Debunking the concept of "Male Entitlement"

[Q_Mooseknuckle]

A common phrase I see uttered by normies when it comes to us is "male entitlement". It's reached the point where they even made a whole movie about it (Obsession 2026).

Scientific evidence and an article by the National Institute of Health both determine love to be a fundamental human need which is on par with food and water. What happens when your body does not receive food or water? You die in a rather painful manner. The same thing occurs when you suffer from social isolation and being unloved with the only difference being that the resulting death is prolonged and more painful and will generally manifest in the form of disease rather than full organ shutdown.

This means that on a societal level we are being forcibly starved by half of the population. When our government sees it's citizens working 3 jobs and still being unable to afford groceries or rent does it tell them to work harder and be less entitled? No, it gives them food stamps and housing subsidies because the social contract requires the government to look after citizens and provide us with equity in exchange for our obedience of the law. To be loved romantically is a need just like being fed and sheltered and when that need is not being met despite a reasonable amount of effort being made by the person suffering from deprivation to try and achieve it, our government becomes responsible for providing it to us because that's part of the social contract. Even a homeless person can receive food stamps, sleep in a shelter, shower at a YMCA, and get water from the drinking fountains at public institutions. Yet average-high IQ men are unable to fulfil their emotional intimacy needs.

A commonly proposed solution I see from normies is that we need to form more platonic bonds especially with other men. While the case can be made that male solidarity on a societal scale is virtually nonexistent the existence of male communities and platonic male bonds still remains prevalent and this forum is evidence of that. We are men, many of us are good friends and would be closer friends if we didn't have to worry about opsec, and we have solidarity yet we suffer the effects of starvation more than anyone else despite many men in romantic relationships often lacking any serious friendships beyond their partner while we have an entire network of fellow men at our fingertips. Experts generally agree that platonic bonds are NOT a suitable replacement for romantic bonds and this means no amount of platonic friendship or male bonding will replace the love between a man and a woman. The idea that we just need to make more friends is a desperate distraction by our leaders and the loudest normie voices to pretend that they care about us when in reality what we need is a romantic relationship with a woman.

We are not entitled for being rightfully enraged at the mass starvation that we are being forced into, not when many of us have done everything we were told to do by normies and were still deprived of what we needed. The social contract is broken and this means we don't owe anyone our obedience or civility until our needs are met. This can be resolved peacefully and ethically but our governments need to actually prove they give a shit about us and have our best interests in mind, no more empty promises, no more blaming us, and no more putting women and immigrants on a pedestal.

[General Alek]

This is quite a thesis

[Massimo]

Life is hard without romance or sex.

[Interferon]

even serfs and peasants had love

[SonOfElliotRodger]

You are absolutely right comrade. Sex and love is a basic human need much like food and water.

Being starved of sex and love is like being deprived of food and water.

Try telling that to scumbag rage pig normies who will only respond with anger, fury and gas lighting.