🗑️ 🧵 Why can't scientists figure out how to get laid?
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 21:28:49 UTC No. 16241635
Does the fact that scientists are too dumb to figure out how to get hot girlfriends and wives despite massive amounts of time and effort devoted to analyzing and experimenting with the issue prove conclusively that scientists are low IQ?
My hypothesis is that scientists invented the IQ concept and IQ tests as a coping mechanism and that their falsely self-assigned high IQ status is just a grandiose delusion that helps them deal with the failure of their sexual lives. If scientists were legitimately smart they would be able figure out how to get the attractive women they lust after instead of jacking off to cartoons or inventing electronic plastic techno-vaginas to have sex with.
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 21:37:52 UTC No. 16241646
>get laid
nothings stopping anyone from hiring a whore tho. I do it frequently when I'm horny.
Mr Robot at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 21:38:08 UTC No. 16241647
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 21:44:46 UTC No. 16241658
>>16241635
Mathematicians get laid very easily.
t. mathematician
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 22:26:17 UTC No. 16241715
>>16241635
Unfortunately it's just one of the many ways scientists fail at replication
Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 23:03:15 UTC No. 16241770
>>16241635
Human beings have a limited amount of energy, brain power and time per day. Women absorb and parasite off men's energy, it's just objective reality, not misogyny. Scientists with a mission or goal save their energy for their work and have none left for a woman.
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 08:20:49 UTC No. 16242336
>>16241770
lame cope, reproducing sexually the only purpose in the life of an animal. claiming to be too busy with other things is an absurdly transparent rationalization for failure to procreate.
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 12:27:18 UTC No. 16242547
>>16242336
>Implying objective purposes exist
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 14:48:11 UTC No. 16242623
>>16242336
There have to be other things because a lot of lifeforms pursue goals other than individual reproduction, much less maximizing the amount of life forms.
If you don't believe me, please explain how your post leads to you fulfilling your purpose?
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Jun 2024 20:48:50 UTC No. 16243112
>>16242547
>>16242623
you're a genetic dead end, which is why you have stupid thoughts.
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 04:10:51 UTC No. 16243604
>>16241635
scientists fuck dogs
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Jun 2024 17:29:24 UTC No. 16244315
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 01:24:46 UTC No. 16244935
>>16241635
What humans call "relationships" are really just one person's biological responses to another person's body. There is no other special magical connection behind it, it is literally all just biology. A wise man who wants to conserve funds will just buy an onahole or pay somebody to fulfill his temporary needs while a fool will willingly make a life-long decision (i.e. marriage and dating) just to fulfill temporary biological urges.
>>16241646
Correct answer
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 01:32:04 UTC No. 16244944
>>16242336
You can have sex without procreating or without wasting time with a relationship though which is what the smart people do
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 02:46:09 UTC No. 16244990
>>16244935
>I am wise. I avoid fulfilling biological urges.
You will have no successors and those who reproduce will inherit the Earth (probably Amish or Muslims)
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 07:59:49 UTC No. 16245241
>>16244990
Don't really care, there's too many (bad) people as ti is
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Jun 2024 08:04:05 UTC No. 16245243
>>16241635
>Why can't scientists figure out how to get laid?
I'm a scientist and I get laid all the time. How strange.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 00:17:09 UTC No. 16246505
>>16245243
fucking your pet dog doesn't count
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 02:00:52 UTC No. 16246612
joining a band, getting a gun, a motorcycle, being able to get rejected a bunch and still try, and a willingness to do drugs can really go a long way with that shit without really having to have too much of a personality. the problem is more that a lot of scientists are pussies.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 17:40:18 UTC No. 16247771
>>16245241
thats just an excuse, the truth is that you're just too self centered and selfish to ever consider caring for anyone other than yourself.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 18:05:19 UTC No. 16247835
>>16241635
There is something spiteful of this image
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 18:06:36 UTC No. 16247838
>>16241635
They have, it's called having high social values/skill, good looks and economic status.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 18:14:35 UTC No. 16247855
>>16241635
Maybe Muslims will figure out how to beat sense into bitches like you, OP.
Scientifically speaking.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 22:29:02 UTC No. 16248296
>>16247838
You just won't have social status. It's easier to get away with molesting children than with being smart.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 22:34:16 UTC No. 16248309
>>16248296
you aren't smart, you'd be able to figure out how to overcome problems if you were smart.
you an average iq person with grandiose delusions of intellectual superiority that you developed as a means of coping with your failure to succeed socially
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 22:42:16 UTC No. 16248326
>>16243112
>>16242336
Reproducing is just another way to prolong constant desire to will. You will always strive and stress about meaningless things until the day you die. Scientists are smart and always try to avoid that, but sometimes they fail because their desires overwhelm their urge to resist it. You are just a normie and can't see past your desire to coom into a female.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 22:45:46 UTC No. 16248339
>>16246505
>fucking your pet dog doesn't count
but you mom sure does
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 22:48:38 UTC No. 16248345
>>16248337
>In this order.
More like in reverse order.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 22:55:25 UTC No. 16248361
>>16248345
OP asked about getting laid not about finding a relationship.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 22:59:45 UTC No. 16248367
>>16248361
Yea, you'd certainly get laid more if you have money. Women are attracted to money. Minority of women would fuck you if you didn't have a car or paid for their drinks. Also you can pay more hookers which statistically increases the "laidedness" of men regardless of their looks.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:01:45 UTC No. 16248372
>>16248367
Hookers don't count as getting laid.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:02:02 UTC No. 16248373
>>16242336
>purpose
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:06:27 UTC No. 16248383
>>16243112
the true cope of a loser who will never amount to anything great
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:06:55 UTC No. 16248385
>>16248372
How come ? You have sex thus you get laid. What's the difference ? You spend more money on attracting some random girl in some bar or a club and it's still a probability you'd get laid. With the hooker you are certain. What separates these girls from hookers ? Except that maybe hookers are probably healthier because they care about protection and check themselves regularly while these girls you count as getting laid with are not. After all what you might think is getting laid turns out to be more financial and time consuming then getting a hooker.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:08:55 UTC No. 16248388
>>16248385
Getting laid is supposed to be proof that women voluntarily have sex with you. Hookers don't do it voluntarily and don't even pretend to enjoy it.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:13:49 UTC No. 16248396
>>16248388
>Hookers don't do it voluntarily and don't even pretend to enjoy it.
Have you ever been with a hooker ? There are hookers who do it voluntarily because they earn bunch of money for a short period of time. And yea they do at least pretend to enjoy it. But nevertheless, again I think that money and status are more important than the looks even for getting laid because majority of women try to exert some gain from sex besides their personal pleasure. It doesn't come free because of the sexual selection and the fact that women can choose and can always find men to have sex with. Why waste time of finding the guy with just good looks when on the long run fucking someone with money might be more beneficial ?
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:16:38 UTC No. 16248400
>>16248396
>pay a hooker for an hour
>cum after 10 minutes
>she just kicks me out even though I asked her to do smalltalk the remaining 50 minutes
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:18:41 UTC No. 16248406
>>16241635
you know the whole stem university is fucking eachother, right? they just dont go on social media and talk about it, because they are not attention seeking whores. ironically you need to go out and touch some grass (on stem campus)
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:21:11 UTC No. 16248415
>>16248396
Try it out. This is /sci/ after all, so let's do an experiment. Make an online dating profile with a hot Chad with a chiseled face, just writing "I'm 6'3 tall" in his description. Then make another profile with an ugly manlet, writing "I'm a multimillionaire" in the description. Wanna bet who gets more matches?
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:22:53 UTC No. 16248420
>>16248400
>she just kicks me out even though I asked her to do smalltalk the remaining 50 minutes
Actually not true. Well sometimes is but not all the time and certainly not in my experience. Also why do you care about small talk ? If you cared about that then get a gf don't look for a random casual sex. Even when I get laid I don't chitchat the whole night with the girl. Who cares ?
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:25:05 UTC No. 16248424
>>16248420
I wanted to reenact my Dostoyevsky books. Already prepared a five page monologue to hold in front of the hooker.
Anonymous at Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:27:47 UTC No. 16248430
>>16248424
you might want to announce that kind of fucked up kinks in the beginning, so she can charge extra
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 19:40:55 UTC No. 16249742
>>16244935
>File: mfpelvis-social.png (354 KB, 933x576)
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 10:48:07 UTC No. 16250647
>>16241635
>If you're sooooo right and smart why aren't you winning hurrrr durrrr
Hate to break it to ya but the world isn't just or free.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 00:11:32 UTC No. 16251921
>>16250647
If were legitimately high IQ you'd be able to think up solutions to the problems that vex you
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 00:18:02 UTC No. 16251928
>>16241635
Psychology isn't science
Im not even sure it's allowed on /sci/, maybe on /x/?
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 00:42:10 UTC No. 16251949
>>16241635
I'm not a scientist but I genuinely don't care about putting my dick in pussy anymore. It's only marginally better than porn. I'd rather not interact with women.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 01:48:33 UTC No. 16252025
>>16251921
they do and then they kill themselves haha
no but for real life is painful torture and hell and there is just a hellish reality to things and you have to embrace it or you don't get laid. you gotta get money or lower your standards. be rich by being a successful nerd or chad, or just be really cool or hot, or you can work in food or a call center, lots of pussy there, or be a drug dealer. But you have to hide being smart sometimes. It seems mediocre people care the most and see you as a threat. Lots of toxic people. Scientists in general are so smart that they are actually polite and stuff so they just get bullied by trashy dumb rednecks
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 02:02:20 UTC No. 16252033
>>16248396
>I think that money and status are more important than the looks even for getting laid
lol, lmao even
https://youtu.be/k224gY7Tn-Y
Going from a low status job to a prestigious one made the average go from a 5.6/10 to a 6.8/10 that is to say 1.2 points higher. So for example if you are a 4/10 bartender and switched to surgeon you'd become a 5.2/10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbe
Making TEN TIMES your current salary would mean at most 2 points more in an attractiveness scale. So if you are a 4/10 making 60k, you'd be at most a 6/10 making 600k. (N=533)
http://doi.org/10.1556/JEP.12.2014.
Photoshopping a man into a luxury apartment made women rate him as around 1.2 points more attractive. The same manipulation had no significant effect on men rating women. Being rich as hell with a lavish lifestyle made the subject go from a 4.4/10 to a 5.6/10 (N=102)
https://archive.is/Y9xuc
"Job status/prestige are not significant determinants of initial interest on Tinder, for both men and women" (N=4800)
http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.ed
It is Looks > Personality > Money for both genders. Speed dating scenario (N=163)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/344111
"Greater income does not buy more sex, nor more sexual partners" Note that it applies to both genders. Real life data (N=16000)
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 03:08:26 UTC No. 16252079
>>16252033
>Photoshopping a man into a luxury apartment made women rate him as around 1.2 points more attractive.
the same women or other women?
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 03:10:26 UTC No. 16252081
>>16252079
Why not read it yourself you imbecile
The link is right there
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 03:41:13 UTC No. 16252106
>>16247771
Perhaps it is they who don't care about us
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 03:42:14 UTC No. 16252108
>>16247771
When we care they cry rape
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 04:11:51 UTC No. 16252138
>>16242336
I can't believe I have to explain this. Coroneus phocis posted his videos years ago now but noone followed his theories to their implications nor disseminated them.
There is something called and inclusive fitness score and an exclusive fitness score. Exclusive fitness score is the ability to propogate your own genes. As yousaid, it refers to the individual organisms reproductive fitness. If this is the only way to propagate your genes then you would be correct. That would be the biological purpose. However look at colonial animals: bees, ants, naked mole rats. A large subset of the population is non-reproductive. And sex is hormonally surpressed by the queen. What then is the purpose for these non-reproductive organisms in the colony?
Well, they pass on their genes through the INCLUSIVE fitness function. Inclusive fitness takes into account a social animals ability to propagate it's genes by improving the collective survival of its group/tribe/family.
My sister shares a lot of DNA with me. Her children my nieces and nephews are about as related to me as my own grandchildren would be.
Even if I am not reproductively successful, I can still ensure the survival of my genetic code or a part of it by investing in my community and those people who I share genes with leading to their increased chances of survival.
Take Isaac Newton, died a virgin. Was he successful? His exclusive fitness score was zero, however his inclusive fitness score, the contributions he made to England moving to the gold standard for instance increased the fitness score of the entire nation. A nation which at the time was closer genetically to him than other nations... This he helped to propagate his own varient. Going further on, his discoveries in science may have altered or increased the fitness of the entire species.
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 04:15:14 UTC No. 16252145
>>16252138
That sounds like bullshit from a schizo who can't figure out why people cooperate.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 04:32:08 UTC No. 16252162
>>16252138
Propagating ones genetic code and the survival of ones genes is no so simple as "have as many children as possible" = good
That is what's called an R selection strategy, whereby as in rats, quantity is prioritized over quality. In larger more developed mammals such as Whale Killers (Orcas) a litter is one or two offspring and a high degree of investment is put into raising the offspring to adulthood.
Humans appear closer to this biologically, we need to invest a lot into offspring to make them viable. Able to survive on their own and reproduce.
HOWEVER, that does not mean at all that it is not necessarily a good idea to move in a more R selected direction as a human being.
Although the idea is repulsive to most with western sensibilities, in a state with strong wellfare system and benefits for single mothers, being a baby daddy to as many welfare queens as possible is a viable strategy. If you have good genetics there is a chance that some of your offspring might be worth something even if you only breed with low quality sows. Put zero investment in your offspring and try to have as many as possible giving them all to the state and their mothers to raise.
But, as western societies become more developed and women have more control over their reproductive systems the society is becoming more K selected and not more R selected.
In this direction, investment in individual offspring is higher. How this relates to inclusive fitness score is with the gay uncle/lesbian aunt hypothesis.
If a child has aunts and uncles that are non-reproductive, those aunts and uncles may increase their fitness score by investing in that child. Therefore a child has more adults that are invested in their success and so hopefully becomes more evolved and has a higher fitness score themselves... That's all the theory anyways. Whether it turns out like that in practice, I am not aware of any studies.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 04:32:58 UTC No. 16252163
normal people
>i want sex
>no think
>just go get sex
autistic people
>i want sex
>start thinking
>what do i need to do to get sex?
>either spend weeks courting someone or pay up
>i'm not doing all that shit
>remain a virgin
simple as
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 04:35:29 UTC No. 16252167
>>16252145
I don't care what it "sounds like" to you. That doesn't make it less true.
Bottom line is the theory is that genes try to propagate themselves. Species try to propagate themselves. There are many ways that the myriad of life does this. Not just one.
(Read the paper on the development of Island ecology, or just look up R vs K selection) (also Coroneus Phocis who I mentioned in first comment believes society is indeed moving towards a colonial model whereby increasingly larger portions of the population are non-reproductive, that is clearly happening... But I do not know if it's in the way he imagined... It seems the solution is just to import people from more R-selected societies like the 3rd world... We shall see what happens. Survival of the fittest genes in the end, or the most perceptive.)
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 04:40:59 UTC No. 16252172
>>16252145
It's not about why "people" cooperate either. Why "people" cooperate is simple. What drives the question is why do worker bees, ants, and naked mole rats cooperate and raise and feed and work themselves to death for the offspring of their queen.
By some older rationale that is completely and utterly cucked. Having developed a theory of inclusive fitness score to explain the phenomenon. Then applying that theory to human behavior and it works way better then other explanations.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 04:50:11 UTC No. 16252174
>>16252167
>Survival of the fittest genes in the end, or the most perceptive
Natural selection operates across multiple periodicities. Some of them are short, some of them may span millions of years. The most reproductively fit organisms on Earth right now may be in cryogenic stasis buried under a mile of ice, waiting for the comet that wipes everything else out.
Africa, for example, is currently filled with over a billion Africans, who cumulatively don't produce enough food to feed themselves and rely on Western imports to stave off mass famine. Over the past century this reproductive strategy has worked really well. The next hundred years might go differently.
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 06:30:43 UTC No. 16252246
>>16252167
>>16252172
It isn't how it works. The way it works is that organisms attack organisms that harm them, and try to keep around those that give them advantage. A schizo doesn't understand this, or that people react to his behaviour, so it seems to him that the best life strategy is to be "ruthless" and try to cheat and outwit everyone, and can't connect the backlash with his behaviour, but thinks he lives among violent apes.
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 12:15:11 UTC No. 16252590
>>16252081
why are you getting so emotional over an honest question?
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:19:15 UTC No. 16252874
>>16241635
>Why can't scientists figure out how to get laid?
but they have, you should pay attention:
Anonymous at Tue, 25 Jun 2024 16:31:57 UTC No. 16252893
>>16252033
but anon, women do such selections because they are selecting for a mate, not just sex. Besides, all of that either implies knowledge about the person that must be verbally transmitted, i.e. telling her "I make X/year", or she'd not feel the "attraction", or displaying items of ostentation to manipulate her emotionally, which is not only unethical, if you're faking it, it's actually lying, disingenuous.
The same can be said about men: as male, when looking for a long term-mate, or even a short-term ride, if I had to choose between two equally physically, emotionally, and intellectually attractive women, but one had a superior net worth to the other, I'd go with the net worth, obviously, it represents potential safety and ease of mind in my future. The same applies to a fling or even just casual sex, because, let's be frank, rich people can pay for their own fun, and if they're generous, yours as well! That much said should be a no-brainer.
Furthermore, if the person has an astonishingly rare net worth, in the millions, for example, I'd very much take a cut in my physical attractiveness selection, because I know that in the long run, we're all going to look like old people, and that safety and ease of mind will surely make a huge difference when you're actually rich, and not just comfortable. One thing I'd very likely not sacrifice at all would be in psychological attractiveness. You want to make sure you are riding with the right company, and not someone who's going to exhaust your patience, a nag, a bitch, a nutjob, etc.
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 05:11:29 UTC No. 16254268
>>16252145
the self indulgent longwinded posts are always made by mentally ill people, don't waste your time reading them.
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 05:42:53 UTC No. 16254285
>>16252874
Pic related shows a man with good mental health game, emotional availability, and good communications skills
Anonymous at Wed, 26 Jun 2024 23:03:46 UTC No. 16255599
>>16252874
they've only figured out how to fuck dogs
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:27:18 UTC No. 16255696
scientists are some of the most risk averse mofos on the planet.
getting the girl requires taking risks and stepping outside your comfert zone.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 18:03:31 UTC No. 16256914
>>16252167
>Species try to propagate themselves. There are many ways that the myriad of life does this. Not just one.
massive cope
you're just rationalizing becoming a genetic dead end
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 06:50:41 UTC No. 16257793
>>16244935
>the picture that launched a thousand ACKs
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 07:57:54 UTC No. 16257842
>>16241635
Every scientist I know is either married with kids or is in a relationship
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 01:27:30 UTC No. 16259125
>>16257842
sure they are
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 06:14:46 UTC No. 16259361
The lockdowns really mentally destroyed you
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 06:34:30 UTC No. 16259382
>>16254285
>Pic related shows a man with good mental health game, emotional availability, and good communications skills
Tom Cruise?
HAHAHAHA, are you serious?
That guy is obviously not mentally healthy, come the fuck on.
But I understand your point: attractive people have an upper hand. That's just biology. What call I tell there other than that?
Well, I can tell you that the capitalist industry foments insecurities in people regarding their physical appearances, making them place disproportionate value in physical traits over psychological traits, in a ceaseless game of interpersonal physical comparison, and then produces goods and services to sell so that they feel better and can one-up each other, in an endless game of insecure egos and narcissism. Marketing found a psychological glitch, a hack, and they're both the manufacturers of said form psychological self-torment, and the producers of the means to sooth it. They are pushers, and it's all legal, imagine that.
It seem like you too are a victim of that manipulation, which is understandable, because the vast majority of people nowadays is as well. I was for the larger part of my life, and even as I have disconnected myself as much as possible, I too still get affected by that contamination, unfortunately.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Jun 2024 21:37:40 UTC No. 16260287
>>16259382
>HAHAHAHA, are you serious?
>That guy is obviously not mentally healthy, come the fuck on.
Nice cope, but he is successful and you are a failure
Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 02:50:58 UTC No. 16260577
>>16241635
LOL!
Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 19:35:17 UTC No. 16261792
>>16251949
sex is enjoyable because its a reproductive act. the fact that you only look at it means of receiving pleasure for yourself explains why nobody is interested in having a relationship with you.
Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 19:55:41 UTC No. 16261833
>>16246505
Women take the dog-pill more than scientists do. Just think about all the lonely women on SSRI's out there letting their dog lick their pussy and fuck them lol.
Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 20:08:40 UTC No. 16261856
>>16259125
How many scientists do you work with or have worked with in total?
Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 22:06:00 UTC No. 16262022
>>16259382
This poster has actual autism lol
Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 22:35:04 UTC No. 16262057
Anonymous at Mon, 1 Jul 2024 21:23:07 UTC No. 16263323
>>16261833
scientists fuck dogs, its undeniable, theres been a number of them arrested for fucking dogs. scientists are a tiny percentage of the population, but they're the majority of people being arrested for fucking dogs
Anonymous at Tue, 2 Jul 2024 17:06:39 UTC No. 16264526
>>16241635
>prove conclusively that scientists are low IQ
yes
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 05:31:59 UTC No. 16265508
>>16261792
this, sex needs to be understood on a scientific basis to be properly enjoyed. remember that you're just some temporarily animated compose and that its your DNA that does the real thinking and then you'll understand why its so desirable.
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 08:36:09 UTC No. 16265667
>>16244935
The fact that we've got ""professionals"" functionally denying pic rel here in the west is still so insane to me after all these years
Seamlessly fitting into a sick society like this is not a good thing
Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 21:59:34 UTC No. 16266722
>>16265667
They do it because their paychecks depend on them doing it
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 17:59:35 UTC No. 16267862
>>16241635
>I CAN'T BREED
they should try keeping themselves in decent physical condition instead of narcissistically presuming they're too important to do that. their delusions that they're exempt from the rules everyone else is subject to because they're wannabe intellectuals only demonstrates their intellectual inferiority.
look at the revolting slob in this pic, thats what an average science nerd looks like
Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 21:38:29 UTC No. 16268118
>>16254285
Is that Onision? holy kek
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 16:07:51 UTC No. 16269095
>>16251969
lol
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 16:37:27 UTC No. 16269131
>>16241635
Why would they get laid? They're inferior to those with better looks and social skills. Better to bow out of history with dignity than to try to obtain something they can't.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 16:46:00 UTC No. 16269141
Scientists get laid all the time.
The real question is, why do you small gaggle of morons samefag each other for weeks on end, spewing the same tired anti science talking points over and over and over. The rage you feel is pathetic and sad.
Evolution is true and your God isn't real. Clustering together on /sci/ samefagging, making anti-science posts, doesn't stop evolution from being true and religion from dying. It's over. You lost. Accept reality.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 17:34:23 UTC No. 16269206
>>16263323
What were the dogs wearing?
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 17:40:29 UTC No. 16269213
>>16241635
"What women want". It's not hard to figure out what kind of face women are attracted to. The hard part is acquiring that face. Plastic surgery can only do so much and it costs millions of dollars.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 18:53:25 UTC No. 16269312
>>16269141
Someone is mildly annoyed. You need medications.
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 20:04:37 UTC No. 16270669
>>16269206
what difference does that make?
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 22:00:23 UTC No. 16270808
Just find a girl with a compatible MHC, it's really that simple