Topic: I'm archiving every video from "Alpha Male Strategies" on YouTube
Anonymous A started this discussion 2 years ago #110,226
Just in case they get deleted due to feminism. One day I'll give them to my son so he can be red pilled from the getgo.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 9 minutes later[^] [v] #1,227,939
You will never have a child.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,940
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,941
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 18 minutes later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,946
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 34 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,948
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,951
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,952
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,955
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,956
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,962
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,964
@previous (D)
None of your business, actually. I happen to be gay. What about you? How is your mom, since you live with her and do not have a girlfriend?
None of your business, actually. I happen to be gay. What about you? How is your mom, since you live with her and do not have a girlfriend?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 45 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,965
Your fags.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,967
@1,227,964 (C)
It is entirely my business, actually. Did she divorce you or did you divorce her? Or have you never been married?
It is entirely my business, actually. Did she divorce you or did you divorce her? Or have you never been married?
Anonymous D double-posted this 2 years ago, 33 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,968
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,970
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,973
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,976
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 6 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,010
> Alpha Male StrategiesI suspected that these strategies involved a lot of dehumanising women, insulting women, and assertions that you must be a strong dominant manly man for women to even look at you.
I decided to check this channel to test this assumption, and it was exactly what I expected.
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE double-posted this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,011
"How to destroy a woman's ego". Jesus christ...
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,012
@1,228,010 (Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE)
Do you think the pattern of men getting drawn into content like this is coming out of nowhere?
Stable monogamous relationships are out of the question for a majority of men, and the evolutionary pressure to build a family is going to stop most from being either gay or choosing a life without women.
It's insane that people have normalized an environment where women take advantage of desperate men and the most common response (even among disaffected and working class men) is to laugh at the expense of the man at the end of it.
The liberal view doesn't want to delve into this more than "Men are just bad, because they chose to be toxic", as if anything about this is appealing to men.
Do you think the pattern of men getting drawn into content like this is coming out of nowhere?
Stable monogamous relationships are out of the question for a majority of men, and the evolutionary pressure to build a family is going to stop most from being either gay or choosing a life without women.
It's insane that people have normalized an environment where women take advantage of desperate men and the most common response (even among disaffected and working class men) is to laugh at the expense of the man at the end of it.
The liberal view doesn't want to delve into this more than "Men are just bad, because they chose to be toxic", as if anything about this is appealing to men.
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,013
@OP
I can, on some level, understand the appeal of this mindset, but it isn't healthy. Seeing your romantic partner as somebody whose behaviour must break and control is not the basis of a healthy relationship. Although viewing all women in this way is a comforting excuse for a lack of success in dating, it is still just an excuse and probably won't really help you.
I know that "be yourself" is memed as useless advice, but I think it's genuinely a better approach than trying to mould yourself into a clone of these domineering, women-hating men. Even if it takes a long time to find a woman who appreciates the real you, that is much better than hating women and trying to trick one into falling in love with a persona you're putting on.
I can, on some level, understand the appeal of this mindset, but it isn't healthy. Seeing your romantic partner as somebody whose behaviour must break and control is not the basis of a healthy relationship. Although viewing all women in this way is a comforting excuse for a lack of success in dating, it is still just an excuse and probably won't really help you.
I know that "be yourself" is memed as useless advice, but I think it's genuinely a better approach than trying to mould yourself into a clone of these domineering, women-hating men. Even if it takes a long time to find a woman who appreciates the real you, that is much better than hating women and trying to trick one into falling in love with a persona you're putting on.
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 9 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,014
@previous (Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE)
> I can, on some level, understand the appeal of this mindset, but it isn't healthy.
Of course it's not healthy, but why would people be attracted to something so unhealthy?
> Seeing your romantic partner as somebody whose behaviour must break and control is not the basis of a healthy relationship.
People develop attachment disorders because they've observed infidelity, and fraud in these relationships so often they begin to fear and expect them.
There's something wrong with one person investing years of time and resources into a relationship for the other party to abruptly leave them and when that happens society at large shrugs at it. You got scammed, and no one cares. That frays the sc
> Although viewing all women in this way is a comforting excuse for a lack of success in dating, it is still just an excuse and probably won't really help you.
Why is one sex seeing record rates of complete failure at dating, while the other sex manages to have no trouble with it even when they are suffering from physical problems and poverty?
If the sex having problems is just making mistakes on a broad scale, why are they affected and not the other?
If this were race, and people said [race] choose to be poor and criminals, the leftist discourse would reproach them and explain no one chooses to be in such a situation. With sex, it's the consensus one side just chose to be toxic and it's their own fault.
> I know that "be yourself" is memed as useless advice, but I think it's genuinely a better approach than trying to mould yourself into a clone of these domineering, women-hating men.
I agree, but the people drawn into this have figured out that doesn't work at all. So they veer into even crazier content like this because it's something different.
> Even if it takes a long time to find a woman who appreciates the real you, that is much better than hating women and trying to trick one into falling in love with a persona you're putting on.
They are going to be basing their expectations on those around them. Men who got a partner, but were used for their labor and discarded. Men who were never toxic or rude, but got old alone.
Seeing that is leading to a lot of men setting an expectation that there is no woman coming along who acts like that.
> I can, on some level, understand the appeal of this mindset, but it isn't healthy.
Of course it's not healthy, but why would people be attracted to something so unhealthy?
> Seeing your romantic partner as somebody whose behaviour must break and control is not the basis of a healthy relationship.
People develop attachment disorders because they've observed infidelity, and fraud in these relationships so often they begin to fear and expect them.
There's something wrong with one person investing years of time and resources into a relationship for the other party to abruptly leave them and when that happens society at large shrugs at it. You got scammed, and no one cares. That frays the sc
> Although viewing all women in this way is a comforting excuse for a lack of success in dating, it is still just an excuse and probably won't really help you.
Why is one sex seeing record rates of complete failure at dating, while the other sex manages to have no trouble with it even when they are suffering from physical problems and poverty?
If the sex having problems is just making mistakes on a broad scale, why are they affected and not the other?
If this were race, and people said [race] choose to be poor and criminals, the leftist discourse would reproach them and explain no one chooses to be in such a situation. With sex, it's the consensus one side just chose to be toxic and it's their own fault.
> I know that "be yourself" is memed as useless advice, but I think it's genuinely a better approach than trying to mould yourself into a clone of these domineering, women-hating men.
I agree, but the people drawn into this have figured out that doesn't work at all. So they veer into even crazier content like this because it's something different.
> Even if it takes a long time to find a woman who appreciates the real you, that is much better than hating women and trying to trick one into falling in love with a persona you're putting on.
They are going to be basing their expectations on those around them. Men who got a partner, but were used for their labor and discarded. Men who were never toxic or rude, but got old alone.
Seeing that is leading to a lot of men setting an expectation that there is no woman coming along who acts like that.
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,015
@1,228,012 (F)
This idea that women only want high-status, attractive men simply isn't true. I have known many men, IRL and out, who are a long way from the "chad" stereotype. All these men had to do to find women was to put themselves out there and have some patience. And maybe know the right places to look. A relationship is absolutely not something that is unattainable for a "majority" of men, this doesn't even hold up to even a cursory examination. Society would look very different if it really was a small group of hign-status men hoarding the women. We do not live in a polygynist society.
I don't laugh at men who fall into this kind of mindset, I actually empathise with them a lot. On a theoretical level, I get why demonising women like this might make them feel better about not being able to get girlfriends. I would just like them to realise that hating women is not healthy and probably won't really help their dating woes.
This idea that women only want high-status, attractive men simply isn't true. I have known many men, IRL and out, who are a long way from the "chad" stereotype. All these men had to do to find women was to put themselves out there and have some patience. And maybe know the right places to look. A relationship is absolutely not something that is unattainable for a "majority" of men, this doesn't even hold up to even a cursory examination. Society would look very different if it really was a small group of hign-status men hoarding the women. We do not live in a polygynist society.
I don't laugh at men who fall into this kind of mindset, I actually empathise with them a lot. On a theoretical level, I get why demonising women like this might make them feel better about not being able to get girlfriends. I would just like them to realise that hating women is not healthy and probably won't really help their dating woes.
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 13 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,016
@previous (Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE)
> This idea that women only want high-status, attractive men simply isn't true. I have known many men, IRL and out, who are a long way from the "chad" stereotype. All these men had to do to find women was to put themselves out there and have some patience. And maybe know the right places to look. A relationship is absolutely not something that is unattainable for a "majority" of men, this doesn't even hold up to even a cursory examination. Society would look very different if it really was a small group of hign-status men hoarding the women. We do not live in a polygynist society.
There's multiple ways it's been documented. Books across cultures have portrayed mate-finding as a contest for men to win a woman, where many men don't succeed. Women are portrayed as having multiple suitors, and they simply chose their favorite and don't have the same competition to participate in. Any big movie or tv series will have some romantic subplot where men try to prove themselves to get a woman, but women simply stand around and wait to be won over, and some guys just don't make the cut.
Once dating services could compile the data, they showed right away that women were very selective, and most men were not successful on these services.
Even DNA shows more variation in mitochondrial DNA than Y chromosomal DNA implying that most women could reproduce, but most men couldn't.
Is there any evidence for a society that naturally organizes itself monogamously?
> I don't laugh at men who fall into this kind of mindset, I actually empathise with them a lot. On a theoretical level, I get why demonising women like this might make them feel better about not being able to get girlfriends. I would just like them to realise that hating women is not healthy and probably won't really help their dating woes.
I don't mean to accuse you of it, but its the most common response. To demonize men as just too stupid, mean, and unwashed to get a partner.
> This idea that women only want high-status, attractive men simply isn't true. I have known many men, IRL and out, who are a long way from the "chad" stereotype. All these men had to do to find women was to put themselves out there and have some patience. And maybe know the right places to look. A relationship is absolutely not something that is unattainable for a "majority" of men, this doesn't even hold up to even a cursory examination. Society would look very different if it really was a small group of hign-status men hoarding the women. We do not live in a polygynist society.
There's multiple ways it's been documented. Books across cultures have portrayed mate-finding as a contest for men to win a woman, where many men don't succeed. Women are portrayed as having multiple suitors, and they simply chose their favorite and don't have the same competition to participate in. Any big movie or tv series will have some romantic subplot where men try to prove themselves to get a woman, but women simply stand around and wait to be won over, and some guys just don't make the cut.
Once dating services could compile the data, they showed right away that women were very selective, and most men were not successful on these services.
Even DNA shows more variation in mitochondrial DNA than Y chromosomal DNA implying that most women could reproduce, but most men couldn't.
Is there any evidence for a society that naturally organizes itself monogamously?
> I don't laugh at men who fall into this kind of mindset, I actually empathise with them a lot. On a theoretical level, I get why demonising women like this might make them feel better about not being able to get girlfriends. I would just like them to realise that hating women is not healthy and probably won't really help their dating woes.
I don't mean to accuse you of it, but its the most common response. To demonize men as just too stupid, mean, and unwashed to get a partner.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,017
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,018
@previous (G)
I'm not suggesting they are, just that these apps allow dating to be quantified in a way it wasn't before.
Unsurprisingly, the moment that was possible the stereotypes that have long existed about men having to compete for women and not the other way around were verified and given numerical values.
I'm not suggesting they are, just that these apps allow dating to be quantified in a way it wasn't before.
Unsurprisingly, the moment that was possible the stereotypes that have long existed about men having to compete for women and not the other way around were verified and given numerical values.
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 26 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,020
@previous (F)
We've always known that
We also know that many men have shockingly low standards on who they would have sex with, and swipe on women they would never actually date
We've always known that
We also know that many men have shockingly low standards on who they would have sex with, and swipe on women they would never actually date
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,022
@previous (G)
Why is why the bottom 80% of women are competing with the top 10% of men. Chad doesn't want a relationship with a 5/10 average looking bitch. But he does want to bang her, and she wants to bang him because she thinks she can get a relationship out of him, leaving average dudes in the dust.
Why is why the bottom 80% of women are competing with the top 10% of men. Chad doesn't want a relationship with a 5/10 average looking bitch. But he does want to bang her, and she wants to bang him because she thinks she can get a relationship out of him, leaving average dudes in the dust.
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,023
@1,228,020 (G)
> We've always known that
Then why are people, to this day, saying that men can find a partner just by giving it some time and avoiding toxic behavior?
> We also know that many men have shockingly low standards on who they would have sex with
Yes, exactly, what you are describing is male hypogamy and it's the other side of the coin to female hypergamy.
Did men just randomly decide to have low standards? No, it's an adaptation to a very unequal dating environment. Men will consider almost any woman, because that's the only way they can get any woman.
> and swipe on women they would never actually date.
Someone a man sleeps with for a night because he's touch-starved and drunk isn't reflective of a good long term partner. If men are hypogamous, and they are, then that means associating yourself with someone less attractive, less well-behaved, and not a good person to tie your finances too.
Meanwhile a woman has every reason to pursue a long term relationship with someone she hooked up with, because average women could reasonably have sex with someone who is higher class, or even a celebrity. Of course the numbers don't allow for every groupie to have a monogamous relationship with the rockstar, and not every mistress can get a divorce settlement.
> We've always known that
Then why are people, to this day, saying that men can find a partner just by giving it some time and avoiding toxic behavior?
> We also know that many men have shockingly low standards on who they would have sex with
Yes, exactly, what you are describing is male hypogamy and it's the other side of the coin to female hypergamy.
Did men just randomly decide to have low standards? No, it's an adaptation to a very unequal dating environment. Men will consider almost any woman, because that's the only way they can get any woman.
> and swipe on women they would never actually date.
Someone a man sleeps with for a night because he's touch-starved and drunk isn't reflective of a good long term partner. If men are hypogamous, and they are, then that means associating yourself with someone less attractive, less well-behaved, and not a good person to tie your finances too.
Meanwhile a woman has every reason to pursue a long term relationship with someone she hooked up with, because average women could reasonably have sex with someone who is higher class, or even a celebrity. Of course the numbers don't allow for every groupie to have a monogamous relationship with the rockstar, and not every mistress can get a divorce settlement.
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 21 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,026
@1,228,022 (A)
If someone is going through the hassle of dealing with some dude for probably subpar sex, why wouldn't she pick the most attractive one she can get?
If someone is going through the hassle of dealing with some dude for probably subpar sex, why wouldn't she pick the most attractive one she can get?
Anonymous G double-posted this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,027
@1,228,023 (F)
A. Ive met so many "low value" men who have partners because they were assertive and outgoing
B. Men have always had low standards and also treated women badly and less than human for fucking them. Men believe that contact with a dick ruins women, yet still try to fuck them
C. Men are very selfish in bed and way less likely to make women have an orgasm than vice versa. Men are also way more likely to murder sexual partners than women
D. Many women are opting out of relationships entirely as they are learning it isnt worth it to deal with men
Also because men have no sexual standards, women can easily acquire sex and children if they want those things
Men made this problem
A. Ive met so many "low value" men who have partners because they were assertive and outgoing
B. Men have always had low standards and also treated women badly and less than human for fucking them. Men believe that contact with a dick ruins women, yet still try to fuck them
C. Men are very selfish in bed and way less likely to make women have an orgasm than vice versa. Men are also way more likely to murder sexual partners than women
D. Many women are opting out of relationships entirely as they are learning it isnt worth it to deal with men
Also because men have no sexual standards, women can easily acquire sex and children if they want those things
Men made this problem
(Edited 32 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,028
@1,228,026 (G)
> If someone is going through the hassle of dealing with some dude for probably subpar sex
Same trope: men are all bad lovers and women have to deal with that. Since women don't have trouble finding partners, then they must all be great at sex.
> why wouldn't she pick the most attractive one she can get?
Everyone picks the most attractive they can get. For women that could be the most attractive man around. For men, that could be someone in much worse health, from a lower class.
> If someone is going through the hassle of dealing with some dude for probably subpar sex
Same trope: men are all bad lovers and women have to deal with that. Since women don't have trouble finding partners, then they must all be great at sex.
> why wouldn't she pick the most attractive one she can get?
Everyone picks the most attractive they can get. For women that could be the most attractive man around. For men, that could be someone in much worse health, from a lower class.
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,029
@previous (F)
Yeah try to pretend that men dont have a very long history of being selfish in bed and believing that dicks ruin women
Your second point is irrelevant to this discussion
I've also noticed that men tend to have much worse grooming then women. They don't moisturize or use sunblock and dont trim down body hair so they smell like balls
Also a surprising amount of men dont wash their assholes
Yeah try to pretend that men dont have a very long history of being selfish in bed and believing that dicks ruin women
Your second point is irrelevant to this discussion
I've also noticed that men tend to have much worse grooming then women. They don't moisturize or use sunblock and dont trim down body hair so they smell like balls
Also a surprising amount of men dont wash their assholes
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 14 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,031
@1,228,027 (G)
> A. Ive met so many "low value" men who have partners because they were assertive and outgoing
Having a partner doesn't mean necessarily being in a relationship where both contribute equally, or are equally attractive or interesting. It also doesn't take into account the men that heavily invest in these relationships (as men are expected to) only to have it all go to waste when she decides she's bored.
> B. Men have always had low standards and also treated women badly and less than human for fucking them. Men believe that contact with a dick ruins women, yet still try to fuck them
Men want a relationship to mean something, and if a woman has had sex with countless men before, or is still fucking multiple men, then they aren't building a long-term monogamous relationship.
Why is a man going to spend all the time and energy it takes to win a woman over if she won't even give him the privilege of exclusivity? At that point you're just one of many johns paying for a whore. Somehow sentimentality and want for a serious bond with another person is demonized in men. Of course, a woman that didn't want a promiscuous man would be understood, and not labeled as a "slut shamer", women are allowed to want monogamy. Men aren't.
> C. Men are very selfish in bed and way less likely to make women have an orgasm than vice versa. Men are also way more likely to murder sexual partners than women
Blacks are more likely to murder than whites, but you probably understand the issue of attributing that to a free choice, rather than the result of extreme stressors that push one demographic to be more violent than another.
> D. Many women are opting out of relationships entirely as they are learning it isnt worth it to deal with men
You still haven't touched on why you think men are bad in relationships, and women are good. It's a sexist idea at it's core, because you're treating one half the population as if they are inherently toxic.
Men get defrauded, led on, blamed, and expected to pay a high price for even a chance at affection and a normal relationship and when they get seriously abused time and time again some make the very poor choice of taking it out on the person that did it.
Some brown kid growing up in the hood is going to be more likely to violently attack people than a white person in an affluent situation. Because one is just inherently bad? No, because material conditions and evolved responses lead to predictable outcomes.
If women had to devote all their energy just to getting a man's attention, and he could use her for personal gain, there would be a crisis of hopeless women attacking men violently.
Nothing's ever going to get solved as long as people endorse all the games and abuse women do to men.
> Also because men have no sexual standards, women can easily acquire sex and children if they want those things
Again, that's male hypogamy, and you acknowledge that it exists without addressing why it exists in the first place.
This is how feminism treats most issues. "Men are bad, who knows why, let's not talk about the origin of the differences between sexes". Probably because they have no explanation that stands up to scrutiny, whereas hypergamous sexual dynamics explains it perfectly.
> Men made this problem
Why did all these men, across so many cultures, just decide to be bad? Why would they continue to perpetuate a system that hurts them?
It makes no sense on the face of it, and you haven't given any reason why men would chose it.
> A. Ive met so many "low value" men who have partners because they were assertive and outgoing
Having a partner doesn't mean necessarily being in a relationship where both contribute equally, or are equally attractive or interesting. It also doesn't take into account the men that heavily invest in these relationships (as men are expected to) only to have it all go to waste when she decides she's bored.
> B. Men have always had low standards and also treated women badly and less than human for fucking them. Men believe that contact with a dick ruins women, yet still try to fuck them
Men want a relationship to mean something, and if a woman has had sex with countless men before, or is still fucking multiple men, then they aren't building a long-term monogamous relationship.
Why is a man going to spend all the time and energy it takes to win a woman over if she won't even give him the privilege of exclusivity? At that point you're just one of many johns paying for a whore. Somehow sentimentality and want for a serious bond with another person is demonized in men. Of course, a woman that didn't want a promiscuous man would be understood, and not labeled as a "slut shamer", women are allowed to want monogamy. Men aren't.
> C. Men are very selfish in bed and way less likely to make women have an orgasm than vice versa. Men are also way more likely to murder sexual partners than women
Blacks are more likely to murder than whites, but you probably understand the issue of attributing that to a free choice, rather than the result of extreme stressors that push one demographic to be more violent than another.
> D. Many women are opting out of relationships entirely as they are learning it isnt worth it to deal with men
You still haven't touched on why you think men are bad in relationships, and women are good. It's a sexist idea at it's core, because you're treating one half the population as if they are inherently toxic.
Men get defrauded, led on, blamed, and expected to pay a high price for even a chance at affection and a normal relationship and when they get seriously abused time and time again some make the very poor choice of taking it out on the person that did it.
Some brown kid growing up in the hood is going to be more likely to violently attack people than a white person in an affluent situation. Because one is just inherently bad? No, because material conditions and evolved responses lead to predictable outcomes.
If women had to devote all their energy just to getting a man's attention, and he could use her for personal gain, there would be a crisis of hopeless women attacking men violently.
Nothing's ever going to get solved as long as people endorse all the games and abuse women do to men.
> Also because men have no sexual standards, women can easily acquire sex and children if they want those things
Again, that's male hypogamy, and you acknowledge that it exists without addressing why it exists in the first place.
This is how feminism treats most issues. "Men are bad, who knows why, let's not talk about the origin of the differences between sexes". Probably because they have no explanation that stands up to scrutiny, whereas hypergamous sexual dynamics explains it perfectly.
> Men made this problem
Why did all these men, across so many cultures, just decide to be bad? Why would they continue to perpetuate a system that hurts them?
It makes no sense on the face of it, and you haven't given any reason why men would chose it.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,032
Wait, this thread is serious?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,033
@1,228,031 (F)
You're not going to get a response because you've effectively neutered any argument she has.
You're not going to get a response because you've effectively neutered any argument she has.
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,034
@1,228,029 (G)
> Yeah try to pretend that men dont have a very long history of being selfish in bed
There's truth to the idea that sex tends to end with male orgasm, but I would disagree that's why women date up, or why many men have a hard time finding serious relationships.
> and believing that dicks ruin women
I didn't deny this, I agreed men don't want promiscuous women. There's nothing wrong with wanting sex to be something preserved for a long-term partner.
If a woman has dated, and has sex a few times before that's not going to be a deal-breaker.
If she has a history of having sex with many men in casual flings, that's going to change what sex means. It's not longer a symbol of commitment or bonding, it's a meaningless hedonistic pursuit. Men who want a serious committed relationship will be turned off by sluts because they know they won't get what they're after.
A woman who wants monogamy, and is turned off by men who have a new hookup every weekend are not admonished by liberals. But liberals will talk down about men who have the same standard, and call them "slut shaming".
> Yeah try to pretend that men dont have a very long history of being selfish in bed
There's truth to the idea that sex tends to end with male orgasm, but I would disagree that's why women date up, or why many men have a hard time finding serious relationships.
> and believing that dicks ruin women
I didn't deny this, I agreed men don't want promiscuous women. There's nothing wrong with wanting sex to be something preserved for a long-term partner.
If a woman has dated, and has sex a few times before that's not going to be a deal-breaker.
If she has a history of having sex with many men in casual flings, that's going to change what sex means. It's not longer a symbol of commitment or bonding, it's a meaningless hedonistic pursuit. Men who want a serious committed relationship will be turned off by sluts because they know they won't get what they're after.
A woman who wants monogamy, and is turned off by men who have a new hookup every weekend are not admonished by liberals. But liberals will talk down about men who have the same standard, and call them "slut shaming".
Anonymous F double-posted this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,036
@1,228,032 (H)
People behave in repetitive, predictable patterns.
Some people have made it into a science, and can explain in detail how sexual dynamics work.
Other people believe men are just really bad, but can't tell you why that happened. This same group says that anything that acknowledges problems on the woman's side is sexism. Say men and women have different innate roles in society based on evolution, and you're a misogynist. But if you say that the male sex is inherently gross, mean, and abusive and that's just speaking your truth.
Feminism is full of contradictions they will never address, much more than what constitutes sexism.
People behave in repetitive, predictable patterns.
Some people have made it into a science, and can explain in detail how sexual dynamics work.
Other people believe men are just really bad, but can't tell you why that happened. This same group says that anything that acknowledges problems on the woman's side is sexism. Say men and women have different innate roles in society based on evolution, and you're a misogynist. But if you say that the male sex is inherently gross, mean, and abusive and that's just speaking your truth.
Feminism is full of contradictions they will never address, much more than what constitutes sexism.
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 23 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,037
@1,228,031 (F)
1. How to quantify equal?
Most fat men have fat wives
Most old men have old wives
In most marriages both partners work
They seem happy. Do things need to be perfectly equal for both partners to have a happy marriage?
B. Men do not want a relationship to mean something in that way. Otherwise THEY wouldn't have casual sex and porn addiction. They want to be able to have fun and ruin womwn with their dicks and then settle down with a woman who hasnt been ruined by dicks
C. If someone refused to date black people, thats their choice. Dating and sex isnt charity work
Also black people dont commit the vast majority of all violebt crime like men do
D. Im not saying that all women are good in relationships and all men are bad (whatever thats supposed to mean). Im saying that for a variety of reasons, women are opting out of dating and you cant do anything about it but bitch
E. Across all cultures men took the time to artificially handicap women
Men act like dicks ruin women so women have less sex
Men taught women that women shouldn't enjoy sex so women have sex for resources instead of pleasure
Men are selfish in bed so women stay home and masturbate (vibrators are really good nowadays and give much more consistent orgasms)
Men beat and kill partners at alarming rates, so women are wary of men
Do yes, men caused these issues
1. How to quantify equal?
Most fat men have fat wives
Most old men have old wives
In most marriages both partners work
They seem happy. Do things need to be perfectly equal for both partners to have a happy marriage?
B. Men do not want a relationship to mean something in that way. Otherwise THEY wouldn't have casual sex and porn addiction. They want to be able to have fun and ruin womwn with their dicks and then settle down with a woman who hasnt been ruined by dicks
C. If someone refused to date black people, thats their choice. Dating and sex isnt charity work
Also black people dont commit the vast majority of all violebt crime like men do
D. Im not saying that all women are good in relationships and all men are bad (whatever thats supposed to mean). Im saying that for a variety of reasons, women are opting out of dating and you cant do anything about it but bitch
E. Across all cultures men took the time to artificially handicap women
Men act like dicks ruin women so women have less sex
Men taught women that women shouldn't enjoy sex so women have sex for resources instead of pleasure
Men are selfish in bed so women stay home and masturbate (vibrators are really good nowadays and give much more consistent orgasms)
Men beat and kill partners at alarming rates, so women are wary of men
Do yes, men caused these issues
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
Anonymous G double-posted this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,038
@1,228,034 (F)
Wait though, men believe that dicks ruin women but actively participate in creating this class of ruined women. You don't see how sick that is? How absolutely vilainous?
Also men will spend hours and hours searching for porn, jerking off to porn, talking with men about who they would and wouldn't fuck. That isnt holding sex as some sacred ideal
Wait though, men believe that dicks ruin women but actively participate in creating this class of ruined women. You don't see how sick that is? How absolutely vilainous?
Also men will spend hours and hours searching for porn, jerking off to porn, talking with men about who they would and wouldn't fuck. That isnt holding sex as some sacred ideal
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
Anonymous G triple-posted this 2 years ago, 44 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,039
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,040
@1,228,014 (F)
I don't think it's too controversial to say that, generally, women have it easier finding a partner than men, and are more selective about doing so. What I take issue with is the idea that finding a woman is totally hopeless for average men, or the idea that a small group of high-status men have a monopoly on women. This is a redpill and incel fantasy. Women are selective, but this does not mean they all want the redpill/incel idea of a high-status man. Again, I don't think that this holds up to scrutiny- do only athletic, charismatic men reproduce in our society? Do these men actually have harems, or are they largely monogamous, like most westerners?
@1,228,016 (F)
I could ramble on about this a lot, but I'll try to be brief- it isn't that clear-cut. In ancient Greece and Rome, husbands and fathers had a strong level of control over women, culturally and legally. There were arranged marriages. Generally, men were allowed to fuck around in various fashions, while women were expected to be chaste and only have sex with her husband. The idea that women always had all of the power, and that men were always desperately competing for them, is off-base. In many points in history, wives would be handed to men on platters, so to speak.
This changed when Christianity took off, and men were also expected to be chaste and only have sex with their spouse. This laid the groundwork for our own modern views of marriage in the west. But my point is, if you take this out of the equation, I don't think it defaults to something that favours women at all, quite the opposite.
@1,228,022 (A)
The 80/20 rule is a myth, mate. A statistical trick. It came from one man making some fake profiles and seeing what responses he got, it was not a proper scientific investigation into behaviour on dating apps.
I think that, what's really going on, is that men are generally very indiscriminate when swiping, whereas women aren't. The key detail here, I suspect, is that not all women want "chad", and will swipe according to her individual preferences. Yes, "chad" is attractive so will naturally do better, as will an attractive woman. But the average man can also build a connection with the right woman, if he just puts himself out there enough and puts in the effort to winning someone over.
I urge you to leave this cynical mindset behind. It's defeatism, and will only hurt you.
I don't think it's too controversial to say that, generally, women have it easier finding a partner than men, and are more selective about doing so. What I take issue with is the idea that finding a woman is totally hopeless for average men, or the idea that a small group of high-status men have a monopoly on women. This is a redpill and incel fantasy. Women are selective, but this does not mean they all want the redpill/incel idea of a high-status man. Again, I don't think that this holds up to scrutiny- do only athletic, charismatic men reproduce in our society? Do these men actually have harems, or are they largely monogamous, like most westerners?
@1,228,016 (F)
I could ramble on about this a lot, but I'll try to be brief- it isn't that clear-cut. In ancient Greece and Rome, husbands and fathers had a strong level of control over women, culturally and legally. There were arranged marriages. Generally, men were allowed to fuck around in various fashions, while women were expected to be chaste and only have sex with her husband. The idea that women always had all of the power, and that men were always desperately competing for them, is off-base. In many points in history, wives would be handed to men on platters, so to speak.
This changed when Christianity took off, and men were also expected to be chaste and only have sex with their spouse. This laid the groundwork for our own modern views of marriage in the west. But my point is, if you take this out of the equation, I don't think it defaults to something that favours women at all, quite the opposite.
@1,228,022 (A)
The 80/20 rule is a myth, mate. A statistical trick. It came from one man making some fake profiles and seeing what responses he got, it was not a proper scientific investigation into behaviour on dating apps.
I think that, what's really going on, is that men are generally very indiscriminate when swiping, whereas women aren't. The key detail here, I suspect, is that not all women want "chad", and will swipe according to her individual preferences. Yes, "chad" is attractive so will naturally do better, as will an attractive woman. But the average man can also build a connection with the right woman, if he just puts himself out there enough and puts in the effort to winning someone over.
I urge you to leave this cynical mindset behind. It's defeatism, and will only hurt you.
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 20 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,041
@1,228,037 (G)
> B. Men do not want a relationship to mean something in that way. Otherwise THEY wouldn't have casual sex and porn addiction. They want to be able to have fun and ruin womwn with their dicks and then settle down with a woman who hasnt been ruined by dicks
Most men aren't having casual sex, a minority of studs are.
Also, a man who can't get a committed relationship might settle for a cheap substitute like casual sex or porn in absence of what they really want.
> C. If someone refused to date black people, thats their choice. Dating and sex isnt charity work
This has nothing to do with what I actually said, which is that people will attribute problems caused by a racial group to their material conditions, but attribute problems caused by a sex to an inherent flaw in that sex.
> Also black people dont commit the vast majority of all violebt crime like men do
Both men, and black people are disproportionately represented in crime statistics.
Is it more appropriate to look at their conditions, or to blame them inherently? If it depends on whether we are talking about race or sex, and you can't give the same answer for both then you have an unexplained double standard. What makes the two different?
> D. Im not saying that all women are good in relationships and all men are bad (whatever thats supposed to mean). Im saying that for a variety of reasons, women are opting out of dating and you cant do anything about it but bitch
"for a variety of reasons". And what is the root cause of men being bad relationship material, whereas women are still desired?
You are glossing over the why as if it's meaningless trivia. There has to be a reason, it's not a coincidence that one sex doesn't wash their buttholes, but the other sex make great partners.
> Men act like dicks ruin women so women have less sex
Women still have sex, but they share the top men rather than find someone that would be on their level.
And yes, men don't want to share women, which is what the essense of "dicks ruin women" is.
One sex is fine with sharing, and one is, by their nature.
> Men taught women that women shouldn't enjoy sex so women have sex for resources instead of pleasure
Men have discouraged promiscuity in women, that's true.
This also contradicts the idea that men want women to be sluts, which feminists also claim.
Rather than seeing the contradiction in their own beliefs, they claim men have a double standard, but really men just want a stable relationship without having to share.
> Men beat and kill partners at alarming rates, so women are wary of men
Minorities and the poor also commit violent acts more, but there is no demographic that looks forward to going to prison or being ostracized for violence. So what conditions push someone into an action that hurts them and their partners? Extreme desperation, and a lack of any systemic justice when they themselves are victimized.
> Do yes, men caused these issues
Yet you still won't say WHY men would do this. It's like a wall in the conversation you won't go past. Won't even acknowledge I'm asking it.
Answering that question either leads to outright sexism (claiming men are innately bad), or acknowledging that men have different material conditions that lead to them acting this way. I'd love to hear another theory.
> B. Men do not want a relationship to mean something in that way. Otherwise THEY wouldn't have casual sex and porn addiction. They want to be able to have fun and ruin womwn with their dicks and then settle down with a woman who hasnt been ruined by dicks
Most men aren't having casual sex, a minority of studs are.
Also, a man who can't get a committed relationship might settle for a cheap substitute like casual sex or porn in absence of what they really want.
> C. If someone refused to date black people, thats their choice. Dating and sex isnt charity work
This has nothing to do with what I actually said, which is that people will attribute problems caused by a racial group to their material conditions, but attribute problems caused by a sex to an inherent flaw in that sex.
> Also black people dont commit the vast majority of all violebt crime like men do
Both men, and black people are disproportionately represented in crime statistics.
Is it more appropriate to look at their conditions, or to blame them inherently? If it depends on whether we are talking about race or sex, and you can't give the same answer for both then you have an unexplained double standard. What makes the two different?
> D. Im not saying that all women are good in relationships and all men are bad (whatever thats supposed to mean). Im saying that for a variety of reasons, women are opting out of dating and you cant do anything about it but bitch
"for a variety of reasons". And what is the root cause of men being bad relationship material, whereas women are still desired?
You are glossing over the why as if it's meaningless trivia. There has to be a reason, it's not a coincidence that one sex doesn't wash their buttholes, but the other sex make great partners.
> Men act like dicks ruin women so women have less sex
Women still have sex, but they share the top men rather than find someone that would be on their level.
And yes, men don't want to share women, which is what the essense of "dicks ruin women" is.
One sex is fine with sharing, and one is, by their nature.
> Men taught women that women shouldn't enjoy sex so women have sex for resources instead of pleasure
Men have discouraged promiscuity in women, that's true.
This also contradicts the idea that men want women to be sluts, which feminists also claim.
Rather than seeing the contradiction in their own beliefs, they claim men have a double standard, but really men just want a stable relationship without having to share.
> Men beat and kill partners at alarming rates, so women are wary of men
Minorities and the poor also commit violent acts more, but there is no demographic that looks forward to going to prison or being ostracized for violence. So what conditions push someone into an action that hurts them and their partners? Extreme desperation, and a lack of any systemic justice when they themselves are victimized.
> Do yes, men caused these issues
Yet you still won't say WHY men would do this. It's like a wall in the conversation you won't go past. Won't even acknowledge I'm asking it.
Answering that question either leads to outright sexism (claiming men are innately bad), or acknowledging that men have different material conditions that lead to them acting this way. I'd love to hear another theory.
Anonymous F double-posted this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,042
@1,228,038 (G)
> Wait though, men believe that dicks ruin women but actively participate in creating this class of ruined women. You don't see how sick that is? How absolutely vilainous?
Again, men don't want this, men want stability and monogamous relationships.
When that isn't possible men get resentful, and do get a sick view of sexuality. It's the consequence of never having hope, it's a reaction to the conditions women set.
Men have historically supported enforced monogamy, whereas feminism has tied itself to sexual liberation. It's women that fought for this more than anyone else.
> Also men will spend hours and hours searching for porn, jerking off to porn, talking with men about who they would and wouldn't fuck. That isnt holding sex as some sacred ideal
When real relationships are just a fantasy women do become objectified as sex objects.
It's easy to fix, end sex outside marriage. Of course feminists would be in the streets if that became law, and it would be men trying to pass it. Almost as if men want sex to mean something, but feminist interests are in sex being a commodity they can use to control men. You can't make a living off of spreading your legs if that behavior is banned in your culture.
> Wait though, men believe that dicks ruin women but actively participate in creating this class of ruined women. You don't see how sick that is? How absolutely vilainous?
Again, men don't want this, men want stability and monogamous relationships.
When that isn't possible men get resentful, and do get a sick view of sexuality. It's the consequence of never having hope, it's a reaction to the conditions women set.
Men have historically supported enforced monogamy, whereas feminism has tied itself to sexual liberation. It's women that fought for this more than anyone else.
> Also men will spend hours and hours searching for porn, jerking off to porn, talking with men about who they would and wouldn't fuck. That isnt holding sex as some sacred ideal
When real relationships are just a fantasy women do become objectified as sex objects.
It's easy to fix, end sex outside marriage. Of course feminists would be in the streets if that became law, and it would be men trying to pass it. Almost as if men want sex to mean something, but feminist interests are in sex being a commodity they can use to control men. You can't make a living off of spreading your legs if that behavior is banned in your culture.
Anonymous F triple-posted this 2 years ago, 18 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,043
@1,228,040 (Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE)
> What I take issue with is the idea that finding a woman is totally hopeless for average men
Not totally hopeless, because they can adapt and date down. They can also trade in their free time and health to earn an income that will attract a woman. In either situation the man is on the worse side of the deal, and men are going to be resentful for that even if they do end up partnered.
> or the idea that a small group of high-status men have a monopoly on women.
This is a wide-spread belief though, and there is data that supports the idea that a few men are being shared by a lot of women. Do you disagree that women at a live show will throw themselves at the stars on stage? Isn't that a clear case of what I'm talking about?
> Women are selective, but this does not mean they all want the redpill/incel idea of a high-status man.
They don't need to all do it to completely skew the playing field. If a small fraction of women join informal harems, the dynamics and leverage of those who are still looking changes dramatically. Women can suddenly be a lot pickier because they have a sex ratio that favors them.
> Again, I don't think that this holds up to scrutiny- do only athletic, charismatic men reproduce in our society?
Fewer men become fathers than women becoming mothers by a big margin. Some men have children from multiple women, many men never have children. About 90% of women do have a child at some point, and the remaining 10% are either incapable due to disease, or a very strong personal preference not to have kids.
> Do these men actually have harems, or are they largely monogamous, like most westerners?
Celebrities and the very rich do have harems. Even if they have one official wife, they will be monopolizing the sexuality of multiple women. It's so common it shows up in every form of media, across cultures, and it's not treated as something out of the ordinary.
> I could ramble on about this a lot, but I'll try to be brief- it isn't that clear-cut. In ancient Greece and Rome, husbands and fathers had a strong level of control over women, culturally and legally. There were arranged marriages. Generally, men were allowed to fuck around in various fashions, while women were expected to be chaste and only have sex with her husband. The idea that women always had all of the power, and that men were always desperately competing for them, is off-base. In many points in history, wives would be handed to men on platters, so to speak.
Of course in those cultures women did not have the sexual liberties they do today, and could not get away with the same things they can today.
Even if they had the legal ability, and physical safety to pull it off they did not have technology making these types of matches so easy. Tinder, touring with the band, going to work and having an affair with the boss were all off the table.
In some modern cultures, especially muslim/hindu/orthodox communities these rules are still in place and women can't get away with the same types of abuses. These cultures don't have to deal with the same problems a liberalized western culture does because the root cause is not tolerated to begin with.
> This changed when Christianity took off, and men were also expected to be chaste and only have sex with their spouse. This laid the groundwork for our own modern views of marriage in the west. But my point is, if you take this out of the equation, I don't think it defaults to something that favours women at all, quite the opposite.
Of course, there are cultures where this doesn't happen, or where women actually have less power.
Those cultures have those rules for a reason, though. They dealt with women being hypergamous and taking advantage of men, and set up rules to stem the damage that could be done.
> The 80/20 rule is a myth, mate. A statistical trick. It came from one man making some fake profiles and seeing what responses he got, it was not a proper scientific investigation into behaviour on dating apps.
That opens up the question: why did men turn these apps into a numbers game but women didn't?
One answer is that men had to figure out any trick to give them an edge, but women have so many options that would never be necessary. I'm very curious what your answer to this would be.
> I think that, what's really going on, is that men are generally very indiscriminate when swiping, whereas women aren't. The key detail here, I suspect, is that not all women want "chad", and will swipe according to her individual preferences. Yes, "chad" is attractive so will naturally do better, as will an attractive woman. But the average man can also build a connection with the right woman, if he just puts himself out there enough and puts in the effort to winning someone over.
Is there any quantifiable evidence that most men can form these relationships?
Until there is, a lot of men are going to be looking at dating app data, DNA evidence in mitochondrial/Y-chromosome variation, and norms in media and come to the conclusion that the deck is stacked against men.
> I urge you to leave this cynical mindset behind. It's defeatism, and will only hurt you.
I've seen countless men who had a positive mindset, put the work in year after year, and had nothing to show for it too.
> What I take issue with is the idea that finding a woman is totally hopeless for average men
Not totally hopeless, because they can adapt and date down. They can also trade in their free time and health to earn an income that will attract a woman. In either situation the man is on the worse side of the deal, and men are going to be resentful for that even if they do end up partnered.
> or the idea that a small group of high-status men have a monopoly on women.
This is a wide-spread belief though, and there is data that supports the idea that a few men are being shared by a lot of women. Do you disagree that women at a live show will throw themselves at the stars on stage? Isn't that a clear case of what I'm talking about?
> Women are selective, but this does not mean they all want the redpill/incel idea of a high-status man.
They don't need to all do it to completely skew the playing field. If a small fraction of women join informal harems, the dynamics and leverage of those who are still looking changes dramatically. Women can suddenly be a lot pickier because they have a sex ratio that favors them.
> Again, I don't think that this holds up to scrutiny- do only athletic, charismatic men reproduce in our society?
Fewer men become fathers than women becoming mothers by a big margin. Some men have children from multiple women, many men never have children. About 90% of women do have a child at some point, and the remaining 10% are either incapable due to disease, or a very strong personal preference not to have kids.
> Do these men actually have harems, or are they largely monogamous, like most westerners?
Celebrities and the very rich do have harems. Even if they have one official wife, they will be monopolizing the sexuality of multiple women. It's so common it shows up in every form of media, across cultures, and it's not treated as something out of the ordinary.
> I could ramble on about this a lot, but I'll try to be brief- it isn't that clear-cut. In ancient Greece and Rome, husbands and fathers had a strong level of control over women, culturally and legally. There were arranged marriages. Generally, men were allowed to fuck around in various fashions, while women were expected to be chaste and only have sex with her husband. The idea that women always had all of the power, and that men were always desperately competing for them, is off-base. In many points in history, wives would be handed to men on platters, so to speak.
Of course in those cultures women did not have the sexual liberties they do today, and could not get away with the same things they can today.
Even if they had the legal ability, and physical safety to pull it off they did not have technology making these types of matches so easy. Tinder, touring with the band, going to work and having an affair with the boss were all off the table.
In some modern cultures, especially muslim/hindu/orthodox communities these rules are still in place and women can't get away with the same types of abuses. These cultures don't have to deal with the same problems a liberalized western culture does because the root cause is not tolerated to begin with.
> This changed when Christianity took off, and men were also expected to be chaste and only have sex with their spouse. This laid the groundwork for our own modern views of marriage in the west. But my point is, if you take this out of the equation, I don't think it defaults to something that favours women at all, quite the opposite.
Of course, there are cultures where this doesn't happen, or where women actually have less power.
Those cultures have those rules for a reason, though. They dealt with women being hypergamous and taking advantage of men, and set up rules to stem the damage that could be done.
> The 80/20 rule is a myth, mate. A statistical trick. It came from one man making some fake profiles and seeing what responses he got, it was not a proper scientific investigation into behaviour on dating apps.
That opens up the question: why did men turn these apps into a numbers game but women didn't?
One answer is that men had to figure out any trick to give them an edge, but women have so many options that would never be necessary. I'm very curious what your answer to this would be.
> I think that, what's really going on, is that men are generally very indiscriminate when swiping, whereas women aren't. The key detail here, I suspect, is that not all women want "chad", and will swipe according to her individual preferences. Yes, "chad" is attractive so will naturally do better, as will an attractive woman. But the average man can also build a connection with the right woman, if he just puts himself out there enough and puts in the effort to winning someone over.
Is there any quantifiable evidence that most men can form these relationships?
Until there is, a lot of men are going to be looking at dating app data, DNA evidence in mitochondrial/Y-chromosome variation, and norms in media and come to the conclusion that the deck is stacked against men.
> I urge you to leave this cynical mindset behind. It's defeatism, and will only hurt you.
I've seen countless men who had a positive mindset, put the work in year after year, and had nothing to show for it too.
Anonymous F quadruple-posted this 2 years ago, 11 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,109
On a final note to wrap this up: I refuse to believe men being unable to find the clitoris is actually a thing. You open it up and it's literally right there like a video game boss critical hit zone.
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,228,180
i'm literally taking an actual foam foot right now
sock it to me baby
sock it to me baby