[jeffreyjerpp]

Made the grievous mistake of clicking on this NY Times article:

nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/10/style/sexual-consent-college-campus.html?

TLDR: Hamsters spinning their wheels at warp speed, rationalizing why they regret drunken hookups. Surprise surprise, everything was RAPE, even (especially) things they explicitly agreed to.

The highlight is the comments section, which mirrors the attitudes of RVF (but in the New York Times, no less). Behold:

"I am sure glad I'm not in my teens or 20s today. I had a great time in college, including having sex with guys in frats. Aside from one weird time (and I transferred out of that college), I felt like I was treated pretty well. I wouldn't want to have to give "explicit consent"- I'm one of those people who doesn't want to chat in the heat of passion. But of course, if things started moving too fast, I spoke up. No problems, ever."

"Something here is just odd—either college guys have started raping en masse, or women are not clearly saying no, or women are much more fragile than they were and interpret any effort at seduction as assault. When I did meet guys who were pushy jerks, I had no problem pushing back and leaving. Insistence and pushiness are not the same thing as physical force. Not even remotely. The equivocation of all unwanted sexual behaviors with rape is just absurd."

"I thought women/girls today thought that the ability to have hook-ups/casual sex like men have always had, was "empowering". These responses show a bunch of really wimpy girls who not only don't know how to say "no", but aren't even sure they MEAN "no"! No wonder men are confused! If she doesn't know, how can they be expected to know? The manners of many of the young today are appalling, but suddenly they appear when a young man wants sex? It's "bad manners" to say no?"

Whether they realize it or not, the puritanical, despotic, harpies of #MeToo have pushed too far. Normal women want to get laid, love being seduced, and enjoy hookups. In addition to infuriating red pilled men everywhere, the insane, evil rhetoric of #MeToo is pissing off even liberal blue pill female NYT subscribers.

My question is: are we at the beginning of a backlash? Or is this just one more milestone on the way to hell?

[Buck Wild]

(05-14-2018 01:54 PM)jeffreyjerpp Wrote:  

"I thought women/girls today thought that the ability to have hook-ups/casual sex like men have always had, was "empowering". These responses show a bunch of really wimpy girls who not only don't know how to say "no", but aren't even sure they MEAN "no"! No wonder men are confused! If she doesn't know, how can they be expected to know? The manners of many of the young today are appalling, but suddenly they appear when a young man wants sex? It's "bad manners" to say no?"

The idea that women are timid creatures going along with hookup culture just to be nice doesn't remotely pass the smell test. Any man anywhere can tell you that women have no problem whatsoever turning guys down for sex---but all of sudden they forget 'no' when a frat boy wants anal? Fuck outta here.

Nice to see liberal women finally getting fed up with this shit and calling BS. Will it matter? Stay tuned...

[kamoz]

What is currently happening in the sexual marketplace is not sustainable. As much as the ROK articles and some of us on this forum believe things will only get worse, such as the top 10% of men shrinking to the top 5% - it can’t without society giving in one way or another.

The only way things could truly get worse is if western women accept polygamy - and I think it’s safe to say they won’t. They’re too arrogant to do so and for the time being they are expecting the best men to commit only to them. We’re seeing a growing number of articles from single childless women in their 30s and 40s openly admit they were wrong. They should have settled and stopped leveling up. Younger girls see this, i.e. gen Z. Most men have realized working in a cubicle for life sucks and have been breaking free. Women are just lagging behind and will follow the lead of men.

Same goes for #metoo. Men are not going to take a chance with a one night stand with some girl leagues below them when it might ruin their lives. The current sexual market place is largely dependent on that - men that are leagues above 4s 5s and 6s just wanting a nut for sexual variety or because they’re bored and don’t have anything better that night, and these girls thinking that just because the guy fucked them that he’s willing to marry them. I’m sure one night stands are dropping on average or the cutoff for many men is being raised, and the girls are feeling it.

[kosko]

(05-14-2018 02:40 PM)kamoz Wrote:  

What is currently happening in the sexual marketplace is not sustainable. As much as the ROK articles and some of us on this forum believe things will only get worse, such as the top 10% of men shrinking to the top 5% - it can’t without society giving in one way or another.

The only way things could truly get worse is if western women accept polygamy - and I think it’s safe to say they won’t. They’re too arrogant to do so and for the time being they are expecting the best men to commit only to them. We’re seeing a growing number of articles from single childless women in their 30s and 40s openly admit they were wrong. They should have settled and stopped leveling up. Younger girls see this, i.e. gen Z. Most men have realized working in a cubicle for life sucks and have been breaking free. Women are just lagging behind and will follow the lead of men.

Same goes for #metoo. Men are not going to take a chance with a one night stand with some girl leagues below them when it might ruin their lives. The current sexual market place is largely dependent on that - men that are leagues above 4s 5s and 6s just wanting a nut for sexual variety or because they’re bored and don’t have anything better that night, and these girls thinking that just because the guy fucked them that he’s willing to marry them. I’m sure one night stands are dropping on average or the cutoff for many men is being raised, and the girls are feeling it.

Too late my friend they already have. "Polyamoury" is simply just polygamy for women. It is becoming more popular now and is infiltrating the mainstream. This set up is common for broken women who can't bring enough to the table to have a well-rounded relationship with one man. Instead, they are the P0rno Debbie for the alpha who just wants to hit it, they have the beta simp in tow who they can be in shambles too, and they have a sugar daddy lurking around who pays for her to live life. She isn't able to come correct to get a stable man who can check off all those boxes.

[RIslander]

Its the "Failing New York Times". Be sure to call them by their proper name.

[kamoz]

(05-14-2018 02:52 PM)kosko Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 02:40 PM)kamoz Wrote:  

What is currently happening in the sexual marketplace is not sustainable. As much as the ROK articles and some of us on this forum believe things will only get worse, such as the top 10% of men shrinking to the top 5% - it can’t without society giving in one way or another.

The only way things could truly get worse is if western women accept polygamy - and I think it’s safe to say they won’t. They’re too arrogant to do so and for the time being they are expecting the best men to commit only to them. We’re seeing a growing number of articles from single childless women in their 30s and 40s openly admit they were wrong. They should have settled and stopped leveling up. Younger girls see this, i.e. gen Z. Most men have realized working in a cubicle for life sucks and have been breaking free. Women are just lagging behind and will follow the lead of men.

Same goes for #metoo. Men are not going to take a chance with a one night stand with some girl leagues below them when it might ruin their lives. The current sexual market place is largely dependent on that - men that are leagues above 4s 5s and 6s just wanting a nut for sexual variety or because they’re bored and don’t have anything better that night, and these girls thinking that just because the guy fucked them that he’s willing to marry them. I’m sure one night stands are dropping on average or the cutoff for many men is being raised, and the girls are feeling it.

Too late my friend they already have. "Polyamoury" is simply just polygamy for women. It is becoming more popular now and is infiltrating the mainstream. This set up is common for broken women who can't bring enough to the table to have a well-rounded relationship with one man. Instead, they are the P0rno Debbie for the alpha who just wants to hit it, they have the beta simp in tow who they can be in shambles too, and they have a sugar daddy lurking around who pays for her to live life. She isn't able to come correct to get a stable man who can check off all those boxes.

I contend that’s not the same. I meant legally enforced polygamy such as in Muslim countries - the root cause of the migrant invasion of Europe. The women who engage in polyamory might enjoy it now but they don’t end up well. Even betas have a cutoff on looks, and if they can be a sugar daddy to girl in their 20s they’ll drop the dried up prune in their 40s. Add MGTOW and betas waking up to the mix and all you have is a temporary bubble.

[jeffreyjerpp]

(05-14-2018 03:01 PM)RIslander Wrote:  

Its the "Failing New York Times". Be sure to call them by their proper name.

I wish I could like this twice.

[captain_shane]

(05-14-2018 03:01 PM)RIslander Wrote:  

Its the "Failing New York Times". Be sure to call them by their proper name.

Except it's not failing. If Trump wanted the NYT to fail, he'd stop talking about them.

Quote:

The New York Times Co. reported a better-than-expected quarterly profit, as it signed up more advertisers and subscribers for its digital publications, helping offset a slide in print sales.

The company added about 154,000 paid subscribers to various websites, including the New York Times website, in the third quarter.

Digital advertising revenue rose 11 percent to $49.2 million, accounting for about 43 percent of its total advertising revenue.

The paper’s print advertising revenue fell 20.1 percent to $64.4 million.

Net income attributable to the company rose to $32.3 million in the quarter ended Sept. 24 from $406,000 a year earlier. On a per-share basis, it earned 20 cents per share compared with break-even last year.

Excluding items, earnings were 13 cents per share from continuing operations, beating analysts’ average estimate of 8 cents per share, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S.

Revenue rose 6.1 percent to $385.6 million. Analysts on average had expected $389 million.

[Tiger Man]

I prefer Andrew Klavan's identifier, The New York Times, a former newspaper.

In any case, everyone on this thread has hit on something so far.

When an Alpha guy has six girls on rotation, that is, functionally, informal polygyny. When a girl has an Alpha or two who give her a bit of time, a few Beta orbiters she might occasionally have sex with, and a sugar daddy, that is, functionally, informal polyandry.

Both of these scenarios are far from rare in the United States. They are also far from common. But, they do make up a statistically and social recognizable sizeable minority of people, specifically among people in their teens and twenties.

Some of the social ramifications can be seen in articles like this. Many of the more troubling social ramifications can be read about on this forum and ROK, along with other sites.

But the more I have studied this and the more I see in the general Zeitgeist, I see two major problems which are yet to be resolved. This article and the comments represent one issue. That issue is driving the narrative. This is actually covered in Taleb's new book, Skin in the Game. In many cases, the minority (and often a small but vocal minority) drive the narrative. These sex-positive feminist, etc., etc. types are still a minority. But they drive the narrative in to affirmative consent and kangaroo courts.

The second issue is the congestion effect. This is the knock on effect(s) seen in the general culture as a result of the sexual dynamics of a given point in time. It is called the congestion effect because it resembles the effect of one group of cars hitting their brakes on a highway. The ripple of braking can be followed out for several miles behind the initial braking. It is the same with sex and society. Arguably, we are still experiencing rather intense congestion effect from the first, full generation roll out of the sexual revolution (which did not happen until the 1980's).

This article and the comments are a part of a continuing back and forth between people who can't figure out why a social function (sex, relationships, whatever) does not work without some sort of pre-agreement between the parties (men and women). As it stands, it is on the individual parties to negotiate and renegotiate the rules at every interaction. As long as the parties whims and feelings change with the wind, this will never work. This is why marriage and the idea of something like a marriage debt were so important for much of written history. You get married and the contract states that you, essentially, owe each other sex. Also, you are forbidden from having sex with others. That works because it is defined and enforced. With no rules and no enforcement, you are getting two extremes competing to drive the narrative from a middle ground. On one side, you have the "complete sexual liberation" set, who want to push a no-marriage, orgiastic buffet. On the other side, you have neo-Puritans, who might actually believe that all sex is rape. Neither of these is a preferable position for an overwhelming majority of people to take, but, as I said, a vocal minority drive the narrative.

[Enoch]

If you believe the stats about "campus rape" the average campus in the USA is more dangerous for a woman than the Congo.

[Running Turtles]

I might be too young to see the problem here, but honestly, who gives a fuck? If you're on this forum, you most likely have no problem meeting and sleeping with girls. The comments that Jeffrey mentioned from the NYT article strike me as very common and down-to-Earth. Maybe this is Europe and maybe things are different other places, but sex does not have to be a big deal. It's just normal human interaction.

It's probably natural for most guys to want to settle down at some point, but by then you would have met and slept with enough girls that you know what you like. A relationship can come from repeatedly getting to know someone, having sex with her and deciding that there's something special about her that complements you and the values you have as a man.

I know this is hotly debated on the forum, and like I said, maybe I'm just too young to see the problem with "enjoying the decline," but I think it's a hell of a lot better than a drastic change to society like suddenly accepting polygamy and polyamory.

I think both men and women display a lot more common sense in real life than they do in (social) media and in the end, that's what will keep society somewhat together.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

My take as a former reporter:

1). Newspapers take "outliers" and make them seem mainstream -- because freaks are more interesting as story subjects. This collection of essays is from sexually-maladjusted oddballs and doesn't represent the average girl who has a boyfriend (more on this below).

2). I question the validity of these stories. People retroactively make up narratives to suit their own needs. This goes double for when they're featured in newspapers -- especially when it comes to trend stories. I know people who told reporters tales about high school that have nothing to do with what actually happened to them. Halle Berry is a good example of this (look it up).

3). The New York Times running stories like this is no different than what they did in the 1970s when it came to "cults" (remember them?) or in the 1980s when it came to the "crisis" of Dungeons and Dragons. They're creating news, not reporting it. They're stoking hysteria.

The New York Times cherry-picked a few dozen bad stories from women on college campuses and LEFT OUT the stories of other thousands and thousands of college girls. What are these girls doing? They're getting ice cream with their guys, going to ballgames with them, and posting memes on Facebook like "I love my boyfriend!"

But all of that isn't newsworthy. Which is why the media is like a funhouse mirror when it comes to life. When you read articles you should look for what they leave out, not what they include.

[debeguiled]

^
^
^
You mean the incels aren't about to take over?

[Tiger Man]

(05-14-2018 04:50 PM)Enoch Wrote:  

If you believe the stats about "campus rape" the average campus in the USA is more dangerous for a woman than the Congo.

And that is a fairly good measure of whether people actually believe it or not. I was with a small group of parents recently. Their children are graduating from my prep school and its sister school and they were asking me about college choices and on-campus culture here and there. Several mothers expressed concern over on-campus rape. I pointed out the 1 in 3 and 1 in 4 statistics. They all nodded. I asked, "If you actually believe that, why would you ever send your daughter to college?" No serious response. I have used this exact tactic before. People like to repeat this stuff, but most don't actually believe it.

DOBA's points on reporting seem spot on. Again, it's outliers. Yes, there are a few true believers who actually think this way. But, most of us skew towards normal. So, why do we keep hearing and talking about this? Because the minority (margins) are driving the narrative. Like DOBA alluded to, in many ways they are just more interesting. They get more clicks. They sell more ads.

[Running Turtles]

(05-14-2018 05:24 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

My take as a former reporter:

1). Newspapers take "outliers" and make them seem mainstream -- because freaks are more interesting as story subjects. This collection of essays is from sexually-maladjusted oddballs and doesn't represent the average girl who has a boyfriend (more on this below).

2). I question the validity of these stories. People retroactively make up narratives to suit their own needs. This goes double for when they're featured in newspapers -- especially when it comes to trend stories. I know people who told reporters tales about high school that have nothing to do with what actually happened to them. Halle Berry is a good example of this (look it up).

3). The New York Times running stories like this is no different than what they did in the 1970s when it came to "cults" (remember them?) or in the 1980s when it came to the "crisis" of Dungeons and Dragons. They're creating news, not reporting it. They're stoking hysteria.

The New York Times cherry-picked a few dozen bad stories from women on college campuses and LEFT OUT the stories of other thousands and thousands of college girls. What are these girls doing? They're getting ice cream with their guys, going to ballgames with them, and posting memes on Facebook like "I love my boyfriend!"

But all of that isn't newsworthy. Which is why the media is like a funhouse mirror when it comes to life. When you read articles you should look for what they leave out, not what they include.

Thanks for articulating what I meant in a way that is actually understandable.

[MrLemon]

I get a little tired of this conversation because nobody is discussing the core issue.

Nothing has changed about behavior...nothing.

What has changed is that Feminist activists have very successfully subverted the legal system.

They have "re-defined" the legal definition of rape away from it's historic norms. They did this intentionally, with explicitly dishonest and illegal methods. And they succeeded. They simply changed what "rape" is, and then used the media to pound this lie into the minds of the public and all the lawmakers.

20 years ago, NOBODY would have agreed that a girl who gets drunk and has sex was raped. NOBODY would have convicted Bill Cosby for rape. Because rape required an element of force or some type of fraud. if you drugged a girl, it was rape. If she took the drugs willingly, it was NOT rape. False rape accusations were understood to be an everyday occurrence and the police very quickly kicked those assholes out of the station.

There was a clear concept of consent.

That is now gone. Rape is now "whatever the girl feels". What is truly frightening is that nobody...not men, not judges, not legal scholars...have gone to the source of this perversion. The legal system have been completely twisted by a small group and we just let them do it.

Every single time you debate rape without bringing up this issue of re-definition, you are wasting time. And you are allowing this country to slide further into a police state. Because this is exactly what police states do. They randomly re-define laws, and jail people, based on the whims of the latest political fad.

[MrLemon]

(05-14-2018 04:50 PM)Enoch Wrote:  

If you believe the stats about "campus rape" the average campus in the USA is more dangerous for a woman than the Congo.

Those 1-in-4 stats were utterly bogus, and that's been proven a million ways. The survey takers basically re-wrote the survey AFTER they had people fill it out. Pure con job from start to finish.

The people who invented the college rape crisis were essentially criminals. That's the only word that really works.

[debeguiled]

(05-14-2018 05:24 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

My take as a former reporter:

1). Newspapers take "outliers" and make them seem mainstream -- because freaks are more interesting as story subjects. This collection of essays is from sexually-maladjusted oddballs and doesn't represent the average girl who has a boyfriend (more on this below).

Just a couple minutes after I read this I saw this on Twitter.




Looks like the gay earth actually wants to be fucked.

[Tiger Man]

(05-14-2018 06:16 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

I get a little tired of this conversation because nobody is discussing the core issue.

Nothing has changed about behavior...nothing.

What has changed is that Feminist activists have very successfully subverted the legal system.

They have "re-defined" the legal definition of rape away from it's historic norms. They did this intentionally, with explicitly dishonest and illegal methods. And they succeeded. They simply changed what "rape" is, and then used the media to pound this lie into the minds of the public and all the lawmakers.

20 years ago, NOBODY would have agreed that a girl who gets drunk and has sex was raped. NOBODY would have convicted Bill Cosby for rape. Because rape required an element of force or some type of fraud. if you drugged a girl, it was rape. If she took the drugs willingly, it was NOT rape. False rape accusations were understood to be an everyday occurrence and the police very quickly kicked those assholes out of the station.

There was a clear concept of consent.

That is now gone. Rape is now "whatever the girl feels". What is truly frightening is that nobody...not men, not judges, not legal scholars...have gone to the source of this perversion. The legal system have been completely twisted by a small group and we just let them do it.

Every single time you debate rape without bringing up this issue of re-definition, you are wasting time. And you are allowing this country to slide further into a police state. Because this is exactly what police states do. They randomly re-define laws, and jail people, based on the whims of the latest political fad.

But don't the redefinitions, in the way they are applied to the public, cause a change in behavior?

We redefined marriage from an indissoluble union between a man and a woman to a weak contract between whoever wants to sign a piece of paper. The result, after several years, is a monumental drop in marriage rates.

We redefined rape (which yes, we absolutely did), and now we have entire threads on this forum dedicated to "Should I record all of my sexual conquests?". A few weeks ago, I was telling another forum member to consider a sexual consent waiver.

I don't disagree with your point on redefinition. I totally agree on that point. And, I think you are right in that we do not discuss this enough. But I also think that all of this is, slowly but surely, moving the behavior of people in line with the laws. That is the end goal of the true believers and a disastrous outcome for the overwhelming majority of (normal) people.

[TheFinalEpic]

(05-14-2018 06:21 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 05:24 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

My take as a former reporter:

1). Newspapers take "outliers" and make them seem mainstream -- because freaks are more interesting as story subjects. This collection of essays is from sexually-maladjusted oddballs and doesn't represent the average girl who has a boyfriend (more on this below).

Just a couple minutes after I read this I saw this on Twitter.



Looks like the gay earth actually wants to be fucked.

Every single one of these guys have head forward posture indicative of being on a smartphone and not in a gym. I've witnessed this in coffeeshops, restaurants, and in public spaces across North America. It just looks uncomfortable.

[Dusty]

(05-14-2018 06:21 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(05-14-2018 05:24 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

My take as a former reporter:

1). Newspapers take "outliers" and make them seem mainstream -- because freaks are more interesting as story subjects. This collection of essays is from sexually-maladjusted oddballs and doesn't represent the average girl who has a boyfriend (more on this below).

Just a couple minutes after I read this I saw this on Twitter.




Looks like the gay earth actually wants to be fucked.

I saw the trailer for this upcoming movie about Mr Rogers and thought this is propaganda trying to make low-T effeminate guys some type of role model for (white) men.

With terms like “toxic masculinity” and trying to model homosexual mannerisms on straight men, there is a clear agenda here.

[jeffreyjerpp]

(05-14-2018 06:19 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

The people who invented the college rape crisis were essentially criminals. That's the only word that really works.

The level of malicious, pathological criminality that characterizes these people cannot be overstated.

MrLemon has written about this before, but they are comparable to any other kind of psychopath. They get frenzied, sadistic, and even sexual pleasure from abusing men. The tiny handful of male psychopaths who do rape and murder get the same sensations, and find them addictive because they otherwise never feel anything at all. It's unclear if the same is true for these women, or if they are extremely damaged individuals whose actions take on similar characteristics.

Hearsay, fake statistics, and dramatic wailing are the clues that our perpetrators are "educated" females. A highly dangerous group, as you are all aware.

To your other point, MrLemon the reason I made the post was because of the surprising nature of the comments. Most adults don't understand how evil and corrupt the "justice" system is. But (and this is the good news), most grown women appear to agree: #MeToo is getting f*cking ridiculous. My hope is that #MeToo self destructs and their crazy legal initiatives fail. Time will tell.

For those who don't know, prosecutors are happy to bring cases against men they know are innocent, and ruthlessly crush them and ruin their lives. There is a reason I always tell people to audio record any random hookup.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(05-14-2018 06:16 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

I get a little tired of this conversation because nobody is discussing the core issue.

Nothing has changed about behavior...nothing.

What has changed is that Feminist activists have very successfully subverted the legal system.

They have "re-defined" the legal definition of rape away from it's historic norms. They did this intentionally, with explicitly dishonest and illegal methods. And they succeeded. They simply changed what "rape" is, and then used the media to pound this lie into the minds of the public and all the lawmakers.

20 years ago, NOBODY would have agreed that a girl who gets drunk and has sex was raped. NOBODY would have convicted Bill Cosby for rape. Because rape required an element of force or some type of fraud. if you drugged a girl, it was rape. If she took the drugs willingly, it was NOT rape. False rape accusations were understood to be an everyday occurrence and the police very quickly kicked those assholes out of the station.

There was a clear concept of consent.

That is now gone. Rape is now "whatever the girl feels". What is truly frightening is that nobody...not men, not judges, not legal scholars...have gone to the source of this perversion. The legal system have been completely twisted by a small group and we just let them do it.

Every single time you debate rape without bringing up this issue of re-definition, you are wasting time. And you are allowing this country to slide further into a police state. Because this is exactly what police states do. They randomly re-define laws, and jail people, based on the whims of the latest political fad.

It'll be a tough sell on this forum, but a big factor is this equation on why this got virtually no pushback is that frankly society doesn't give much of a shit about bachelors. "Not fair" perhaps, but forget society, nature is not fair.

Men are hardwired to protect women, who are invariably the daughters of older members of the society. Women are hardwired to protect themselves and their own children, but that peters out long before "junior's sex life" come into play because as far as Mum is concerned junior should find a nice girl instead of fucking around.

The reality is that nobody cares about the bachelor any more than the herd of elephants cares about the rogue bull elephant that goes it alone.

Consider. Some guy has a wife and kids, and parents that are beginning to fail in terms of their health, or his kids are getting older and he has to help them out a bit more with money or housing or a job or a car or they're older still and he's dealing with grandkids, etc. He's busy creating an umbrella for his tribe in the increasing downpour of troubles in our declining society.

Ask him how much he really gives a shit that Johnny bachelor doesn't feel safe to fuck drunk sluts anymore.

Now you might say "well wasn't he Johnny bachelor once?" "Isn't his son(s) going to become Johnny bachelor?"

Well I can tell you as a father what I'm going to tell my sons. If you want to sow your wild oats then take "wild" to mean "offshore". Beyond that find yourself a good woman and get out of the game early. If you find the need to slum around locally then you roll the dice and take your chances, but the world doesn't owe you easy and safe access to sluts. In historic terms that option has existed for the blink of an eye and it's already slipping away, perhaps never to return for another thousand years.

You wanted to enjoy the decline.

Well all declines end somewhere.

Complaining about this fact as though safe and easy access to sluts is a God given right is frankly just a bit bizarre. 100 years ago you had to worry about a pissed off dad marching you down the aisle with a shotgun pressed to your back. Today you get to worry about a knock on the door from the plod.

Tomayto tomaato.

[asdfk]

You can convince women to enter an open relationship with you quite easily. You just have to put the hamster in the right wheel and they do the rest themselves.

The current trends will push more women into the hands of guys who know how to do this.

In terms of an arms race between single men to develop these skills, it will be winner takes all in the new future.

But....

I'd rather hunt for a sane unicorn while I'm still young then maintain a hamster harem.

[nola]

(05-15-2018 05:23 AM)asdfk Wrote:  

You can convince women to enter an open relationship with you quite easily. You just have to put the hamster in the right wheel and they do the rest themselves.

The current trends will push more women into the hands of guys who know how to do this.

In terms of an arms race between single men to develop these skills, it will be winner takes all in the new future.

But....

I'd rather hunt for a sane unicorn while I'm still young then maintain a hamster harem.

I'm currently in a situation like this but I'm having trouble finding a 2nd as she wants to also share the girls.

Also watch out guys, https://metoo.center/Main_Page they are creating a predator wiki, it's only a matter of time before non celebrity "victims" start vindictively posting up exes and or guys they regretted. If this database gets big enough and one gets included it soon enough will be the first thing that pops up when you're googled.

I had a friends life and business destroyed when his ex posted a bunch of fake rip off reports on his business and also included he was a "rapist" in the reports. So every time you google his name or name of his business that was the first thing that popped up. No court would support a defamation claim.

Very dangerous times we are living in.