women's group of the Art Workers Coalition in New York. Many of the women there had seen my Down With Art pamphlet. All the females who have seen this pamphlet have reacted negatively, and it is quite clear what their attitude is. They believe that they are courageously defending modern art against a philistine. They consider me to be a crank who needs a "modern museum art appreciation course." The more they are pressed, the more proudly do they defend "Great Art." Now the objective validity of my opposition to art is absolutely beyond question. To defend modern art is precisely what a hopeless mediocrity would consider courageous. Again, it is clear that the opposition between myself and females is in the area where one must choose one's values."

Cont.

"I have found that what I really have to do to make a favorable impression on females is to conceal or suspend my activities - the most important part of my life; and to adopt a facade of conformity. Thus, I perceive females as persons who cannot function in my occupation. I perceive them as being like an employment agency, like an institution to which you have to present a conformist facade. Females can be counted on to represent the most social, human" point of view, a point of view which, as I have explained, is distant from my own. (In March 1970, at the Institute for Advanced Study, the mathematician Dennis Johnson said to me that he would murder his own mother, and murder all his friends, if by doing so he could get the aliens to take him to another star and show him a higher civilization. My own position is the same as Johnson's.)

It follows that my perception of sex is totally different from that of others. The depictions of sex in the mass media are completely at variance with my own experience. I object to pornography in particular because it is like deceptive advertising for sex; it creates the impression that the physical aspect of sex can be separated from human personalities and social interaction. Actually, if most people can separate sex from personality, it is because they are so average that their values are the same as everybody else's. In my case, although I am a captive audience for females for physical reasons, the disparity between my values and theirs overrides the physical attraction. I feel for them. It is hard enough to present a facade of conformity in order to deal with an employment agency, but the thought of having to maintain such a facade in a more intimate relationship is
completely demoralizing.

What conclusions can be drawn by comparing the creep theory with my later experience? First, some individuals who are unquestionably creeps asfar as the surface traits are concerned simply may not be led to the deeper values I described. They may not have the talent to get anything positive out of their involuntary situation ; or their aspirations may be so conformist that they do not see their involuntary situation as a positive opportunity. Many creeps are female, but all the evidence indicates that they have the same values I have attributed to other females--values which are hard to reconcile with the deeper creep values."

Final

"As for the positive creep values, I may have had them even before I began to care about whether females accepted me. For me, these values may have been the cause, not the effect, of surface creepiness. They are closely related to the values that underlie my activities. It is not necessary to appear strangely dressed, childish, unassertive, awkward, and lacking in confidence in order to achieve the positive creep values. (I probably emphasized surface creep traits during my youth in order to dissociate myself from conformist opinion at a time when I hadn't yet had the chance to make a full substantive critique of it.) Even sex, in and of itself, might not be incompatible with the creep inner life; what makes it incompatible is the female personality and female social values, which in real life cannot be separated from sex and are the predominant aspect of it.

Having cast off the surface traits of the creep, I can now see that whether I make a favorable impression on females really depends on whether I conceal my occupation. Celibacy is an effect of my occupation; it does not have the role of a primary cause that the creep theory attributed. to it. However, it does have consequences of its own. In the context of the entire situation I have described, it constitutes an absolute dividing line between myself and humanity. It does seem to be closely related to the deeper creep values, especially the one of living in a child's world.

As for the sexual neutralization advocated in the creep theory, to find a procedure which actually achieves the stated objective without having all sorts of unacceptable side effects would be an enormous undertaking. It is not feasible as a minor operation developed for a single person. Further, as the human species comes to have vast technological capabilities, many special interest groups will want to tinker with human social biology, each in a different way, for political reasons. I am no longer interested in petty tinkering with human biology. As I make it clear in other writings, I am in favor of building entities which are actially superior to humans, and which avoid the whole fabric of human biosocial defects, not just one or two of them."

this is the most important part

>>First, some individuals who are unquestionably creeps asfar as the surface traits are concerned simply may not be led to the deeper values I described. They may not have the talent to get anything positive out of their involuntary situation ; or their aspirations may be so conformist that they do not see their involuntary situation as a positive opportunity.

50 years on, "some" has to be upwards of 95%

Yea he's pretty much right, or at least I agree. Although am I a virgin because I hold these beliefs about women, or do I hold these beliefs about women because im a virgin?

sounds like something I would read on /r9k/ or r/Incels

all you need in order to get girls is to be a decent person

you hold those beliefs because you're a virgin

Wrong, women aren't something that you "earn" by being a good person. There is clearly no matter of deserving when serial killers and rapists have wives. You're either desirable or you're not. LOOKS, MONEY, AND STATUS.

He seems really humorless and droll. This all comes across as one giant set of mental gymnastics to convince himself that continually getting the flick from females was inevitable because was always so le special and his values were so otherworldly that they, like, totally wouldn't get him mannnnn.

Probably not. He was probably a really tedious wet blanket who sucked the fun out of whatever room he was in. And this is coming from a life-long sperg who has had horrible luck with women. Sometimes you need to be a big boy and look at reality as it is.

some men get women despite their obvious character flaws, okay, but that doesn't change what I just said: if you're a decent person you'll eventually find a girl

I was never too goodlooking or succesful with girls but was able to find my would-be wife at the age of 19 while playing college basketball.

have you ever been to /r9k/? the people there have obvious character flaws that turn them into social retards and assholes.

this

You could be a "decent" person and never attract a mate. You are either DESIRABLE are you have the pre-requisite phenotype, or you are not. Your Just-world hypothesis bias is delusional and has no basis in real experiences. You want to feel like you "earned" a girl because you were a "decent" person.

>You are either DESIRABLE are you have the pre-requisite phenotype, or you are not.

like I said before, I was never too good looking (maybe a 6.5/10) and got myself a solid 9/10 wife that's also into literature. how so? I was just myself and treated her like a human being. maybe, just maybe all this time spent online harboring resentment for the opposite sex has had an effect on your ability to relate to people?

>It's just karma brah, the good people will get what's coming for them and the bad ones won't.

You clearly have never studied the science of mate-attraction and how large a role looks play in initial attraction. Your anecdote and assessment of your own attractiveness is irrelevant and likely to be highly biased from your perspective.

This especially:
>(In March 1970, at the Institute for Advanced Study, the mathematician Dennis Johnson said to me that he would murder his own mother, and murder all his friends, if by doing so he could get the aliens to take him to another star and show him a higher civilization. My own position is the same as Johnson's.)

I don't understand how someone can think they're a brilliant philosopher when they flaunt their open contempt for empathy like this. To me it's a hallmark of a shallow thinker. Misanthropy is essentially juvenile. But of course, he wouldn't consider it misanthropy because he's not a real boy

>how large a role looks play in initial attraction

men care way more about looks than women; we are the more visual sex. it's game as long as you've taken a shower in the last few weeks and isn't a literal frankenstein

women mostly care about your personality, confidence and independence. again, just be a decent, hardworking person and you'll find a gal in no time

Quit being ableist towards the neurodiverse. Not everybody has the genes or neurological structure for cognitive empathy.

Ok, so you've never studied the science of human mate attraction. You can stop talking now.

He's right that creeps should be neutered. He's not as sexist as the writing might seem, but it's cleae he's never talked to a girl for more than ten seconds without sperging out. Classic overthinker who's trying to justify his failure as being more than forever alone syndrome.

But he IS a boy

He never says that creeps should be "neutered". You clearly don't have the reading comprehension to understand the personality type of the "creep" that he is diagnosing.

He's done several musical collaborations with CC Hennix though

Literally who?

It looks as though he empathizes with the "exceptional men" he has interacted with, and it seems you may be defending a latent homosexual

>You clearly have never studied the science of mate-attraction and how large a role looks play in initial attraction.

Not that user but you seem far more biased in trying to delimit chemistry and human relations into some quantifiable science. You don't see how this within itself is a very subtle emotional reaction to cope with wounded pride.

What you and this guy seemingly don't understand is that you can't skip over developing assertiveness and confidence. You're fooling yourselves. You don't need to arrive at as much assertiveness and confidence as many other men have, but you do need to cultivate *some* measure of it. Eventually you'll come across a woman who will naturally see that you might only have these qualities in a lesser way, but you have such a wealth going on underneath that they'll still be willing to give a relationship a shot. All this anemic scientific treatment will get you nowhere. All you need to do is work out subjective routes that might help you arrive and a slightly greater sense of confidence. Contrary to r9k's misgivings there are actually women out there who would be interested in a man who is able to provide them with a rich inner dimension to their lives. If you look at all women as being "roasties" who couldn't possibly value what you do then you're shooting yourself in the foot just to larp as a cripple.

Read again, he says:
>Actually, the existence of the positive creep values proves that the creep is an authentic non-human who happens to be trapped in human socialbiology. The positive creep values imply a specification of a whole non-human social biology which would be appropriate to those values. Finally, the creep theory mentioned that creeps often make good grades in school, and can thus do clerical work or other work useful to humans. This fact would be the basis for human acceptance of the creep.

>LOOKS, MONEY, AND STATUS
You're completely ignoring personality. Personality can overcome a lack of looks, money, and status. If you're fun, funny, or interesting, girls can be had.

>implying my reductionism isn't on purpose

I'm not talking about myself in this thread. It's just very clear that you and the other posters are not familiar with the scientific literature that has been written on human-mate attraction. What the other poster was saying is nothing more than platitudes that have no basis in anything other than his extremely limited and biased perspective.

Meant to respond to this post.

I don't see how anyone can look at humanity as a whole and not be even slightly misanthropic, even if it just materializes as racism

Right back to his old tunnel-vision routine regardless of what is said to him. Figures.

You can't quantify human chemistry no matter how defiant you are about it. How about you try to develop a personality and learn how to make a woman laugh? Or is that advice too in keeping with some platitude-friendly banality for one as scientifically woke as you?

>personality

youtube.com/watch?v=EFnJMPQow7A
take the black pill

>slightly misanthropic

Have you ever met a "slight" misanthrope? Cynical racism is not misanthropy

>thinks personality is a meme
>unironically links a "red pill" youtube video in response

user, you have become the memes.

I'm not talking about my own situation. There has been a lot of research done about the sociological and biological aspects of human mate attraction, all I was saying is that you're clearly unfamiliar with it and that your biased platitudes are irrelevant. Please don't respond again, I don't have time for simpletons.

watch it, it's a good video. it's not PUA trash or the usual red pill stuff

Not him, but there are actually lots of studies that show attractive men are considered to be more funny and good humoured. There is also a certain threshold where if you aren't attractive enough, no amount of personality can make up for it. It's just science, women evolved to fuck the men with the best genes. You've obvious never looked at any studies because you're delusional

>the red pill on what attracts women
>people actually watch this shit

It's called the Halo Effect

"The study suggests that women value physical attractiveness in a potential mate far more than they say they do, said study author Madeleine Fugère, a professor of social psychology at Eastern Connecticut State University in Willimantic."

From here: archive.is/tCclF

>I'm not talking about my own situation.

Of course you are, you errant clown. You keep stating that you aren't emotionally involved despite feeling continually compelled to convince others that the true underpinnings of the matter naturally conform to your own scientifically-treated value system and nothing more. user have put forward multiple other factors that might fairly need considering and you sweep them all aside without a second thought and go right back to your more comfortable attitude again and again.

You are literally proselytizing whilst telling yourself that you aren't emotionally involved. How can you not see the denial? You honestly seem like a guy who is perpetually denying his subconscious motivations to himself when they are writ large for all to see.

>I don't have time for simpletons.

o i am laffin

have you even watched it? the ideas purpoted in the video are pretty much scientific consensus nowadays

psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201305/the-allure-aggressive-men

>Research has established that, generally speaking, women must choose between between two types of men: dads and cads. On the one hand, dads are typically more commitment-oriented, warm, faithful, and reliable. Yet they are usually less handsome, charismatic, and dominant than his caddish counterparts. On the other hand, cads are sexier, with their narrow eyes and strong jaws — but they also tend to be flashy and exploitatative of others. Even worse, these masculine men often embody the Dark Triad, a personality constellation that encompasses Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism.

>So, what in the world is appealing about these objectionable individuals? Quite simply, they possess high-quality GENES that they will pass down to their future children. In turn, the thinking goes, women will maximize their reproductive success by choosing a macho man as a short-term mate for his genes, and a less masculine man with a warmer personality for a long-term, invested partner.

you can deny it as much as you want with empty platitudes, but "alpha fucks, beta bux" is a real sociological phenomenon

Stop making excuses for your terrible personality that repels women

>You've obvious never looked at any studies because you're delusional

I know the rote lines that these guys proffer and I've heard these inter-sperg arguments for years. At a certain point all of this shit becomes a crutch and you simply need to find ways to be more appealing however you can. If you don't have looks or cash develop a personality. If you don't have looks or cash yet stubbornly refuse to develop a personality because red pill videos make you feel like it's all for naught then what the fuck do you want people to say to you?

All this overly empirical drollery is one giant pity party made by miserable guys to keep other frustrated guys feeling as small and miserable as they feel. There's a fuckin "red pill" for you.

see

I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. All I was trying to say is the poster's banal platitudes have no larger sociological significance, and no scientific validity to back them up. If you think that science is a "value-system" then we're clearly at odds. Begone.

this is vague as hell. astrology for virgins

>If you think that science is a "value-system" then we're clearly at odds.

You're wielding it as one: it's become an emotional salve for you.

>Begone.

Get a clue.

He's talking about a specific type, not diagnosing all incels and virgins.

Don't respond again, you seem very confused and bipolar. I have no clue what you're talking about, it's bizarre how when you want to talk about these sorts of topics, the effect that your looks have in how you're received in society and mate attraction people get all accusatory like this.

>actual studies are just a giant pity party
It's really quite amusing how, when confronted with clear evidence that contradicts his worldview, the normalfag will still keep repeating his platitudes.

Answering your question on finding "ways to be more appealing": personality is a waste of time, you need to looksmax. Lose bodyfat, exercise, eat better, sleep more, drink more water, get better haircuts, acne treatment, Retin-A, and so on.

Face > body. Plastic surgery is a good bet.

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347207000565

> In contrast, the mature adult, who spends all his time with his marriage partner or in groups of people, is a mere channel into which thoughts flow from outside; he lives in a state of conformist anonymity.
I'm married yet am unfond of large, anonymous groups. In fact, I simply cannot communicate in them. The mere ambient presence of other voices clouds my ability to communicate. When I drink, I find myself trying to communicate with another group while speaking to another, or simply describing my phenomenology.
Note that by all standards, I am a 'creep', and would be a 'creep' by and large to every one of you. Many would want me in prison.

Eventually, eventually, eventually, until your last day passes and you pass alone in your bed, bound to rot into it as the final perfect irony of it being your only lover and companion. Or, eaten by the animals one deemed their 'companion'.
You delude yourself.

>Don't respond again, you seem very confused and bipolar.

Buddy if anyone has a less-than-healthy mentality toward all of this it's clearly you. But you keep projecting all you want. Just know that this mentality is something that you're going to have to undo later on if you want genuine interpersonal growth, so why not skip it now while you can? I'm actually trying to lessen your emotional burdens, if you'd believe it.

>the normalfag will still keep repeating his platitudes.

That's what makes this so amusing. I am in no way a "normie". Not even close. I can just see these pitfalls for what they are. You and this other guy lack the discernment to see how ressentiment is subtly doing a number on you. Of course if I advocate common sense things instead of anemic bitterness I must be le dreaded normie, right?

i'm not going to waste time watching something by someone with 'red pill' in their username

Yeah, I know, but plastic surgery is too radical for most people.

Let me tell you, I spent years deluded by all the pickup artist trash. People (male and female) always considered me funny and a good conversationalist. Guess what? That didn't get me laid at all. "You're like a brother to me". "We are such good friends, I don't wanna ruin it". The moment I stopped focusing on behavior and actually went on a diet, started exercising and got down to 13% bodyfat, my life changed completely. The way people treated me went from night to day: some newfound respect from strangers and acknowledgement of your presence; women actually hitting on me (something that literally had never happened before). Even my coworkers and employers started treating me differently. Lookism is very fucking real.

How's the realization that looks control the way people assess your value as a human being "anemic bitterness"? We are not advocating misoginy or misanthropy; we want you to see things for what they are and work based on that. We've been peddled a lie, and it's such a conspicuous fabulation that it makes one wonder how people could hold such idealistic beliefs. The reality is vulgar and brutal, maybe that's what make people so averse to this realization: a view of humanity as something higher and less basal than it actually is, untainted by mere biological imperatives.

>generally speaking
>Women preferred aggressive men as short-term mates
Firstly, a preference is not all the women, all the time
>male signals of genetic fitness are not just physical, but behavioral as well
Personality
>the women in this study preferred less aggressive men for long-term relationships
You don't need to be a hot douchebag to get a girlfriend

>How's the realization that looks control the way people assess your value as a human being "anemic bitterness"?

I'm not saying that you shouldn't work to improve your appearance, that falls under common sense, what I am critical of are all these other points of ressentiment and spite that guys attach to this. Of course there are biological aspects to attraction, again, common sense, but perpetually wading through a hothouse of "red pilled" bitterness is going to have some residual effects on you. Just go and work out and avoid all the echochamber bitterness. It'll mess with your character in the end if you let it.

It's not really misanthropic, it's just being rational. If you could help advance the whole of humanity and save thousands of lives by sacrificing like 10 people, it would be unfair not to. It's of course easier to consider it I'm theory than in practice, but his position is not misanthropic, it's even the complete opposite.

Also, as to the whole thesis, scanning it it seems that it's more about the values of introversion. Being a creep doesn't have value as such, but being introverted can.

Your tendency to attribute everyone else's arguments as "projecting" is very unhealthy. I fail to see how talking about one's genetic phenotype affects the way you're treated by society is "bitterness". Try not to do this in the future.

Lol, my answer is totally unrelated to the post I responded to. Well, time to call it a day.

>muh SCIENCE

don't you have a fedora to go tip?

>it's more about the values of introversion
Agreed. The author was conflating his introverted personality for a probably sexual personality flaw. A woman isn't going to call a quiet guy a creep. She's going to call a quiet guy who constantly stares at her chest a creep.

If you want to talk about a scientific subject with any degree of authority, like human-mate attraction, then you're going to have to use scientific resources and methods. If you think any mention of biology or science is "fedora-tipping" then you are the obtuse one.

The part about being thriw away by sex because the average female values and ways of thinking make them undesirable is something I can unironically can understand and have been struggling with for a year now
I can fantasize about having sex with someone and watch porn abstracted from it but it has happened to me that in the middle of a sexual intercourse I have felt so disgusted by the "nature" of that woman in particular which after a year of searching I already feel could be said of every women that I almost couldnt involve myself in it.
I understand it is childish to want a perfect woman for me and everything and that I should accept other peoples flaws as they accept mine but it feels untouchable. Like if a girl has an instagram or Twitter or whatever the fuck I already lose desire for them since I can see them spending a third of their waking moments posting their life in order to get approval thus invalidsting a pure enjoyment of their so called "hobbies".
Not to sound r9kish is just that I can specially relate to that part without being neither bad looking (Im a solid 7.5) nor being a virgin beta male.
I understand that in order to get laid you have to give in something to ease up your way into pussy and the same way goes for a relationship but Ive lost the compelling reason to dk so over a veey real feeling of sickness.

Yes, looks discrimination is very real.

"Personality traits have no influence on initial romantic attraction"
psypost.org/2017/03/personality-traits-no-influence-initial-romantic-attraction-study-finds-48362

>Your tendency to attribute everyone else's arguments as "projecting" is very unhealthy.

This specifically applies to you, though.

As I said in the last post working on your looks is a common sense affair but this general mindset that you're employing parallel to it will worsen your character in the end if you let it.

...

Nobody is talking about their personal experiences. You seem to have difficulty zooming out and looking at things from an objective level, we are talking about a large-scale look of how your phenotype influences romantic attraction.

>tfw you realize everyone on the planet is a shallow asshole and they can't do anything about it because it is burned into their biology

Fuck this gay earth

>You seem to have difficulty zooming out and looking at things from an objective level

No I don't, I can regard that just fine. But at a certain point you need to ride that macro-vision zeppelin back down to earth and ask yourself what mindset is going to make you truly grow on an interpersonal level. Getting fit and looking good is important, of course, but it isn't only biology to contended with here, no matter how much you'd like to deny it. There are emotional degrees and matters of character that you need to work on. And you feel yourself exempt from that because you're just too darn euphoric for it. That is the problem.

Why?
Why is human-mate attraction 'scientific', because STEMspergs defined it as so?

>utilitarianism
Back to plebbit

No, because you have no clue who I am and I haven't volunteered any information about my personal life.

Oh course it is, it if involves biology how could it not be scientific? Here's a study done on the role physical attractiveness plays on the marriage market.
reis.cis.es/REIS/PDF/REIS_159_07_ENGLISH1499424514902.pdf

Spoiler: Physical unattractiveness decreases the chance of men being able to find a partner, but it doesn't for women.

You have to be involuntarily celibate to experience women at their worst, to see their darwinian viciousness for undesirable males, and then you need to experience them when they see you as a desireable mate with the kind of genetics, social standing, and resources that they want for their progeny.

Then you will finally be able to understand what women are and how/why they behave how they do.

Let me just say, there is virtually nothing a so labeled 'Chad' can do wrong - not murder, not blackmail, torture, extortion, rape, or anything else - that will get a Stacy to turn him away, EXCEPT losing. All else can be forgiven, but the act of being a loser is the one unacceptable sin.

The fastest way to get women to not only leave you, but treat with you utter contempt bordering on malicious and even murderous intent, is to be a loser.

And that's what being 'involuntary celibate' really means.

It's also why women do not make good leaders. That innate feeling of contemptuousness for 'lessers' engenders arrogance and blindness in female leaders; they lack the instinctual understanding that every facet of the hierarchy is or could be, critical to the operation of the whole. Instead, they treat the hierarchy the same as they do sexual selection: Either you're at the top, successful and desirable, or below the top and need to fuck off and die.

They're a necessary evil, as Females are the way Nature exacts its eugenics program on our species. Losers shouldn't breed, and winners should. It's the fundamental law of survival and women embody that unconsciously.

>it involves biology
You still are avoiding the point. How is this biological, because you sed it?
You seem to be confusing the category, bios, with the study of the category, biology.
>muh studies
Back to plebbit please, I do not trust nor do I read dogmatists. In fact, I will stop reading you now and go spend time with my wife, rather than a likely /pol/emicist.

How does physical attraction not involve biology? It's your genetic phenotype. Of course there are sociological factors as well but are you obtuse?

>still presupposing science
Are you fucking obtuse? Clearly you are, because you do not even know the fucking difference between bios and biology.
>Genetic phenotype
Fucking undergrads

has someone been reading our old boy otty? you know, even wittgenstein, who loved him, said he did so out of disagreement

Your phenotype is your expressed traits, so yes, your face is part of your phenotype, and facial attractiveness greatly affects how you are viewed in society. This is all empirically true. Are you one of those people who think "science isn't real" or something?

>I do not trust nor do I read dogmatists
Are you retarded? Just read the damn studies yourself you damn conspiracy tard. They're not hiding anything from you.

Why are humanities fags willingly retarded?

>No, because you have no clue who I am and I haven't volunteered any information about my personal life.

But I don't have to know who you are in real life to plainly note that you are refusing to concede any interpersonal considerations in your line of posting in this thread. Your attitude is evinced through this.

Are you just (You) fishing at this point?

The fuck does Otto Weininger have to do with this? Do you seriously dispute that genetic phenotype plays a large role in mate-attraction among humans?

>genetic phenotype
woah be careful with those spooks there ;^)

Yes, this thread isn't about myself. It's not even about "looks" either. The only reason I brought it up is to combat the first poster's banal platitudes about being a "decent" person. This thread is about Henry Flynt's Creep Theory

(You)

well, you put it as if "sociological factors" (by which you mean what?) is a negligible thing, whereas "genetic" phenotype is the primary reason for attraction, which simply isn't true

Jesus christ, you're the one who got angry at me and then you're accusing me of fishing for (you's). Seriously get some help, you come across as completely incoherent and bipolar.

Genetic phenotype is the primary factor for initial romantic attraction. This is made very clear on all the recent studies

>Jesus christ, you're the one who got angry at me and then you're accusing me of fishing for (you's).

Because there is a whole interpersonal dynamic that you autistically refuse to entertain here, and you flip a switch and say "but I'm not talking about me" whenever the exchange starts to tend that way. At that point I have to assume you are baiting because you are purporting to want to talk about an issue yet seemingly refuse to do so from all sides. And this constant "bipolar" line that you throw out right after your refusal to do so only further suggests that you are baiting and (You) fishing.

I never claimed to want to talk about this issue from both sides. All I was doing was combating the original claim made by the first poster that all one has to do is be a "decent" person to attain a mate, which is empirically false. You're the one who's trying to turn this into some bizarre argument that I don't want to be a part of.

Anyway, this thread from here on out is about Henry Flynt's Creep Theory, so no more irrelevant posting

This guy has a slave mentality and suffers from delusional narcissism and maybe some kind of autism.

He believes he is superior to humans, however he is conflicted as his low dominance social status shows him that society believes he is not superior and infact inferior. His obsession with fantasy is quite clearly a coping mechanism for his rejection from society and the personal conflict of believing ones self to be superior yet displaying outwardly nothing but inferior traits. A truly superior human could dominate in both intellectual and social situations, however since he cannot dominate in a social situation he resorts to mental gymnastics that poses what he has and doesnt want (Verbal, logic and reasoning skills) as virtuous, and what he doesnt have but wants (a socially dominant position, positive attention and feedback that he craves as a narcissist) as shallow.

The guy is a conflicting mix of self-hating and self-aggrandizing. He is driven to extreme measures to cope with this, evidenced by his obsessive belief that he is trapped by his human "socio-biology", and his earlier former endorsement of sexual neutralization.

All of this reasoning is to comfort himself.

>I never claimed to want to talk about this issue from both sides.

At least you admit as much now.

>Anyway, this thread from here on out is about Henry Flynt's Creep Theory, so no more irrelevant posting

How can we critique this "Theory" if we aren't allowed to entertain any interpersonal considerations therein nor discuss any with you? You want to talk about an issue but you don't want to talk about it from both sides? What?

The Theory has nothing to do with interpersonal considerations, and it has nothing to do with most contemporary incel rhetoric, Flynt is addressing a very specific subtype. You could start by actually looking at the text of his argument.

Bad psychoanalysis and poor Nietzschean argument. When will people stop reducing arguments to their supposed motivations? Try again.

I meant to say it has nothing to do with my own interpersonal relations, but if you have any anecdotes or examples about your life you would like to bring up feel free, as long as it's relevant.

I relate intensely to both what you have said and what OP has said