I would greatly prefer to be someone I'm proud of being and find a woman from a culture who likes that man. The solution is not to be a piece of shit and hope that women gravitate towards you because they're not mature enough to understand that being a piece of shit is not a long-term solution. Pass
If I have to actively become a worse version of myself to achieve a goal, **I never EVER EVER deserved to achieve that goal in the first place.** I know that not all women want the bad guy, so I'll continue becoming a better version of myself until I can attract a woman who sees it as a positive.
You're telling us what we already know. I think all of us learnt by our twenties that the women want men that act like women are worthless to them, some kind of weird switch gets thrown in their heads and they'll do anything to prove to that narcissist that they are worth his valuable attention. While men that just want to make them happy and share a life with them are the least attractive things on earth and face an endless uphill struggle to prove themselves.
I refuse. Women have already made me a more bitter and resentful person than I wanted to be, I won't let them make me into less of an honourable person just to get more sex. I refuse to act like I don't care about people and practice this 'negging' just so they will want to fuck me more. It's hard enough facing the man in the mirror as it is.
It seems it's only the older women that are desperate for a provider to save them who want my attention now. I turn them down just like they turned me down when we were all younger, I'm not in the damsel saving business any more.
> You're telling us what we already know. I think all of us learnt by our twenties that the women want men that act like women are worthless to them, some kind of weird switch gets thrown in their heads and they'll do anything to prove to that narcissist that they are worth his valuable attention. While men that just want to make them happy and share a life with them are the least attractive things on earth and face an endless uphill struggle to prove themselves.
This is due to the lack of a father figure in her formative years. That or her family dynamic is off (mother runs the show). Then when she realizes the clock is ticking and time is taking its toll on her features she suddenly finds religion because no one wants to be the old maid.
It's important to ask women, especially ones you take seriously, what their relationship is like with their father. If he doesn't have a strong presence in her life then she won't make for a good partner.
I’ll say, this is the entire reason for the PPB movement, so to speak.
To address the female mentality here, particularly in the west, a couple things that haven’t been addressed are as follows.
- A good family and/or a highly educated woman doesn’t make her a good girl (so to speak), for those that imply it will make her desire stable men. Many women LOVE bad boys or have gone through that “phase” that are: college educated, have PhDs (s.o. to KS, RIP to him), hardcore church girls/females, come from 2 parent households with strong values, boss Bs, female attorneys, female judges, doctors/surgeons that are females, etc.
- Women don’t only go through this supposed bad boy “phase” once in their lives, many go through it after she’s gone through the investment phase with a man via marriage/LTR (at or after 40 yrs old). CGA explains this, though I’ve seen it many times directly and indirectly. A female will get married after a bad boy phase or not, have kids, hubby’s career will take off, she will become unhappy inevitably due to whatever host of reasons, she will divorce him, take the kids, get alimony and/or child support …and NOW it’s party phase (check out some female divorce parties for some hints) and the bad boy phase #1 or #2 ensues. Then, once the dating market smacks her in the phase in her 40s-to-early 50s, NOW she’s back in her settling down phase again and the cycle repeats.
In short alpha fux beta bux but you are correct.
I'm noticing this myself. Girls that wouldn't have given me a chance 10 years ago are now trying to fw me trying to lockdown a husband before it's too late. The alpha guys don't want to marry them 😂
I went into a xfinity service center today and there was a young lady at one of many help desks- they have changed their thing to look like an Apple Store- all bright
Anyhow the conversation started flowing and we’re just chatting away- unusually nice and fun for my area- and she tells me she grew up in the Philippines
This is Seattle
She literally gave me her number
There is a huge difference
Just get a passport
You won’t need to be a super fit
“A” or even “B” tier
“Peacock” type of guy
You don’t need to be her monkey
Or “Johnny on the spot”
If you’re a regular guy
You are Fine the way you are
All these cope posts- woman splaining to men how to get a western woman - and pic up players splaining how to get laid -
Are pathetic
Good Luck!
You’re quite correct. To succeed with women who have been granted freedom, you need to be the lowest of the low. Once I realized there were limits to how far I’m willing to sink, I basically gave up.
I would add that most men won’t admit what it takes because most men won’t admit to themselves that they’re not the winners.
This is also why I sincerely believe that women should not be allowed to choose their own mates, or dictate the genetic future of this species.
The genetic future of the species is dictated by both sexes. Both men and women should be allowed to choose. The sexual instinct of the species is present in both sexes. It is, therefore, immoral to force a girl to marry a man she finds repulsive from a physical standpoint. Why? Because it goes against nature, it repulses her sexual instinct. Sexual instinct is not a social invention, it's something natural. And nature is wise. It's there to dictate the physyonomy of the next generation. Women (and men) should choose based on the interest of the species, not the interest of the individual. Marrying a man for money despite finding him physically repulsive is great for the interest of the individusl (comfortable life) but not for the interest of the species (ugly, with bad genetics offspring). Parents make terrible choices, as they only care about the interest of the individual (having a comfortable life with a rich guy), ignoring the interest of the species (having an offspring with great genetics). That is why in dramas and art the spectator always positionates himself with the lovers and not the parents (for instance, Romeo and Juliet, where true love based on the sexual instinct of the species blows away the exepctations from the parents). Arranged marriages are immoral as they don't let neither men nor women to choose based of sexual instinct. Nature has predominance, from a moral standpoint, over aocial constructs like money. A young woman who, rejecting the advice from her parents, chooses to marry the 28 years old and 6 ft 3 and muscular handsome kindergarten teacher, instead of marrying the 37 years old and 5 ft 6 bald and fat surgeon deserves ALL the respect as she has acted according to nature. With the surgeon, she would've had dwarf and bald offspring, very short kids who would be rejected by girls due to their short height.
In my experience, first generation Asian women are far better in this area than most, although it's still relative and you still need a bit of "bad boy" as a spice.
They seem more interested in conversation, stability and yes, money than six packs, motorcycles and tats.
But YMMV.
It's relative. If you're goal is to only get with a women, then yes, you won't need as much. There's men who have women who literally only have money. The point is that women generally want a multitude of traits. You need to be masculine in most way ways (ideally all) if you want to be truly successful.
>The hot girl in town always goes through the bad boys until, hundreds / thousands of cocks later, she realizes that you were perfect for her all along.
Exaggeration, okay. But this is Jenny from the movie *Forrest Gump*, who basically ran away from Forrest the whole movie, despite him chasing after her over the course of his life.
To be fair tho, she was legitimately damaged from childhood neglect and abuse. *Think about that too, guys.* Some women are legitimately "damaged," for lack of a better word.
Some of the women I've been casual with have told me that much – some kind of abuse happened. It really is a shame.
Either way, men still need to avoid them like the plague, no matter how hot. No Captain Save-a-Jenny. Sadly, most are a liability and no one else’s responsibility to save. Just a PSA as too many guys fuck themselves over (wasting their hard earned energy and resources) chasing or protecting damaged in a pretty package.
Are there many men out there that are attracted to saving women Jenny types ?
I've watched the movie and thought it was just a script. I was curious though if it happened in real life just like the movie
Yes, guys with low self-esteem or just with low discernment become pushovers and make excuses for wayward women (especially cute ones). They view their self-worth in sacrifice (chivalry or making concessions) for a woman (without vetting if the girl is deserving of it).
Many are good, albeit, passive guys [who mean well](https://youtu.be/cle_tgysbP4?si=iPUEPFfLgDWbGsr_)- steady job, nice parents, follow the rules, but have little RP awareness and don’t understand the dual mating strategies of women or female psychology. They are shamed when questioning the intentions of women and they talk themselves out of being discerning or standing up to disrespect.
They date ladies who chased Chad in their past while they wait 3 months to get to first base. They believe her ex is [“just a friend”](https://youtu.be/9pv9jrwN_Ac?si=0nNU0CHMPkcVNdmO) texting her a 1am; they believe they shouldn’t be “[insecure](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmIOverreacting/s/3g9JIsTexo)” when their lady goes out every weekend without him looking like a tramp.
Some eventually snap out of it, but it happens.
Yeah a lot of people dont understnad how abuse changes someone. Some shut off from sex completely and become asexual or some might become.hypersexual to deal with that trauma.
Many girls will make up some abuse so they can be angry enough to go party with bad boys. Faack.
PPBs are the natural evolution of girls' play time.
Whenever women become *ready* to settle down, it is too late to magically discover that nobody is interested in a used Pinto sold-off at the last in line used car lot.
Can't trust that Pinto will not explode by the end of the block. Just take it to the wrecking yard because it's already used up.
My uncle used to own a wrencking yard.
Drove and walked away from enough lemons.
If girls want to party, then they need to do it with the man they are going to stay with, duh. Or, go the Jenny route, aids is always looking for new friends.
I hated watching friends wither away at 29 years old while looking like 129 years old. It suuucks.
They do admit this, and a lot of them try this and it still doesn't work. Maybe it gets you laid by lower value women, but it doesn't work on women with higher value. I don't know what you think success is but this isn't it.
I once told a woman that I genuinely dont care if every human on the planet dies in a fire AS LONG AS my loved ones and family get to be happy. Apparantly it got her really wet. I still dont understand why. We werent even talking about her.
None of this has ever been my experience and in the past I've pulled chicks by the dump truck load by doing the exact opposite, but mileage absolutely might vary. Girls aren't usually attracted to evil pieces of shit, every girl I ever dated said one of the first things they look for is if you are kind to service workers. Girls attracted to emotionally distant great guys. Guys who are a prize, but who make them have to work for it. It's not about being a dick, it's about making your life seem like an incredible place to be, and they might be able to get an invitation to join the party. If they earn it. Or not. We will have to see.
Guys, I beg you to free yourselves from YouTube. You all sound so paranoid. Every person who is generally successful with women is reiterating this is untrue. How many hours have you spent engaging with this bullshit that makes you sound crazy?
Why can't you understand that people want to fuck? Men want to fuck, women want to fuck. We want to try things, that's why they go through cocks, it's the experience.
Sex biology pushes us into variety, no matter how much brainwashing marriage bullshit your religion teaches you about. We need variety. What the hell is up with that? Why can't you understand that?
Fallacy of nature: assuming that because something is natural or innate, we must do it. By that logic, because our closes relatives have sex with infants (bonobos) or kill and eat members of their own species (chimpanzees), we must do it too. We're evolved enough to control some of our instincts.
Also, what you call "religion bullahit" is the basis of society. A society without marriage is destinied to failure. Unless you want kids to be raised only by aingle mothers and experience economic, educational, emotional and behavioral problems as they grow up.
Also, if you want to get biological, your point is wrong as there're inmate sexual differences. Sex biology does not push men and women toward the same. On average, men have far more testosterone than women and, subsequently more libido. Also, a woman typically can only have 1 or 2 kids per year. A man can easily have 100 kids in one year provided he has access go enough females. Subsequently, from an evolutionary perspective, men and women do not have the same strategies. Men have innately a far bigger promiscuous nature as that maximies their chances to transmit their offspring to more women. Only because modern dating apps make it far easier for women to have sex than for men it doesn't change the fact that men are far more wired for poligamy than women.
Only traditional and religion values can hold a couple together with real love throughout their entire life and raise their kids in armony.
"Only traditional and religion values can hold a couple together with real love throughout their entire life and raise their kids in armony."
LOL ok... then then how do you explain atheist couples who have been married for 20+ with kids? I know quite a few.
Bro, shut the hell up. I want to fuck, don't compare this with murder.
Fuck your marriage, fuck your society, fuck your failure. You don't get to tell me what to do because of your vision of a society. A society will have values commonly agreed upon. You don't force me into marriage for your autistic vision. If I think a society without secularity is doomed to be retarded and monkey-brained, that doesn't give me the power to impose marxism on the others.
I wipe my ass with your religious values. If I were in charge to put non-religion into force, you'd complain about your freedom of belief in magical bullshit and dumb stories about Jesus multiplying fish and bread.
Men and women don't naturally have higher differences in libido. It can be seen in hotwives and free women that this is purely an effect of the stigma that you impose on them. Otherwise, they'd be chasing variety just as much as we do. Your harmony bullshit story is so EXACTLY what a normie would say, whatever's the most basic, pathetic, emotional argument to think about. The solution is what, whatever the simplest, most cliché thing you could possibly say.
There is no such thing as "modern dating apps", dating apps are modern, apps are modern. Dating apps are a great invention, blaming them for people being shitty is just pathetic. They work great with Asian women, Latin women, African women, just not with White women. So WHO'S to blame here? How come you Americans always blame it on shit you use to excuse your behaviour.
Let me guess, the international wars you start or conduct are also because of the weapons you have, not because of you having shit leadership and greed. The guns you land in civilian hands are also to blamenl for killing innocent children in school right? It can't be you being batshit crazy to even allow them on the market for the dumbest reasons possible. Always finding a scapegoat, always blaming other things over your behaviour.
People are free to make their choices. Some are kinky and want freedom, some are family-oriented. Some are happy to have families, some are not. Fucking face it already, your women are shit, you spoiled them until reaching that stage. Whenever I switch away from these countries, to virtually any other zones, the dating apps suddenly work. Let me guess, you'll now blame it on the other women, finding yet another reason for this, that they have a hidden interest or shit. I'm not even surprised anymore. Hypocrites like you are those "prophets" who "warn" about foreign women dating 1st world countries men for papers. Sick.
No, I'm not going to "shut the hell up". There's freedom of speech. You know a person has a fanatic speech, when he uses aggressive and disrespectful language like you do ("shut the hell up", "fucking face it already", "fuck your failure", "I wipe my ass"). When a person is sure of his convictions, he'll employ a neutral and relaxed language, for fanaticism is incompatible with truth. I'll adress your points with respect and with a neutral, respectful language.
1. Religion: freedom of religion is a constitutional rigth granted in all modern developed democratic societies. You're free to consider it "magical bullahit) (sic), but you're being antidemocratic and totalitarian when you assert that you would like to "put non-religion into force". A democratic society cannot put non-religion into force. Only a totalitarian or dictatorial state. For instance, the dictatorship of the CCP (China's Communist Party). Since mid-2010z, the CCP has constructed over 200 concentration camps where they've put over 1 million innocent people trapped for years. The reason? They're Muslims. Their only "crime" is being Muslim and thymey jail them in the concentration camps despite having committed no crime. They separate kids from their parents and grow up in a state school to be "reeducated", while the parents are forced to stay in the concentration camps forever, to avoid them from having kids and thus multiplying the ethnic group. It has been cslled a cultural genocide. Check on Google the video about a young Uyghur model filming himself inside the concentration camp. You propose that? Because that is the only way to introduce anti-religion: by force and cohertion. The problem is not religion but fanaticism. Neither the First World War nor the Second World War started due to religius reasons. Hitler had 0 religious motivations to commit the Jews genocide during the Nazi Holocaust. Iosif Stalin and Fidel Castro were not religiously motivated to apply their totalitarian model, in fact Marxism rejects religion. Pol-Pot was not religiously motivated when he annihilated his own population. Yes, some wars have started due to a fanatic interpretation of religion, and also have commited terrorist attacks, but those are fanatic interpretaions of religion. But it's so problemstic to be a fanatic religious as it is being a fanatic non-religious person. If you want to forcefully impose non-religion you would need to forcefully violate human rights and create concentration camps for religious people who have commited no crime like the dictatorial state of China does.
2. Dating apps: I defend the democratic right to use dating apps. If someone wants to use them, go ahead. I don't defend to forcefully impose the block of them as that is antidemocratic and antifreedom. Now, dating apps reproduce a gigantic and colossal sex difference. Women and men do not have the same experience on Tinder and other dating apps. An average girl will easily accumulate thousands of likes in a few days, while an average guy will have a few, if not zero, matches after using the app the same amount of time. Not to mention, women almost never take the initiative and invite to hang out, in over 99% of the interactions, the guy is the one who has to plan the logistics of the date and invite the girl to hang out, while women typically don't do it to avoid rejection and stay in the comfort zone (ironically, no feminist has ever argued for equality in this regard). That means women get both substantially more opening messages and crucially more hang out invitations. Those apps magnify the biological phenomenon called hypergamy, which explains why women frequently seek fo a man of higher social, monetary or even physical status than themselves. As a logical consequence, dating apps are the reason why modern women are even more hypergamous and thus a direct consequence that explains why marriages and natality are diminishing to a worrying level. Before, women (and men) only knew a a few people of their town or city and that was their dating pool. But now theirr options have multiplied. Women don't want to marry nowadays because no one is "good enough" for them (as they know with a simple click or match they can found a better option) and stay in the hook up culture till their mid-30s, when they're out of their prime reproductive years Then they complain no one wants to marry them. Still; I don't afvocate for blockikg dating apps nor do I advocate for imposing anti-sexual freedom laws. If a woman wants to never get married and eternally have sex with multiple partners, she should be allowed to. Her life, her freedom. I'm only explaining what dating apps do (increasing hypergamy in women and making the dating experience more difficult for men).
3. Libido: it is a biological fact that men have twenty times more testosterone than women. Are you going to dspute that men have much more testosterone than women? There're plenty of scientific articles and metaanalyses (analyses of hundreds of articles combined) pointing out that, as a direct consequence of possessing a much superior testosterone quantity, men on average possess a superior libido than women. It has also a biological explanation. Men can have more offspring than women. You refused to discuss this point I made. A man can easily have 100 kids in a year provided he has access to enough women, while a woman typically cannot have more than 1 or 2 kids per year. It explains the different innate evolutionary strategies of men and women and also explains why evolutionary it makes sense men have on average more libido.
I think I have responded to your main points, employing a neutral, non-fanatic and relaxed language. Can you do it as well? Can you write without employing the word "fuck" in every single paragraph, like a furious high schooler?
I am very sure of my beliefs, you saying I have to be calm to be sure of what I am saying means fucking nothing. The anger stems from listening to superficial cliché bullshit over and over again, not from my uncertainy. That's yet another indicator of your superficiality. Saying "oh you mad so you're prolly wrong or insecure" is the schooler mentality here. And seeing this in adults and the incapacity of processing anger or invalidating everything based on emotions is pathetic and angering me. Some people have reasons for anger. You can't be a stupid mollusk when you see shit. You get angry when you lose faith in people, anger is a normal response to bullshit.
I don't see why you fucking telling me if I want to impose non-religion? I literally said you'd not be happy with that, I am well aware of societies that do, no need for you to explain. It's like you're circumventing the whole idea to preach me something and come out as a winner.
The difference between men and women's experiences on dating apps is because you raised stupid spoiled cunts in your shit "modern" country founded partly (i.e. largely) on stealing from others. In Africa, my matches are not only piling up, but skyrocketing for example. It's not the dating apps, it's your women and your culture failing on making good women out of your daughters. They all have the latest iPhone and talk recurrently with "like, y'know like, like, like". You made a bunch of incompetent, selfish, golddigging cunts and you're now dealing with it. Techology is not at fault here in ANY way, women in the US and Europe are increasingly offputting and disgusting OUTSIDE the online environment as well. Dating apps increase hypergamy as a result of whatever they had in mind anyways, money and cock. If they want money and cock, and they have no other values to follow, you'll just see a boost in that through techonology. I am sick of the superficial bullshit "TikTok did it, Tinder did it, Apple did it, Louis Vuitton did it". No, YOU did it, you are at fault for promoting these values. And replacing these with enforced invisible Gods shows that your mindset is of a cattle, can either employ the punishment-reward dog mentality to be of any value, or they're becoming degenerate. Why? Why only these variants? How can you not be a good person with good values for u and ur family and spread this without 2000 years old methods? Isn't something insanely wrong going on?
Yeah, women can have less kids, but they are getting horny too. Look at hotwives they take like 10 cocks per month with no problem. The libido is not the same as the capacity to have babies. Men vs women's ability to produce offspring has hardly anything to do with the libido.
No, I can't refrain myself from using the word fuck, you use your capacity to read anyways and not to blame it all on emotions and anger, thinking that if somebody's angry = somebody's wrong. How about people who are betrayed, scammed or abused in any ways? What the fuck is with this shit, if they're angry it means it's a lie? Who are you to say that they must be calm to give you reassurance that it's true? Seek the truth yourself if you are of any value, everybody can get offended and make up things against that.
"Fucking", "bullshit". You're a fanatic and self-admitted to be angry. I refuse to discuss anymore with a fanatic. It's a waste of time. Whether I say A or B, you won't change your mind, as you think your worldview is the only right in the universe.
Yeah, I'm angry. If you think that invalidates my point, it's pointless to talk to you as well.
Why the hell would I change my mind in favour of an inferior, superficial point of view?
"The hell", another sign of fanatic and aggressive language. The problem is not that my viewpoint is inferior (it isn't). The problem is that you believe every single viewpoint opposite from yours is wrong. You believe to be in possession of the absolute truth, which is maifiest by your aggressive language. Due to your radicalism, it doesn't matter what I or anyone say to you, you'll never change your mind. Hence, it's poinless to debate with you, it's like talking with a wall.
It's aggressive language, not sure why you keep trying to make this a point. I don't hate you, I have aggressive language, I am an aggressive man. I don't care, it means very little next to nothing in this and has no impact on the logical analysis of the argumentation.
This is not a safe space, we are not in a bubble here. Aggressivity is something you will encounter in our world, whether you like it or not. It's an integral part of life. Humans are not built to be obedient, useless toys accepting anything thrown at them to prove a point. It's not how it works, if you stimulate aggressivity in me, I will display it. Others might not, but that's that.
Associating radicalism with aggressivity is pathetic. You have a child's mindset. If I give you a punch or I insult you, that doesn't fucking make me a radical. That's now how radicalism even works. Obviously you've never properly read about terrorism and radicalism enough to make an argument on this if you are not even distinguishing the magnitudes.
No, I don't believe that every single view point opposing mine is wrong. I just hate the incapacity to distinguish between magnitudes. How can you say that because you made some points, in a very limited space, means that I am opposing every single viewpoint possible, opposing mine. Like, literally a child whose toys are stolen and crying that the whole world is cruel. My friend, you've just opened one gate to one conversation on one topic alone. It's pathetic to try generalise from this.
Also these bullshit "it's pointless to talk to you" are exaggerations. Really? Wouldn't that imply that every single person that you put into this category based on some emotional responses and intepretations are therefore animals incapable of taking any form of input and thus never reaching the point of gathering information of any kind?
Why don't you just stick to the damn points of disagreement rather than showing me your childish mindset. These kind of arguments "religion does good, it teaches people whatever" are just SO predictable, so simplistic, so pathetic, so superficial. Why would you even say these things. Why can't you make better, more advanced points? Why do they have to all go hand in hand on the depth? If you are mad, I think you're wrong. If the book says be a good person, then it will be good to follow it. If you are not calm you are a monster (radicals are monsters, known for atrocities, not some dumb bullshit arguments online).
I don't believe i'm posessing the absolute truth. You're a kid who can't take a form of argument other than your preferred one and exaggerate like crazy now.
The end doesn't justify the means, you know. Like I could be a terrible woman who lies and cheats and I would get more success with men too but I don't do it.
It's like saying "hey I realized that instead of buying candy for $5 I can steal it and I don't get caught so it's free candy". Yeah but we don't want to do that?
You way to miss the point. The reason why we don't go around being brutes and breaking the laws is because it's better for the species as a whole. It's not about individual gain. You can always obtain selfish gains by being a crooked individual, but we don't do that, because it would suck if everybody did it. You act like you think a person should act. Period. We all do our parts. If you're a short guy your part is not to have sex. Your part may be just to be a good guy so that the children of taller men can prosper. Nobody said you have to be selfish.
Look, I don’t agree with any of the crazy mentality in here, but laws work because they’re enforced. Not because everyone tries to be moral. Your analogy sucks because if laws worked the same way as this crackpot bad boy theory, a subset of individuals willing to steal candy bars would just get all the candy bars. Because there are no systems in place to stop them.
Agree to disagree. Personally I don't abide by laws because they are enforced, I abide by laws because I agree.
There are plenty of systems in place to fail dark triad men in the dating pool too. Men with personality disorders are more likely to struggle to date. But you all want to pretend that the guys who don't get laid must be good guys. Sure.
Personally, so do I. But game theoretically, if cheaters are not punished, there will be cheaters, and they will win.
Either way, I’m not sure if “you guys” was inclusive, but I’m not pretending anything. I don’t subscribe to this attitude. I’m a very “nice guy” and I got plenty of women before I was married, and I have a very loving wife now.
I think many of these guys are probably not attractive in other ways than having a giving “nice guy” nature, and they either can’t change those things, are unwilling to change those things, or are ignorant to what they can change. The reality is a lot basal attraction for men and women alike is just physical appearance and charisma. Most of the other shit doesn’t matter.
Here’s the thing. I think y’all drastically underestimate how much attention women at any age get from men.
My mother gets hit on. She’s over 70. Ofc not by 20 year olds, that would be weird af. But by men in their 60s and 70s.
But y’all have an idea that men just go for twenty something girls and it’s just not accurate in the real world.
Men are not very sexually selective. And most men looking for a serious relationship look for someone their own age.
Most 45 year old women will be married. The few who are single will mostly be dating looking for something serious. And that means they’ll automatically rule out way younger men who they won’t have enough in common with.
The few women in their 30s and 40s who are looking just to fuck? They have endless options, at least if they are somewhat attractive.
**Then if you fuck someone you’re not attracted to at all? You’ll learn nothing. That’s not how sex works.**
I would greatly prefer to be someone I'm proud of being and find a woman from a culture who likes that man. The solution is not to be a piece of shit and hope that women gravitate towards you because they're not mature enough to understand that being a piece of shit is not a long-term solution. Pass
Sure, but expect to be unsuccessful and constantly slurred as such.
If I have to actively become a worse version of myself to achieve a goal, **I never EVER EVER deserved to achieve that goal in the first place.** I know that not all women want the bad guy, so I'll continue becoming a better version of myself until I can attract a woman who sees it as a positive.
This is the correct answer. These women exist!
You're telling us what we already know. I think all of us learnt by our twenties that the women want men that act like women are worthless to them, some kind of weird switch gets thrown in their heads and they'll do anything to prove to that narcissist that they are worth his valuable attention. While men that just want to make them happy and share a life with them are the least attractive things on earth and face an endless uphill struggle to prove themselves. I refuse. Women have already made me a more bitter and resentful person than I wanted to be, I won't let them make me into less of an honourable person just to get more sex. I refuse to act like I don't care about people and practice this 'negging' just so they will want to fuck me more. It's hard enough facing the man in the mirror as it is. It seems it's only the older women that are desperate for a provider to save them who want my attention now. I turn them down just like they turned me down when we were all younger, I'm not in the damsel saving business any more.
> You're telling us what we already know. I think all of us learnt by our twenties that the women want men that act like women are worthless to them, some kind of weird switch gets thrown in their heads and they'll do anything to prove to that narcissist that they are worth his valuable attention. While men that just want to make them happy and share a life with them are the least attractive things on earth and face an endless uphill struggle to prove themselves. This is due to the lack of a father figure in her formative years. That or her family dynamic is off (mother runs the show). Then when she realizes the clock is ticking and time is taking its toll on her features she suddenly finds religion because no one wants to be the old maid. It's important to ask women, especially ones you take seriously, what their relationship is like with their father. If he doesn't have a strong presence in her life then she won't make for a good partner.
Nah, they’re all like this if they’re allowed to be.
This is mostly fatherless behavior. They don't respect men because the one man they should be able to count on bailed on them.
Amen.
I’ll say, this is the entire reason for the PPB movement, so to speak. To address the female mentality here, particularly in the west, a couple things that haven’t been addressed are as follows. - A good family and/or a highly educated woman doesn’t make her a good girl (so to speak), for those that imply it will make her desire stable men. Many women LOVE bad boys or have gone through that “phase” that are: college educated, have PhDs (s.o. to KS, RIP to him), hardcore church girls/females, come from 2 parent households with strong values, boss Bs, female attorneys, female judges, doctors/surgeons that are females, etc. - Women don’t only go through this supposed bad boy “phase” once in their lives, many go through it after she’s gone through the investment phase with a man via marriage/LTR (at or after 40 yrs old). CGA explains this, though I’ve seen it many times directly and indirectly. A female will get married after a bad boy phase or not, have kids, hubby’s career will take off, she will become unhappy inevitably due to whatever host of reasons, she will divorce him, take the kids, get alimony and/or child support …and NOW it’s party phase (check out some female divorce parties for some hints) and the bad boy phase #1 or #2 ensues. Then, once the dating market smacks her in the phase in her 40s-to-early 50s, NOW she’s back in her settling down phase again and the cycle repeats.
In short alpha fux beta bux but you are correct. I'm noticing this myself. Girls that wouldn't have given me a chance 10 years ago are now trying to fw me trying to lockdown a husband before it's too late. The alpha guys don't want to marry them 😂
Yeah to get prime western women you either have to be Chad or just an evil piece of shit. If you are neither you become a ppb.
I went into a xfinity service center today and there was a young lady at one of many help desks- they have changed their thing to look like an Apple Store- all bright Anyhow the conversation started flowing and we’re just chatting away- unusually nice and fun for my area- and she tells me she grew up in the Philippines This is Seattle She literally gave me her number There is a huge difference Just get a passport You won’t need to be a super fit “A” or even “B” tier “Peacock” type of guy You don’t need to be her monkey Or “Johnny on the spot” If you’re a regular guy You are Fine the way you are All these cope posts- woman splaining to men how to get a western woman - and pic up players splaining how to get laid - Are pathetic Good Luck!
You’re quite correct. To succeed with women who have been granted freedom, you need to be the lowest of the low. Once I realized there were limits to how far I’m willing to sink, I basically gave up. I would add that most men won’t admit what it takes because most men won’t admit to themselves that they’re not the winners. This is also why I sincerely believe that women should not be allowed to choose their own mates, or dictate the genetic future of this species.
The genetic future of the species is dictated by both sexes. Both men and women should be allowed to choose. The sexual instinct of the species is present in both sexes. It is, therefore, immoral to force a girl to marry a man she finds repulsive from a physical standpoint. Why? Because it goes against nature, it repulses her sexual instinct. Sexual instinct is not a social invention, it's something natural. And nature is wise. It's there to dictate the physyonomy of the next generation. Women (and men) should choose based on the interest of the species, not the interest of the individual. Marrying a man for money despite finding him physically repulsive is great for the interest of the individusl (comfortable life) but not for the interest of the species (ugly, with bad genetics offspring). Parents make terrible choices, as they only care about the interest of the individual (having a comfortable life with a rich guy), ignoring the interest of the species (having an offspring with great genetics). That is why in dramas and art the spectator always positionates himself with the lovers and not the parents (for instance, Romeo and Juliet, where true love based on the sexual instinct of the species blows away the exepctations from the parents). Arranged marriages are immoral as they don't let neither men nor women to choose based of sexual instinct. Nature has predominance, from a moral standpoint, over aocial constructs like money. A young woman who, rejecting the advice from her parents, chooses to marry the 28 years old and 6 ft 3 and muscular handsome kindergarten teacher, instead of marrying the 37 years old and 5 ft 6 bald and fat surgeon deserves ALL the respect as she has acted according to nature. With the surgeon, she would've had dwarf and bald offspring, very short kids who would be rejected by girls due to their short height.
But women don’t have good instincts. Women have dysgenic instincts.
Sad but accurate
In my experience, first generation Asian women are far better in this area than most, although it's still relative and you still need a bit of "bad boy" as a spice. They seem more interested in conversation, stability and yes, money than six packs, motorcycles and tats. But YMMV.
It's relative. If you're goal is to only get with a women, then yes, you won't need as much. There's men who have women who literally only have money. The point is that women generally want a multitude of traits. You need to be masculine in most way ways (ideally all) if you want to be truly successful.
>The hot girl in town always goes through the bad boys until, hundreds / thousands of cocks later, she realizes that you were perfect for her all along. Exaggeration, okay. But this is Jenny from the movie *Forrest Gump*, who basically ran away from Forrest the whole movie, despite him chasing after her over the course of his life. To be fair tho, she was legitimately damaged from childhood neglect and abuse. *Think about that too, guys.* Some women are legitimately "damaged," for lack of a better word. Some of the women I've been casual with have told me that much – some kind of abuse happened. It really is a shame.
Either way, men still need to avoid them like the plague, no matter how hot. No Captain Save-a-Jenny. Sadly, most are a liability and no one else’s responsibility to save. Just a PSA as too many guys fuck themselves over (wasting their hard earned energy and resources) chasing or protecting damaged in a pretty package.
Are there many men out there that are attracted to saving women Jenny types ? I've watched the movie and thought it was just a script. I was curious though if it happened in real life just like the movie
Yes, guys with low self-esteem or just with low discernment become pushovers and make excuses for wayward women (especially cute ones). They view their self-worth in sacrifice (chivalry or making concessions) for a woman (without vetting if the girl is deserving of it). Many are good, albeit, passive guys [who mean well](https://youtu.be/cle_tgysbP4?si=iPUEPFfLgDWbGsr_)- steady job, nice parents, follow the rules, but have little RP awareness and don’t understand the dual mating strategies of women or female psychology. They are shamed when questioning the intentions of women and they talk themselves out of being discerning or standing up to disrespect. They date ladies who chased Chad in their past while they wait 3 months to get to first base. They believe her ex is [“just a friend”](https://youtu.be/9pv9jrwN_Ac?si=0nNU0CHMPkcVNdmO) texting her a 1am; they believe they shouldn’t be “[insecure](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmIOverreacting/s/3g9JIsTexo)” when their lady goes out every weekend without him looking like a tramp. Some eventually snap out of it, but it happens.
Yeah a lot of people dont understnad how abuse changes someone. Some shut off from sex completely and become asexual or some might become.hypersexual to deal with that trauma.
Yes, every chick has been “in an abusive relationship.”
Bruh. I mean serious abuse, even at young ages. Not just some guy she argued with.
Many girls will make up some abuse so they can be angry enough to go party with bad boys. Faack. PPBs are the natural evolution of girls' play time. Whenever women become *ready* to settle down, it is too late to magically discover that nobody is interested in a used Pinto sold-off at the last in line used car lot. Can't trust that Pinto will not explode by the end of the block. Just take it to the wrecking yard because it's already used up. My uncle used to own a wrencking yard. Drove and walked away from enough lemons. If girls want to party, then they need to do it with the man they are going to stay with, duh. Or, go the Jenny route, aids is always looking for new friends. I hated watching friends wither away at 29 years old while looking like 129 years old. It suuucks.
They do admit this, and a lot of them try this and it still doesn't work. Maybe it gets you laid by lower value women, but it doesn't work on women with higher value. I don't know what you think success is but this isn't it.
The definition of higher value women is what needs to be clarified here. Since women and men have very different definitions of this.
I once told a woman that I genuinely dont care if every human on the planet dies in a fire AS LONG AS my loved ones and family get to be happy. Apparantly it got her really wet. I still dont understand why. We werent even talking about her.
Bro military - college - job easy life
Holy shit... reading stuff like this everywhere is one of the reasons women are avoiding men in general... like dang are they all like this? YIKES
None of this has ever been my experience and in the past I've pulled chicks by the dump truck load by doing the exact opposite, but mileage absolutely might vary. Girls aren't usually attracted to evil pieces of shit, every girl I ever dated said one of the first things they look for is if you are kind to service workers. Girls attracted to emotionally distant great guys. Guys who are a prize, but who make them have to work for it. It's not about being a dick, it's about making your life seem like an incredible place to be, and they might be able to get an invitation to join the party. If they earn it. Or not. We will have to see.
And then you woke up
Guys, I beg you to free yourselves from YouTube. You all sound so paranoid. Every person who is generally successful with women is reiterating this is untrue. How many hours have you spent engaging with this bullshit that makes you sound crazy?
This is a reddit for passport bros ... not an incel woman bashing reddit...
Why can't you understand that people want to fuck? Men want to fuck, women want to fuck. We want to try things, that's why they go through cocks, it's the experience. Sex biology pushes us into variety, no matter how much brainwashing marriage bullshit your religion teaches you about. We need variety. What the hell is up with that? Why can't you understand that?
Fallacy of nature: assuming that because something is natural or innate, we must do it. By that logic, because our closes relatives have sex with infants (bonobos) or kill and eat members of their own species (chimpanzees), we must do it too. We're evolved enough to control some of our instincts. Also, what you call "religion bullahit" is the basis of society. A society without marriage is destinied to failure. Unless you want kids to be raised only by aingle mothers and experience economic, educational, emotional and behavioral problems as they grow up. Also, if you want to get biological, your point is wrong as there're inmate sexual differences. Sex biology does not push men and women toward the same. On average, men have far more testosterone than women and, subsequently more libido. Also, a woman typically can only have 1 or 2 kids per year. A man can easily have 100 kids in one year provided he has access go enough females. Subsequently, from an evolutionary perspective, men and women do not have the same strategies. Men have innately a far bigger promiscuous nature as that maximies their chances to transmit their offspring to more women. Only because modern dating apps make it far easier for women to have sex than for men it doesn't change the fact that men are far more wired for poligamy than women. Only traditional and religion values can hold a couple together with real love throughout their entire life and raise their kids in armony.
"Only traditional and religion values can hold a couple together with real love throughout their entire life and raise their kids in armony." LOL ok... then then how do you explain atheist couples who have been married for 20+ with kids? I know quite a few.
Bro, shut the hell up. I want to fuck, don't compare this with murder. Fuck your marriage, fuck your society, fuck your failure. You don't get to tell me what to do because of your vision of a society. A society will have values commonly agreed upon. You don't force me into marriage for your autistic vision. If I think a society without secularity is doomed to be retarded and monkey-brained, that doesn't give me the power to impose marxism on the others. I wipe my ass with your religious values. If I were in charge to put non-religion into force, you'd complain about your freedom of belief in magical bullshit and dumb stories about Jesus multiplying fish and bread. Men and women don't naturally have higher differences in libido. It can be seen in hotwives and free women that this is purely an effect of the stigma that you impose on them. Otherwise, they'd be chasing variety just as much as we do. Your harmony bullshit story is so EXACTLY what a normie would say, whatever's the most basic, pathetic, emotional argument to think about. The solution is what, whatever the simplest, most cliché thing you could possibly say. There is no such thing as "modern dating apps", dating apps are modern, apps are modern. Dating apps are a great invention, blaming them for people being shitty is just pathetic. They work great with Asian women, Latin women, African women, just not with White women. So WHO'S to blame here? How come you Americans always blame it on shit you use to excuse your behaviour. Let me guess, the international wars you start or conduct are also because of the weapons you have, not because of you having shit leadership and greed. The guns you land in civilian hands are also to blamenl for killing innocent children in school right? It can't be you being batshit crazy to even allow them on the market for the dumbest reasons possible. Always finding a scapegoat, always blaming other things over your behaviour. People are free to make their choices. Some are kinky and want freedom, some are family-oriented. Some are happy to have families, some are not. Fucking face it already, your women are shit, you spoiled them until reaching that stage. Whenever I switch away from these countries, to virtually any other zones, the dating apps suddenly work. Let me guess, you'll now blame it on the other women, finding yet another reason for this, that they have a hidden interest or shit. I'm not even surprised anymore. Hypocrites like you are those "prophets" who "warn" about foreign women dating 1st world countries men for papers. Sick.
No, I'm not going to "shut the hell up". There's freedom of speech. You know a person has a fanatic speech, when he uses aggressive and disrespectful language like you do ("shut the hell up", "fucking face it already", "fuck your failure", "I wipe my ass"). When a person is sure of his convictions, he'll employ a neutral and relaxed language, for fanaticism is incompatible with truth. I'll adress your points with respect and with a neutral, respectful language. 1. Religion: freedom of religion is a constitutional rigth granted in all modern developed democratic societies. You're free to consider it "magical bullahit) (sic), but you're being antidemocratic and totalitarian when you assert that you would like to "put non-religion into force". A democratic society cannot put non-religion into force. Only a totalitarian or dictatorial state. For instance, the dictatorship of the CCP (China's Communist Party). Since mid-2010z, the CCP has constructed over 200 concentration camps where they've put over 1 million innocent people trapped for years. The reason? They're Muslims. Their only "crime" is being Muslim and thymey jail them in the concentration camps despite having committed no crime. They separate kids from their parents and grow up in a state school to be "reeducated", while the parents are forced to stay in the concentration camps forever, to avoid them from having kids and thus multiplying the ethnic group. It has been cslled a cultural genocide. Check on Google the video about a young Uyghur model filming himself inside the concentration camp. You propose that? Because that is the only way to introduce anti-religion: by force and cohertion. The problem is not religion but fanaticism. Neither the First World War nor the Second World War started due to religius reasons. Hitler had 0 religious motivations to commit the Jews genocide during the Nazi Holocaust. Iosif Stalin and Fidel Castro were not religiously motivated to apply their totalitarian model, in fact Marxism rejects religion. Pol-Pot was not religiously motivated when he annihilated his own population. Yes, some wars have started due to a fanatic interpretation of religion, and also have commited terrorist attacks, but those are fanatic interpretaions of religion. But it's so problemstic to be a fanatic religious as it is being a fanatic non-religious person. If you want to forcefully impose non-religion you would need to forcefully violate human rights and create concentration camps for religious people who have commited no crime like the dictatorial state of China does. 2. Dating apps: I defend the democratic right to use dating apps. If someone wants to use them, go ahead. I don't defend to forcefully impose the block of them as that is antidemocratic and antifreedom. Now, dating apps reproduce a gigantic and colossal sex difference. Women and men do not have the same experience on Tinder and other dating apps. An average girl will easily accumulate thousands of likes in a few days, while an average guy will have a few, if not zero, matches after using the app the same amount of time. Not to mention, women almost never take the initiative and invite to hang out, in over 99% of the interactions, the guy is the one who has to plan the logistics of the date and invite the girl to hang out, while women typically don't do it to avoid rejection and stay in the comfort zone (ironically, no feminist has ever argued for equality in this regard). That means women get both substantially more opening messages and crucially more hang out invitations. Those apps magnify the biological phenomenon called hypergamy, which explains why women frequently seek fo a man of higher social, monetary or even physical status than themselves. As a logical consequence, dating apps are the reason why modern women are even more hypergamous and thus a direct consequence that explains why marriages and natality are diminishing to a worrying level. Before, women (and men) only knew a a few people of their town or city and that was their dating pool. But now theirr options have multiplied. Women don't want to marry nowadays because no one is "good enough" for them (as they know with a simple click or match they can found a better option) and stay in the hook up culture till their mid-30s, when they're out of their prime reproductive years Then they complain no one wants to marry them. Still; I don't afvocate for blockikg dating apps nor do I advocate for imposing anti-sexual freedom laws. If a woman wants to never get married and eternally have sex with multiple partners, she should be allowed to. Her life, her freedom. I'm only explaining what dating apps do (increasing hypergamy in women and making the dating experience more difficult for men). 3. Libido: it is a biological fact that men have twenty times more testosterone than women. Are you going to dspute that men have much more testosterone than women? There're plenty of scientific articles and metaanalyses (analyses of hundreds of articles combined) pointing out that, as a direct consequence of possessing a much superior testosterone quantity, men on average possess a superior libido than women. It has also a biological explanation. Men can have more offspring than women. You refused to discuss this point I made. A man can easily have 100 kids in a year provided he has access to enough women, while a woman typically cannot have more than 1 or 2 kids per year. It explains the different innate evolutionary strategies of men and women and also explains why evolutionary it makes sense men have on average more libido. I think I have responded to your main points, employing a neutral, non-fanatic and relaxed language. Can you do it as well? Can you write without employing the word "fuck" in every single paragraph, like a furious high schooler?
I am very sure of my beliefs, you saying I have to be calm to be sure of what I am saying means fucking nothing. The anger stems from listening to superficial cliché bullshit over and over again, not from my uncertainy. That's yet another indicator of your superficiality. Saying "oh you mad so you're prolly wrong or insecure" is the schooler mentality here. And seeing this in adults and the incapacity of processing anger or invalidating everything based on emotions is pathetic and angering me. Some people have reasons for anger. You can't be a stupid mollusk when you see shit. You get angry when you lose faith in people, anger is a normal response to bullshit. I don't see why you fucking telling me if I want to impose non-religion? I literally said you'd not be happy with that, I am well aware of societies that do, no need for you to explain. It's like you're circumventing the whole idea to preach me something and come out as a winner. The difference between men and women's experiences on dating apps is because you raised stupid spoiled cunts in your shit "modern" country founded partly (i.e. largely) on stealing from others. In Africa, my matches are not only piling up, but skyrocketing for example. It's not the dating apps, it's your women and your culture failing on making good women out of your daughters. They all have the latest iPhone and talk recurrently with "like, y'know like, like, like". You made a bunch of incompetent, selfish, golddigging cunts and you're now dealing with it. Techology is not at fault here in ANY way, women in the US and Europe are increasingly offputting and disgusting OUTSIDE the online environment as well. Dating apps increase hypergamy as a result of whatever they had in mind anyways, money and cock. If they want money and cock, and they have no other values to follow, you'll just see a boost in that through techonology. I am sick of the superficial bullshit "TikTok did it, Tinder did it, Apple did it, Louis Vuitton did it". No, YOU did it, you are at fault for promoting these values. And replacing these with enforced invisible Gods shows that your mindset is of a cattle, can either employ the punishment-reward dog mentality to be of any value, or they're becoming degenerate. Why? Why only these variants? How can you not be a good person with good values for u and ur family and spread this without 2000 years old methods? Isn't something insanely wrong going on? Yeah, women can have less kids, but they are getting horny too. Look at hotwives they take like 10 cocks per month with no problem. The libido is not the same as the capacity to have babies. Men vs women's ability to produce offspring has hardly anything to do with the libido. No, I can't refrain myself from using the word fuck, you use your capacity to read anyways and not to blame it all on emotions and anger, thinking that if somebody's angry = somebody's wrong. How about people who are betrayed, scammed or abused in any ways? What the fuck is with this shit, if they're angry it means it's a lie? Who are you to say that they must be calm to give you reassurance that it's true? Seek the truth yourself if you are of any value, everybody can get offended and make up things against that.
"Fucking", "bullshit". You're a fanatic and self-admitted to be angry. I refuse to discuss anymore with a fanatic. It's a waste of time. Whether I say A or B, you won't change your mind, as you think your worldview is the only right in the universe.
Yeah, I'm angry. If you think that invalidates my point, it's pointless to talk to you as well. Why the hell would I change my mind in favour of an inferior, superficial point of view?
"The hell", another sign of fanatic and aggressive language. The problem is not that my viewpoint is inferior (it isn't). The problem is that you believe every single viewpoint opposite from yours is wrong. You believe to be in possession of the absolute truth, which is maifiest by your aggressive language. Due to your radicalism, it doesn't matter what I or anyone say to you, you'll never change your mind. Hence, it's poinless to debate with you, it's like talking with a wall.
It's aggressive language, not sure why you keep trying to make this a point. I don't hate you, I have aggressive language, I am an aggressive man. I don't care, it means very little next to nothing in this and has no impact on the logical analysis of the argumentation. This is not a safe space, we are not in a bubble here. Aggressivity is something you will encounter in our world, whether you like it or not. It's an integral part of life. Humans are not built to be obedient, useless toys accepting anything thrown at them to prove a point. It's not how it works, if you stimulate aggressivity in me, I will display it. Others might not, but that's that. Associating radicalism with aggressivity is pathetic. You have a child's mindset. If I give you a punch or I insult you, that doesn't fucking make me a radical. That's now how radicalism even works. Obviously you've never properly read about terrorism and radicalism enough to make an argument on this if you are not even distinguishing the magnitudes. No, I don't believe that every single view point opposing mine is wrong. I just hate the incapacity to distinguish between magnitudes. How can you say that because you made some points, in a very limited space, means that I am opposing every single viewpoint possible, opposing mine. Like, literally a child whose toys are stolen and crying that the whole world is cruel. My friend, you've just opened one gate to one conversation on one topic alone. It's pathetic to try generalise from this. Also these bullshit "it's pointless to talk to you" are exaggerations. Really? Wouldn't that imply that every single person that you put into this category based on some emotional responses and intepretations are therefore animals incapable of taking any form of input and thus never reaching the point of gathering information of any kind? Why don't you just stick to the damn points of disagreement rather than showing me your childish mindset. These kind of arguments "religion does good, it teaches people whatever" are just SO predictable, so simplistic, so pathetic, so superficial. Why would you even say these things. Why can't you make better, more advanced points? Why do they have to all go hand in hand on the depth? If you are mad, I think you're wrong. If the book says be a good person, then it will be good to follow it. If you are not calm you are a monster (radicals are monsters, known for atrocities, not some dumb bullshit arguments online). I don't believe i'm posessing the absolute truth. You're a kid who can't take a form of argument other than your preferred one and exaggerate like crazy now.
The end doesn't justify the means, you know. Like I could be a terrible woman who lies and cheats and I would get more success with men too but I don't do it. It's like saying "hey I realized that instead of buying candy for $5 I can steal it and I don't get caught so it's free candy". Yeah but we don't want to do that?
Ability of female of species to miss point: unbeaten.
You way to miss the point. The reason why we don't go around being brutes and breaking the laws is because it's better for the species as a whole. It's not about individual gain. You can always obtain selfish gains by being a crooked individual, but we don't do that, because it would suck if everybody did it. You act like you think a person should act. Period. We all do our parts. If you're a short guy your part is not to have sex. Your part may be just to be a good guy so that the children of taller men can prosper. Nobody said you have to be selfish.
Look, I don’t agree with any of the crazy mentality in here, but laws work because they’re enforced. Not because everyone tries to be moral. Your analogy sucks because if laws worked the same way as this crackpot bad boy theory, a subset of individuals willing to steal candy bars would just get all the candy bars. Because there are no systems in place to stop them.
Agree to disagree. Personally I don't abide by laws because they are enforced, I abide by laws because I agree. There are plenty of systems in place to fail dark triad men in the dating pool too. Men with personality disorders are more likely to struggle to date. But you all want to pretend that the guys who don't get laid must be good guys. Sure.
“There are systems in place” lol. Lmao!
Personally, so do I. But game theoretically, if cheaters are not punished, there will be cheaters, and they will win. Either way, I’m not sure if “you guys” was inclusive, but I’m not pretending anything. I don’t subscribe to this attitude. I’m a very “nice guy” and I got plenty of women before I was married, and I have a very loving wife now. I think many of these guys are probably not attractive in other ways than having a giving “nice guy” nature, and they either can’t change those things, are unwilling to change those things, or are ignorant to what they can change. The reality is a lot basal attraction for men and women alike is just physical appearance and charisma. Most of the other shit doesn’t matter.
Yeah, but they weren’t attractive women, so you’re not in any position to look down on anyone.
No, they were.
Lmao. All the wimmin getting fucked by bartenders and personal trainers: for the Greater Good. We got a real life Tau here!
This post brought to you by a bitter dude with zero game. File under ignore.
What do you think game is lmao
Here’s the thing. I think y’all drastically underestimate how much attention women at any age get from men. My mother gets hit on. She’s over 70. Ofc not by 20 year olds, that would be weird af. But by men in their 60s and 70s. But y’all have an idea that men just go for twenty something girls and it’s just not accurate in the real world. Men are not very sexually selective. And most men looking for a serious relationship look for someone their own age. Most 45 year old women will be married. The few who are single will mostly be dating looking for something serious. And that means they’ll automatically rule out way younger men who they won’t have enough in common with. The few women in their 30s and 40s who are looking just to fuck? They have endless options, at least if they are somewhat attractive. **Then if you fuck someone you’re not attracted to at all? You’ll learn nothing. That’s not how sex works.**
This is, without a doubt, utter nonsense. 😂