Post: #51

(04-23-2014 02:26 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:54 AM)soup Wrote:  Isn't this just a dupe of the "would you bang?" thread?

I think a lot of guys here would bang that chick over a fattie for sure.

And if you were in a dry spell?

Not saying she's hot, but when I say I won't bang a girl, it means that there is not situation I can think of that the girl would arouse me in any kind of way.

At least she's got the availability/SLUT thing going on.

If you had to choose between a definite bang with this chick vs. trying to get with a much hotter girl with very little chance of banging, what would you choose?

I've definitely fucked worse girls than her.

Not standing up for her, but I can think of worse girls.

She does a have a manjaw and no tits it seems. Very un-photogenic.

But you see, knowing that someone actually married her just makes it that more ghastly.

I can't judge a man for his boner, but the idea of marrying that...

The idea of marrying any girl now...

Post: #52

(04-23-2014 12:21 AM)puckerman Wrote:  It looks like she was born and raised in Macedonia. Her profile says she's from Skopje, which is the capital.

Just one more piece of evidence how the Western culture poisons women from all environments (Roosh also wrote about this). Today's Macedonian girls that live there and don't travel much to attentiion whore are still quite nice.

Post: #53

The writer ignores an obvious truism:

Male virgins are ridiculed; female virgins are valued.
Male sluts are respected; female sluts are ridiculed.

It's all the flip side of the same coin.

The fact that Playboy no longer gets this is a sad shark-jumping moment.

Post: #54

Her article is typical, lock-step feminist analysis.

A mindless appeal to science, only to pretend everything revolves social constructions. Notice that this is never based out of objective approaches, but inherently self-dealing interest.

I hate this whole false binary of "casual sex v. monogamy." We all know women will pursue a fleeting tryst with a celebrity and men fall in love with women and get married. Women sense that men are their class enemies -- as they have been taught that by their mothers -- so they assume that men refuse to commit. This dumbfuck doesn't realize her false dichotomy proves that women are more worried about relationships and being provided for. Case in point: Paternalism without God/Father (women turn to the government for $$$ and guidance).

She actually mentions narcissism and links it to genetics. Another dumb shit that hijacks science to justify her political beliefs. She airily dismisses science at first, then uses it to justify her political beliefs.

Unpacking her is a waste of time for a comment. I feel like a broken record when commenting on drivel like this article: If you have insecure approaches to your self-identify, it's not racism or sexism or blah blah blah you have a personality disorder or something. People have become *more* insecure in America thus meaning that her stupid theories about traditional masculinity based out of fear of women is not just wrong but -- ding, ding, ding! -- her own narcissism.

She denies female agency throughout her piece, that men need to police themselves lest women sleep with the wrong man. She thinks that men who place female egos ahead of theirs is somehow indicative of equality.

Most importantly, she ignores her own narcissism about men. She is only bitching about sex without emotions or relations with the sexed up. She thinks that sex without care for the other party is superior to caring for them. Her commentary on what men should or should not do to women are just sign-posts, stickers on a man's coat. It is all an act to cover up the fact that she supports sex that treats each other's bodies as a masturbatory aid. She just wants acts by men that let women maintain the illusion that their bodies are not being fucked and used up by men.

She doesn't get she is knee deep in the quagmire of American narcissism and she is a cheerleader of women being used and churned up by men. She supports it as long as she gets to pretend it helps her.

She knows something is foul and wicked in American society. She blames sexism, misogyny and men - all the easy points. They say that narcissists can only live if they don't know themselves. For her personal safety, I hope see never opens that closet and confronts the naked skeletons in her ideological closet.

She might realize she is exactly what she hates.

Post: #55

Frankly it does not come as much of a surprise.

PLAYBOY was always part of the big agenda of sexual "liberation", where mostly females had to be liberated. Founded by the well-connected Skull-and-Bones member Hugh Hafner PLAYBOY of course denies GAME and calls it deception and calls RAPE a coercive sexual strategy!

FUCK YOU PLAYBOY!!!! Guess what the HONEST means of getting pussy are according to them? Be extremely good-looking, be rich, be famous or live in a fucking mansion as a contextual Alpha who gets laid exclusively due to his status.

They hate Game and most of the manosphere, because then a busboy can get more lays than a multi-millionaire and that goes against their hamster-created-social-construct. And the manosphere bares the ugly female psyche for the whole world to see.

The manosphere in the current form - Heartiste, ROK even many MRAs will NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER be mainstream, because it goes against the agenda. If Tucker Max will get good air-time and promotion, then he will have to tone it down or become in a way more extreme in order to show the world, that only crazies are Players.

And everyone gets laid more when there is no slut-shaming!!!????????? In your fucking dreams MANJAW!!!!! It will become even more extreme - the Manjaws of tomorrow will go in groups to the Alpha-marathon-fuck-session while 60% of men will be frustrated buysexuals or pornicators. No Slut Shaming = Hypergamy to the max!

Post: #56

(04-23-2014 01:36 AM)soup Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:13 AM)TonySandos Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 12:49 AM)Professor Fox Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 12:19 AM)L M McCoy Wrote:  Seriously guys? There is a reason why we have doggy style.


WB!

When you collect the coveted "East Coast PhD of Poly-amorphous Casual Slutting" flag, make sure you end it with pulling out of her and blasting your load all over this:

Imagine smashing her from behind in the dark. It would look like a skin disease or large insect

Exactly. Tats just tell our primitave part of the brain: something is wrong.

It looks like bubonic plague.

Or it looks like: slut/sex-slave etc.

I'd still hit, but it's almost the same thing as a girl farting in your face while you do doggy, but in slow motion.

Actually that is a 'property' reminiscent style tattoo. Women have a tendency to mark themselves with 'memories' of certain men via ugly symbolism

Post: #57

(04-23-2014 12:22 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  More pics. The dude in the bottom pic is her husband. Accent on the "bottom."

Post: #58

(04-23-2014 12:04 AM)Seboist Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 11:58 PM)xpatplayer Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 11:56 PM)Professor Fox Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 11:54 PM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  

Nope.

That jaw looks like it could slice depleted uranium.

You guys have really high standards. I'd bang anything that moves and doesn't make me want to turn the other way if it propositioned me for sex.

I wouldn't say i'd bang everything that moves but as long as a lizard is lean and has at least a plain jane face then i'd smash.

Basically, my standards are high enough that I can jump over it but not low enough that I can trip.

Yeah this is pretty much all it takes to pass the boner test with me. If she's height-weight proportionate (ie, not fat) and there's nothing wrong her face she passes the boner test 95 percent of the time with me.

Really put off by this girl's tatoos though.

5.5/10 would prolly bang if it involved no work whatsoever

Post: #59

Can someone clear up to me what it means to use "coercion" in a seduction sense? I tried finding a definition via my text books chapter on coercion, but even then it was muddy - even then, it appeared coercion was an umbrella term that included tactics like me withdrawing if a girl kept saying no in hopes she would emotionally respond as saying yes due to my distance (looked at as emotional manipulation).

It still throws me off trying to understand truly what they considered coercion as since it appears to be a new feminist buzz word that doesn't have a clear definition.

A side note, My textbook even went as far to say that it was mythologized that women who come home with you secretly want to sleep with you, even if they say no and that a female no, is always a no... Experience says otherwise; Interestingly enough, I saw no citation regarding this information, more like the textbooks authors opinion.

Post: #60

(04-23-2014 02:47 AM)Sombro Wrote:  The writer ignores an obvious truism:

Male virgins are ridiculed; female virgins are valued.
Male sluts are respected; female sluts are ridiculed.

It's all the flip side of the same coin.

The fact that Playboy no longer gets this is a sad shark-jumping moment.

I always go for the violence double standard , but this is way better .

Post: #61

are we sure this dude wasnt a guy before

Post: #62

(04-23-2014 01:02 AM)Professor Fox Wrote:  

Damn, I wish my jawline was that manly.

Post: #63

(04-23-2014 01:30 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  The problem with today's New York art crowd is they try to pass off their deviance as normal and call the normal abnormal, as she did with this Playboy article. Back in the Warhol days, the NYC art folks knew they were deviant and reveled in it. They never moralized about what other should do, which is why that crowd was amusing, and these people are unbearable.

This is an apt description of contemporary leftists/liberals, in general. Like many people on here, I think, I don't really heavy any problem with fags or trannies or any other sort of debauched, deviant, or otherwise freaky people or lifestyles. What's both destructive and absurd is the push to normalize all that stuff. To pretend (and enforce through the state, academia, and omnipresent social shaming) that's there's no meaningful difference between normal and abnormal behavior. They all want to be unique and special and shocking but also as normal as upstanding white picket fence suburbia at the same time.

Post: #64

Playboy is played out.

Post: #65

(04-22-2014 11:27 PM)runsonmagic Wrote:  First - "by Zhana Vrangalova" - why is Playboy publishing female authors on "misogyny?" This a men's nude picture magazine publishing Jezebel style social criticism.

...

1. This is being published in Playboy. PLAYBOY.

Playboy, making betas since the 1970's at least. Playboy got on the left-leaning, feminist bandwagon a looooong time ago. It serves their interest to go against slut shaming, because they need an ample supply of women who aren't ashamed to pose in their mag so thirsty dudes will continue buying it. I was reading it in the early 80's and it was filled with articles that today you'd see on Good Men Project and AskMen - shit's that's complete crap. It's not that looking at porn won't get you laid, it's reading the articles that assures you won't.

Remember Teri Weigel? Playmate of the month in the mid 80's. Her famous quote was something like "Penthouse is porn. Playboy is art". A few years later she was short on money and getting boned by Marc Wallice on the big screen. Hef was PISSED about it.

That should have been a moment where the men of the world (or at least America) had the red pill shoved down their throat: if there was ever a more perfect illustration of women saying what they want to believe and doing exactly the opposite, I don't know what it is.

Post: #66

I'll never read playboy for the articles again.

Post: #67

Nothing bothers me more than when people point to research to make conclusions, but they do not provide a link to said research. The author of this piece did it quite a bit which made her piece sound like complete opinion (which it probably was). ROK does it sometimes, and that devalues the piece for me too.

I stopped being interested in casual hook-up sex a couple years ago when I wizened up and realized that all the girls were making less safe sexual decisions than I.

I mainly slut-shame today because sleeping with half the town is a sign of deep insecurity. I have no problem shaming dudes for having ONS every weekend because it just isn't a smart health decision. If you need constant sex then just get a rotation of girls.

Anyways, the author is probably just trying to justify her actions. We don't need a larger supply of sluts. There are already plenty of girls that are willing and ready to drop their panties after knowing you for two hours.

Post: #68

(04-23-2014 12:01 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Don't be fooled by the glammed-up, airbrushed publicity pic.
From her Facebook page:



Her ugly tattoos:

Burning Man festival. All I need to know.

Post: #69

(04-23-2014 03:20 PM)Rollo Tomassi Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 12:01 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Don't be fooled by the glammed-up, airbrushed publicity pic.
From her Facebook page:



Her ugly tattoos:

Burning Man festival. All I need to know.

I know a lot of burners, though not one myself. Can you elaborate?

Post: #70

They piled up on me in that thread:

http://playboysfw.kinja.com/of-course-th...1563982299

Post: #71

(04-23-2014 04:07 PM)DetlefMourning Wrote:  They piled up on me in that thread:

http://playboysfw.kinja.com/of-course-th...1563982299

With good reason. If you are going to take a fight like that on an away field you need to bring infallible reasoning and sources.

This is my gripe with a lot of the manosphere. It accept a lot of thesises on shaky ground and psuedo-science. It's not going to do you any favors when you want to bring the word out.

Post: #72

"I mainly slut-shame today because sleeping with half the town is a sign of deep insecurity. I have no problem shaming dudes for having ONS every weekend because it just isn't a smart health decision. If you need constant sex then just get a rotation of girls."

^^^It's called condoms son.

Post: #73

This is why I always read Hustler. They are who introduced me to Tom Leykis. Playboy was always shit. The girls are beautiful, but I want to see some pink.

Post: #74

(04-23-2014 05:04 PM)Christian McQueen Wrote:  "I mainly slut-shame today because sleeping with half the town is a sign of deep insecurity. I have no problem shaming dudes for having ONS every weekend because it just isn't a smart health decision. If you need constant sex then just get a rotation of girls."

^^^It's called condoms son.

Haha! If only!

Post: #75

(04-23-2014 06:23 AM)RouteBackwards Wrote:  Can someone clear up to me what it means to use "coercion" in a seduction sense? I tried finding a definition via my text books chapter on coercion, but even then it was muddy - even then, it appeared coercion was an umbrella term that included tactics like me withdrawing if a girl kept saying no in hopes she would emotionally respond as saying yes due to my distance (looked at as emotional manipulation).

It still throws me off trying to understand truly what they considered coercion as since it appears to be a new feminist buzz word that doesn't have a clear definition.

A side note, My textbook even went as far to say that it was mythologized that women who come home with you secretly want to sleep with you, even if they say no and that a female no, is always a no... Experience says otherwise; Interestingly enough, I saw no citation regarding this information, more like the textbooks authors opinion.

Probably not exactly what you're looking for, but for an Australian perspective, Chief Justice Jackon in the case R v Holman stated of consent to the jury: "It may be hesitant, it may be reluctant, it may be grudging, it may even be tearful, but if the complainant in this case consciously permitted the act of sexual intercourse that you find occurred, if you do, provided her permission or consent is not obtained by terror, force or fear, it is still consent."

Although I imagine the pathetic excuse for a woman in this thread would froth at the mouth and disagree vehemently with the above statement.