Post: #101

(07-10-2015 03:05 PM)philosophical_recovery Wrote:  

RE: Older women

Older women have lubrication issues. The 18-early 20s crowd doesn't. My most recent gets so wet that her pussy juices drip down my balls. Never had an older broad do that.

I INTERJECT!!!!!

For the sake of science, I'd like to state for the record that the wettest woman I've dated, who was 31 years old, got so wet that I would lose some sensation midway through our sexual interaction. She got so wet that my testicles would be soaked as another poster had mentioned he experienced.

I'm just posting my factual experiences.

Post: #102

This place really is darwinian; survival of the fittest.

I suspect a lot of guys join, try and change their lives in the direction they want/need and for whatever reason, don't or can't quite make it.

They then begin to resent and in time hate the very thing they long to be.

Post: #103

(07-11-2015 07:02 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  This place really is darwinian; survival of the fittest.

I suspect a lot of guys join, try and change their lives in the direction they want/need and for whatever reason, don't or can't quite make it.

They then begin to resent and in time hate the very thing they long to be.

We only hate what we don't understand

Post: #104

(07-11-2015 07:12 PM)AntiTrace Wrote:  

(07-11-2015 07:02 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  This place really is darwinian; survival of the fittest.

I suspect a lot of guys join, try and change their lives in the direction they want/need and for whatever reason, don't or can't quite make it.

They then begin to resent and in time hate the very thing they long to be.

We only hate what we don't understand

Or cannot be.

Post: #105

I think the OP is largely wrong in terms of his specifics, but he does raise a good point in terms of meta-narrative. How many of the manosphere men really do think for themselves?

I know we like to talk about "the red pill" and uncovering the truth/seeing the matrix/etc. I've no problem with that line of thought. I think, however, that there are some things that are so ingrained in the manosphere (just because of its evolution and leading members) that they're never challenged. For example, I really think that a lot of the Roissy terminology is potentially harmful and (in some cases) absolutely wrong. Some of it, actually, seems to strike me as the male hamster.

For example: "I can't find a quality woman, therefore, they all must ride the cock carousel. Ignore the fact that I don't offer anything to women." I know I'm oversimplifying, but it really seems like some of this stuff is used to rationalize an adversarial approach to game, where the mindset is "notch=win, anything else=lose."

The red pill, above everything else, is about investigating things for yourself rather than blindly following what others believe or rationalize.

Post: #106

^^^^

Do people really think like that though?

In all groups you will have the pioneers, the leaders and then the followers.

You can't expect the manosphere to buck that trend and be solely made up of the former two.

Post: #107

(07-11-2015 07:41 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  ^^^^

Do people really think like that though?

In all groups you will have the pioneers, the leaders and then the followers.

You can't expect the manosphere to buck that trend and be solely made up of the former two.

You're absolutely correct. However, one of the biggest things about the manosphere is critical thinking. Little (if anything) is sacred. Religion is questioned, sexual dynamics are questioned, culture is questioned.

We owe it to ourselves to be different.

Post: #108

(07-11-2015 07:53 AM)aSimpNamedBrokeback Wrote:  

(07-11-2015 04:48 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  I've said here and in person, the "silent majority" does not the like the direction of this country. Trump is tapping into that.

The other republicans can ignore this at their peril.

He's tapping into the silent majority who were going to vote republican regardless of the candidate. I thought the republicans needed a good portion of the latino vote to win a general election? Trump is the perfect candidate to allow any democrat to walk into office.

The Right wants a Trump.

The left wants Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.

Instead they get Clinton and Bush. Middle of the Road candidates both being bought and paid for by very rich interests to preserve the riches.

WIA

Post: #109

(07-11-2015 06:20 PM)Eskhander Wrote:  I think the Bin Laden saying, "people will follow the strong horse" is either trotted out too often or misused.

Taking ISIS for example. Every so often we hear stories of European girls going to fight. Well they are often European by nationality and not ethnically or culturally. And tend to have been radicalized by their family.
But I have seen comments chalking this behavior up to the Strong Horse notion. When it's really just "my tribe uber alles."

In fact, I actually think most people in the West don't actually see ISIS as scary. It is too far away and not a credible threat to Western military might as their miserable confrontation with Delta Force demonstrated.
So in a way, the West's impotence in combating this threat (a self inflicted wound to be sure) does not translate to weakness for most people.

If the global elite stops financing and supporting ISIS=Al Quaeda, then it takes a concentrated effort of a few weeks to kill each and everyone of them. Meanwhile they can easily wipe out all the guys who live in the West by now - even sympathizers.

They are no threat - they are successful in what they do, because they have a mission to fulfill just like Saddam Hussein did. Saddam was no military genius, he was just a tool. When their time comes will they be wiped out to the last man and only some stray crazies without funding will remain.

Of course - if you are living in the Middle East or visiting, then they are a threat to you, because that region is set to be destroyed, re-organized, secularized and then completely fit into the global New World Order. That might take a few decades for the rather set Muslim traditions, but even they would prefer a global government to constant bloodshed and mayhem.

Post: #110

(07-11-2015 09:54 AM)Vicious Wrote:  I agree with a number of the OPs points.

The way he delivers them however is just plain bad argumentation however. I can't learn anything from someone who can't make a case for a point of opinion without it sounding like whining.

What do you agree with and why?

G

Post: #111

am i too late to the party? someone give me a TLR please. thanks

Post: #112

(07-11-2015 07:53 AM)aSimpNamedBrokeback Wrote:  

(07-11-2015 04:48 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  I've said here and in person, the "silent majority" does not the like the direction of this country. Trump is tapping into that.

The other republicans can ignore this at their peril.

He's tapping into the silent majority who were going to vote republican regardless of the candidate. I thought the republicans needed a good portion of the latino vote to win a general election? Trump is the perfect candidate to allow any democrat to walk into office.

Trump just gained a large following of legal Latin immigrants in his trip to Arizona, and that's the only type of Latino that matters legally.

Post: #113

(07-11-2015 07:02 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  I suspect a lot of guys join, try and change their lives in the direction they want/need and for whatever reason, don't or can't quite make it.

They then begin to resent and in time hate the very thing they long to be.

Thank you. I was about to ask why these meltdowns occur.

Post: #114

Hey! Little Dark got banned... again!!

Post: #115

Fairly interesting list.

The most repeated manosphere myth is that "Men's SMV goes up with age".

This is true for men who age like George Clooney or Sean Connery, and happen to add at least a 5% income increase per year who already clear 90k after taxes per year (or more in tier 1 cities).

It's simply not true for the average, or even above average male. A woman who is a "cougar" definitely has no shortage of options, and they're not all thirsty simps how they're made out to be. She'll have her pick from younger guys to older guys, obviously ratios are partially to blame for this.

Some of the wildest, bar none sexiest women I've known have been cougars as well.

There's a bit of a "72 virgins" projection going on in the manosphere these days, regarding finding a 18-23 woman who somehow stayed off the carousel. It may be possible in certain countries, and there are foreign women in the US (and some southern belles to be fair) who still fit this paradigm, but they are far & few between.

Post: #116

There is some of that with regards to 18-23 year olds who aren't slutty, but there are a ton of hot young girls in the world.

Post: #117

(07-12-2015 12:59 AM)valmont Wrote:  Fairly interesting list.

The most repeated manosphere myth is that "Men's SMV goes up with age".

This is true for men who age like George Clooney or Sean Connery, and happen to add at least a 5% income increase per year who already clear 90k after taxes per year (or more in tier 1 cities).

It's simply not true for the average, or even above average male. A woman who is a "cougar" definitely has no shortage of options, and they're not all thirsty simps how they're made out to be. She'll have her pick from younger guys to older guys, obviously ratios are partially to blame for this.

Some of the wildest, bar none sexiest women I've known have been cougars as well.

There's a bit of a "72 virgins" projection going on in the manosphere these days, regarding finding a 18-23 woman who somehow stayed off the carousel. It may be possible in certain countries, and there are foreign women in the US (and some southern belles to be fair) who still fit this paradigm, but they are far & few between.

No, this is actually true. I've argued against several manosphere myths to the point of getting admonished on here, but being over 40, let me tell you how I know this true.

Although you notice the cougars, they are outliers. If you actually get on OKCupid or Match.com and look in the 40-50 demographic, the drop-off in looks for women from their twenties to their forties is astounding. When you hit the fifty-something age bracket it's mostly "game over." And keep in mind the photos you see are the best these women can do and are often deceptive.

That drop in looks-quality isn't as dramatic if you look at the men's profiles (which I personally have a hard time doing because it seems sort of gay, but I did it anyway to see how my profile compared).

When we walk though life or look online, we tend to mentally pass up women who don't meet our standards. They walk by or we see their profile online, but they don't really register mentally. When you hit your forties, these "invisible" women greatly outnumber the ones you find yourself actively checking out.

Being in the fortysomething demographic, I wish "the wall" wasn't a real concept because I'd be having a ball with women my age like I did when I was 19. Sadly, it is.

One final thing. I'm only discussing outward appearances here. The myriad of illnesses, personal problems, and neurotic quirks that beset older women are something you also have to consider. The nice-looking 44-year-old stops being as nice looking when she smells like a zoo because she lives with countless animals (actual example, sad to say). Then there's the one who found religion and is a fanatic, and the one who is on more drugs than Keith Richards ever saw, and the one...

Post: #118

(07-12-2015 12:59 AM)valmont Wrote:  Fairly interesting list.

The most repeated manosphere myth is that "Men's SMV goes up with age".

This is true for men who age like George Clooney or Sean Connery, and happen to add at least a 5% income increase per year who already clear 90k after taxes per year (or more in tier 1 cities).

It's simply not true for the average, or even above average male. A woman who is a "cougar" definitely has no shortage of options, and they're not all thirsty simps how they're made out to be. She'll have her pick from younger guys to older guys, obviously ratios are partially to blame for this.

The idea is that men's SMV can go up with age whereas a woman's can only go down.

It's true that an older woman still has options but they will, without fail, pale in comparison to those available to her 21 year old self.

Also as soon as he starts to learn game the average man rapidly ceases to be average, particularly if he leverages those skills into other areas of his life. You're forgetting that men with actual game are a very, very small subset of the population.

Post: #119

(07-10-2015 04:15 PM)la_mode Wrote:  Ya'll be drinking that Groupthink 7up,

So... do you think that if you visited a golf course, you might say, find a lot of men playing golf? I can just imagine you standing on the balcony of the clubhouse yelling "groupthink!!! grouupppthinnnnk!!" like some kind of lunatic.

The forum was started and is run by a guy who traveled to bang hotter and nicer girls, who believes that America and the West are socially degenerating, and who generally believes in men doing the best for themselves that they can.... and OMG the membership has attracted and retained like-minded men!

I'm happy to change my beliefs, but only if it benefits me personally.

The claim of group-think is bizarre - if for example this forum ever started espousing faggism or feminist, I'd just leave, and so would everyone else. We're here because we share common self-interested beliefs. We weren't roped in here against our will.

(07-11-2015 08:49 PM)Gordax Wrote:  am i too late to the party? someone give me a TLR please. thanks

OP was a phaggot.

Post: #120

(07-12-2015 12:59 AM)valmont Wrote:  The most repeated manosphere myth is that "Men's SMV goes up with age".

I think its actually "Men's SMV can go up with age", which is true. Yes, in general it doesn't, because most men get locked into the system. The men with sustained intelligence, risk-taking, and ambition; who succeed in business, keep their bodies fit, continue self-improvement, are savvy with women and are comfortable approaching; they are the top ~5% who definitely do raise their SMV substantially, even if they have to go overseas to cash in. Most other men get fat, lazy, locked into a 9-5 career ladder, married to an ever-expanding wife, get fucked in a divorce after they've fulfilled their usefulness to some unappreciative cow, and retire old and die.

The analogy I think of is "stocks and bonds":

When a women chooses a 25yo, she is taking an equity-like risk. Because child rearing biologically takes about 15 years, there is an advantage to choosing a younger man who still isn't 'established and proven', because he has his youthful energy, testosterone, ambition etc. The risk she takes is that he is actually turns out to be a loser, and she fails to detect that, and thus she ends up having to rear loser-gene kids with poor support from him. The upside is she correctly picks a winner, which raises the social position of her children.

It is for this reason that there is a tendency for young men to engage in activities that do not directly improve their economic position. Sports, music, dancing, comedy etc, just look like time-wasting from an economic standpoint (with the exception of the top 0.1%). However all of these things are dominated by men for a simple reason - they demonstrate 'proof of physiological and mental quality'. And these things are considered attractive to women for the same reason men betting on horses might examine the muscles and limbs of the horses before hand - these things evidence a probable winner.

But when a women chooses a 45yo, she expects a fixed-income-like situation. She expects him to already be established and proven.

Because sexual selection itself is selected for, and is more widely varied in women, some women tend to fall into the former camp, and some into the latter. Some women want a Harry Styles, some want a Berlusconi.

However, there is nowhere in the world where men significantly vary in their age preference. We all want the 18-21 region, all else being equal.

Post: #121

I forgot to include the main point in my above post. The concluding sentences should state:

Considering the drop-off in women's SMV by age 40, it doesn't matter if men's SMV goes up by much -- because it goes up by comparison. If someone's assets are dropping and yours are frozen, well, you're rich by comparison. Even if yours are dropping at a slower rate, you're doing well.

This is why people say men's SMV rises -- because even if it doesn't rise per se, it doesn't come crashing down nearly as quick, so it rises in the relative sense.

The end.

Post: #122

(07-12-2015 03:48 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(07-11-2015 08:49 PM)Gordax Wrote:  am i too late to the party? someone give me a TLR please. thanks

OP was a phaggot.

Post: #123

(07-12-2015 04:23 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 12:59 AM)valmont Wrote:  The most repeated manosphere myth is that "Men's SMV goes up with age".

I think its actually "Men's SMV can go up with age", which is true. Yes, in general it doesn't, because most men get locked into the system. The men with sustained intelligence, risk-taking, and ambition; who succeed in business, keep their bodies fit, continue self-improvement, are savvy with women and are comfortable approaching; they are the top ~5% who definitely do raise their SMV substantially, even if they have to go overseas to cash in. Most other men get fat, lazy, locked into a 9-5 career ladder, married to an ever-expanding wife, get fucked in a divorce after they've fulfilled their usefulness to some unappreciative cow, and retire old and die.

You nailed it.

Quote:When a women chooses a 25yo, she is taking an equity-like risk. Because child rearing biologically takes about 15 years, there is an advantage to choosing a younger man who still isn't 'established and proven', because he has his youthful energy, testosterone, ambition etc. The risk she takes is that he is actually turns out to be a loser, and she fails to detect that, and thus she ends up having to rear loser-gene kids with poor support from him. The upside is she correctly picks a winner, which raises the social position of her children.


But when a women chooses a 45yo, she expects a fixed-income-like situation. She expects him to already be established and proven.


However, there is nowhere in the world where men significantly vary in their age preference. We all want the 18-21 region, all else being equal.

The first woman is easy to respect, because she isn't simply buying stock in a young man with potential. She's buying a management share in a joint enterprise. The man in question is always and should always be the CEO, but her support in whatever roles that she fills can help him achieve far more than he might have on his own, even if it's a simple matter of giving him a satisfying home life to come home to.

The second woman is a bitch who expects to be able to cash in on lots of money just because she has a vagina. She plans to contribute nothing.

Post: #124

(07-10-2015 02:30 PM)la_mode Wrote:  - Stable 2 parent households being essential

Some of the biggest clowns I've met come from stable, middle-class to upper-middle class households. In terms of social skills, some of the most impressive guys I've met were raised by single mothers or went back & forth between households, i.e. biological mother/stepfather household or biological father/stepmother household. Those kids learned to deal with adults better often than their peers at a young age. Obviously, they still grew up normally opposed to a "biological father in prison/biological mother on crack scenario". The binary extreme needs to be pointed out before it gets used as a counterargument. What people fail to realize....stable 2 parent households typically have significantly more rules and instill guilt at every possible moment, especially in boys.

This is definitely one of the more fucking stupid things I think I've ever read before. To draw this conclusion the OP must've:

a.) Been born into a 2 parent household and is bitter for some stupid reason.

b.) Been born into a single parent scenario and feel the need to be condescending towards stable families in order to compensate for his/her missing family learning in a healthy, stable environment.

I don't think I've ever met any "clowns" that have come from being raised in a healthy, stable, loving environment where their familial needs were fulfilled. Actually some of the best people I've met come from these caring, nurturing environments. Not to say that great people can't come from disasterous upbringing. Coming from a broken, dysfunctional home with an abusive father I can speak first hand. To say something so ignorant shows an excessive lack of intelligence and maturity, besides all the other dumb shit he/she said.

Post: #125

(07-12-2015 04:54 AM)Suits Wrote:  The second woman is a bitch who expects to be able to cash in on lots of money just because she has a vagina. She plans to contribute nothing.

I wouldn't say that, she plans to contribute herself for breeding purposes too . I suppose there are some who just want his money to spend on handbags and crap too, but I think most are just genetically attracted to the successful established man because it's a good reproduction tactic (in these cases the kids will ultimately get most of the surplus money).