Quote: (01-30-2018 03:39 PM)Laner Wrote:  

Quote: (01-30-2018 02:01 PM)kamoz Wrote:  

Correction: dog moms. The modern equivalent of cat ladies. I swear almost EVERY SINGLE girl on Bumble or similar is a “dog mom” that “loves to travel.”

While we’re at it (summarizing what we all know about modern women for the benefit of guests and newcomers) I’ll lend my words. The dog mom epidemic is a prime example of female biology on display for the world to see. It’s two components are conformity and nurture. Women are biologically wired to conform to the group as a whole. Molyneux has discussed this multiple times. Essentially if a competing tribe wins and takes the women, only the women that conform survive. Society is telling women not to have kids, or if they do they will be miserable and go crazy staying at home all the time. So, fewer women have kids.

As for nurture, women are biologically wired to nurture and care for things. Since women can’t have kids, their urge is being taken out on animals, namely dogs. Treating them like children, buying them clothes, kissing them, celebrating birthdays, etc. Why dogs? The negative stigma of “crazy cat lady” may play a part, but more importantly it’s because dogs are very dependent. A cat doesn’t need it’s owner per se. Just a litter box. A dog however needs to be taken out, walked, petted, etc. Thus, the dog mom epidemic is born.

When I hear 'Dog Mom' I cringe internally and at the same time my balls suck up into my abdomen at the thought of battle. How lucky that these Dog Moms are choosing an actual pet here in America rather than European women choosing actual humans as their pets.

If the line goes: Cat lady --- Dog Mom --- Adopt baby of [special victim race] --- Import adult male humans; Then we are lucky that we are still at crazy lady level 2.

I worked a few years ago for a 'dog mom', and while I could tell she was a decent person, she was absolutely hell to work under for issues I won't divulge for two reasons; 1. Because anyone who has dealt with more than ten women probably already knows them and 2. I don't want to dox myself.

Dogs just do things men (and children...) can't/won't:

- Grant unconditional love.
- Always be happy to see you.
- Always do what you want to do.
- Put up with your bullshit when you have a bad day (when I'm having a bad day I neither let everyone around me know or seek to ruin their days, but I'm just a man, what do I know?).
- Never leave you.
- Listen to everything you do and say and follow your instructions (even though I've seen lots of women can't train their dogs for shit - I've had girls I was fucking bring their dogs to my house for them to shit and piss on my rug).

I've also noticed (this particular broad included) a growing trend of 'Oh, my dog is a rescue!'

Nothing wrong with rescuing a dog, in fact it's noble if done with pure intentions...but if you're a playa with some bad boy traits, I'm sure you've had girls try to 'rescue' you.

I've had girls in some degree try to rescue me, it only made me more sneaky and cunning. Other girls have tried to rescue other men, but it still didn't stop him from using, or smacking her around, or leaving her for some 'skank !'

...but a dog would never do that. A woman saying 'I'm a dog mom!' is just another way of saying 'I'm having too much fun to drop it all to have kids and I can't deal with the challenge of a man...what's easier than raising kids or dating, oh, I'll get a dog!'

==

As for Ms. Monday Night, well...

Kamoz nailed it on the "dog mom" thing. It's been plain as day to me that single women with their dogs clearly have them as a baby substitute. But it's like a lot of them don't even realize it themselves. Oh yeah, can we administer forty lashes to everyone who uses the term "fur baby?"

Dogs are great, but I tend to doubt that they're a substitute for the experience of having and raising an actual child.

Chick in the OP sounds like she was banging a limp-wristed soy boy hipster whose low-T apathy is just a substitute for the apathy of an actual high-status man. Guy doesn't sound special, this was just female biology doing what it's supposed to do (pair bonding her to a mate.)

The joke is on these broads. All the women who took in rescue dogs a few years ago are still burdened with all the care of these animals.

The women who had kids, well, they are taking ski trips and flying to cool places and having fun as families. Dog moms - that term makes me sick - are getting older at a rate of twice what I see happy and healthy moms.

Sadness and denial weigh heavy on a woman's soul.

Quote: (01-30-2018 10:20 PM)HermeticAlly Wrote:  

Kamoz nailed it on the "dog mom" thing. It's been plain as day to me that single women with their dogs clearly have them as a baby substitute. But it's like a lot of them don't even realize it themselves. Oh yeah, can we administer forty lashes to everyone who uses the term "fur baby?"

Dogs are great, but I tend to doubt that they're a substitute for the experience of having and raising an actual child.

Fuck me! Fur baby! I was gonna throw that term in the explanation as well, but forgot. Yes, that is another term that literally makes me shudder when I read it.

As for owning pets relative to children, what honest to God needs to happen is women need the shit scared out of them. Some men have this fear, I do in a way, I'm curious how others feel.

You're getting old, to the point where you can't sustain yourself, and don't have kids. What do you do? Of course, having kids but not raising them well, and in a toxic society, produces a similar result (as many Boomers have experienced). You're old and on your own. If you're lucky, you end up in a nursing home to get killed off quietly by the nurse. Pretty damn bleak. Yet millions of Western women think only in the here-and-now and take no heed of that. Some, when confronted with that fact, even outright deny it thinking they will always have 'friends' there for them . If this notion was blasted through mainstream outlets and movies, women would be popping out babies overnight. Hopefully Generation Z knows better.

Quote: (01-30-2018 10:20 PM)HermeticAlly Wrote:  

...
Chick in the OP sounds like she was banging a limp-wristed soy boy hipster whose low-T apathy is just a substitute for the apathy of an actual high-status man. Guy doesn't sound special, this was just female biology doing what it's supposed to do (pair bonding her to a mate.)

Low T limp-wristed soy boy hipster? Or...maybe he was just a young guy in the city sowing wild oats. Seems like that would be more likely.

I'm not sure how you had that precise of a read on the guy she was writing about.

Quote: (01-30-2018 07:24 PM)Conquerer7 Wrote:  

An interesting article and some great points made in this thread. That article immediately made me think of this from Scorpion. thread-7528-...pid1571163

That post by Scorpion is depressing, but most likely accurate. I too would like to see the dissident right (in whatever form they end up) try and ban these apps. On another note, if Islam takes over they'll do it too.

It's pretty easy for girls to get a ton of likes, and easy sex from these apps. But, from what I can tell, it is extremely hard for girls to get the kind of sex they want from the kinds of guys they want to get it from. That may be more out of their reach for the most part than ordinary sex is for most guys.

Quote: (01-31-2018 01:02 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  

It's pretty easy for girls to get a ton of likes, and easy sex from these apps. But, from what I can tell, it is extremely hard for girls to get the kind of sex they want from the kinds of guys they want to get it from. That may be more out of their reach for the most part than ordinary sex is for most guys.

So, you would expect that the more exclusive dating apps that promise access to higher status men would have women fighting to sign up for them. Do we have a list of those apps/sites around here somewhere? I remember seeing on the forum some time ago an app like that was started in London and within a week it had like 8,000 women signed up for it vs 2,000 men or something like that.

Quote: (01-30-2018 04:17 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

Quote: (01-30-2018 04:04 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

And still as someone pointed in the online-hamster thread out:

Quote:Quote:

It still astounds me that, despite having gotten 2,000 messages that day, these women can still take the time to single me out to reply with a "not interested/good luck with your search/fuck off". I feel so special.

I just got this the other day on OK Cupid !

Apparently during swiping I matched with some girl - never saw the notification and she messaged me to say:

"Hi

I'm only messaging you to inform you that I'm not interested in dating. I also read your profile and you came off very cocky. I'm not a big fan of that.

Anyways, take care. XX"

Me in a trolling mood for once:

Me: "Lmao that was literally the most pointless message I've ever read.

Why would you message that to a random person on a DATING app of all things lol

I'm not for everyone , especially ones with thin skin, there's a difference between cocky and confident sarcasm

Good luck !"

Thot still craving attention: "It comes off as cocky from a woman's perspective.

And don't called me thin skinned name calling is absolutely ridiculous and only proves my point.

Good luck

Oh and I messaged because YOU liked me and I felt obligated to inform you why I wasn't interested so you wouldn't waste your time, I did you a solid"


Me: "LMAO what ? I never saw your profile on here, you were creeping me! Rather ironic that you're calling me cocky.

Thanks for the screenshots, hilarious !

You're crazy !"


I mean I just feel so special and wanted !

That was my post that Zelcorpion pointed out. And for the 1st time, looks like more of my replies are of that flavor, as opposed to inquiries of genuine interest, so now that when the elusive (1) shows up in the mail box, I feel the need to brace myself.

Chicks are so deluded about so many things with online dating, but the biggest is equating number of matches with romantic interest. They see 2,000 matches and think "There are 2,000 men who are lining up to take me to expensive restaurants and be my boyfriend." They see these men as potential suitors, as if this were the 19th Century.

When really the test in the man's head is "Would I, in a normal state of inebriation, throw sum fuk into that hole?"

So, she has 2,000 potential dicks interested in her, not 2,000 potential boyfriends. But good luck getting a girl to see that.

Quote: (01-30-2018 09:43 AM)Gmac Wrote:  

Your average woman gets swiped on by most guys and bumble has no swipe limit, so while 1900 might be inflated it's not unreasonable either especially for any woman who has used the app for more than a few months. I thought someone was going to point out the real truth hidden in this article but they did not, so I'll enlighten y'all.

Women don't actually want to be making the first move, or really any moves (except when angling for something that truly benefits them in the short/long-term - i.e. money, status, access, security). *Shocker*

This is why Bumble will only work for a select few long term, and fail for the rest of the populace. We all know women want men to take charge. This fact is obviously nothing new for anyone here. It's a tale as old as time by now.

In the above article, the girl earnestly awaits for the guy to respond. Waits for him to say he likes her. Waits for him to commit to her. When it never happens, she finally jumps ship. Typical post 20th century "romantic fling".


Women and modern day feminism have programmed and more importantly, enabled men to act this way, but men aren't doing themselves any favors by riding the poontang bus via "bang" apps forever either. Will western men and women grow up? It's one of the great questions of our time.

I feel uncomfortable writing this on a game forum where many members truly are alphas/sigmas. But I've always believed the ultimate responsibility lay with the 20% of men who get 80% of the pussy.

Will Alphas stop spinning plates and pick just one girl to fuck? Effectively making a sacrifice for the greater good of society?Basically forcing women to "settle" for betas. I highly doubt it. Solely because for many men, their lack of caring for long-term consequences is what makes them particularly attractive to women.

I remember last summer I was talking to a close friend of mine. We were both fucking about 3 girls each that summer. I pointed out to him: "you know, this means there's about 4 guys out there with their dicks in their hand".

I started off as a beta and had to learn alpha behavior. So I could empathize with these imaginary guys out there sitting there not getting laid. I'm not going to lie, ever since I took the plunge about 2 years to bang random hoes and develop some form of an alpha mentality and behavior, it's never left the back of my mind if I wasn't just contributing to the problem. This question of: Am I just making things worse?

I've also wondered if historians will look back and be amused at the contradiction of RVF teaching men game while at the same time trying to figure out how to save Western Civilization. I hope that doesn't come across as hate or moralizing, neither which is my intention. But in the process of learning game, do we necessarily have to cause harm to society? Or can we learn game, find our virgin bride without destroying the future wives of other men? It's a question I don't really have an answer for me. My gut tells me I've already collected quite a bit of bad mojo. But I could be wrong.

The only thing I did promise myself was to never fuck a virgin or any girl that seemed like she'd be a good girl. Every girl I've fucked in tbe past 2 years was a straight up slut. As far as I can tell, I've never alpha widowed any girl, they all came in already broken. As such, when karma comes to collect its dues, hopefully it won't cost me too much.

My friend, on the other hand, he's a natural with women and he didn't give a flying fuck about other guys not getting sex. As long as he had variety of pussy. Even today, he's influencing his girlfriend (who had a notch count of 1 before meeting him) to get into threesomes with him. That girl is probably marriage material, and at this rate he might end up destroying her completely for the next guy.

Jordan Peterson talks about it in this interview, how both alpha men and the women are complicit in this clusterfuck of a situation:
https://youtu.be/i76VrRf-aZI

As long as:
Alpha men fuck at wanton (which they inherently do)
And women want to fuck alpha men (which they inherently do)
I don't see any way out of this

Maybe gen Z will be different. But damn, my generation (millennials)...I don't know how many of us have the ability to pair-bond anymore. I like to be optimistic, but I think millennials are a lost cause.

Don't beat yourself up.

Women are only forced to settle if:

1) There are no make-work jobs for women.
2) The job market is not forced by law to hire their incompetent asses.
3) There is no welfare system in place to keep them fed/sheltered.
4) Immigration doesn't allow them to replace the menfolk with outsiders.

The consequences for being alone have to be large enough to eclipse the hate women have for betas. While they have money, independence and foreign cock (imported or sought abroad) they would rather become cat ladies than settle for soy.

Quote: (01-30-2018 02:31 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

LMAO kamoz dropping truth in here !

Dog Mom=Crazy Cat Lady

No kidding. Would rep him again if I hadn't already repped him for his engineering datasheet. Someone else give this guy some love.

Quote: (02-01-2018 01:56 AM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

Quote: (01-30-2018 09:43 AM)Gmac Wrote:  

Your average woman gets swiped on by most guys and bumble has no swipe limit, so while 1900 might be inflated it's not unreasonable either especially for any woman who has used the app for more than a few months. I thought someone was going to point out the real truth hidden in this article but they did not, so I'll enlighten y'all.

Women don't actually want to be making the first move, or really any moves (except when angling for something that truly benefits them in the short/long-term - i.e. money, status, access, security). *Shocker*

This is why Bumble will only work for a select few long term, and fail for the rest of the populace. We all know women want men to take charge. This fact is obviously nothing new for anyone here. It's a tale as old as time by now.

In the above article, the girl earnestly awaits for the guy to respond. Waits for him to say he likes her. Waits for him to commit to her. When it never happens, she finally jumps ship. Typical post 20th century "romantic fling".


Women and modern day feminism have programmed and more importantly, enabled men to act this way, but men aren't doing themselves any favors by riding the poontang bus via "bang" apps forever either. Will western men and women grow up? It's one of the great questions of our time.

I feel uncomfortable writing this on a game forum where many members truly are alphas/sigmas. But I've always believed the ultimate responsibility lay with the 20% of men who get 80% of the pussy.

Will Alphas stop spinning plates and pick just one girl to fuck? Effectively making a sacrifice for the greater good of society?Basically forcing women to "settle" for betas. I highly doubt it. Solely because for many men, their lack of caring for long-term consequences is what makes them particularly attractive to women.

Funny that you mention that. I was reading an old thread Cazes made not too long ago about saving western civilization, and thought it was quite ironic he was indirectly contributing to the drug epidemic in western civilization at the same time.

The problem is that it's a self-reinforcing loop between men and women that becomes more reinforced the longer it goes on. I think it will end but it will be forced on women not by choice, but due to a global economic collapse. And it will only last a few generations where we get a reversion to the traditional before stability returns once again.

Quote: (01-31-2018 02:03 PM)C-Note Wrote:  

Quote: (01-31-2018 01:02 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  

It's pretty easy for girls to get a ton of likes, and easy sex from these apps. But, from what I can tell, it is extremely hard for girls to get the kind of sex they want from the kinds of guys they want to get it from. That may be more out of their reach for the most part than ordinary sex is for most guys.

So, you would expect that the more exclusive dating apps that promise access to higher status men would have women fighting to sign up for them. Do we have a list of those apps/sites around here somewhere? I remember seeing on the forum some time ago an app like that was started in London and within a week it had like 8,000 women signed up for it vs 2,000 men or something like that.

I think a lot of women, consciously or not, want violent and consumptive sex, and that once they have indicated strong desire for a man they deem worthy they want as little choice as possible in when, where and how that man uses them. Indeed, the more that man takes complete control of their sexual pleasure, and importantly pain, the happier they are. The less control they have, whilst still being secure that the man doing it to them is the man they want to be doing it to them, the more sexually fulfilled they will be.

Given that this is a predominantly psychological matter, there's almost no degree of cruelty, fear, or other form of suffering which, in the context of extreme sexual desire, in the hands of the right man and as part of the arc of what they deem a compelling narrative, won't simply serve to increase a woman's arousal and the intensity of the pleasure she experiences.

Men, on the whole, are content to get the nice looking new piece of pussy as quickly as possible. To experience it for what it is physically without much regard to the (w)hole.

By contrast, though sex is available to women at all times and in all places, a woman can sustain herself on a fantasy driven by a man she desires intensely for months on end without any kind of satisfaction or release, to the complete exclusion of all other potential sexual partners - assuming the man she desires is able to sustain and heighten the fantasy for her.

I don't think this is how the straight forwardly male sexuality works. Most men simply aren't interested in this kind of thing. It's not to say that it dooms most men to be average lays - straight forward sex executed with intense and unashamed desire will always put you in the great lay bracket.

My own conclusion is that for many girls though, there is a level beyond this, really only accessible for men who have a somewhat female sexual aspect incorporated into a fundamental masculinity. The desire to share in the sexual cruelties and psychological torment of true female sexual nature, and the wish to be the one to inflict them with a reciprocal intensity to that with which they are desired by the woman herself, cannot really be faked, or gone along with simply for the supposed satisfaction of one party.

^Really interesting point.

Most of the sex I ever had wasn't truly 100% dominant. For much of my young life I always fucked girls like they were rented and I had to make sure I was going to get my deposit back (p4p jokes aside).

The first time you hatefuck a girl you get a taste of the real deal but there's a sense that maybe "it's just her" and you're cautious to make it your standard go-to in case you end up with the police in your driveway. The effect on her behaviour though is pretty much instantaneous. Shit tests go out the window for a fair while.

There's probably a whole thread worth of insight available on this topic. Maybe one exists here already. But for women it's like there are two types. Those that have been hatefucked and those that haven't, and the former are never going to satisfied with the regular shit. The latter are still virgins in a sense. Most have no doubt watched porn and they wonder if that hard-pounding wet-orgasm stuff exists in real life but they can't bring themselves to ask for it directly (which would kind of defeat the purpose anyway) and they're reduced to rolling the dice on finding a guy that will do it to them. Certainly you can talk to a girl about her boyfriend and you'll know in five seconds flat if she's gotten the real deal from him.

From the guy's perspective (or mine at least) it's not something that occurs naturally if you don't have some sort of investment in the chick. It's absolutely an act of declaring ownership, and if you can't be fucked taking ownership of the THOT in question then it's not going to feel "real".

A guy doesn't even need to be great looking or ripped to get inside a woman's head this way. Even a Ron Jeremy type figure can take advantage of this neuro-chemical back door if he's willing to go silverback.

Quote: (02-01-2018 01:56 AM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  

As long as:
Alpha men fuck at wanton (which they inherently do)
And women want to fuck alpha men (which they inherently do)
I don't see any way out of this

Maybe gen Z will be different. But damn, my generation (millennials)...I don't know how many of us have the ability to pair-bond anymore. I like to be optimistic, but I think millennials are a lost cause.

GK, this is misguided. The truth is that almost all millennials -- as well as members of any other generation -- have the capacity to pair-bond. Indeed, you are very likely to see this play out in your own life, with respect to both yourself and your peers, male and female alike. The great majority of them will end up pair-bonding in one way or another, sooner or later.

The real "red pill", if there is one, is to understand female nature, and the most basic fact about female nature is that women are natural sluts and whores AND natural wives and mothers. It's and, not or. A girl who has slept around and fucked plenty of so-called (and actual) alphas can still become a perfectly serviceable -- and even good -- mate and mother to her children, under the right circumstances. And conversely, the most virtuous and pious wife and mother can be turned into a frenzied and shameless harlot if stimulated in the right way, and this up to an improbably advanced age. The latter is no more cause for despair than the former is cause for joy; both are simply facts about female nature, and a man might as well try to understand and accept them as best he can.

The solutions to our current predicament are largely economic, not moral or religious. Old forms and old ways are not coming back; the longing for a society of the past is as futile as it may be excusable. However, what is possible -- perhaps likely, over time -- is the removal of perverse economic incentives that privilege women and shield them from all consequences of their behavior. Once these economic structures -- which amount to fanatical white-knighting writ large -- are no longer in place, the sexes will be able to compete on more equal terms and come to better arrangements that will not necessarily be the same as the ones we are familiar with from the past, but that will be more palatable to the majority of men than the current situation.

There is a superb post by VincentVinturi which makes some of these points, and although it is long I will quote it in full below. It's a very useful and refreshingly sane take on the situation.

Quote: (12-26-2015 02:27 PM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  

@thoughtgypsy

Great points.

We're starting to get to the heart of the matter and what can realistically be done to preserve a world where feminine women will still exist in 50 years.

I believe most of us can agree that it's impossible, practically speaking, to shield women from Western culture in the internet age without necessarily sacrificing freedom in the society at large (which means men sacrifice it too).

Some people hearken to a system like Islam as a solution.

Sure, Saudi Arabia may be largely free from corrosive Western influences but would you want to live there?

Fuck no.

It's been my feeling for a while now that tactics like slut shaming, promoting religion (which religion?), extolling moral virtues, etc., are largely ineffective in keeping men AND women on the straight and narrow.

Or, if they ARE effective, they just delay the inevitable.

Let's not forget that the youth invariably see a wagging finger as a challenge, a provocation.

We make being sluts a forbidden fruit, and women will slut it up twice as hard.

We make drugs illegal, and there's a thrill to taking them and giving the middle finger to mom, dad and the establishment.

It seems to me that a superior set of solutions would include a nonchalant attitude towards women doing whatever the fuck they want.

And then...the charm of going full YOLO will slowly start to disappear.

When nobody gives a shit about Miley Cyrus parading her nasty cooter on television anymore, thousands of girls won't see it as an inspiration to be naughty.

Think about how being a slut vs a caring mother is such a gravitating issue with women.

If nobody gave a shit what women did, would they get the same kick out of being 'bad'?

Would they still enjoy being bad when nobody is there to wag their finger and tell them 'bad girl'?

Hmm...

That's one side of the coin.

Here's the other.

We men love our sexual freedom.

I personally would not at all enjoy a world in which the majority of women were conservative.

I like easy sex and lots of it, thank you very much.

I'm sure most guys here wouldn't want to make that sacrifice either and probably wouldn't given the option.

No more than women would sacrifice the freedom to fuck who THEY want, chase careers and do the independent woman thing.

So the question then becomes, how do we intelligently bring about a world in which men and women can both enjoy plenty of frivolous sex and yet in which women still fit into the feminine mother/partner role when the time comes?

I believe the answer is actually not a cultural one but an economic/political one, and it's simply this:

The world must move towards a libertarian/laissez-faire capitalist philosophy and voting policy.

The problems we have with women in the West are largely due to the fact that they can screw men out of their livelihoods (and freedom), and that they are essentially protected species hunted by politicians for their glossy coat and their glossier vote (what little fur they had was waxed off to better allow random men to navigate their penises into the gates of the promised land.)

If you unplug this socialist component from the society, things suddenly look very different.

Here in Thailand, sluts abound (thank Buddha).

BUT many of the girls who ride the carousel go on to be loving partners/mothers.

That's right, in my opinion a carousel rider is not damaged goods in the least and is often better in the mother/partner role than some prudish virgin who has experienced little of life (what can she impart to a child?), has gone through little hardship (it's fucking hard to raise kids), and doesn't know the first thing about pleasing a man.

Let's not forget you can almost never be sure of a woman's sexual history unless you go to ridiculous extremes to uncover it.

And I see no contradiction between a woman who enjoyed casual sex with many men and the ability to be a great partner and mom.

This false dichotomy exists largely because of the clout that women in enjoy in the West.

I think we've been confusing cause and effect.

In Thailand, communism was narrowly averted.

The surrounding countries weren't as lucky --- Cambodia (1/3 population was murdered), Myanmar (decades of war, murder, juntas), Vietnam, Malaysia (perhaps the least affected neighbor but still was officially communist for a period).

Part of the result of this has been a rather laissez-faire economy and political situation as far as the day to day life on the street is concerned.

There's no child support, no alimony, no taking men to the cleaners political bullshit here.

And guess what?

Women treat men well because they can't screw them vis a vis the government, so they're forced to cooperate just like everybody else in the laissez-faire arrangement.

The fact that there is little government intervention in the day to day lives of the people forces cooperation, commerce, understanding.

Once you get Uncle Sam involved, the bitches go YOLO.

I'm off on a bit of a rant but I think we're onto something...

Stories like these are worthless without pics. You need to see a pic of what the guy and the girl look like and once you do you really know what’s going on. My guess is the guy is good looking and the chick is average to sub par looking at best.

The only thing she has to offer the guy is sex for keeping his attention and the sex had to be on his terms. She knew if she wanted anything more he’d drop her but she couldn’t hold it in.

Quote: (02-01-2018 06:05 PM)colblionel Wrote:  

Stories like these are worthless without pics. You need to see a pic of what the guy and the girl look like and once you do you really know what’s going on. My guess is the guy is good looking and the chick is average to sub par looking at best.

The only thing she has to offer the guy is sex for keeping his attention and the sex had to be on his terms. She knew if she wanted anything more he’d drop her but she couldn’t hold it in.

Yep, as I mentioned before, without her pussy (& potentially pretty face I suppose), she had nothing to offer.

Quote:Quote:

The real "red pill", if there is one, is to understand female nature, and the most basic fact about female nature is that women are natural sluts and whores AND natural wives and mothers. It's and, not or. A girl who has slept around and fucked plenty of so-called (and actual) alphas can still become a perfectly serviceable -- and even good -- mate and mother to her children, under the right circumstances. And conversely, the most virtuous and pious wife and mother can be turned into a frenzied and shameless harlot if stimulated in the right way, and this up to an improbably advanced age. The latter is no more cause for despair than the former is cause for joy; both are simply facts about female nature, and a man might as well try to understand and accept them as best he can.

Wishful thinking. Once a slut, always a slut. Not only does this match everyday experience, but well documented stats bear it as well.

   

As for Vincent's observation about Thai women, he couldn't be more wrong. Thailand has an even more negative birthrate than America:

Thai: https://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=th&v=25
USA: https://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=25

Sex tourism has DESTROYED Thailand's women. Spinsters galore there now.

Quote: (02-01-2018 06:05 PM)colblionel Wrote:  

Stories like these are worthless without pics. You need to see a pic of what the guy and the girl look like and once you do you really know what’s going on. My guess is the guy is good looking and the chick is average to sub par looking at best.

I already posted her picture on the first page of the thread: thread-66989...pid1728258

Quote: (02-02-2018 01:20 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

The real "red pill", if there is one, is to understand female nature, and the most basic fact about female nature is that women are natural sluts and whores AND natural wives and mothers. It's and, not or.
...

Wishful thinking. Once a slut, always a slut. Not only does this match everyday experience, but well documented stats bear it as well.
...

Sluts can be reformed but not under current Western judicial standards. Ship Miley Cyrus off to rural Pakistan. Put her under a man that will collar her and take the steps necessary to reform her and she'll become so thoroughly compliant that nobody would recognise her within a year. That's what it takes to reform an addict. No-holds-barred intervention.

Another member asked about whether it was possible for a party girl to reform. I replied by suggesting it would be like a drug addict trying to stay clean when sacks of heroin walked around the streets and occasionally daygamed them.

But technically LOZ is correct. Sluts at some point will play the "natural wife and mother" but it will only be for a few hours at a time in between fucking the postman, the street sweeper and the nearest fisherman's dog.

Quote: (02-02-2018 01:20 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

The real "red pill", if there is one, is to understand female nature, and the most basic fact about female nature is that women are natural sluts and whores AND natural wives and mothers. It's and, not or. A girl who has slept around and fucked plenty of so-called (and actual) alphas can still become a perfectly serviceable -- and even good -- mate and mother to her children, under the right circumstances. And conversely, the most virtuous and pious wife and mother can be turned into a frenzied and shameless harlot if stimulated in the right way, and this up to an improbably advanced age. The latter is no more cause for despair than the former is cause for joy; both are simply facts about female nature, and a man might as well try to understand and accept them as best he can.

Wishful thinking. Once a slut, always a slut. Not only does this match everyday experience, but well documented stats bear it as well.



As for Vincent's observation about Thai women, he couldn't be more wrong. Thailand has an even more negative birthrate than America:

Thai: https://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=th&v=25
USA: https://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=25

Sex tourism has DESTROYED Thailand's women. Spinsters galore there now.

Samseau really.

Are you saying you don't believe in the redemptive power of Jesus Christ? Have you never seen lives changed radically and dramatically after a spiritual conversion?

You aren't suggesting that Christianity is wishful thinking are you?



DISAPPOINT!

Quote: (02-02-2018 09:48 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

But technically LOZ is correct. Sluts at some point will play the "natural wife and mother" but it will only be for a few hours at a time in between fucking the postman, the street sweeper and the nearest fisherman's dog.

Whether or not sluts can be reformed isn't even the point. Would you marry a slut?

....No?

Then why would you marry a 'reformed' slut?

You wouldn't, because they don't exist except in the minds of some delusional bluepill christian types.