[UnW]

This is a great read, women can never accept let alone describe their scary natures. As known by all, All women are slaves to their biology.

[Samseau]

(04-27-2014 02:30 AM)UnW Wrote:  

All women are slaves to their biology.

So are men.

[Aurini]

(04-25-2014 05:33 AM)kosko Wrote:  

Why do women enjoy the pain so much? Why are they such Sadists?

The genetic memory of guilt for Eve's sin.

Thanks for posting this. This woman's got a beautiful soul; the cleanest I've seen in a long while.

[kosko]

Her honesty likely helps her sleep at night. I would not call her soul clean, but purged ..

[Ryre]

To pick on a minor, MRA-ish point, I believe Black Flag is incorrect when she says:

And rage about the divorce laws all you like, gentlemen; the fact is, for most women divorce is a big fat pay cut.

Although this is the conventional wisdom, I researched this at one point and found that like most feminist talking points, it was based on bad data. The studies finding that women had a lower standard of living after divorce had math errors and did not take into account things like the impact of taxes (something to the effect that men pay child support from their after-tax income, but it is tax-free income to women, plus women get to claim the kids as dependents).

The myth is the man driving a sports car while the poor woman struggles to care for the kids. The reality is the man scraping by in a one-bedroom apartment while she raises the kids in the house he paid for. (I should say, though, that after doing my initial research, I tried to replicate it and had trouble tracking down good information the second time around. If anyone has good sources on this, please share.)

Certainly the game/dominance lessons here are more important, I just hate to see these myths go unchallenged.

[Wutang]

(04-24-2014 11:00 PM)Vitriol Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 03:39 PM)bodmon Wrote:  

... i thought this would be about the punk band!

Henry Rollins had some good insights on women. It's already buried in the forum somewhere if anyone cares to search for awhile.

Full interview here (mostly him talking about how he's a loner and how he has little artistic talent but makes up for it with passion and hard work)

[Aurini]

(04-28-2014 11:38 AM)kosko Wrote:  

Her honesty likely helps her sleep at night. I would not call her soul clean, but purged ..

Cleanest.

She's admitted to being a shitty person, yet she hasn't given up hope. It's a rare quality.

[Samseau]

Ultimately, Black Flag was a woman who was smart enough to see beyond her emotions and understand that she is broken. Obviously she would never confess such thoughts in real life, but with the safety of anonymity on the internet she could reveal her life to strangers.

The conclusion I am reaching, based on my research of the sexes over the years, is that society must be constructed with a plan in mind for both men and women, or else the unleashed anarchy of the sexual marketplace will tear everything apart.

Woman's base nature is as vile as man's. Restrictions must be placed on both sexes for the good of society.

[blck]

Too much gem in this thread to not reviving it.

[Fitnesspm]

Women aren't women in the west!

Westernised women have no clue how to be a woman hence why they have so much trouble in relationships all the time due Feminism poison running through their veins.

Even if they leave the west, the poison has done too much damage. Damage goods stay damaged!

[Hardy Daytona]

(04-28-2014 01:10 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:00 PM)Vitriol Wrote:  

... i thought this would be about the punk band!

Henry Rollins had some good insights on women. It's already buried in the forum somewhere if anyone cares to search for awhile.

I'm surprised this wasn't posted sooner

[Vincent Chase]

Well worth reading again.

[VforVlad]

From having read this, I have come to two conclusions. Either

A) We take away the left's weird alliance with Muslims, and welcome a Islam invasion of the west, as they seem to have the most red pill way of handling women. Not on a per individual basis, but structurally. Where we provide true dominance and women feel permanent sense of danger, and actually appreciate when their husband treats them nicely as she damn well knows...she could be raped or executed for misbehavior that doesn't conform with sharia law.

OR

B) We let the Feminists win and rewrite gender roles. Since you can't truly be a dominant man in today's advanced society/first world countries...you might as well give up. We are not truly dominant, it's play-dominance. We are an extension of a woman's dildo.

I often thought what would happen if the "Yes means Yes" laws became Federal among other things. In a sense you'd be liberated from "gaming" women and being this hyper-dominant male (where the laws of your country don't correspond well with your dominance). You'd have to by law message them on a dating app something along these lines of "Hey my name is Vlad. Due to the laws i'm required to be straight forward and tell you that I wish to have sex with you and I need your consent. Yes or NO?". In a sense it would be liberating. And over time as no guy is "gaming" them anymore because of the laws, they would even stop pursuing the best looking alpha's as most women would realize that they're unattainable as they've got their hands full.

They'd be forced to fight their own nature and approach men, and tolerate beta behavior or even condition themselves to like it. You let her pick the restaurant where you go to eat and she'd be forced to, as there is nowhere else to go, since it isn't YOU (the individual guy in her life) but society that is structured that way where all men are like that.

Some women are already doing this as many of you know. I recently went out with this dimwitted, short hair cut liberal chick. She was all about "equality". We ended up talking about superhero movies and the movie 'Superman Vs Batman' was brought up. Turns out that she didn't like it, even tho I did. But she did like Jesse Eisenberg playing Lex Luthor, which was the most Beta character in the movie. Every guy I talked to about the movie thought that someone more manly should have played that role....but she liked him. I guess Ben Affleck and Henry Cavill were just too masculine/alpha for her. I don't know how attractive she found me from a pure physical standpoint, but there is no way I could alter my behavior and Liberal- the -fuck up to get her to fuck me...unless I was supposed to put a magic rabbit out of my hat at just the right moment and take her in the ultimate BDSM scenario.

[Constitution45]

Good read, it's been a while since I have checked out these Rollo Tomassi style posts.

From speaking to women that I personally know in London, they really do seem have zero respect for men. They are quick to gloat about how they have somehow manipulated men who were infatuated by them. As if they are some sort of Cleopatra incarnate. In reality it seems like a lot of thirsty guys who would otherwise have decent SMV just throw away their respect to the feminine imperative that runs a resonance through all the institutions here. One good looking Danish businesswoman I know, said to me over drinks once, "Don't take this the wrong way, but I get it why girls who get beaten up by their boyfriends always run back to them. Because at least they are behaving masculine".

I think this is the dark side of the red pill and it catches out a lot of red pill dudes and PUAs. Who have convinced themselves that by being cocky, ripped and a good lay; that they are somehow tapping into some primal dark triad quality. Further down the line, these guys hit a wall when they see their own sweet girl, turn on them in a completely detached way; which would make the godfather cringe.

[LionHound]

This is pure speculation on my part but what if the snake's reasoning behind choosing to deceive Eve instead of Adam was because the snake knew it wouldn't be able to deceive Adam outright into eating the fruit. And since the snake was the most cunning animal in the kingdom he knew how Adam felt about Eve so surmised all he had to do was convince Eve to eat and Adam would surely follow suit. Kill two birds with one stone so to speak. Classic case of a man having such strong feelings for a woman that he would do something he knew was wrong out of fear of losing her.


And what do we have going on today with feminism? Men following women's lead and the result is not good. Only a small amount of group's lives are made better by feminism. So Adam is the beta too weak to stand up to his woman. Eve is the ''liberated'' modern woman. Feminism, or rather who created it, who promotes it, is the snake.

[John Michael Kane]

There's a lot of gems to be had in this thread. Still, the bottom line is that men, especially men in LTR/marriage need to have hand/frame. This starts before you even date or get into a relationship. How you set the tone early dictates the rules of engagement for later in a relationship. Give a woman too much slack on the leash and she will walk all over you, or complain about your weak behavior. Men need to practice routines of internal strength and frame, then seek a relationship. Too many men think that getting into a relationship will solve their problems. A woman is not medicine for your weakness. You must fight harder to become strong before you can lead a woman.

[Brendan]

This is one of my favourite threads on here. Most of what you need to know about game is distilled through her posts.

I just need to beat all this information into my head until its instinct. Some of the deep end stuff is still a bit jarring to think about.

[nek]

The issue I always have to reconcile is... if there's a woman you have to constantly "handle" and "keep in check", is she worth keeping? What do you gain? I'm of the opinion that if a woman respects you, she won't put you in situations where you have to handle her very often, if at all. The chick in the OP mentioned that if her boyfriend would've backhanded her after the first time cheating, she would've fallen in line. But at that point, you have a girl that's cheated on you. What kind of victory is that?

[John Michael Kane]

(12-27-2016 09:07 PM)nek Wrote:  

The issue I always have to reconcile is... if there's a woman you have to constantly "handle" and "keep in check", is she worth keeping? What do you gain? I'm of the opinion that if a woman respects you, she won't put you in situations where you have to handle her very often, if at all. The chick in the OP mentioned that if her boyfriend would've backhanded her after the first time cheating, she would've fallen in line. But at that point, you have a girl that's cheated on you. What kind of victory is that?

You are correct that men ought to screen early and often for women who don't constantly shit test them. Still, even the nicest of women want to make sure you are a man. That's understandable. The really wife worthy woman tests you occasionally, but doesn't hit you when you fail, but encourages you to do better in a proactive way. I agree that there is no point in being in a LTR, much less marriage with a woman who needs constant hand.

That's part of the reason why super hot women are often NOT the best choice for a wife. They know they have "the goods" and a cute, but not high on herself chick is a better LTR option. Can you imagine dating some HB9 from Instagram with 2 million followers? She will shit test you all the time because she has millions of thirsty men to replace you. That's why a man MUST FILTER!

[greekgod]

(12-27-2016 09:24 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  

(12-27-2016 09:07 PM)nek Wrote:  

The issue I always have to reconcile is... if there's a woman you have to constantly "handle" and "keep in check", is she worth keeping? What do you gain? I'm of the opinion that if a woman respects you, she won't put you in situations where you have to handle her very often, if at all. The chick in the OP mentioned that if her boyfriend would've backhanded her after the first time cheating, she would've fallen in line. But at that point, you have a girl that's cheated on you. What kind of victory is that?

You are correct that men ought to screen early and often for women who don't constantly shit test them. Still, even the nicest of women want to make sure you are a man. That's understandable. The really wife worthy woman tests you occasionally, but doesn't hit you when you fail, but encourages you to do better in a proactive way. I agree that there is no point in being in a LTR, much less marriage with a woman who needs constant hand.

That's part of the reason why super hot women are often NOT the best choice for a wife. They know they have "the goods" and a cute, but not high on herself chick is a better LTR option. Can you imagine dating some HB9 from Instagram with 2 million followers? She will shit test you all the time because she has millions of thirsty men to replace you. That's why a man MUST FILTER!

Agree with JMK, 7.5-8 FTW long term. I don't know about you but I naturally gravitate towards the demure cuties that make me want to drink hot cocoa by the fire before I rail her as opposed to the flawless model looking chick that can break necks on Madison Avenue. I've always been this way.

Its completely acceptable for women to test for strength. After all, the world was a very dangerous place for women for the longest of times. Come in contact with the wrong tribesmen while out scavenging for food and bye bye. Their operating systems simply havent and never will catch up to the abundant environment we currently live in.

NEK, if shouldn't be work to parry away their silly tests. It should be internalized that men built, ran, and pioneered the world. Women have always been passengers on the ride. Remember that and it all comes into place. Their tests often revolve around "should's" and "feelings" which are both subjective, soplistic outlooks. (Be wary of anyone that uses the term "should" too often, its a ruse to avoid accountability)

If it gets to the point where she has to cheat and needs you to slap the respect back into her well that most likely is a lost cause. Either you were always a weakling or more likely, she was a carton of cracked eggs.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(12-28-2016 01:13 AM)greekgod Wrote:  

...
Its completely acceptable for women to test for strength. After all, the world was a very dangerous place for women for the longest of times. Come in contact with the wrong tribesmen while out scavenging for food and bye bye. Their operating systems simply havent and never will catch up to the abundant environment we currently live in.
...

Perish the thought.

We may not always live in such times of abundance and I for one am quite happy for them to retain their anti-beta instincts.

What needs correcting is society's democracy/consumerism driven hatred of alphas.

[greekgod]

(04-25-2014 05:33 AM)kosko Wrote:  

Why do women enjoy the pain so much? Why are they such Sadists?

I think I am fucked up enough that the soreness after the gym is soothing. But in generally don't like pain, especially not in the traditional sense of chronic, shooting, sharp, pain. I hate it even though I have a high pain tolerance in general. I feel most men are the same. Men understand the dynamics of pain and try to avoid it, if it happens we shrug it off, but we don't go looking for it. We understand the power of the pain we give and can equally receive. Few things such as a hindrance of reasoning from liquor, intense competition, or women can make a man ditch that and make him act out like a animal to dish or receive that pain with little remorse.

Women on the other hand love to be beaten red, bound, cracked, slapped. They love looking for a good rough fucking and toss around. I don't get it. Few females will put the real reasons why into text, that is the next thing I want to dive into and read into. It completely mind fucks me into confusion.

The only nuggets I suspect that would provide truth are the old Psycho-Anyalsis studies from the 40-60s. I believe PC science police and feminists have worked to burn and bury most of these studies, you wont find many uploaded to the internet, you would have to go find the physicals in institutional libraries; but the ones on women would likely provide more reasoning to what we suspect, but still would not provide the reasons why. Only the women themselves can reveal this and for course history she has been reluctant to do so.

I'm going to take a shot at this.

If you reduce things to their simplest forms, we all look for the best complimentary partner to raise a child with. Thats always the underlying context of attraction.

So by that logic, its been bred into women, that the strong shall survive and nature is a cruel bitch so I'd better lock down the strongest, most dominant motherfucker I can attract.

This has been the genetic desire forever.

So, sex, while pleasurable, is also a test for women. What is your physical prowness? What can your body do to mine?

So women's weird ass logic is, if he can give me that type of pain while still showing or recently having shown affection for me, and go into that animalistic mode, imagine what he can if I tell him the mailman kidnapped our baby. He flogged my ass so hard it bled. He choked me within an inch of my life. He degraded me in such a way that I felt like a farm animal.

That fuckin' kidnapper doesnt stand a chance.

They don't love pain because of the pain itself or what some BDSM flavor of the month book pooped into their head. They love pain because it signifies their selection for dominance was correct and if SHTF, the guy will dominate an assailant.

My pop evo psych 2 cents.

[John Michael Kane]

(12-28-2016 01:53 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(12-28-2016 01:13 AM)greekgod Wrote:  

...
Its completely acceptable for women to test for strength. After all, the world was a very dangerous place for women for the longest of times. Come in contact with the wrong tribesmen while out scavenging for food and bye bye. Their operating systems simply havent and never will catch up to the abundant environment we currently live in.
...

Perish the thought.

We may not always live in such times of abundance and I for one am quite happy for them to retain their anti-beta instincts.

What needs correcting is society's democracy/consumerism driven hatred of alphas.

Some alphas are born (largely genetic traits) and some are made (learning game and social dynamics in general).

What we need in general is more respect for natural alphas who are benevolent, and more encouraging of betas to boost their alpha traits, which don't have to come at the expense of being beta. This is where strong paternal guidance comes into play.

[robreke]

Bump again.

I'd like to know what this Black Flag looks like...

[blck]

(07-02-2017 04:41 PM)robreke Wrote:  

Bump again.

I'd like to know what this Black Flag looks like...

This thread, among others, should be part of a Game sidebar mandatory reading list.
It would help to get rid of useless Game threads