[AntiTrace]

Unsurprisingly we have the famous RVF 6-7 rating for this chick.

For everyone that claims she is possibly a six, please post pics for your regular fuck buddies.

[Quintus Curtius]

This is a good example of one of the most insidious things about modern American feminism, and its disease vector, the modern American woman: the cold, utterly ruthless exploitation of the male protector impulse for her own one-way cynical material gain.

Let me explain what I mean by this.

Men are creatures of their own biological inheritance. The man, deep down, craves the feeling that comes from the pursuit and "capture" of a woman. This having been done, he then deeply desires the feeling of being the protector and father. The impulse to build a family is strong in a man. He wants to pass on his own genetic inheritance.

It is an altruistic, idealistic impulse. Men, at heart, are the ultimate idealists.

Women are constituted differently. Their desires and goals are drawn up on a more practical, ruthless level. They care only about finding the most expedient mate to pass on their genetic inheritance and protect their offspring. The health and welfare of their mate is of decidedly secondary importance to them, once insemination has occurred. In other words, woman care little about a man once he has performed his biological function.

But for a nuclear, functional family to exist, the woman must stay put and do her duties. So there is this tension that exists between her biological impulse and her social directives.

Over centuries, social, familial, clan, and religious rules were put into place to keep these destructive female impulses under control. They served a net benefit. The wisdom of the old ways was that there was no illusions about female purity and virtue.

But modern feminism has stripped all of this away. It has loosened all restraints and controls. It teaches (and encourages) women to goad men into doing men's traditional duties, but at the same time, it exempts women from all of their reciprocal responsibilities. Feminism totally disarms men, takes away all men's protections, and leaves them at the mercy of the predatory female.

What is especially despicable is the way women continue to encourage men's biological impulses as a protector. This lulls him into a stupor, where he can be disarmed and attacked by the vampiric female. They know our weaknesses, and exploit them to the limit. It is a cynical, evil game, that I for one refuse to play any longer.

The reality--oft pondered, but never uttered--is that we men are the ones who need protection from women. Not the other way around.

And this example shows it clearly. The millionaire here is encouraged to be "super-traditional" and to pursue her as if we were living in 1850. At the same time, she has absolutely no responsibilities, duties, or limits placed on her.

It is as if we could imagine a battle where one side shows up with tanks, artillery, and jets, and the other side shows up with bows and arrows. A slaughter is going to ensue.

Q

[game_ethic]

(01-03-2015 01:39 PM)AntiTrace Wrote:  

Unsurprisingly we have the famous RVF 6-7 rating for this chick.

For everyone that claims she is possibly a six, please post pics for your regular fuck buddies.

[Pontifex Maximus]

This thread should be a sticky in the Newbie forum. Whenever someone beats the dead horse again about height, money and looks > game, this is the "dupe" redirect thread. This man exemplifies a wealthy Adonis by any media standards and still gets tossed like a salad. No pity when he gets hollowed out in 9 months.

[Kingsley Davis]

(01-03-2015 01:45 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

This is a good example of one of the most insidious things about modern American feminism, and its disease vector, the modern American woman: the cold, utterly ruthless exploitation of the male protector impulse for her own one-way cynical material gain.

Let me explain what I mean by this.

Men are creatures of their own biological inheritance. The man, deep down, craves the feeling that comes from the pursuit and "capture" of a woman. This having been done, he then deeply desires the feeling of being the protector and father. The impulse to build a family is strong in a man. He wants to pass on his own genetic inheritance.

It is an altruistic, idealistic impulse. Men, at heart, are the ultimate idealists.

Women are constituted differently. Their desires and goals are drawn up on a more practical, ruthless level. They care only about finding the most expedient mate to pass on their genetic inheritance and protect their offspring. The health and welfare of their mate is of decidedly secondary importance to them, once insemination has occurred. In other words, woman care little about a man once he has performed his biological function.

But for a nuclear, functional family to exist, the woman must stay put and do her duties. So there is this tension that exists between her biological impulse and her social directives.

Over centuries, social, familial, clan, and religious rules were put into place to keep these destructive female impulses under control. They served a net benefit. The wisdom of the old ways was that there was no illusions about female purity and virtue.

But modern feminism has stripped all of this away. It has loosened all restraints and controls. It teaches (and encourages) women to goad men into doing men's traditional duties, but at the same time, it exempts women from all of their reciprocal responsibilities. Feminism totally disarms men, takes away all men's protections, and leaves them at the mercy of the predatory female.

What is especially despicable is the way women continue to encourage men's biological impulses as a protector. This lulls him into a stupor, where he can be disarmed and attacked by the vampiric female. They know our weaknesses, and exploit them to the limit. It is a cynical, evil game, that I for one refuse to play any longer.

The reality--oft pondered, but never uttered--is that we men are the ones who need protection from women. Not the other way around.

And this example shows it clearly. The millionaire here is encouraged to be "super-traditional" and to pursue her as if we were living in 1850. At the same time, she has absolutely no responsibilities, duties, or limits placed on her.

It is as if we could imagine a battle where one side shows up with tanks, artillery, and jets, and the other side shows up with bows and arrows. A slaughter is going to ensue.

Q

[CactusCat589]

Quote:

Unsurprisingly we have the famous RVF 6-7 rating for this chick.

For everyone that claims she is possibly a six, please post pics for your regular fuck buddies.

She is the very definition of a 6.5, 6.75. Are you saying she's supposed to be an 8? A 9? A 10?

And people can just randomly shut down Times Square, consistently the busiest place in New York City, like that? I'd assumed that was beyond the pay grade and of even millionaires.

[Luvianka]

Don't American men know the saying that goes: "Knowledge begets knowledge, as money bears interest"? If you already have a respectable fortune, also if it's inherited, the best option for both (man & woman) is to marry someone rich, from your same class, just to merge and increase the families' fortunes. The rest is just small details, they can have an arrangement about sex, lovers, the number of children to be raised, etc. That's what rich people do all over the World. This is truer than ever since misandrist Family courts are overrinding Prenups. Anyway, if I were him, I'd do start cooking my books with an skilled accountant and a foreign lawyer for the purpose of damage control.

[Luvianka]

(01-03-2015 01:45 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

This is a good example of one of the most insidious things about modern American feminism, and its disease vector, the modern American woman: the cold, utterly ruthless exploitation of the male protector impulse for her own one-way cynical material gain.
...
It is as if we could imagine a battle where one side shows up with tanks, artillery, and jets, and the other side shows up with bows and arrows. A slaughter is going to ensue.

Q

That's it, Quintus: Religions are ideologies created by men to protect themselves from women.

[viajero]

(01-03-2015 01:39 PM)AntiTrace Wrote:  

Unsurprisingly we have the famous RVF 6-7 rating for this chick.

For everyone that claims she is possibly a six, please post pics for your regular fuck buddies.

Yeah I actually think this girl is pretty hot, don't get the hate on her appearance.

Everything else is cringe worthy though.

[VolandoVengoVolandoVoy]

(01-03-2015 01:45 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

The reality--oft pondered, but never uttered--is that we men are the ones who need protection from women. Not the other way around.

And this example shows it clearly. The millionaire here is encouraged to be "super-traditional" and to pursue her as if we were living in 1850. At the same time, she has absolutely no responsibilities, duties, or limits placed on her.

It is as if we could imagine a battle where one side shows up with tanks, artillery, and jets, and the other side shows up with bows and arrows. A slaughter is going to ensue.

Q

Your post as a whole was well thought out and well written regarding feminism, but I respectfully disagree with some of your conclusions, even though you are much more senior here than I am.
A man doesn't need protection, he needs to defend himself against all enemies and rivals, whether they are male or female or ideologies. It is up to a man to do what he wants, to make his life what he wants, not for society to do it for him.
How is anyone encouraging this guy to do anything?
He is, in essence, a complete fool. Plenty of men (most RVF members), given his same level of looks and wealth and fame...would do a lot lot lot better, and would never wife up a woman who treated them like a chump.
He is fantastically successful in one part of his life, and has gotten lazy in others.
I am guessing that he combined natural talent with thousands of hours of practice and study of real estate to become the salesman he is today. He no doubt realized that he needed a specific skillset to excel.
Now, he seems to think that one minded intensity and persistence that leads to real estate success and landing the Manhattan penthouse client is the same method he should use to get a woman. Or maybe he wired himself to approach all goals/problems that way.
The fact of the matter is, in my opinion, if this man spent even 1% of the time and effort he has put into real estate/sales into learning game fundamentals and considering important aspects of psychology and relationships, he would not do things the way he did.
It's like a doctor thinking because he is intelligent and processes information well that he can just go out and pick stocks or something, without putting in the work to learn how to succeed in that particular field, which is different from his own.

[Samseau]

Now that's a slut face. I can't believe some men here think this marriage is going to end well?

She's fucked probably 3x as many people as he has, plus she's older?

Her rating, btw: She was a 9 at age 18, now she's a 8 declining into a 7.5.

[Quintus Curtius]

(01-03-2015 05:50 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

Your post as a whole was well thought out and well written regarding feminism, but I respectfully disagree with some of your conclusions, even though you are much more senior here than I am.
A man doesn't need protection, he needs to defend himself against all enemies and rivals, whether they are male or female or ideologies. It is up to a man to do what he wants, to make his life what he wants, not for society to do it for him.
How is anyone encouraging this guy to do anything?
He is, in essence, a complete fool. Plenty of men (most RVF members), given his same level of looks and wealth and fame...would do a lot lot lot better, and would never wife up a woman who treated them like a chump.
He is fantastically successful in one part of his life, and has gotten lazy in others.
I am guessing that he combined natural talent with thousands of hours of practice and study of real estate to become the salesman he is today. He no doubt realized that he needed a specific skillset to excel.
Now, he seems to think that one minded intensity and persistence that leads to real estate success and landing the Manhattan penthouse client is the same method he should use to get a woman. Or maybe he wired himself to approach all goals/problems that way.
The fact of the matter is, in my opinion, if this man spent even 1% of the time and effort he has put into real estate/sales into learning game fundamentals and considering important aspects of psychology and relationships, he would not do things the way he did.
It's like a doctor thinking because he is intelligent and processes information well that he can just go out and pick stocks or something, without putting in the work to learn how to succeed in that particular field, which is different from his own.

I was referring to something very different from what you are referring to. I don't think you grasped what I was trying to say.

Of course, a man should strive for being all he can be. No one doubts that. But that was not my point.

This is my point. There are fundamental biological differences between man and woman. And I submit that a woman's control over the reproductive process gives her an advantage coming out of the starting gate. She already starts with an advantage.

And so when she clamors for "equality" in every detail (assuming she is sincere, which she usually is not), she quickly turns that "equality" into superiority. Her lie is that she expects the man to abide by an outmoded playbook. But yet, at the same time, she refuses to acknowledge her responsibilities under that traditional playbook.

And this is the reality that traditional cultures the world over have known for millennia. This is why traditional cultures, drawing on thousands of years of experience, have found it necessary to keep women and their antics firmly under control by using laws, religions, and social rules to prevent them from achieving superiority over men.

And we dismantled all of that. And the result is right before our eyes.

In modern America, women have all the advantages: the laws favor them, and there are no traditional cultural rules (religion, clan, tribe, etc.) to keep them in check. Their antics, drama, and craziness is raging out of control and there are no ways to keep them in check. Even trying to control them can land you in jail or get you fired.

My point is this: equality is a chimera. There can be no "equality" between men and women. There can only be reciprocal responsibilities. There can only be gender roles.

So when a women starts blathering about "equality" and "fairness" realize that this is a bunji pit, a trap for the unwary. She will quickly twist this "equality" into complete superiority.

This is what I meant when I said that men needed "protection": I meant that the law, and other social rules, need to recognize the inherent gender differences. The law needs to prevent women from raging out of control and destroying social order. Which they will do--and have done--if they are not kept firmly under control.

It is our fault, as we permitted this to happen.

[VolandoVengoVolandoVoy]

(01-03-2015 06:25 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 05:50 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

Your post as a whole was well thought out and well written regarding feminism, but I respectfully disagree with some of your conclusions, even though you are much more senior here than I am.
A man doesn't need protection, he needs to defend himself against all enemies and rivals, whether they are male or female or ideologies. It is up to a man to do what he wants, to make his life what he wants, not for society to do it for him.
How is anyone encouraging this guy to do anything?
He is, in essence, a complete fool. Plenty of men (most RVF members), given his same level of looks and wealth and fame...would do a lot lot lot better, and would never wife up a woman who treated them like a chump.
He is fantastically successful in one part of his life, and has gotten lazy in others.
I am guessing that he combined natural talent with thousands of hours of practice and study of real estate to become the salesman he is today. He no doubt realized that he needed a specific skillset to excel.
Now, he seems to think that one minded intensity and persistence that leads to real estate success and landing the Manhattan penthouse client is the same method he should use to get a woman. Or maybe he wired himself to approach all goals/problems that way.
The fact of the matter is, in my opinion, if this man spent even 1% of the time and effort he has put into real estate/sales into learning game fundamentals and considering important aspects of psychology and relationships, he would not do things the way he did.
It's like a doctor thinking because he is intelligent and processes information well that he can just go out and pick stocks or something, without putting in the work to learn how to succeed in that particular field, which is different from his own.

I was referring to something very different from what you are referring to. I don't think you grasped what I was trying to say.

Of course, a man should strive for being all he can be. No one doubts that. But that was not my point.

This is my point. There are fundamental biological differences between man and woman. And I submit that a woman's control over the reproductive process gives her an advantage coming out of the starting gate. She already starts with an advantage.

And so when she clamors for "equality" in every detail (assuming she is sincere, which she usually is not), she quickly turns that "equality" into superiority. Her lie is that she expects the man to abide by an outmoded playbook. But yet, at the same time, she refuses to acknowledge her responsibilities under that traditional playbook.

And this is the reality that traditional cultures the world over have known for millennia. This is why traditional cultures, drawing on thousands of years of experience, have found it necessary to keep women and their antics firmly under control by using laws, religions, and social rules to prevent them from achieving superiority over men.

And we dismantled all of that. And the result is right before our eyes.

In modern America, women have all the advantages: the laws favor them, and there are no traditional cultural rules (religion, clan, tribe, etc.) to keep them in check. Their antics, drama, and craziness is raging out of control and there are no ways to keep them in check. Even trying to control them can land you in jail or get you fired.

My point is this: equality is a chimera. There can be no "equality" between men and women. There can only be reciprocal responsibilities. There can only be gender roles.

So when a women starts blathering about "equality" and "fairness" realize that this is a bunji pit, a trap for the unwary. She will quickly twist this "equality" into complete superiority.

This is what I meant when I said that men needed "protection": I meant that the law, and other social rules, need to recognize the inherent gender differences. The law needs to prevent women from raging out of control and destroying social order. Which they will do--and have done--if they are not kept firmly under control.

It is our fault, as we permitted this to happen.

Ah ok, that makes more sense to me now.
I had thought you were basically giving this guy a pass on being a chump, because somehow "society" and feminism forced him to do what he did.

[L M McCoy]

(01-03-2015 01:27 PM)Old Fritz Wrote:  

Wouldn't be surprised if she cheated right before marrying him.

what else do you think happens at bachelorette parties

[infowarrior1]

(01-03-2015 01:45 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

This is a good example of one of the most insidious things about modern American feminism, and its disease vector, the modern American woman: the cold, utterly ruthless exploitation of the male protector impulse for her own one-way cynical material gain.

Let me explain what I mean by this.

Men are creatures of their own biological inheritance. The man, deep down, craves the feeling that comes from the pursuit and "capture" of a woman. This having been done, he then deeply desires the feeling of being the protector and father. The impulse to build a family is strong in a man. He wants to pass on his own genetic inheritance.

It is an altruistic, idealistic impulse. Men, at heart, are the ultimate idealists.

Women are constituted differently. Their desires and goals are drawn up on a more practical, ruthless level. They care only about finding the most expedient mate to pass on their genetic inheritance and protect their offspring. The health and welfare of their mate is of decidedly secondary importance to them, once insemination has occurred. In other words, woman care little about a man once he has performed his biological function.

But for a nuclear, functional family to exist, the woman must stay put and do her duties. So there is this tension that exists between her biological impulse and her social directives.

Over centuries, social, familial, clan, and religious rules were put into place to keep these destructive female impulses under control. They served a net benefit. The wisdom of the old ways was that there was no illusions about female purity and virtue.

But modern feminism has stripped all of this away. It has loosened all restraints and controls. It teaches (and encourages) women to goad men into doing men's traditional duties, but at the same time, it exempts women from all of their reciprocal responsibilities. Feminism totally disarms men, takes away all men's protections, and leaves them at the mercy of the predatory female.

What is especially despicable is the way women continue to encourage men's biological impulses as a protector. This lulls him into a stupor, where he can be disarmed and attacked by the vampiric female. They know our weaknesses, and exploit them to the limit. It is a cynical, evil game, that I for one refuse to play any longer.

The reality--oft pondered, but never uttered--is that we men are the ones who need protection from women. Not the other way around.

And this example shows it clearly. The millionaire here is encouraged to be "super-traditional" and to pursue her as if we were living in 1850. At the same time, she has absolutely no responsibilities, duties, or limits placed on her.

It is as if we could imagine a battle where one side shows up with tanks, artillery, and jets, and the other side shows up with bows and arrows. A slaughter is going to ensue.

Q

This is why men had more rights than women historically. It is to give them an edge against such female predation. And this is also subsequently why in the History of Rome Cato the Elder is so vehemently against female legal equality with men:

Quote:

Book 34: Close of the Macedonian War 34.1

While the State was preoccupied by serious wars, some hardly yet over and others threatening, an incident occurred which though unimportant in itself resulted in a violent party conflict. Two of the tribunes of the plebs, M. Fundanius and L. Valerius, had brought in a proposal to repeal the Oppian Law. This law had been made on the motion of M. Oppius, a tribune of the plebs, during the consulship of Q. Fabius and Tiberius Sempronius, when the strain of the Punic War was most severely felt. It forbade any woman to have in her possession more than half an ounce of gold, to wear a dress of various colours or to ride in a two-horsed vehicle within a mile of the City or of any Roman town unless she was going to take part in some religious function. The two Brutuses-M. Junius and T. Junius-both tribunes of the plebs, defended the law and declared that they would not allow it to be repealed; many of the nobility came forward to speak in favour of the repeal or against it; the Capitol was crowded with supporters and opponents of the proposal; the matrons could not be kept indoors either by the authority of the magistrates or the orders of their husbands or their own sense of propriety. They filled all the streets and blocked the approaches to the Forum; they implored the men who were on their way thither to allow the women to resume their former adornments now that the commonwealth was flourishing and private fortunes increasing every day. Their numbers were daily augmented by those who came up from the country towns. At last they ventured to approach the consuls and praetors and other magistrates with their demands. One of the consuls at all events was inexorably opposed to their request-M. Porcius Cato. He spoke as follows in defence of the law: 34.2

"If we had, each one of us, made it a rule to uphold the rights and authority of the husband in our own households we should not now have this trouble with the whole body of our women. As things are now our liberty of action, which has been checked and rendered powerless by female despotism at home, is actually crushed and trampled on here in the Forum, and because we were unable to withstand them individually we have now to dread their united strength. I used to think that it was a fabulous story which tells us that in a certain island the whole of the male sex was extirpated by a conspiracy amongst the women; there is no class of women from whom the gravest dangers may not arise, if once you allow intrigues, plots, secret cabals to go on. I can hardly make up my mind which is worse, the affair itself or the disastrous precedent set up. The latter concerns us as consuls and magistrates; the former has to do more with you, Quirites. Whether the measure before you is for the good of the commonwealth or not is for you to determine by your votes; this tumult amongst the women, whether a spontaneous movement or due to your instigation, M. Fundanius and L. Valerius, certainly points to failure on the part of the magistrates, but whether it reflects more on you tribunes or on the consuls I do not know. It brings the greater discredit on you if you have carried your tribunitian agitation so far as to create unrest among the women, but more disgrace upon us if we have to submit to laws being imposed upon us through fear of a secession on their part, as we had to do formerly on occasions of the secession of the plebs. It was not without a feeling of shame that I made my way into the Forum through a regular army of women. Had not my respect for the dignity and modesty of some amongst them, more than any consideration for them as a whole, restrained me from letting them be publicly rebuked by a consul, I should have said, 'What is this habit you have formed of running abroad and blocking the streets and accosting men who are strangers to you? Could you not each of you put the very same question to your husbands at home? Surely you do not make yourselves more attractive in public than in private, to other women's husbands more than to your own? If matrons were kept by their natural modesty within the limits of their rights, it would be most unbecoming for you to trouble yourselves even at home about the laws which may be passed or repealed here.' Our ancestors would have no woman transact even private business except through her guardian, they placed them under the tutelage of parents or brothers or husbands. We suffer them now to dabble in politics and mix themselves up with the business of the Forum and public debates and election contests. What are they doing now in the public roads and at the street corners but recommending to the plebs the proposal of their tribunes and voting for the repeal of the law. Give the reins to a headstrong nature, to a creature that has not been tamed, and then hope that they will themselves set bounds to their licence if you do not do it yourselves. This is the smallest of those restrictions which have been imposed upon women by ancestral custom or by laws, and which they submit to with such impatience. What they really want is unrestricted freedom, or to speak the truth, licence, and if they win on this occasion what is there that they will not attempt? 34.3

"Call to mind all the regulations respecting women by which our ancestors curbed their licence and made them obedient to their husbands, and yet in spite of all those restrictions you can scarcely hold them in. If you allow them to pull away these restraints and wrench them out one after another, and finally put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows they will become your masters. But surely, you say, what they object to is having a new restriction imposed upon them, they are not deprecating the assertion of a right but the infliction of a wrong. No, they are demanding the abrogation of a law which you enacted by your suffrages and which the practical experience of all these years has approved and justified. This they would have you repeal; that means that by rescinding this they would have you weaken all. No law is equally agreeable to everybody, the only question is whether it is beneficial on the whole and good for the majority. If everyone who feels himself personally aggrieved by a law is to destroy it and get rid of it, what is gained by the whole body of citizens making laws which those against whom they are enacted can in a short time repeal? I want, however, to learn the reason why these excited matrons have run out into the streets and scarcely keep away from the Forum and the Assembly. Is it that those taken prisoners by Hannibal-their fathers and husbands and children and brothers-may be ransomed? The republic is a long way from this misfortune, and may it ever remain so! Still, when this did happen, you refused to do so in spite of their dutiful entreaties. But, you may say, it is not dutiful affection and solicitude for those they love that has brought them together; they are going to welcome Mater Idaea on her way from Phrygian Pessinus. What pretext in the least degree respectable is put forward for this female insurrection? 'That we may shine,' they say, 'in gold and purple, that we may ride in carriages on festal and ordinary days alike, as though in triumph for having defeated and repealed a law after capturing and forcing from you your votes.' 34.4

"You have often heard me complain of the expensive habits of women and often, too, of those of men, not only private citizens but even magistrates, and I have often said that the community suffers from two opposite vices-avarice and luxury-pestilential diseases which have proved the ruin of all great empires. The brighter and better the fortunes of the republic become day by day, and the greater the growth of its dominion-and now we are penetrating into Greece and Asia, regions filled with everything that can tempt appetite or excite desire, and are even laying hands on the treasures of kings-so much the more do I dread the prospect of these things taking us captive rather than we them. It was a bad day for this City, believe me, when the statues were brought from Syracuse. I hear far too many people praising and admiring those which adorn Athens and Corinth and laughing at the clay images of our gods standing in front of their temples. I for my part prefer these gods who are propitious to us, and I trust that they will continue to be so as long as we allow them to remain in their present abodes.

In the days of our forefathers Pyrrhus attempted, through his ambassador Cineas, to tamper with the loyalty of women as well as men by means of bribes. The Law of Oppius in restraint of female extravagance had not then been passed, still not a single woman accepted a bribe. What do you think was the reason? The same reason which our forefathers had for not making any law on the subject; there was no extravagance to be restrained. Diseases must be recognised before remedies are applied, and so the passion for self-indulgence must be in existence before the laws which are to curb it. What called out the Licinian Law which restricted estates to 500 jugera except the keen desire of adding field to field? What led to the passing of the Cincian Law concerning presents and fees except the condition of the plebeians who had become tributaries and taxpayers to the senate? It is not therefore in the least surprising that neither the Oppian nor any other law was in those days required to set limits to the expensive habits of women when they refused to accept the gold and purple that was freely offered to them. If Cineas were to go in these days about the City with his gifts, he would find women standing in the streets quite ready to accept them.

There are some desires of which I cannot penetrate either the motive or the reason. That what is permitted to another should be forbidden to you may naturally create a feeling of shame or indignation, but when all are upon the same level as far as dress is concerned why should any one of you fear that you will not attract notice ? The very last things to be ashamed of are thriftiness and poverty, but this law relieves you of both since you do not possess what it forbids you to possess. The wealthy woman says, 'This levelling down is just what I do not tolerate. Why am I not to be admired and looked at for my gold and purple? Why is the poverty of others disguised under this appearance of law so that they may be thought to have possessed, had the law allowed it, what it was quite out of their power to possess?'

Do you want, Quirites, to plunge your wives into a rivalry of this nature, where the rich desire to have what no one else can afford, and the poor, that they may not be despised for their poverty, stretch their expenses beyond their means? Depend upon it, as soon as a woman begins to be ashamed of what she ought not to be ashamed of she will cease to feel shame at what she ought to be ashamed of. She who is in a position to do so will get what she wants with her own money, she who cannot do this will ask her husband. The husband is in a pitiable plight whether he yields or refuses; in the latter case he will see another giving what he refused to give. Now they are soliciting other women's husbands, and what is worse they are soliciting votes for the repeal of a law, and are getting them from some, against the interest of you and your property and your children. When once the law has ceased to fix a limit to your wife's expenses, you will never fix one. Do not imagine that things will be the same as they were before the law was made. It is safer for an evil-doer not to be prosecuted than for him to be tried and then acquitted, and luxury and extravagance would have been more tolerable had they never been interfered with than they will be now, just like wild beasts which have been irritated by their chains and then released. I give my vote against every attempt to repeal the law, and pray that all the gods may give your action a fortunate result." 34.5

After this the tribunes of the plebs who had announced their intention of vetoing the repeal spoke briefly to the same effect. Then L. Valerius made the following speech in defence of his proposal: .....

34.8
After these speeches in support of and against the law the women poured out into the streets the next day in much greater force and went in a body to the house of the two Brutuses, who were vetoing their colleagues' proposal, and beset all the doors, nor would they desist till the tribunes had abandoned their opposition. There was no doubt now that the tribes would be unanimous in rescinding the law. It was abrogated twenty years after it had been made....

-History of Rome--by Titus Livius(excerpts)

[Quintus Curtius]

^^^

Great job, Infowarrior. I like. I've noted this famous speech of Cato before in an ROK article, but it always holds up well with frequent re-reading.

[RawGod]

Men are educated to think that women are our equals in every way, PLUS they magically have tits and pussy, which make them go gaga. These men get taken for everything they have, emotionally and often financially.

I see women wearing makeup, and attention-getting clothes, and I am kind of disgusted by the power gambit. This is what the Oppian law sought to proscribe. There was certainly wisdom in it.

If the women are allowed their hyper-sexual act, men must be educated about it. In today's society they are specifically disarmed in this regard, rather than taught to enjoy the charms of women but treat them just as one of life's pleasures.

[StrikeBack]

(01-03-2015 02:33 AM)NorthxNorthwest Wrote:  

A girl I used to hookup with occasionally liked this horrific screed by Ryan Serhant, a multimillionaire famous from some popular show called Million Dollar Listing. The lucky girl is some lawyer tart from New York.

(01-03-2015 09:01 AM)tomtud Wrote:  

It's perfect for us. One less millionaire off the market.

-1 handsome millionaire

+64K girls of average attractiveness who now think they're a 9-10 and entitled to such a man.

[samsamsam]

(01-03-2015 09:15 PM)StrikeBack Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 02:33 AM)NorthxNorthwest Wrote:  

A girl I used to hookup with occasionally liked this horrific screed by Ryan Serhant, a multimillionaire famous from some popular show called Million Dollar Listing. The lucky girl is some lawyer tart from New York.

(01-03-2015 09:01 AM)tomtud Wrote:  

It's perfect for us. One less millionaire off the market.

-1 handsome millionaire

+64K girls of average attractiveness who now think they're a 9-10 and entitled to such a man.

Exactly. I rarely, rarely ever hear a guy compare himself in looks to another guy. But girls always seem to compare themselves to other girls. "I'm prettier than her, right?"

[ElBorrachoInfamoso]

(01-03-2015 06:02 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

Wait, one more thing. He had Times Square shut down when he proposed to her. If there's not already a study that says the bigger deal the proposal, the shorter the marriage there should be.

Quote:

‘A Diamond is Forever’ and Other Fairy Tales: The Relationship between Wedding Expenses and Marriage Duration

Link

Abstract:
In this paper, we evaluate the association between wedding spending and marriage duration using data from a survey of over 3,000 ever-married persons in the United States. Controlling for a number of demographic and relationship characteristics, we find evidence that marriage duration is inversely associated with spending on the engagement ring and wedding ceremony.

This study found exactly what an RVFer would expect. After controlling for income, spending more on the wedding and engagement ring is correlated to shorter marriages.

Recently, an old college buddy of mine got married. He probably earns about the same amount that I was earning when I got married. His salary will grow steadily. When I got married, I knew my compensation would soon double. Their wedding and engagement ring were easily 2-3x as expensive as ours. The bride was a huge fat pig. Not merely chubby. She was morbidly obese. People think my wife is a model.

This guy is such a loser now, I may have to end our friendship.

[brick tamland]

Good thread. This is truly a cautionary tale.

It's been said before and I'll put here what I remember reading on the 'net about 11 years ago in the early days of discovering game - after burning their fingers, being hurt, being cut down to size and getting a bruised ego along with the bad memories from all this, all caused by a selfish (probably alpha) male that they had feelings for (were becoming attached to), girls suddenly find the beta male to be an attractive proposition. Because they can feel in control again and somehow defy their impulses (that led them to recently be dominated and then disposed of by a man). Now the beta is good enough because she can dictate terms as he is besotted, compliant and has never demanded her to earn his affection, time and attention. He is 'easy' unlike an alpha.
HOWEVER because women are impulsive and child-like, they are bound to again seek the selfish alpha who is thrilling and desirable because she has to 'walk on eggshells' and constantly prove herself worthy of his attention. That's how the beta ends up getting burnt badly after some time.

[TravelerKai]

(01-03-2015 01:39 PM)AntiTrace Wrote:  

Unsurprisingly we have the famous RVF 6-7 rating for this chick.

For everyone that claims she is possibly a six, please post pics for your regular fuck buddies.

I'm with you on that. She definitely is not a 6. I don't feel that she is an 8, although she is extremely close. I wish I could see a better set of photos. If someone called her an 7 or an 8 I wouldn't bat an eye at that. 6 though? Oh yeah, that's big ballerism.

Some of the reason why this guy's simping is so disgusting is because if you are going to simp like this, at least let it be over a 9 or 10, and this girl has a somewhat common everyday American girl look to her and this guy is basically a 10 in looks AND he has money. He stepped down, big time. Despite that, she still isn't a six though.

[MrLemon]

Getting down on knees to propose marriage = fast track to divorce

[Praetor Lupus]

(01-03-2015 01:27 PM)Old Fritz Wrote:  

Wouldn't be surprised if she cheated right before marrying him.

I wouldn't be surprised if she cheated while marrying him.

[MrXY]