Where is the proof in this? There is no proof in this at all. You are just saying things.
So if a bunch of jocky frat girls date the resident jockbag over a quiet philosopher type, apparently there is something wrong with quiet philosopher types because they are less popular with the clique frat girls than jockbaggy jock types.
There is no problem with the girls as they like whomever they like. The guy needs to find girls who like the quiet philosopher types rather than hating on other girls.
If he can't find anyone then the problem is either with him or it's just a problem in the sense that he wants girls and they don't want him. If he gives up wanting girls there is no problem otherwise he is going to have to be the one to change.
It's delusional to think that society is going to have to change rather than for you to have to adapt to society (on some level). You can be an outlier but a guarantee of a girl doesn't come with that option.
Just as there is freedom of speech, there is no guarantee that anyone will listen or that they have to like your speech. There is no right to have someone be sexually attracted to you.
There is no problem with the girls as they like whomever they like. The guy needs to find girls who like the quiet philosopher types rather than hating on other girls.
If he can't find anyone then the problem is either with him or it's just a problem in the sense that he wants girls and they don't want him. If he gives up wanting girls there is no problem otherwise he is going to have to be the one to change.
It's delusional to think that society is going to have to change rather than for you to have to adapt to society (on some level). You can be an outlier but a guarantee of a girl doesn't come with that option.
Just as there is freedom of speech, there is no guarantee that anyone will listen or that they have to like your speech. There is no right to have someone be sexually attracted to you.
That is more or less outside the scope of this thread.
The scope of this thread was about an american gender delusion, which is keeping males down and preventing them from being more attractive at large.
And secondly the human mind is brainwashed by america on several levels. For instance it is scientifically proven that pop music is garbage, most people say they like it and yet deep down they are not truly happy people, they are just brainwashed to believe shit is gold. And yes there is something deeply wrong with people who like modern pop, as it is absolutely bad music on a chemical level which does not heal the brain as other music does, similar of course from the switch from 432 to 440 hz, which is notably toxic and such a civilization built on a toxic foundation may very well approach collapse. Similar of course this is to toxic male values brainwashing males to believe they have to be drab emotionless, hyper hetero, divorced from their feminine side and wear drab clothes et all.
That is more or less outside the scope of this thread.
The scope of this thread was about an american gender delusion, which is keeping males down and preventing them from being more attractive at large.
And secondly the human mind is brainwashed by america on several levels. For instance it is scientifically proven that pop music is garbage, most people say they like it and yet deep down they are not truly happy people, they are just brainwashed to believe shit is gold. And yes there is something deeply wrong with people who like modern pop, as it is absolutely bad music on a chemical level which does not heal the brain as other music does, similar of course from the switch from 432 to 440 hz, which is notably toxic and such a civilization built on a toxic foundation may very well approach collapse. Similar of course this is to toxic male values brainwashing males to believe they have to be drab emotionless, hyper hetero, divorced from their feminine side and wear drab clothes et all.
I'm not defending pop music but the frequency and chemical stuff is not factual in the least regardless of your view regarding the tastefulness of the music.
Is there anything that you do like about anything? Being unhappy or being happy to be unhappy is a choice but it seems like it would be a bit tiring as well.
I'm not defending pop music but the frequency and chemical stuff is not factual in the least regardless of your view regarding the tastefulness of the music.
Is there anything that you do like about anything? Being unhappy or being happy to be unhappy is a choice but it seems like it would be a bit tiring as well.
Some days I feel physically ill, so I find music that soothes and heals me. One time I was shaking, had bad diarrea and nausea, listened to good celtic tunes to heal me by morning.
Pop music on the other hand, is the opposite, causing illness and mental distress and hysteria, social unrest as tensions rise.
Do not underestimate the power of music, it is how wars are fought and battles are won, it can turn cowards into braves and braves into cowards.
Some days I feel physically ill, so I find music that soothes and heals me. One time I was shaking, had bad diarrea and nausea, listened to good celtic tunes to heal me by morning.
Pop music on the other hand, is the opposite, causing illness and mental distress and hysteria, social unrest as tensions rise.
Do not underestimate the power of music, it is how wars are fought and battles are won, it can turn cowards into braves and braves into cowards.
I don't underestimate the effects of music. It's like smell in that it goes directly into certain areas of the brain without being processed by other areas first.
There is no bad music however, just music that we don't happen to like.
I know the thread was about makeup but it wasn't so much about makeup tips.
Second you then allude that a woman does not wish to discuss a man's dick ...
—part of the reason nobody is quite certain what to tell you is that you describe an internal fantasy. When the point has to do with, "Emo guys in girly makeup, getting 30 girls obsessed with him", or "transsexuals getting a bunch of women interested in them", yeah, actually, that's the thing: What are those people talking about?
There's a bit in recent controversies where some men have been saying, "Treat a woman at work like you would a man", and while this isn't quite the best expression of their point, it's a start, and we know what it means, and we can ... er, okay, most of us think we know what it means, but then we meet someone like you, and part of it might just be the way you present yourself, but your narrative has the appearance of being ad hoc, extemporary, and reactionary, and as a result, is shot through with a hot mess of question marks.
I ask about talking to strangers at all because it is unclear from your posts whether you understand the substantive, experiential difference between talking to someone about the baseball game on television and not being able to have a conversation without some guy hitting on you. So the first thing is, when you go to the men's room, do you hit on the guy standing at the next urinal? Do you talk about the sports page tacked up for men to stare at while they piss? Do you say nothing? Okay, now you're belly up to the bar, it's the bottom of the sixth: Do you not talk to any of the men? Do you not have anything in your conversational repertoire that doesn't involve trying to find a woman?
It kind of loses the fun when you realize you are not wanted due to a random body you had no choice being born into.
That makes you perfectly human. It also means many, many things. (It seems we need to come back to this point, anyway, so we'll pick it up then.)
Tweets by @hels, responding to Ross Douthat, 3 May 2018.
Sure it helps. Just like how fat, ugly chicks can get a date eventually, if they just play their cards right. Just like how an unnattractive female, can seduce a man if she does the moves just right and has enough "confidence."
As I said↗ in the other discussion: You really have no idea, do you?
I'll tell you a sick joke that never really was a joke in the way I'm telling it, but, rather, a prejudice from a quarter-century ago, largely still in place, in Oregon:
• How did the fat, ugly chick find so quickly someone to fuck? She went to a "Mexican" bar. How did she seduce that man? She showed up. How did she play her cards just right? She didn't say no when he hit on her. What confidence did she demonstrate? She walked up to the bar and tried to order a drink for herself, and he just wasn't going to let that happen. That wily bitch just played him because everybody knows a woman isn't supposed to order her own drink in a bar.
The actual underlying prejudice in that was and remains well-known, a suggestion that many hispanic men prefer larger white women.
It's just one example, sure, but part of the problem is that you describe circumstances most of the people responding to you just don't seem to recognize. To wit, I asked you about talking to strangers; there's also a question of whether or not you know how men and women have sex with each other. Point 11 in your response fails to resolve the latter.
Can't say your post is wrong about this point, but what are you barkin' at me for? I'm a minority figure. I had no power over these men. And my post never exclusively blamed women for this mess of America. I have nothing but contempt and resentment for the powers that be, most of which coincidentally happen to be male.
You perpetually complain about women. They're not the problem, here. Why show your contempt and resentment for the powers that be, most of which coincidentally happen to be male, by constantly bawling about women? Especially when you don't seem to have a clue what you're talking about?
Think of the idea of an answer I'm not giving you; that is, there's something I might try to explain, but no, I'm not going to because it is unclear at this time whether you are capable of understanding.
Such as this:
But my point was, its manipulative hypocrisy when she tries to take the moral hi-ground. When she only dates hot guys, but then criticizes males for wanting to date her because she is hot.
Start with the basics: Do you actually know how men and women have sex with one another? Again, your prior address of these points does not actually establish that you do.
The functional problem is baked into your rhetoric. You clearly haven't a clue what you're on about, and as a result, people are uncertain where to start. Your argument was, "Ironically it is often hot girls who reject men and claim that men only lust for them, meanwhile these same hot girls only date people nearly as hot as they are." Do you see the word "only"? It's problematic in many ways. We come back to the question of talking to strangers in general. The other day, I had a not quite random conversation, in a pub, with a man (A) I had never met, before, and (B) there was between precisely and approximately zero chance I might have sex with him. We talked about beer. And baseball. What we did was proactively establish an increasing radius of acceptable discourse until we had a range in which we were comfortable just sitting back and drinking beer together. At the point we felt comfortable enough to crack a couple jokes about life in these United States, we had quasi-ritually established that we weren't about to get in a fistfight with one another. Beyond that? Seriously, there's a joke about his hair that goes here, but we can skip that, for now.
As to your point, then: If part of the problem is that the conversation never establishes a safe range, then she is less likely to feel safe among those men. This, however, has nothing to do with the question of why she would actively seek specifically displeasing or even dangerous companionship.
I think you misinterpreted what was said. I meant that it was an evolutionary reflex that of moral hypocrisy, to shame others for the same crimes you are guilty of, it is an evolutionary thing that many people do.
As a defense mechanism, it keeps her alive as best it can. You and your moral judgment about guilt remind that women are not the problem, here.
In order to establish that "moral hypocrisy", you must typecast men in a specifically denigrating aspect; as a matter of nature, there is nothing in the Universe that forbids the coincidence of someone aesthetically not displeasing, to the one, and who doesn't sound like a threat, to the other.
All you seem willing to deal with is hotness.
Well isn't that the thing of men of this day. Nod your head to whatever a woman says or else you might lose the relationship. As part of some ancient retribution or role reversal to get back at them for the crimes of their ancestors.
Well, okay. Something about defense mechanisms and perceptions of guilt goes here.
My dad had to suffer that too, and so it seems, so do I. He has to obey whatever inanities that my mom forces him to accept, even has to obey her rules, she is boss.
You seem same way, because I criticize the feminist status quo or "powers that be", you state, what woman would want to tolerate such defiance as that?
The amount you focus on women, their perspective, and behavior, does actually demand consideration of women's perspectives.
As to yours? It's petulant, selfish, fallacious, objectifying, and supremacist. More directly, when you insistently attempt to project danger, people do notice.
Why would I want to marry a woman who talks like you do honestly?
Third, most of the women I meet are really boring to talk to, yet some how the onus always falls on the male, the male is never good enough, must always impress, the male has to strive for interesting conversation meanwhile the female simply can be as generic and uninteresting as it gets, and its always the fault the male is not good enough, meanwhile most of the women I meet are very boring and generic and I am doing them a favor ...
... except I'm not you know why? Because physical, attraction, females are inherently physically attractive and so they are inherently more valuable to males and society and that is the advantage they possess, even the fat, uglies can go on fetlife put on some makeup and get a legion of followers catering to their every need.
No, seriously. Do you know why you're not doing them a favor? We'll come back to that in a moment.
If a man is married to a rich girl he should be grateful and not bitch and moan. However I think the sane men are mostly worried about being discarded as useless as the social norms imply men have no use for women except for a paycheck.
Wasn't talking about sex positions or dom and sub, I was talking about the act itself. Obviously men are the ones who buy prostitutes because men are generally rejected and unwanted by most women not the other way around. If it was the other way around then women would be paying and begging men for sex.
You're not doing women a favor. We come back to the question of whether you understand the basic differences about how men and women have sex with each other.
Another nonsensical, flabby jab of yours most likely due to an inept misinterpretation. In the real world when you live with someone you have certain consideration, mainly how much some one will cost in terms of room and board, and how much do you enjoy that person to pay for their room and board. Of course feel free to misinterpret what I was saying and turn it into some twisted feminist fantasy.
You are not qualified to decide what men are homosexual or not.
Logically malformed argument. I said OR not AND, a different logical operator. I said fall in love OR be attracted in any real sense. OF COURSE people dont automatically fall in love with hotties, but they are usually attracted (that is unless they are homosexual or asexuals etc.)
Let me know when you want to get logical, or just talk-show it like on the news or jimmy fallon of the lateshow.
You do put effort into that chic ambience of dangerous incompetence.
Not sure what you mean, but it sounds like nonsense. Repeating the facts, makeup can hide certain forms of ugliness. Don't know if you are debating this, or what you are saying exactly.
The superficiality of your argument, on that occasion, is what stands out.
There's not enough coverup, rouge, mascara, or whatever else to hide an attitude problem like that.
Classic fallacy of poisoning the well, whether or not he is aligned with a group is irrelevant on whether or not his data is valid. Again if a nazi cures cancer that does not mean the cure does not actually cure cancer.
If a redpiller conducts and experiment and reports the data, that does not falsify the data, except of course in your mind it does.
If the Nazi cures cancer, then a Nazi cures cancer; if the Nazis had achieved a deployable atomic bomb, then the Nazis would have achieved a deployable atomic bomb. That manner of science is what it is. But if someone tells me a Nazi has done a survey and figured out what's wrong with Jews, well, I actually have a hard time believing you need this basic difference explained to you.
Such is the shitshow of the wilds. Life sucks for hyenas as it does the day of pregnancy for a human female. As for the danger to men, no men will not have to suffer the day of pregnancy however they will have to suffer torments of sexual frustration and suicidal feelings of worthlessness and despair. As what is to be done to fix these ailments, science as always. Someday there will be painless pregnancies and a cure for period pain, as so there will also be a paradise for male sexuality and they will never have to endure the endless angst of loneliness and the torment of feeling like they are worthless scum.
You skipped over it, though, at 11, so let's revisit what you were responding to:
• I only ask because you make it relevant—Do you actually know how men and women have sex with one another?
Let's try this other role reversal: Okay, she's the man, you're the woman; have sex.
It's not quite funny; several months ago I found myself in a weird discussion with a couple of trendy mgtow poseurs who couldn't quite figure out the difference, either. And that actually puts me in mind of this chap I remember, from overseas, who, when actually pointed to the difference, still couldn't grasp the concept.
It's not merely the lack of respect you show women; it's also the pretense of ignorance that goes into that dearth. The person you present to us, here, is dangerous.
Identifying as something doesn't negate personality...when did it?
Your question is fallacious insofar as it proposes {not X} because {Q}, but that not only presents a false circumstance, {Q} ("negate personality") when what it responds to considers {X} because of {A, B, C}, it also overlooks the basic relationship between what one identifies as and what that means to others.
Identifying according to a dangerous label does affect how people perceive you, especially in proximity to what that label regards.
There is a large number of people who aren't having sex. Not all of them choose to identify with an infamous social-identity movement whose defining aspects are antisocial.
This should not be difficult to figure out. If one decides to identify with white supremacists, people of color will take wary note, because one will have declared danger toward them. To wit, remember when you wrote↗, "If there is sexual frustration in a nation, I demand that an equal amount of women be as incel as men"? And, yes, we do notice you trying to separate yourself from incel before deciding to throw down this thread. You didn't do a very good job.
Most women do not meet my standards (not just physically, but personality wise as well.)
However the dating game is heavily stacked against me for two reasons, mainly because I am male and because I am born in America, so I just have to settle.
The dating game is generally stacked against such exclusivity as you demand.
Nope its also to blame on gays, heterosexuals, the whole human race actually and any woman who defends and espouses religion, unreasonable traditionalist values, gender norms dogma, etc. But feel free to live in your land of binary "us vs. them" thought and feminist man-blaming delusion, yes men are to blame but not all, women are to blame but not all, this is commonly known and almost a law of the universe.
Notice those other elements of society haven't started systematically purging heterosexual men. Next time, don't suggest they should.
Hey, just out of curiosity: Can you tell us one thing about the person you've shown, here at Sciforums, that a woman should find attractive?
It doesn't even matter at this point what you look like; I'm asking what reason your conduct here might have given any woman you might ever wish to fuck a reason to wonder what you look like.
Okay? She happens across this site, sees your writing, and what about the character you're presenting is going to give her that vulvic vibe, that twitchy twitch, them sloppy pants, you're after?
And secondly the human mind is brainwashed by america on several levels. For instance it is scientifically proven that pop music is garbage, most people say they like it and yet deep down they are not truly happy people, they are just brainwashed to believe shit is gold. And yes there is something deeply wrong with people who like modern pop, as it is absolutely bad music on a chemical level which does not heal the brain as other music does, similar of course from the switch from 432 to 440 hz, which is notably toxic and such a civilization built on a toxic foundation may very well approach collapse. Similar of course this is to toxic male values brainwashing males to believe they have to be drab emotionless, hyper hetero, divorced from their feminine side and wear drab clothes et all.
The problem is that people often talk to bodies, instead of brains.
Telling a woman that this is a wonderful day while staring at her breasts is not exactly establishing a relationship.
OTOH, if a man asks a woman if he can visit her mind and promises that he will be a good guest, while looking deep into her eyes, that usually peaks a woman's interest.......
And if a woman tells a man that she is looking for a man with an active imagination, that'll usually peak his interest also, maybe in the wrong direction, but hey it's a start....
Seems that you have not been exposed to good music. Music that requires an appreciation for the Art, rather than base rhythm and volume.
Try some of this:
Close your eyes and "listen" to the musical poetry.
Zach Weiner, Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, 2 July 2018
[On update]
I suppose it's probably funnier with the next day's cartoon. Well, okay, it is for me, because this really is something I've been wondering about "men", in recent years.
Zach Weiner, Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, 3 July 2018
Seems that you have not been exposed to good music. Music that requires an appreciation for the Art, rather than base rhythm and volume.
Try some of this:
Close your eyes and "listen" to the musical poetry.
And here's one from someone who had better things to do than become an incel:
Sometimes it's hard to explain to someone how cynical and bitterly sarcastic the 80s were, but since we're in a revival:
(The raping cannibalism can probably wait for another day, but it should be noted I learned of the band because Tipper Gore complained about them, which had the effect of making sure a bunch of us bought the album. Still, if you can keep from simultaneously laughing and retching, the early Peter Steele in the middle is almost perfect.)
Oh! Oh oh oh oh oh!
You know this is only going downhill, right?
And, y'know, this actually reminds me of an important point: Start a band. Dude can be ugly as sin, can even be outsize as hell, can wear makeup, even lingerie and a dress, and chicks will line up for it. And, shit, given what passes for a band, these days, why sit around on the 'net complaining about women all day? If Messiah Marcolin can get chicks? And, hell, talk about an incel power fantasy, how about a chick in a tower whose job is to suffer↱? Oh, hey, what about TAD, for heaven's sake?
Anyway, we now return this thread to its regularly-scheduled disaster.
I think Gamelord needs to be more clear about who it is and what it wants. Until Tiassa quoted and replied to Gamelord (quotes that I hadn't seen) I was of the impression that Gamelord was a lesbian and possibly even Birch.
Now I'm unclear. Is Gamelord bisexual, a transexual who prefers females, just an effeminate guy who is comfortable in his effeminate guy body and who wants a female?
If these things aren't clear in this thread how confused much anyone who tries to communicate with it be?
And here's one from someone who had better things to do than become an incel:
Sometimes it's hard to explain to someone how cynical and bitterly sarcastic the 80s were, but since we're in a revival:
(The raping cannibalism can probably wait for another day, but it should be noted I learned of the band because Tipper Gore complained about them, which had the effect of making sure a bunch of us bought the album. Still, if you can keep from simultaneously laughing and retching, the early Peter Steele in the middle is almost perfect.)
Oh! Oh oh oh oh oh!
You know this is only going downhill, right?
And, y'know, this actually reminds me of an important point: Start a band. Dude can be ugly as sin, can even be outsize as hell, can wear makeup, even lingerie and a dress, and chicks will line up for it. And, shit, given what passes for a band, these days, why sit around on the 'net complaining about women all day? If Messiah Marcolin can get chicks? And, hell, talk about an incel power fantasy, how about a chick in a tower whose job is to suffer↱? Oh, hey, what about TAD, for heaven's sake?
Anyway, we now return this thread to its regularly-scheduled disaster.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Being unhappy or being happy to be unhappy is a choice but it seems like it would be a bit tiring as well.
