Quote:Quote:

AS if the world of dating and finding someone to share your life with wasn't hard enough, along comes a man who THINKS he has it all sewn up, but seriously needs some lessons in the dating game. [looooooool]

A post on Facebook has gone viral from an Edinburgh woman who's sister had clicked 'hi' to a man on website Plenty of Fish.

The reply her sister got flabbergasted her so much, she had to share it. [boring life, ergo attention-whore]

Lusaidh Glenny wrote, "Ok, so my sister messaged someone on an online dating site (Plenty of Fish) just to say hi...and got this (apparently "on file") reply regarding his choice of not going for "older and over weight" women. What the actual f***?". ["Men cannot not be interested in dating fat women."]

The man, called just "L00kin16" sent what he called a 'stock reply' which he had drafted and saved for the many occasions when he was approached by women he considered to be too old (over 30) or too big (over a size 14/16).

He wrote, "I was specific with age because I would like to start a family one day and, to be honest, I think that the necessary time line before doing so is shortened/compressed with a lady over 30."

So that's over 30s dealt with.

Next, 'big' women.

"I was also specific about weight as I have never been attracted to big women.

"However since moving to Scotland and going on POF I have learned that “average body type” is commonly held to be around a dress size 14/16.

"I had to google this, but that dress size indicates a woman as being very over-weight and all likelihood medically obese." [TRUTH BOMB!]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/lifestyle/f...es-8968997

He's an Australian man in Scotland, now spared from Plenty of Fish's Scottish fatties. Verbose, yes, but he laid down some of the best home truths you'll see on a dating site ever.

Inasmuch as I believe the guy should have been more subtle, him being banned (explained in this Daily Mail article) is way over the top.

And he's damn right, these girls have standards far, far, far, far higher than anything you could forgive on the basis of male thirst.

His "arrogance" is far less than the hamster-ish squashed wall-fly with the handle "sexyprincess6969", "ebonygoddess267" or "hotstuff1983" wanting a six-foot plus man with an xyz-high salary (either explicitly stated or implied), who can appreciate her "curves" and supposedly only deserves her on her best day if he can handle her on her worst days.

After the Daily Record's initial piece, the Daily Mail is already asking for tips on who this guy is, obviously to shame him, make him lose his job, and try and pull other men into line.

I won't be posting his pic here, but the guy is more than decent-looking. He definitely wrote too much, yet that's hardly a good threshold for banning him.

The sister of the fatty is the snowflake complaining (note how the articles don't have their pictures). Regardless of which of them sought the attention, it's another indication of how attention-starved and easily offended so many people are nowadays. Male and female, but especially female snowflakes. The litmus test for what constitutes an article to be generated about your rage is mindbogglingly low.

Classic white-knighting from POF in banning him: "[H]is views on women" are unacceptable. It's a fucking dating site. By that logic, you have to be interested in anyone who comes your way messaging. POF is feeding the BS that either a) these women's looks don't matter or b) every woman is beautiful, beautiful enough to be desired by the male customers.

People have the right to have personal preferences when it comes to dating. Next thing you know POF will be calling men who want women as sexual partners "homophobic" instead of heterosexual.

Ok, so which one of the RvF has made this?

Bravo to the guy. That's what society really needs, more good looking men telling lardass women that their standards are unrealistic and that they need to learn to keep the refrigerator door closed in hopes they can lose some of the weight off their fat asses.

Let's find this shitlord, I'll buy him a gold RVF membership.

He mentions a 34+ waistline. 34 inches is around a high-medium, perhaps a standard medium size, at least in Australia.

I'm 95-100kg (210-220lbs), will usually be the tallest or second tallest guy in a room of 30 men, and still take a 34, sometimes a 35 or 36 depending on the brand. So if the average woman is around 167-8cm (5'6"-ish), 34 IS BIG. Remember, too, women have slimmer waists than men by design.

Fat sluts look around and all they hang out with is fat sluts. So they are, by definition, average in their group of fat sluts.

Online dating is kind of a wasteland anyway. Good for the pipeline if you have the hours to swipe and filter if you're bored at work but much better to sniper the hoes you want when you see them in the wild. If you must...Max 3 messages and tell her you're tired of checking the app for her shit- cell number to continue or you bail. No pen pals needed.

Poor bastard moving to Scotland, I've been there and girls of that size ARE the norm. He'll have a hard time finding any decent talent there, if he can get past the accent.

The funny thing is that if this was reversed, if it was a woman saying that a guy was too young or not buff enough, there wouldn't be any outrage.
For a girl to say she likes well paid, tall and buff guys is perfectly acceptable but a dude, very politely I might add, informs women why he is rejecting them and he suddenly has "unacceptable" views on women? Give me a break.

Quote: (10-05-2016 01:39 AM)david.garrett84 Wrote:  

34 IS BIG. Remember, too, women have slimmer waists than men by design.

A 34 inch waist on any woman is nothing short of mimicking the body of a refrigerator. Any woman bigger than a size 4 (26.5 inches) I just completely ignore cause they don't pass the boner test for me at all.
In more desperate times, I've brought home girls that were a little bigger than a size 4, and I couldn't get it up... I thought my dick was broke, turns out I'm only turned on by very petite women.

If you really want to make sure no fat SJW types message you on a dating app - Put "MAGA" or "Trump 16" in your description.

We need to start a covert RVF dating website.

I think it was only fair to ban this man.
After all, women get banned too for saying "only men above 6 feet" or "don't talk to me if you're a loser".

Wait...

So he got banned from a site full of fat 35 year old single moms with princess attitudes. Weep for him if the tears will come.

I got banned last year for exactly the same thing. I just put "no overweight women welcome" nothing personal i just hold myself to fairly high standards and expect women to do the same.

My inbox filled up within 12 hours from ham beasts calling me woman hater, sexist pig etc. Was banned with no explanation 24 hours later.

Unfortunately, these websites only work because women are there.
If the moderators didn't treat them like special snowflakes, they'd simply leave.
No woman --> no man --> no money --> website shut down.

It's a simple law of business, sadly.

Quote: (10-05-2016 01:39 AM)david.garrett84 Wrote:  

He mentions a 34+ waistline. 34 inches is around a high-medium, perhaps a standard medium size, at least in Australia.

I'm 95-100kg (210-220lbs), will usually be the tallest or second tallest guy in a room of 30 men, and still take a 34, sometimes a 35 or 36 depending on the brand. So if the average woman is around 167-8cm (5'6"-ish), 34 IS BIG. Remember, too, women have slimmer waists than men by design.

34 is HUGE! I'm 212 [96kg] and I'm typically a size 32-34 waist at a bit over 6 foot. A 5'6 woman with a 34 inch waist is a monster. I've never been there, but I'm surprised there aren't small tremors whenever women walk down the street.

Quote: (10-05-2016 03:58 AM)Rush87 Wrote:  

Quote: (10-05-2016 01:39 AM)david.garrett84 Wrote:  

He mentions a 34+ waistline. 34 inches is around a high-medium, perhaps a standard medium size, at least in Australia.

I'm 95-100kg (210-220lbs), will usually be the tallest or second tallest guy in a room of 30 men, and still take a 34, sometimes a 35 or 36 depending on the brand. So if the average woman is around 167-8cm (5'6"-ish), 34 IS BIG. Remember, too, women have slimmer waists than men by design.

34 is HUGE! I'm 212 [96kg] and I'm typically a size 32-34 waist at a bit over 6 foot. A 5'6 woman with a 34 inch waist is a monster. I've never been there, but I'm surprised there aren't small tremors whenever women walk down the street.

Kim Kardashian is 26.5" at the waist... Christ, imagine 34".

POF = Plenty of Fatties

Another proud member of the banned from PoF crew here. It's a blessing in disguise, that site is full of timewasters.

Hideous land whales jack up the average female weight.

We therefore have the new "average".
"Average" is conflated with "typical".
"Typical" is conflated with "normal".
"Normal" is conflated with "expectable".
And who can therefore say that "expectable" does not equal "acceptable".

Ergo land whales, having reached a critical mass (so to speak) in society suddenly think that despite the fact that they can't see their toes, much less their twat, that they are average>typical>normal>expectable>acceptable.

Landwhales that cannot fit in a normal seat.
Landwhales that culture grey paste in folds of skin they routinely forget to wash.
Land whales that cannot reach their asscrack to wipe it clean.

Average>typical>normal>expectable>acceptable.

We are but sane men living in an insane society.

In the US, those larger women still get spammed nonstop. By normal guys as well, the situation is really that bad.

Quote:Quote:

Kim Kardashian is 26.5" at the waist... Christ, imagine 34".

Quote: (10-05-2016 04:41 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Hideous land whales jack up the average female weight.

We therefore have the new "average".
"Average" is conflated with "typical".
"Typical" is conflated with "normal".
"Normal" is conflated with "expectable".
And who can therefore say that "expectable" does not equal "acceptable".

Don't forget that "athletic" now means "fat but pays for an (unused) gym membership"

Quote: (10-05-2016 02:55 AM)Latan Wrote:  

I think it was only fair to ban this man.
After all, women get banned too for saying "only men above 6 feet" or "don't talk to me if you're a loser".

Wait...

You can read a million profiles on POF where the girl states that a man "shouldn't waste my (her) time" sending a message if he's one or more of these things: short, bald, fat, of slender build, too muscular, white, black, brown, too old, too young, too poor, "boring," too city, too country, too educated, too uneducated... and on and on.

I remember using POF and it not letting men search for or contact women over nine years younger than them and not allowing a man to send a private picture but women did not have either restriction.

You can read verbose and rambling profiles where you will be told what exactly you must do for her to win the chance of maybe getting your foot in the door with her. Nothing about what she's willing to do for a man.

All of that's ok. Because women can have standards and demands but should a man have standards that's literally Hitler and hate crimes.

Quote: (10-05-2016 01:32 AM)LeoneVolpe Wrote:  

People have the right to have personal preferences when it comes to dating. Next thing you know POF will be calling men who want women as sexual partners "homophobic" instead of heterosexual.

Or transphobic if you dont wish to date a man dressed as a woman.

It's hilarious that something that can be improved/changed lending massive increase to your attractiveness (weight/fat) is completely off limits and ban territory, while 50% of girl's profiles mention something "heightist" (almost dry heaved thinking of and typing that) about having a minimum height standard for men they date. And we are the shallow ones, you can't change that shit! Girls are awful to short guys. But like mentioned above, if you clamp down on female fuckery in profiles they leave, then no more dating site unless you go the Ashley Madison completely fake route.

He wasn't banned by POF but more or less his account will be deleted should he be discovered by a moderator or his IP is the same from which the original account is made.

Markus is a lazy fuck and has it automated. I tried testing this out and it logs the IP and MAC address of the computer/phone you use.

I also saw in the article how the article writer wants to know who he is. "WHO IS THIS MAN?" What a 1984 nightmare that is for any man with an opinion which dare offends the hive mind.