I don't know why bluepillers are so afraid to admit that women are sexually attracted to good looking men, and not that man's EQ score or the number of soup kitchens he volunteers at per week.

It's ironically and silmutaneously misogynistic and misandrist to treat women as holier-than-thou angels who only reward paragons of virtue with sex, whereas men are barbaric beasts who fuck everything with tits and a hole. Women are human, not angels. Men are human, not beasts.

It's genuinely impressive how skilled bluepillers are at weaving such a ludicrous web of constant hypocrisy and contradiction over a very simple topic. They pull off all these mental gymnastics saying how women are attracted to a man's self-esteem, his aura, his vibe, his confidence, his politics, his hobbies, his ambition, etc. and women are able to figure all of this out about a man without even talking to him, she's just able to intuit it and sense it through some kinda feminine sixth sense.

It's such a ludicrous belief system that requires constant irrationality to uphold, when it could be all explained so simply: heterosexual people want to have sex with people who look sexy of the opposite gender. If you do not look sexy, then people will not want to have sex with you. How hard can that be to understand?

Why is that a controversial thing to say? Why is such a simple idea considered such a controversial blackpill that gets me banned and gets my posts locked and deleted wherever I post it? Why do people think I hate women when I say that? Wouldn't that mean I hate men aswell? Wouldn't that mean bluepillers hate men for thinking we have unrealistic beauty standards? Make it make sense.