Post: #326

DLuzhin - it sounds like that book needs a thread of its own...we don't want guys around here missing the link just because they never check out this thread.

Post: #327

I actually read Chineweizu's book, in hard copy! Had a university library at my discretion. The main theme of the book is that even when men think they have power over women, they are still subtly being controlled by women. For instance, he discusses how cooking was always confined to the women, because doing so made men dependent on the women.

Personally, I find the work of Roissy and Roger Devlin to be far more persuasive, relevant and interesting, but given that Ricky Raw has uploaded it, it's worth a look.

I actually drafted an email years ago, of my feelings about the book, to be sent to Ricky Raw, but never sent it. Here's what I wrote:

***************

Meant to tell you, I finished that book by Chinweizu a couple weeks ago, but I can't say I felt the same way. His analysis of the ways women snare men was incisive, but that gave way to bitterness.

Take his discussion of how Winston Churchill's wife Clementine helped him advance for her own purposes - he attributes nefarious motives when I see no more than a) a woman wanting her man to succeed in his mission and b) wanting to enjoy the glory of being a big man's wife. So long as Clementine is not benefitting at the expense of Churchill, I see no harm. Is a mother despicable for preparing lunches for her son, and telling him to study, so that he succeeds in school?

Another point is his advocacy of women joining the military, to promote sexual equality. I'm a bit of a romantic, I can't help protesting this one - I happen to like my countrymen masculine and our women feminine, for the most part. His indifference to feminine charms is a red flag.

Maybe I'm a macho enabler in his eyes, but I want a return to a more sexually polarized society. I don't see much wrong with a woman wanting a man who can provide a fine home to her children - I can't imagine it any other way.

As for how women ensnare men, his analysis is valid, but perhaps irrelevant. Take cooking - I could teach myself to cook and thereby depend on women less, but having her cook is a viable, appealing option.

The methods of entrapment are concerns when a man is of low value, and with little choice among women. He's liable to marry a woman who's undesirable.

All in all, I prefer the works of Roger Devlin. He recognizes the natural tendencies of men and women, and their expression in society today. He writes how the effects of the sexual revolution make society more fractious and such, and appeals for the restraint of feminism. Chinweizu seems embittered, and is on some Panglossian quest to deprive women of their charms and advantages.

************************

Post: #328

Basil that Bill Maher clip is great. I liked the guy before, but that clip is some serious gospel

Post: #329

Breaking News: Beggars can now be choosers!

(Note: This chick claims to be in her 20s)

   

   

   

Post: #330

How to become a Secret Internet Fatty:

1. Make several of your interests food-related.
2. Talk about it all the time and display it in all your pictures.
3. Crop your pictures tightly and take them with a downward angle.

   

   

   

Post: #331

I see big floppy tits.

Floppy tits generally equals fat floppy body.

Post: #332

(05-01-2012 12:40 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  I see big floppy tits.

Floppy tits generally equals fat floppy body.

You can see it in the shoulders, back, upper arms, and face (especially chin). The tits are pretty much the nail in the coffin. I've become an expert at detecting these secret fatties and I have zero doubt that she is one.

Post: #333

Those shirts that are very open in the neck area and have half sleeves to cover the "motherly arms" are a dead give away.

Post: #334

Fat broads love to show off their cleavage as it's about all they have to sell.

That particular one is actually cute and would likely be pretty damn nice if she wasn't floppy.

Post: #335

(05-01-2012 01:53 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  Fat broads love to show off their cleavage as it's about all they have to sell.

That particular one is actually cute and would likely be pretty damn nice if she wasn't floppy.

Truth. I hate it when you just know a girl would be super-cute if she just weren't fat. I see that shit all the time online and thought about uploading a few of them to the forum. It's too depressing and upsetting (and, frankly, common), though.

Post: #336

The ones that drive me insane are the ones with the normal, pretty face and jello body.

Harder to pick out online and, much like blond hair on a fattie, a total waste.

Post: #337

(05-01-2012 02:29 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  The ones that drive me insane are the ones with the normal, pretty face and jello body.

Not really. If a girl doesn't show her body, but focuses on her cute face, you can rest assured that she has a gelatinous, or straight-up fat, body. Girls instinctively know that their bodies are their most valuable asset, online or in-person, if they redact it, it's intentional. It's like when a girl has five pictures in her profile, all with a closed mouth. You can bet your bottom dollar that she has jacked-up teeth. Girls are experts at hiding their flaws and accentuating, or even manufacturing, their strengths. They're trained from jump street to wear makeup to hide their shitty skin, find clothes that highlight their nice parts, and wear padded bras to conjure tits. With the advent of Facebook, they've become high-level experts, collectively, at doing it with pictures. Who do you think invented so-called "Myspace Angles," duck face, or high-contrast images? Exactly.

Setting aside the one-in-a-thousand exception, this is a good rule of thumb. Field tested.

Post: #338

The linerbacker shoulders, fat fingers and grandma arms never lie. I've asked a few fatties what techniques I should use in the gym to get their arms.

Those 2 sisters are disgusting. I can't believe so many girls in their 20's look so old. I should look for "girls who already appear older and worn out by 25" and post them up.

Post: #339

Oh, I know that Tuth.

I was just saying that it sucks.

One sees them out and about daily too. Pretty face, busted body.

Post: #340

(05-01-2012 11:29 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

What's the deal with these chicks who mark you down for not preferring your own race? A white girl only wanting to date white dudes is one thing, but I don't understand why you would want the people you date to have a racial preference. Do they not understand how the questions work or is this the hamster run amok?

Post: #341

Tuth, you should definitely have your own blog just dedicated to destroying online hamsters

Post: #342

(05-01-2012 08:01 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  What's the deal with these chicks who mark you down for not preferring your own race? A white girl only wanting to date white dudes is one thing, but I don't understand why you would want the people you date to have a racial preference. Do they not understand how the questions work or is this the hamster run amok?

LOL. You have no idea how many times I've wondered this myself. They penalize you for not adhering to their rigid racial preferences on top of, if you're a minority, refusing to date your brown-ass because you're not white (only white-girls click YES on this question in 99.9 percent of cases). This is Supreme Hamsterism™.

Post: #343

(05-01-2012 08:01 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

(05-01-2012 11:29 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

What's the deal with these chicks who mark you down for not preferring your own race? A white girl only wanting to date white dudes is one thing, but I don't understand why you would want the people you date to have a racial preference. Do they not understand how the questions work or is this the hamster run amok?

Lol, I made the same exact comment:

[Edited 'cause I flubbed the original one] "Even stranger though, is that she marked you down for not wanting to date only your own. Like, okay, I understand you don't dig black guys, you only want a white guy. But why do you hate on me, a white guy, because *I'm* willing to date a black girl? You're either a member of the KKK, or just retarded."

I still can't make heads or tails of it. Gonna have to chalk it up to the girls being retarded. I've also seen where if you put the same answer as the girl, eg that you both are looking for sex, or even both for true love, the girl will mark it against you.



To add to what you said Tuth, chicks take pics of themselves EVERY time they go out. They've had hundreds of nights of practice, on getting that perfect angle. And they always do this pose, flexed arms akimbo, to make their arms look as skinny and shapely as possible:

Post: #344

Someone should make a troll profile with the ideal white boy. We can switch up the zip code for whoever wants to use it. I want to set up some fake meetings with a few girls who have said some racist shit to me.

Post: #345

For those of us familiar with the world of online dating, we're well aware of the rampant abuse of the classifications of "curvy" and "average" when describing body type. But, I've noticed--through, literally, hundreds of page views--that leaving it blank is also a dead-giveaway that you're dealing with, at best, a dumpy, out-of-shape chick or an outright fatty.

   

Post: #346

Maybe these broads are just retarded after all.

   

Post: #347

^
I have seen a huge bunch of these self contradictory answers, and not just racial preference related ones. It's actually not really about ignorance or hypocrisy, but more about not being careful while answering those OKC questions.

Post: #348

(05-01-2012 10:54 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  For those of us familiar with the world of online dating, we're well aware of the rampant abuse of the classifications of "curvy" and "average" when describing body type. But, I've noticed--through, literally, hundreds of page views--that leaving it blank is also a dead-giveaway that you're dealing with, at best, a dumpy, out-of-shape chick or an outright fatty.

You can basically assume the following using my OKCupid body-type translator:

Skinny = Usually True
Thin = 2/3 True (1/3 A few extra lbs)
Athletic = 1/2 True (1/2 Chubby)
Average = Fat
Fit = Fat (usually)
Curvy = Fat (usually)
A little extra = Fat (always)
Full-figured = Obese
Overweight = Obese
Rather not say = Fat / Obese / Morbirdly Obese (1% are just anorexic & self conscious)
Nothing = Fat / Obese / Morbirdly Obese
Jacked = Unknown (party girls, wannabe comedians, weightlifting chicks)
Used up = Unknown (party girls, wannabe comedians, weightlifting chicks)

Post: #349

Concerning the deal with getting docked for answering the same as the broad, I had a convo with a chick about this just the other night and she said it was fucked up that it apparently dinged me on some questions we had answered the same. (She was going through my questions while we were on phone. Fun convo and something I may do more.)

"Why is this showing your answer in red when you answered the same as me?"

Kinda odd.

Post: #350

(05-02-2012 10:23 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  Concerning the deal with getting docked for answering the same as the broad, I had a convo with a chick about this just the other night and she said it was fucked up that it apparently dinged me on some questions we had answered the same. (She was going through my questions while we were on phone. Fun convo and something I may do more.)

"Why is this showing your answer in red when you answered the same as me?"

Kinda odd.

On some questions you specifically don't want the answer to be the same. Like in sex "they take control / I take control" - I don't want a girl who wants to take control, so I disqualify that response.