Women Love Cucking Men

Woman enjoying cucking a man.
Woman enjoying cucking a man.

To be honest, we do not really know the dynamics involved here. I would assume that the AFC pathetically holding the woman on his shoulders is some friendzoned guy named Cuck or something. She is reaching down, perched on Cucky’s shoulders, leaning down into Chad’s luscious lips. Chad is on his tiptoes, reaching up to the woman and kissing her on the lips. His sense of conquest is total. Look at the expression of Cucky, the guy with the girl on his shoulders. Look at how sad that expression is! Damn that is sad, man!

I think Cucky actually thought he had a chance with this chick, but she has just been leading him on and friendzoning him. In other words, this is not a happy sort of consensual friendzoning. This is the painful nonconsensual friendzoning with the nice guy pursuing this woman puppy-dog like as a love/sex interest and the woman dragging or leading him along, putting him off, aggressively friendzoning him, etc. Hence Cucky’s abject humiliation in this heartwrenching photo.

This woman is utterly delighted in this act. I am assuming that 80% of the pleasure she is deriving here is not from smooching Chad, but instead is  sadistic pleasure in cucking/friendzoning this poor shmuck on whose shoulders she is perched. It’s probably a lot more fun for her to kiss Chad while sitting on top of Cucky than it is to kiss Chad alone. Look at her smirking! That smirk is for Cucky, not for Chad! She is smirking because she is humiliating Cucky and depriving him of affection. She loves doing this!

She is being a typical hypergamous female by making males compete for her affection. Chad is for all intents and purposes putting down Cucky here, and the fact that he is in effect openly insulting Cucky actually makes this woman  like Chad a lot more. She loves to see Chad humiliate this other poor sod!

Women actually enjoy seeing men fight over them.

To be fair, men love seeing women fight over them too, but most men will live their entire lives without being fought over by women because women only fight over the top 20%, the Alphas named Chad. And of course unscrupulous Chads delight in pitting one woman against the other as they fight over him. To him it’s all great entertainment. Get out the popcorn, Chad!

In every fight, there’s a winner and a loser. The winner has nothing to celebrate without the existence of the loser. In days of yore, men probably fought each other to the death over princesses. Now men fight over women, and when Cucky gets friendzoned while Chad wins her affection, Cucky’s tragic loss actually increases Chad’s status in the eyes of the woman.

Evolutionary Psychology 101.

Human nature is cruel!

And we have one more bitter difference between Alpha and Beta men:

Betas fight other men (You pussy! You bitch!) and get bloodied to obtain access to women who sit back and enjoy the show passing the popcorn and cheering on the gladiators.

and

Women fight other women (Mrow!) and get scratched up to obtain access to Alphas, while Chad sits back and enjoys the view, chuckling to himself and stirring his drink.

Get it?

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

7 thoughts on “Women Love Cucking Men”

  1. The theory of social dominance hierarchy is a cultural artifact of the human political imagination running amok in the world. The erstwhile testable hypothesis that socially-dominant individuals produce more offspring, on average, than socially-submissive individuals produce has never been tested (in more than 80 years, already); so there’s no experimental data to show any differential reproductive success for socially dominant individuals.

    If there is no differential reproductive success for socially-dominant individuals, then there’s no evolutionary history of genetic heritability behind what would then be the strictly cultural phenomenon of social dominance hierarchy.

    And even if social dominance were a heritable trait, the alleles at issue ought properly to be recessive to the socially-submissive alleles in order for a given population of social animals to maintain a state of balanced heterozygosity within the margins of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Otherwise, both homozygous dominant and homozygous recessive genotypes would accumulate on whichever chromosome might host the supposedly dominant alleles for social dominance.

    Given that most maladaptive mutations discovered so far are recessive alleles, it follows that any genetically dominant allele for social dominance ought to have precipitated the eventual, inevitable extinction of whichever population of social animals had carried those dominant alleles due to congenital defects and diseases, inbreeding depression and the like.

    With the notable exception of the hereditary aristocracies of Europe, there’s no other evidence for that particular pathway to extinction prevailing amongst the remainder of humankind — unless one simply must conflate such cultural artifacts as global thermonuclear war, global warming, or the global convergence of labor prices with some presumably maladaptive genetic heritage from our shared human prehistory.

  2. Yea, I agree Evil people have $ome reason to keep us in the dark. No one does the stuff I see on the porno sites. Do you expect me to believe that children come from male and female brushing against each other? Everybody knows that the Stork brings boys and little girls come from the cabbage patch. No female ever brushed against me and I’m 57.

    1. Do porn stars produce more offspring than modest people produce?
      Do you expect me to believe that sexual intercourse with some given female performed in front of a zoologist proves the paternity of that female’s offspring?
      Exactly how many socially-dominant individuals do you think there are in, say, China, India, Indonesia and the like?
      Clearly you’ve never thought about this. And that’s symptomatic of semiotic dementia.

      1. “Semiotic dementia.”

        Second time you used that one. Clever but overused already. You’re making genius trite, and that’s very disrespectful of higher thinking.

        Got to space the sui generis phrases out a bit.

        Listen up Diane honey. I am a very sensitive boy and you just hurt my feelings. As a matter of fact you made me cry. I am bawling my eyes out right now, and I might have to call Mom to calm me down.

        You don’t get to bash me on my own site, baby. Violation of Comments Rules. Keep it up sweetheart, and I will ban that hot little ass of yours.

        Smooch!

        XOXOXOXOXOXOXO

        1. I refuse to believe a single word you just wrote.

          How’s that for trivializing genius by way of disrespecting higher learning?

      2. Your objections are ad hominem. Your comments policy specifically rules out ad hominem arguments. Ad hominem argument is a well-known logical fallacy. Draw the necessary conclusions . . . If you can.

  3. I detect only one fallacy in the anti-evo-psych spiel involving elision of a necessary premise or two–which will presently be supplied.

    Maladaptive traits that are recessive are checked in most randomly-mated populations by the predominance of heterozygous genotypes within the margins of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Maladaptive traits that are genetically dominant are both rare and harmful to those individuals who inherit the homozygous dominant genotype.

    In any case, the very heritability of social dominance in the first place remains a separate issue from the genetic dominance ranking of the alleles presumed in the hypothesis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.