User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 1:19:36 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, it isn't. It's called "staying under the assholes' radar" - all the better to point surreptitiously abd snicker ever so softly - by very subtle changes in appearance, posture, and mannerisms. "Peacocking" is about attracting attention; SUTARing is about avoiding it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lol @ "The Red Pill." A bunch of creepy ass misogynist basement dwellers who are obsessed with sex and why they don't get an Here's a hint: if all you want out of a relationship with a female is to find some place to wet your dick as quickly as humanly possible, don't be surprised when you find yourself in the company of women with an equally fucked up mentality. I'll admit that my experiences with women are quite alien to those of the average horn dog for one simple reason: the friends in my life who are female (all of which are marriage material, one of which I'm dating) would't touch one with a 10 foot pole. The average horn dog will never know them. He will never know girls like that exist because they avoid men like him. Thus his understanding of women will always be skewed (much as mine is, but in a very different way). That is, I think, "The Red Pill" in a nutshell. Naamah and I said exactly this in a thread exactly like this one several months ago. If I want to be seen, I will be. And I don't have to make a spectacle of myself, either. It's largely a matter of facial expression and body language, maybe slightly different makeup. It's mostly projecting that you know who you are and where you're going. Having an air of being amused, slightly above it all, just watching the monkeys at the zoo will work too. I'm not saying I'm going to have a crowd around me; I won't. But they'll be aware of me. If I don't want to be noticed, a guy's apt to trip over me without seeing me. Genius. Works for guys, too. TC It's called peacocking. But I imagine Pj wou.dnt approve of it because it's game 101. No, it isn't. It's called "staying under the assholes' radar" - all the better to point surreptitiously abd snicker ever so softly - by very subtle changes in appearance, posture, and mannerisms. "Peacocking" is about attracting attention; SUTARing is about avoiding it. If you "want to be seen" you will peacock, by your own admission. Just like the PUA, yet you condemn the PUA for doing it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 1:25:46 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Umm, maybe not really. Is it all that unusual for losers to change the parameters of a game so they can tell themselves they're winning? This whole PUA /MGTOW scenario is like a Dungeons and Dragons version of real intimate relationships. I'm telling you: those Japanese sex dolls can't come to market fast enough to suit me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The red pill stuff is straight forward with no sugar coating. That alone scares a lot of men who aren't doing so well in life in general and women who know how the cards are dealt out in the real world. Any woman so says she isn't interested in a man who is successful, has good social skills, and is healthy (fit and in shape) is lying, period. They are hard wired to be attracted the best male they can get just like we are attracted to signs of female fertility. The very concept of "best man" is weird. It's not like we can all agree on who the "best man" is. You look for the best man and woman for you. I like Sam Elliot, she likes Justin Bieber. I chase a carpenter, she chases an accountant. We're going to 'rate' men differently. I assume you guys are the same. I'm not going to pass up a super compatible, relatively broke, Danny Trejo lookalike because I can get a handsome lawyer, that's nice but has nothing in common with me, just because the majority of women would say the Lawyer is waaaayyyy better. It just seems so weird to pretend there's a KBB of SMV, and that lovers stick to that and that it's some kind of competition. 'I got an orthodontist with a sixpack, you got a park ranger 10 years your senior, you lose!". So bizarre. Umm, maybe not really. Is it all that unusual for losers to change the parameters of a game so they can tell themselves they're winning? This whole PUA /MGTOW scenario is like a Dungeons and Dragons version of real intimate relationships. I'm telling you: those Japanese sex dolls can't come to market fast enough to suit me. You're right, it does sound like D&D. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 1:31:56 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The very concept of "best man" is weird. It's not like we can all agree on who the "best man" is. You look for the best man and woman for you. I like Sam Elliot, she likes Justin Bieber. I chase a carpenter, she chases an accountant. We're going to 'rate' men differently. I assume you guys are the same. I'm not going to pass up a super compatible, relatively broke, Danny Trejo lookalike because I can get a handsome lawyer, that's nice but has nothing in common with me, just because the majority of women would say the Lawyer is waaaayyyy better. It just seems so weird to pretend there's a KBB of SMV, and that lovers stick to that and that it's some kind of competition. 'I got an orthodontist with a sixpack, you got a park ranger 10 years your senior, you lose!". So bizarre. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The red pill stuff is straight forward with no sugar coating. That alone scares a lot of men who aren't doing so well in life in general and women who know how the cards are dealt out in the real world. Any woman so says she isn't interested in a man who is successful, has good social skills, and is healthy (fit and in shape) is lying, period. They are hard wired to be attracted the best male they can get just like we are attracted to signs of female fertility. The very concept of "best man" is weird. It's not like we can all agree on who the "best man" is. You look for the best man and woman for you. I like Sam Elliot, she likes Justin Bieber. I chase a carpenter, she chases an accountant. We're going to 'rate' men differently. I assume you guys are the same. I'm not going to pass up a super compatible, relatively broke, Danny Trejo lookalike because I can get a handsome lawyer, that's nice but has nothing in common with me, just because the majority of women would say the Lawyer is waaaayyyy better. It just seems so weird to pretend there's a KBB of SMV, and that lovers stick to that and that it's some kind of competition. 'I got an orthodontist with a sixpack, you got a park ranger 10 years your senior, you lose!". So bizarre. Yes, no two minds are alike but at the end of the day women go for what they perceive as the best man possible for them. In a low income area that man could be the local dope dealer with the suv sitting on 22 inch wheels. His target audience will vastly differ from that of a high smv man living in the suburbs making a legit living. What if that danny trejo lookalike was weak, effeminate, and had poor social skills? Would you still view him as compatible? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 1:35:57 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Umm, maybe not really. Is it all that unusual for losers to change the parameters of a game so they can tell themselves they're winning? This whole PUA /MGTOW scenario is like a Dungeons and Dragons version of real intimate relationships. I'm telling you: those Japanese sex dolls can't come to market fast enough to suit me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The red pill stuff is straight forward with no sugar coating. That alone scares a lot of men who aren't doing so well in life in general and women who know how the cards are dealt out in the real world. Any woman so says she isn't interested in a man who is successful, has good social skills, and is healthy (fit and in shape) is lying, period. They are hard wired to be attracted the best male they can get just like we are attracted to signs of female fertility. The very concept of "best man" is weird. It's not like we can all agree on who the "best man" is. You look for the best man and woman for you. I like Sam Elliot, she likes Justin Bieber. I chase a carpenter, she chases an accountant. We're going to 'rate' men differently. I assume you guys are the same. I'm not going to pass up a super compatible, relatively broke, Danny Trejo lookalike because I can get a handsome lawyer, that's nice but has nothing in common with me, just because the majority of women would say the Lawyer is waaaayyyy better. It just seems so weird to pretend there's a KBB of SMV, and that lovers stick to that and that it's some kind of competition. 'I got an orthodontist with a sixpack, you got a park ranger 10 years your senior, you lose!". So bizarre. Umm, maybe not really. Is it all that unusual for losers to change the parameters of a game so they can tell themselves they're winning? This whole PUA /MGTOW scenario is like a Dungeons and Dragons version of real intimate relationships. I'm telling you: those Japanese sex dolls can't come to market fast enough to suit me. Mgtow is a whole different game. Those are guys who are just writing intimate relationships with women in general off. Also, PUA is not the same as red pill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 1:37:19 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're right, it does sound like D&D. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The red pill stuff is straight forward with no sugar coating. That alone scares a lot of men who aren't doing so well in life in general and women who know how the cards are dealt out in the real world. Any woman so says she isn't interested in a man who is successful, has good social skills, and is healthy (fit and in shape) is lying, period. They are hard wired to be attracted the best male they can get just like we are attracted to signs of female fertility. The very concept of "best man" is weird. It's not like we can all agree on who the "best man" is. You look for the best man and woman for you. I like Sam Elliot, she likes Justin Bieber. I chase a carpenter, she chases an accountant. We're going to 'rate' men differently. I assume you guys are the same. I'm not going to pass up a super compatible, relatively broke, Danny Trejo lookalike because I can get a handsome lawyer, that's nice but has nothing in common with me, just because the majority of women would say the Lawyer is waaaayyyy better. It just seems so weird to pretend there's a KBB of SMV, and that lovers stick to that and that it's some kind of competition. 'I got an orthodontist with a sixpack, you got a park ranger 10 years your senior, you lose!". So bizarre. Umm, maybe not really. Is it all that unusual for losers to change the parameters of a game so they can tell themselves they're winning? This whole PUA /MGTOW scenario is like a Dungeons and Dragons version of real intimate relationships. I'm telling you: those Japanese sex dolls can't come to market fast enough to suit me. You're right, it does sound like D&D.  post images
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 1:41:10 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're right, it does sound like D&D. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The red pill stuff is straight forward with no sugar coating. That alone scares a lot of men who aren't doing so well in life in general and women who know how the cards are dealt out in the real world. Any woman so says she isn't interested in a man who is successful, has good social skills, and is healthy (fit and in shape) is lying, period. They are hard wired to be attracted the best male they can get just like we are attracted to signs of female fertility. The very concept of "best man" is weird. It's not like we can all agree on who the "best man" is. You look for the best man and woman for you. I like Sam Elliot, she likes Justin Bieber. I chase a carpenter, she chases an accountant. We're going to 'rate' men differently. I assume you guys are the same. I'm not going to pass up a super compatible, relatively broke, Danny Trejo lookalike because I can get a handsome lawyer, that's nice but has nothing in common with me, just because the majority of women would say the Lawyer is waaaayyyy better. It just seems so weird to pretend there's a KBB of SMV, and that lovers stick to that and that it's some kind of competition. 'I got an orthodontist with a sixpack, you got a park ranger 10 years your senior, you lose!". So bizarre. Umm, maybe not really. Is it all that unusual for losers to change the parameters of a game so they can tell themselves they're winning? This whole PUA /MGTOW scenario is like a Dungeons and Dragons version of real intimate relationships. I'm telling you: those Japanese sex dolls can't come to market fast enough to suit me. You're right, it does sound like D&D. How bad 50 shades of grey books screwed up an entire generation is another story/thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 1:49:14 AM EDT
[#7]
Just finished the blog. It sounds like more victim mentality shit which is typical of the dudes involved in the "red pill" type of conversations I've seen online. These fags consider themselves to be alpha males yet they continuously dwell on how they think women are shitting on them, or they dwell on the behavior of hoodrat bitches. That is not alpha behavior.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 1:55:19 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you "want to be seen" you will peacock, by your own admission. Just like the PUA, yet you condemn the PUA for doing it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Naamah and I said exactly this in a thread exactly like this one several months ago. If I want to be seen, I will be. And I don't have to make a spectacle of myself, either. It's largely a matter of facial expression and body language, maybe slightly different makeup. It's mostly projecting that you know who you are and where you're going. Having an air of being amused, slightly above it all, just watching the monkeys at the zoo will work too. I'm not saying I'm going to have a crowd around me; I won't. But they'll be aware of me. If I don't want to be noticed, a guy's apt to trip over me without seeing me. Genius. Works for guys, too. TC It's called peacocking. But I imagine Pj wou.dnt approve of it because it's game 101. No, it isn't. It's called "staying under the assholes' radar" - all the better to point surreptitiously abd snicker ever so softly - by very subtle changes in appearance, posture, and mannerisms. "Peacocking" is about attracting attention; SUTARing is about avoiding it. If you "want to be seen" you will peacock, by your own admission. Just like the PUA, yet you condemn the PUA for doing it. Nope. Pay attention this time. The other guy said men like you don't know women like me exist because we avoid you. I generally like people and enjoying interacting with them. I don't go through life making visual spectacle of myself, but I'm not trying to be invisible either. Normally, I'm normal - pleasant, approachable, without be intrusive. It's only around people who I don't want be bothered with - people beggin on corners or handing out religious tracts or men like you, for example - that I modify my posture and mannerisms in order to avoid being noticed. Pretty simple, really. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 2:00:09 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mgtow is a whole different game. Those are guys who are just writing intimate relationships with women in general off. Also, PUA is not the same as red pill. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The red pill stuff is straight forward with no sugar coating. That alone scares a lot of men who aren't doing so well in life in general and women who know how the cards are dealt out in the real world. Any woman so says she isn't interested in a man who is successful, has good social skills, and is healthy (fit and in shape) is lying, period. They are hard wired to be attracted the best male they can get just like we are attracted to signs of female fertility. The very concept of "best man" is weird. It's not like we can all agree on who the "best man" is. You look for the best man and woman for you. I like Sam Elliot, she likes Justin Bieber. I chase a carpenter, she chases an accountant. We're going to 'rate' men differently. I assume you guys are the same. I'm not going to pass up a super compatible, relatively broke, Danny Trejo lookalike because I can get a handsome lawyer, that's nice but has nothing in common with me, just because the majority of women would say the Lawyer is waaaayyyy better. It just seems so weird to pretend there's a KBB of SMV, and that lovers stick to that and that it's some kind of competition. 'I got an orthodontist with a sixpack, you got a park ranger 10 years your senior, you lose!". So bizarre. Umm, maybe not really. Is it all that unusual for losers to change the parameters of a game so they can tell themselves they're winning? This whole PUA /MGTOW scenario is like a Dungeons and Dragons version of real intimate relationships. I'm telling you: those Japanese sex dolls can't come to market fast enough to suit me. Mgtow is a whole different game. Those are guys who are just writing intimate relationships with women in general off. Also, PUA is not the same as red pill. Sorry. I never bother to figure out all the D&D shit either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 2:01:23 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're getting a huge bump from having a wife that is way fucking out of your league. Without her you're a solid 4.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
SMV = Sexual Market Value. When a person is seen in public with an attractive and charming partner, their SMV goes up, meaning they become more attractive to other potential partners. the TRP calculator says I'm a 7 You're getting a huge bump from having a wife that is way fucking out of your league. Without her you're a solid 4. Well look who's talking |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 2:02:58 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just finished the blog. It sounds like more victim mentality shit which is typical of the dudes involved in the "red pill" type of conversations I've seen online. These fags consider themselves to be alpha males yet they continuously dwell on how they think women are shitting on them, or they dwell on the behavior of hoodrat bitches. That is not alpha behavior. Blogs under the red pill definition often have a whole lot of bullshit that goes waaaaaay WAAAAAAY beyond just trying to "help" men learn how to be more successful with women. They basically paint all females as feeble-minded, stupid, vapid, shallow, STD-spreading gold-digging whores. And if a woman doesn't fit that profile, if her mom doesn't, if her friends don't, it's only because they weren't given the "opportunity" yet, or they will in the future (just you wait!). Any woman who doesn't see it that way is just lying to herself. These guys have it ALL figured out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 2:03:28 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry. I never bother to figure out all the D&D shit either. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The red pill stuff is straight forward with no sugar coating. That alone scares a lot of men who aren't doing so well in life in general and women who know how the cards are dealt out in the real world. Any woman so says she isn't interested in a man who is successful, has good social skills, and is healthy (fit and in shape) is lying, period. They are hard wired to be attracted the best male they can get just like we are attracted to signs of female fertility. The very concept of "best man" is weird. It's not like we can all agree on who the "best man" is. You look for the best man and woman for you. I like Sam Elliot, she likes Justin Bieber. I chase a carpenter, she chases an accountant. We're going to 'rate' men differently. I assume you guys are the same. I'm not going to pass up a super compatible, relatively broke, Danny Trejo lookalike because I can get a handsome lawyer, that's nice but has nothing in common with me, just because the majority of women would say the Lawyer is waaaayyyy better. It just seems so weird to pretend there's a KBB of SMV, and that lovers stick to that and that it's some kind of competition. 'I got an orthodontist with a sixpack, you got a park ranger 10 years your senior, you lose!". So bizarre. Umm, maybe not really. Is it all that unusual for losers to change the parameters of a game so they can tell themselves they're winning? This whole PUA /MGTOW scenario is like a Dungeons and Dragons version of real intimate relationships. I'm telling you: those Japanese sex dolls can't come to market fast enough to suit me. Mgtow is a whole different game. Those are guys who are just writing intimate relationships with women in general off. Also, PUA is not the same as red pill. Sorry. I never bother to figure out all the D&D shit either. I'm not sure what you mean by d&d. Edit: Just read your post above regarding dungeons and dragons and googled it. I don't blame you for not trying to figure d&d out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 2:10:00 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure what you mean by d&d. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The very concept of "best man" is weird. It's not like we can all agree on who the "best man" is. You look for the best man and woman for you. I like Sam Elliot, she likes Justin Bieber. I chase a carpenter, she chases an accountant. We're going to 'rate' men differently. I assume you guys are the same. I'm not going to pass up a super compatible, relatively broke, Danny Trejo lookalike because I can get a handsome lawyer, that's nice but has nothing in common with me, just because the majority of women would say the Lawyer is waaaayyyy better. It just seems so weird to pretend there's a KBB of SMV, and that lovers stick to that and that it's some kind of competition. 'I got an orthodontist with a sixpack, you got a park ranger 10 years your senior, you lose!". So bizarre. Umm, maybe not really. Is it all that unusual for losers to change the parameters of a game so they can tell themselves they're winning? This whole PUA /MGTOW scenario is like a Dungeons and Dragons version of real intimate relationships. I'm telling you: those Japanese sex dolls can't come to market fast enough to suit me. Mgtow is a whole different game. Those are guys who are just writing intimate relationships with women in general off. Also, PUA is not the same as red pill. Sorry. I never bother to figure out all the D&D shit either. I'm not sure what you mean by d&d. In my post that you responded to: Dungeons and Dragons |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 2:13:46 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure what you mean by d&d. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sorry. I never bother to figure out all the D&D shit either. I'm not sure what you mean by d&d. She's referring to the fact that the PUA/game theory worldview comes across like someone trying to assign numbers and mechanics to a theoretical situation, like how Dungeons and Dragons has rules for using the roll of dice to simulate combat. Except instead of imaginary situations like killing a dragon with a mace, you're trying to use these numbers rules for a real-life outcome, like getting a chick at the bar to suck your dick. Instead of being a level 59 Paladin, you're an Alpha Male. The details are different, but the obsessive overthinking and breathless expostulation is the same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 2:22:34 AM EDT
[#15]
Dudes Who Refer To Women As "Females": a source you can trust for thoughtful, evenhanded information about women.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 2:30:52 AM EDT
[#16]
If that pussy author put as much effort into changing his fucked social skills as he does his philosophy/statistics major, he'd be getting fucked on the regular.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 2:35:42 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
She's referring to the fact that the PUA/game theory worldview comes across like someone trying to assign numbers and mechanics to a theoretical situation, like how Dungeons and Dragons has rules for using the roll of dice to simulate combat. Except instead of imaginary situations like killing a dragon with a mace, you're trying to use these numbers rules for a real-life outcome, like getting a chick at the bar to suck your dick. Instead of being a level 59 Paladin, you're an Alpha Male. The details are different, but the obsessive overthinking and breathless expostulation is the same. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sorry. I never bother to figure out all the D&D shit either. I'm not sure what you mean by d&d. She's referring to the fact that the PUA/game theory worldview comes across like someone trying to assign numbers and mechanics to a theoretical situation, like how Dungeons and Dragons has rules for using the roll of dice to simulate combat. Except instead of imaginary situations like killing a dragon with a mace, you're trying to use these numbers rules for a real-life outcome, like getting a chick at the bar to suck your dick. Instead of being a level 59 Paladin, you're an Alpha Male. The details are different, but the obsessive overthinking and breathless expostulation is the same. Yeah, what you said. I gotta say: I enjoyed A Beautiful Mind, but this game theory shit has gotten out of hand. I'm married now, but in years past, my relationship strategy was fairly simple: Find a nice man, be nice to him. Pay my own way; fuck him relentlessly. It seemed simple enough and it kept me in congenial LTRs for the most part of twenty-five years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 2:45:49 AM EDT
[#18]
I think that a lot of the problems men and women have in this nation comes from the way women are treated like princesses while they instead get to treat men like shit and still get 50% plus alimony plus the kids when they file for divorce.
Change that bullshit up and people, especially families, might start to have good relationships again 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 2:49:59 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think that a lot of the problems men and women have in this nation comes from the way women are treated like princesses while they instead get to treat men like shit and still get 50% plus alimony plus the kids when they file for divorce. Change that bullshit up and people, especially families, might start to have good relationships again It's part of the problem. Men who put up with shit in order to get laid are the other part. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 3:02:49 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
SMV = Sexual Market Value. When a person is seen in public with an attractive and charming partner, their SMV goes up, meaning they become more attractive to other potential partners. Pre-Selection: When a potential mate has been given a stamp of approval via your peers finding that person attractive and possibly seeking to date/hook up with them. This drives SMV higher. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 3:03:20 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Blogs under the red pill definition often have a whole lot of bullshit that goes waaaaaay WAAAAAAY beyond just trying to "help" men learn how to be more successful with women. They basically paint all females as feeble-minded, stupid, vapid, shallow, STD-spreading gold-digging whores. And if a woman doesn't fit that profile, if her mom doesn't, if her friends don't, it's only because they weren't given the "opportunity" yet, or they will in the future (just you wait!). Any woman who doesn't see it that way is just lying to herself. These guys have it ALL figured out. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Just finished the blog. It sounds like more victim mentality shit which is typical of the dudes involved in the "red pill" type of conversations I've seen online. These fags consider themselves to be alpha males yet they continuously dwell on how they think women are shitting on them, or they dwell on the behavior of hoodrat bitches. That is not alpha behavior. Blogs under the red pill definition often have a whole lot of bullshit that goes waaaaaay WAAAAAAY beyond just trying to "help" men learn how to be more successful with women. They basically paint all females as feeble-minded, stupid, vapid, shallow, STD-spreading gold-digging whores. And if a woman doesn't fit that profile, if her mom doesn't, if her friends don't, it's only because they weren't given the "opportunity" yet, or they will in the future (just you wait!). Any woman who doesn't see it that way is just lying to herself. These guys have it ALL figured out. The really sad part is how much of the membership here eats that stuff up. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 3:04:56 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unfortunately he failed to write about the true women like Jane that got pregnant.  I have a 27 year old niece that is identical to Jane except she has two baby daddies. Why do women jump into these threads and defend one another vs attacking the women that behave in ways that give you a bad name? It seems more logical to address the problem children vs defending the exceptions...unless the exceptions aren't that exceptional. Just an observation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 3:07:30 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In the medical field, once they've bagged a MD, PA, pharmacist, they probably wont want to give that up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
May be true for some girls I have noticed as a 29 year old single guy in the medical field, most of the young, attractive girls (20-25 or so) I work with/around, or just generally know from school etc. have already settled down. I personally have never really met any of the girls described, save for a couple of girls I knew in high school who used to be hot, and think they still are despite the past 10 years not being kind to them at all. In the medical field, once they've bagged a MD, PA, pharmacist, they probably wont want to give that up. Chris Rock, the great philosopher, does a good bit on how women can't go backwards in the SMV world of relationships...they seek to date upwards. Men can't go backwards in the sexual world...gotta be better than the last one. Its a funny skit but kinda true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 3:10:21 AM EDT
[#24]
Wow, mental masterbation meets philosophy meets statistics. Somebody's putting WAY too much thought into this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 3:19:56 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow, mental masterbation meets philosophy meets statistics. Somebody's putting WAY too much thought into this. Stonehenge wasn't built in a day 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 4:05:10 AM EDT
[#26]
I was an alpha, now I am a proud beta. But beta only in age and money. I can't surf fish or catch tuna off a pier or bridge, but I go farther out to sea and reel in a big one. Just not frequently
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 4:56:37 AM EDT
[#27]
Universities to the rescue http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/01/us-university-offers-course-for-men-to-deconstruct-toxic-masculi/
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 5:09:38 AM EDT
[#28]
I've read this type of thing as "sevenitis".
How the "sevens" (7 out of 10 on the hotness scale) get a lot of attention from men, because they are more attainable. Then because of that attention, they begin to think they are more valuable than they are. Eh, I don't think it's universal, there are definitely exceptions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 6:24:47 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why do women jump into these threads and defend one another vs attacking the women that behave in ways that give you a bad name? It seems more logical to address the problem children vs defending the exceptions...unless the exceptions aren't that exceptional. Just an observation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Unfortunately he failed to write about the true women like Jane that got pregnant. I have a 27 year old niece that is identical to Jane except she has two baby daddies. Why do women jump into these threads and defend one another vs attacking the women that behave in ways that give you a bad name? It seems more logical to address the problem children vs defending the exceptions...unless the exceptions aren't that exceptional. Just an observation. Probably because your "theory" is an utter crock of shit constructed from whole cloth by whiney bitchmale losers, not even rising to the level of junk science, which says that women are universally feeble minded creatures driven by evolutionary psychology to act in ways inimical to men's well-being. By insisting this patent absurdity represents reality, you only alienate and antagonize untold millions of women who, loving their husbands, sons, and brothers, would gladly support addressing men's legitimate grievances, but resent being lumped together with all other women as congenitally evil by a bunch of men solely because their hormones cause them want to have sex with more women than there are women who want to have sex with them. Just an observation TL;DR: Women don't jump into these threads to attack the "bad" women, because according to your ilk, all of us are "bad" except for maybe a few who you refer to a mythical creature purported to exist, but never seen. STL;DR: Your indisputable misogyny makes you your own worse enemy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 6:36:02 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Probably because your "theory" is an utter crock of shit constructed from whole cloth by whiney bitchmale losers, not even rising to the level of junk science, which says that women are universally feeble minded creatures driven by evolutionary psychology to act in ways inimical to men's well-being. By insisting this patent absurdity represents reality, you only alienate and antagonize untold millions of women who, loving their husbands, sons, and brothers, would gladly support addressing men's legitimate grievances, but resent being lumped together with all other women as congenitally evil by a bunch of men solely because their hormones cause them want to have sex with more women than there are women who want to have sex with them. Just an observation TL;DL: Women don't jump into these threads to attack the "bad" women because according to your ilk, we're all bad. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Unfortunately he failed to write about the true women like Jane that got pregnant. I have a 27 year old niece that is identical to Jane except she has two baby daddies. Why do women jump into these threads and defend one another vs attacking the women that behave in ways that give you a bad name? It seems more logical to address the problem children vs defending the exceptions...unless the exceptions aren't that exceptional. Just an observation. Probably because your "theory" is an utter crock of shit constructed from whole cloth by whiney bitchmale losers, not even rising to the level of junk science, which says that women are universally feeble minded creatures driven by evolutionary psychology to act in ways inimical to men's well-being. By insisting this patent absurdity represents reality, you only alienate and antagonize untold millions of women who, loving their husbands, sons, and brothers, would gladly support addressing men's legitimate grievances, but resent being lumped together with all other women as congenitally evil by a bunch of men solely because their hormones cause them want to have sex with more women than there are women who want to have sex with them. Just an observation TL;DL: Women don't jump into these threads to attack the "bad" women because according to your ilk, we're all bad. Wow...you couldn't hit that stereotype any harder if you tried. When confronted with a hard mirror, women will often resort to ridicule, question the manhood of anyone who disagrees, or say they must be afraid. It's as comical as it is predictable. Theory looks pretty accurate with a few unicorn level exceptions. It's not my theory but I'm honest enough to see the world as it is. Marriage is a shitty deal for men. Men see it and are walking away in record numbers. The ones staying behind are learning the hard way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 6:42:27 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow...you couldn't hit that stereotype any harder if you tried. When confronted with a hard mirror, women will often resort to ridicule, question the manhood of anyone who disagrees, or say they must be afraid. It's as comical as it is predictable. Theory looks pretty accurate with a few unicorn level exceptions. It's not my theory but I'm honest enough to see the world as it is. Marriage is a shitty deal for men. Men see it and are walking away in record numbers. The ones staying behind are learning the hard way. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Unfortunately he failed to write about the true women like Jane that got pregnant. I have a 27 year old niece that is identical to Jane except she has two baby daddies. Why do women jump into these threads and defend one another vs attacking the women that behave in ways that give you a bad name? It seems more logical to address the problem children vs defending the exceptions...unless the exceptions aren't that exceptional. Just an observation. Probably because your "theory" is an utter crock of shit constructed from whole cloth by whiney bitchmale losers, not even rising to the level of junk science, which says that women are universally feeble minded creatures driven by evolutionary psychology to act in ways inimical to men's well-being. By insisting this patent absurdity represents reality, you only alienate and antagonize untold millions of women who, loving their husbands, sons, and brothers, would gladly support addressing men's legitimate grievances, but resent being lumped together with all other women as congenitally evil by a bunch of men solely because their hormones cause them want to have sex with more women than there are women who want to have sex with them. Just an observation TL;DL: Women don't jump into these threads to attack the "bad" women because according to your ilk, we're all bad. Wow...you couldn't hit that stereotype any harder if you tried. When confronted with a hard mirror, women will often resort to ridicule, question the manhood of anyone who disagrees, or say they must be afraid. It's as comical as it is predictable. Theory looks pretty accurate with a few unicorn level exceptions. It's not my theory but I'm honest enough to see the world as it is. Marriage is a shitty deal for men. Men see it and are walking away in record numbers. The ones staying behind are learning the hard way. "When confronted with a hard mirror" = "Women are as 'bad' as we say they are, with a few unicorn exceptions." That's just how she described what your ilk are saying. And you object to it? Why? She's spot on in describing what is going on here, and you're essentially agreeing with her. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 7:06:40 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Reddit, isn't that a neckbeard haven where guys all worry about "alphaness" yes? I've never seen a web forum that worries about that more than GD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 7:16:42 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Workout for 30 mins a day, become in top percentile in this nation of the obese, take your pick of ladies? Doesn't seem hard to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 7:20:24 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I know!. I had to actually read a couple paragraphs to make sure it wasn't about me. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: "Let's make a hypothetical girl: we'll call her Jane."  I know!. I had to actually read a couple paragraphs to make sure it wasn't about me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 7:28:03 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I was an alpha, now I am a proud beta. But beta only in age and money. I can't surf fish or catch tuna off a pier or bridge, but I go farther out to sea and reel in a big one. Just not frequently |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 7:28:04 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow...you couldn't hit that stereotype any harder if you tried. When confronted with a hard mirror, women will often resort to ridicule, question the manhood of anyone who disagrees, or say they must be afraid. It's as comical as it is predictable. Theory looks pretty accurate with a few unicorn level exceptions. It's not my theory but I'm honest enough to see the world as it is. Marriage is a shitty deal for men. Men see it and are walking away in record numbers. The ones staying behind are learning the hard way. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Unfortunately he failed to write about the true women like Jane that got pregnant. I have a 27 year old niece that is identical to Jane except she has two baby daddies. Why do women jump into these threads and defend one another vs attacking the women that behave in ways that give you a bad name? It seems more logical to address the problem children vs defending the exceptions...unless the exceptions aren't that exceptional. Just an observation. Probably because your "theory" is an utter crock of shit constructed from whole cloth by whiney bitchmale losers, not even rising to the level of junk science, which says that women are universally feeble minded creatures driven by evolutionary psychology to act in ways inimical to men's well-being. By insisting this patent absurdity represents reality, you only alienate and antagonize untold millions of women who, loving their husbands, sons, and brothers, would gladly support addressing men's legitimate grievances, but resent being lumped together with all other women as congenitally evil by a bunch of men solely because their hormones cause them want to have sex with more women than there are women who want to have sex with them. Just an observation TL;DL: Women don't jump into these threads to attack the "bad" women because according to your ilk, we're all bad. Wow...you couldn't hit that stereotype any harder if you tried. When confronted with a hard mirror, women will often resort to ridicule, question the manhood of anyone who disagrees, or say they must be afraid. It's as comical as it is predictable. Theory looks pretty accurate with a few unicorn level exceptions. It's not my theory but I'm honest enough to see the world as it is. Marriage is a shitty deal for men. Men see it and are walking away in record numbers. The ones staying behind are learning the hard way. Like I said ... The "theory" looks good to you because it, at once, salves your ego wounded by relationship failure, meshes with your misogyny, and provides a basis for a little liberal-style victimhood. The perfect trifecta of gender whining. Jezebel and and HeartlessBitches are full of your female equivalent. Mature, emotionally competent individuals - male and female - will find mature, emotionally competent mates. This means you're pretty much fucked and banging emotionally damaged women is probably your only option. Sad. Because it doesn't have to be this way. By the way, I'm solidly on record here as believing the family court system is biased against men. That doesn't mean hypergamy is coded into my genes. I'm happily married and will remain so until death, because I might not be much to look at; but I got loyalty like a hound dog. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 7:36:28 AM EDT
[#37]
I have a step daughter who is easily in the 80th percentile....divorced with two kids looking for Mr. Right in the 95+ group.
Clock is ticking.......this lesson is going to be tough on her. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 7:42:04 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My girl and I get a nice kick out of her childhood friends turning 30. Hot girls rode hard and put away wet gritting their teeth and settling for fat guys with jerbs And ugly girls with outstanding academic performance that couldn't cross the professional mediocrity line and can't find guys that meet their super high standards. Oh and legions of 16-25 year old dudes enjoying life swiping right on tinder while their girl drives them around in the car she bought while working and going to school. It continues to be an awesome time to have a dick at really any age below boomer. thats the irony. If you avoid marriage and kids, its pretty much risk free and there for the taking. wait. Wasn't that the point of the thread? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 7:44:01 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Was that a metaphor? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I was an alpha, now I am a proud beta. But beta only in age and money. I can't surf fish or catch tuna off a pier or bridge, but I go farther out to sea and reel in a big one. Just not frequently Was that a metaphor? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 7:48:41 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unfortunately he failed to write about the true women like Jane that got pregnant. I have a 27 year old niece that is identical to Jane except she has two baby daddies. Good point. From a biological/evolutionary standpoint, it's an excellent mating strategy by mating with high quality males and also not putting all your eggs in the same basket, and still getting financial support through the sperm donor and the state. She still has the option of settling down with a lesser guy for additional financial support and act as a safe father figure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 7:49:31 AM EDT
[#41]
you cant ever say any of this shit irl though, makes heads explode lol
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 8:09:18 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
you cant ever say any of this shit irl though, makes heads explode lol Shit, I've had half a dozen women say the same damn things to me, all of them good friends in committed long term relationships. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 8:12:01 AM EDT
[#43]
The Disney dream of meeting Prince Charming (rich, handsome, happily ever after) has disappointed many women. Sorry honey, we're only mortals and not movie or cartoon characters.
Predictive programming is messing up men too. Witness the portrayal of men as stupid and indecisive in those stupid chick flicks. Regardless of gender, the programming is intended for both parties to fail. Along with social policy, the legislation and legal precedents, it was designed to break down the family structure and as we know, it's working. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 8:18:28 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Disney dream of meeting Prince Charming (rich, handsome, happily ever after) has disappointed many women. Sorry honey, we're only mortals and not movie or cartoon characters.
I don't dispute that. There are some unrealistic expectations out there, to be sure. It also sounds to me like some guys are pissed because they are supposed to get a "7", but the 7s they want have rejected them. Those damn 6s are also not being cooperative. Damn it! Why don't these bitches know that they are obligated to not reject a certain guy when they themselves are a 7? That's not how it's supposed to work. At least that's how it sounds to me. It's like the girl isn't supposed to have her own tastes or preferences. If she's not especially beautiful, she has no right to reject certain guys. No. Right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 8:32:51 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why do women jump into these threads and defend one another vs attacking the women that behave in ways that give you a bad name? It seems more logical to address the problem children vs defending the exceptions...unless the exceptions aren't that exceptional. Just an observation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Unfortunately he failed to write about the true women like Jane that got pregnant. I have a 27 year old niece that is identical to Jane except she has two baby daddies. Why do women jump into these threads and defend one another vs attacking the women that behave in ways that give you a bad name? It seems more logical to address the problem children vs defending the exceptions...unless the exceptions aren't that exceptional. Just an observation. That's bullshit, we consistently call out individual cunts when we're presented with them. We don't buy the theory that women in general suck more than men in general and we're going to attack that too. What you're asking us to do is equivalent to us asking you to agree if we were to say "men suck, we should take advantage of our superior skills and knowledge of the game to get what we want". You'd never agree, and we'd crucify any arfemale who tried that shit before the arfmen could even get to her. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 8:34:44 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Probably because your "theory" is an utter crock of shit constructed from whole cloth by whiney bitchmale losers, not even rising to the level of junk science, which says that women are universally feeble minded creatures driven by evolutionary psychology to act in ways inimical to men's well-being. By insisting this patent absurdity represents reality, you only alienate and antagonize untold millions of women who, loving their husbands, sons, and brothers, would gladly support addressing men's legitimate grievances, but resent being lumped together with all other women as congenitally evil by a bunch of men solely because their hormones cause them want to have sex with more women than there are women who want to have sex with them. Just an observation TL;DR: Women don't jump into these threads to attack the "bad" women, because according to your ilk, all of us are "bad" except for maybe a few who you refer to a mythical creature purported to exist, but never seen. STL;DR: Your indisputable misogyny makes you your own worse enemy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Unfortunately he failed to write about the true women like Jane that got pregnant. I have a 27 year old niece that is identical to Jane except she has two baby daddies. Why do women jump into these threads and defend one another vs attacking the women that behave in ways that give you a bad name? It seems more logical to address the problem children vs defending the exceptions...unless the exceptions aren't that exceptional. Just an observation. Probably because your "theory" is an utter crock of shit constructed from whole cloth by whiney bitchmale losers, not even rising to the level of junk science, which says that women are universally feeble minded creatures driven by evolutionary psychology to act in ways inimical to men's well-being. By insisting this patent absurdity represents reality, you only alienate and antagonize untold millions of women who, loving their husbands, sons, and brothers, would gladly support addressing men's legitimate grievances, but resent being lumped together with all other women as congenitally evil by a bunch of men solely because their hormones cause them want to have sex with more women than there are women who want to have sex with them. Just an observation TL;DR: Women don't jump into these threads to attack the "bad" women, because according to your ilk, all of us are "bad" except for maybe a few who you refer to a mythical creature purported to exist, but never seen. STL;DR: Your indisputable misogyny makes you your own worse enemy. You said it better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 8:36:03 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Workout for 30 mins a day, become in top percentile in this nation of the obese, take your pick of ladies? Doesn't seem hard to me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Workout for 30 mins a day, become in top percentile in this nation of the obese, take your pick of ladies? Doesn't seem hard to me. Worked for me. 33, and poon is everywhere and easy to get. Just have to ask what flavor of STD you want that day. It's easier to say no to the crap poon and the good women do come out occasionally. Here's a hint... you won't find her at a bar. Go book shopping more often. Quoted:
Quoted:
Workout for 30 mins a day, become in top percentile in this nation of the obese, take your pick of ladies? Doesn't seem hard to me. You answered a question not asked. those that understand that blog post have no trouble getting laid. As soon as I stopped treating women the way women told me they wanted to be treated, I had access to more women than ever before. Unsolicited declarations of love. Accusations of broken hearts. Women competing for me knowing they are competing with others. Because I stopped treating them the way every woman in my life from my mother, sister to ex wife told me they wanted to be treated. Turns out those were pretty lies. This is the opposite side of the spectrum I mentioned above. If you just want easy poon. The guy quoted above has the answer. All depends on what you are looking for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 8:40:40 AM EDT
[#48]
"alpha" "pack leader" "own the room" "beta"
The lexicon of the successful and confident man, I'm sure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 8:42:49 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, no two minds are alike but at the end of the day women go for what they perceive as the best man possible for them. In a low income area that man could be the local dope dealer with the suv sitting on 22 inch wheels. His target audience will vastly differ from that of a high smv man living in the suburbs making a legit living. What if that danny trejo lookalike was weak, effeminate, and had poor social skills? Would you still view him as compatible? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The red pill stuff is straight forward with no sugar coating. That alone scares a lot of men who aren't doing so well in life in general and women who know how the cards are dealt out in the real world. Any woman so says she isn't interested in a man who is successful, has good social skills, and is healthy (fit and in shape) is lying, period. They are hard wired to be attracted the best male they can get just like we are attracted to signs of female fertility. The very concept of "best man" is weird. It's not like we can all agree on who the "best man" is. You look for the best man and woman for you. I like Sam Elliot, she likes Justin Bieber. I chase a carpenter, she chases an accountant. We're going to 'rate' men differently. I assume you guys are the same. I'm not going to pass up a super compatible, relatively broke, Danny Trejo lookalike because I can get a handsome lawyer, that's nice but has nothing in common with me, just because the majority of women would say the Lawyer is waaaayyyy better. It just seems so weird to pretend there's a KBB of SMV, and that lovers stick to that and that it's some kind of competition. 'I got an orthodontist with a sixpack, you got a park ranger 10 years your senior, you lose!". So bizarre. Yes, no two minds are alike but at the end of the day women go for what they perceive as the best man possible for them. In a low income area that man could be the local dope dealer with the suv sitting on 22 inch wheels. His target audience will vastly differ from that of a high smv man living in the suburbs making a legit living. What if that danny trejo lookalike was weak, effeminate, and had poor social skills? Would you still view him as compatible? You're completely missing the point. There is no value as it can be measured to be the same by all people. There is only subjective value. If Danny Trejo were this way he might be incompatible to me, and super compatible to Sally. It doesn't matter what area. Your dope dealer may be Sharee's cup of tea but repulsive to Deontrea. SMV does not exist. You're being sold a lie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 8:45:24 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know exactly how I want to be treated. I can and do articulate it, and my man had better treat me that way. It's not about getting 'the best I can get' it's about getting the perfect match. A guy who likes to give what I want and likes to receive what I like to give. Compatibility. A self-feeding loop. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Workout for 30 mins a day, become in top percentile in this nation of the obese, take your pick of ladies? Doesn't seem hard to me. You answered a question not asked. those that understand that blog post have no trouble getting laid. As soon as I stopped treating women the way women told me they wanted to be treated, I had access to more women than ever before. Unsolicited declarations of love. Accusations of broken hearts. Women competing for me knowing they are competing with others. Because I stopped treating them the way every woman in my life from my mother, sister to ex wife told me they wanted to be treated. Turns out those were pretty lies. I know exactly how I want to be treated. I can and do articulate it, and my man had better treat me that way. It's not about getting 'the best I can get' it's about getting the perfect match. A guy who likes to give what I want and likes to receive what I like to give. Compatibility. A self-feeding loop. This. Sadly, only a few here seem to grasp this. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
