Post: #51

(04-12-2018 09:18 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Point being: cheating or breaking up with your wife when there are kids involved is not a choice between your happiness and that of your wife, it's choosing between your kids and you. We've had roughly forty years of men and women who chose themselves when presented with those two options, and when you look around you the result of that mass of choices is plain to see.

+1



Pretty fucking solid rationale of why it's about you and your children and not you and her.

Post: #52

(04-12-2018 04:40 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 04:29 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  In return a woman has to take care of her husband sexually. Countless women are no longer interested in fucking their husbands, but they are not allowed to stray. Meanwhile when a woman cheats, then her husband obviously neglected her.

It's not Red Pill especially to cheat on your wife. It's just Red Pill to understand that women tolerate it to some degree. And they certainly like to be with a man who could cheat with many hotter younger women.

Another way to say this:

Sexual intimacy is an integral component to a authentic loving relationship.

If she doesn't want to fuck you, she doesn't love you.

Its not "her job" to drain your balls - its your job to find a woman that "wants to".

IE no need to cheat, but a need to ditch her and find another better one that wants to fuck you like you want to be fucked.

I am not going to compromise my values and vows to stay in a sexless relationship with a woman that doesn't love me.

Wanting to fuck and loving are two different things. I've fucked plenty of women who didn't love me and who I didn't love. Sex is necessary to romantic love but not sufficient, as they say.

Loving someone and being in love are two different things. At some age, as much love as you might have for someone, the desire to fuck won't accompany it.

Post: #53

(04-12-2018 12:24 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  It is not "redpill" to cheat around on your wife, no matter how rich/famous you are. Even if she's ok with it, it's still a dick thing to do (no pun intended).
You're either committed to her and raising your children together or you're not.

Life just isn't that simple.

Post: #54

(04-14-2018 01:19 AM)EndsExpect Wrote:  Life just isn't that simple.

Life is very simple. You wake up, you go to work, you take one good shit and back to sleep.

Post: #55

(04-14-2018 10:02 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  Life is very simple. You wake up, you go to work, you take one good shit and back to sleep.

I can appreciate your youthful view of life. The good shits become fewer and farther between as you age.

When you have children, then you are stuck with a woman. Unless of course you don't plan to be any kind of father. Relationships change over long periods... people change. It's also very hard and somewhat unnatural for a man to only have one woman.

Post: #56

So what if it's hard. So is building muscle or learning a new language.

I say this as someone who was married and who cheated. My exwife forgave me but things were never the same after that. It's just not worth it.

Post: #57

If you have any of the problems mentioned for the wives and husbands is this thread (barring the disability-related ones), you f***** up.

Post: #58

(04-14-2018 10:02 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(04-14-2018 01:19 AM)EndsExpect Wrote:  Life just isn't that simple.

Life is very simple. You wake up, you go to work, you take one good shit and back to sleep.

That's not a life I want to live, nor strive for.

No man should, life shouldn't be a routine, it shouldn't be easy, or boring.

Life is not that simple, why?

Because you're the only person you can control, you have almost 0 control over other people and variables in your life.

Post: #59

(04-14-2018 12:41 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  So what if it's hard. So is building muscle or learning a new language.
I say this as someone who was married and who cheated. My exwife forgave me but things were never the same after that. It's just not worth it.

I'm not going to go into detail on this, but suffice to say that when something is an emotional need... it can be very, very difficult to resist. Building muscle makes me look better, and I have an emotional need to look good, so it's an easy and rewarding thing for me to do.

Everyone has different needs because our experiences are different. If it's easy for you to be faithful... because you got caught once and it ruined your marriage... then more power to you. Don't expect all men to be the same though.

Post: #60

(04-11-2018 03:21 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  I submitted a guest article to the NYT, "What Wasting 50k in a Weekend on Hookers and Blow in Cancún Taught Me About Wasting 50k in a Weekend on Hookers and Blow in Cancún", but they haven't responded to me yet.

I'm sure they're just busy and will be getting back to me soon.

No, they'd never publish an article from a straight man about "hookers and blow." But you'd get published in a second if you wrote one called "I'm a straight guy but I enjoy giving blow jobs to my friends."

The mainstream media is all about upending "white male Christian norms." Once you realize that's their focus, it makes sense why they publish what they do.

This week The New Yorker is decrying the opening of a Chick-Fil-A in New York City. They called it "creepy" in their headline (cache link here). One sentence from the article reads: "And yet the brand's arrival here feels like an infiltration, in no small part because of its pervasive Christian traditionalism."

People on Twitter are asking if the same goes for Jews who want to open delis in Utah or Muslims who want to run falafel joints in Boston. Aren't they "infiltrating?"

As I said, the media is against anything having to do with traditionalism. It's easy to get published so long as you're trashing gender norms, marriage norms, Christian norms, etc.

I would also guess that writers play this up to get published. Confession: When I was writing, I did this a few times for mainstream outlets that paid big freelance bucks. I didn't lie; I just played up one element of my persona that fit their frame. I can't be the only one.

Post: #61

(04-14-2018 06:46 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

(04-11-2018 03:21 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  I submitted a guest article to the NYT, "What Wasting 50k in a Weekend on Hookers and Blow in Cancún Taught Me About Wasting 50k in a Weekend on Hookers and Blow in Cancún", but they haven't responded to me yet.

I'm sure they're just busy and will be getting back to me soon.

No, they'd never publish an article from a straight man about "hookers and blow." But you'd get published in a second if you wrote one called "I'm a straight guy but I enjoy giving blow jobs to my friends."

The mainstream media is all about upending "white male Christian norms." Once you realize that's their focus, it makes sense why they publish what they do.

This week The New Yorker is decrying the opening of a Chick-Fil-A in New York City. They called it "creepy" in their headline (cache link here). One sentence from the article reads: "And yet the brand's arrival here feels like an infiltration, in no small part because of its pervasive Christian traditionalism."

People on Twitter are asking if the same goes for Jews who want to open delis in Utah or Muslims who want to run falafel joints in Boston. Aren't they "infiltrating?"

As I said, the media is against anything having to do with traditionalism. It's easy to get published so long as you're trashing gender norms, marriage norms, Christian norms, etc.

I would also guess that writers play this up to get published. Confession: When I was writing, I did this a few times for mainstream outlets that paid big freelance bucks. I didn't lie; I just played up one element of my persona that fit their frame. I can't be the only one.

I love it when I run in to people who say they despise religion and then go on to talk about how hypocritical Christians are and how fake church goers are. Which, to be honest, yeah, sure they do have a small point. Once I really get them talking I'll slide the conversation over to other religions. Casually state how oppressive Sharia Law is to women and these types change gears really fast and start making apologies for it and blah blah blah.
And to be fair these people are probably going to have had more bad experiences with Christians than Muslims simply due to the numbers. To me, it shows a complete lack of self-awareness and intellectual laziness. And that hate is a powerful thing.

Post: #62

The meals at chick fil a are not exactly cheap. They taste good and very filling but not the healthiest and probably cost ten bucks for a sandwich and signature waffle fries

Go once every couple of months if you must but I wouldn’t suggest going once a week for fast food

As for the people in their 50s using tinder to cheat on their spouses where the marriage goes stale? I would be worried about getting caught. I mean what the hell, the wife’s friends must use tinder, would probably show the husbands cheating tinder profile to the wife unless they had some sort of understanding.(like if you have affairs be discreet about them)

My point is, if you are a cheating husband, you should not be using tinder, that is bad game by definition. Use seekingarrangement.com and be discreet

I don’t necessarily have a problem with a guy who steps out on his wife, but tinder? What the fuck

Post: #63

(04-14-2018 06:46 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  the media is against anything having to do with traditionalism. It's easy to get published so long as you're trashing gender norms, marriage norms, Christian norms, etc.

It's a chicken and the egg debate. My opinion is that the cultural norm in big cities is already anti-traditional and media that services big cities (like the New York Times) reflects its target demographic because it makes the best business-sense. But even when commerce isn't the big driver, silos happen. For instance, I'd say there is an 80% or more chance that at any moment of the day, if you switch on NPR, it will be a story revolving around race/gender/sexuality/suffering 3rd world shitholes, either a sob story about discrimination, or a puff piece gushing with praise over diversity. There are more stories in this world beyond this, but NPR fixates on it the same way Fox News fixated on every conceivable error during the Obama administration. It does this because its target demographic skews female, gay, minority and liberal whites who are saddled with guilt over their privilege.

The reason why urban civilizations are more liberal is not because of media brainwashing. It's just sort of the natural order of things. More people clustered together, the more anonymized we become, the easier it is to play musican chairs with our personal lives as you may never cross paths with an ex again as people blend back into the crowd. The more rural things are, the more you grow up and live out your entire lives together. Everyone knows each other's business and the greater the risk of social ostracism (or worse) if you mistreat someone.

Adding in the Tinder and the rest just adds fuel to an already raging fire.

Post: #64

(04-15-2018 12:40 PM)eradicator Wrote:  The meals at chick fil a are not exactly cheap. They taste good and very filling but not the healthiest and probably cost ten bucks for a sandwich and signature waffle fries

Go once every couple of months if you must but I wouldn’t suggest going once a week for fast food

As for the people in their 50s using tinder to cheat on their spouses where the marriage goes stale? I would be worried about getting caught. I mean what the hell, the wife’s friends must use tinder, would probably show the husbands cheating tinder profile to the wife unless they had some sort of understanding.(like if you have affairs be discreet about them)

My point is, if you are a cheating husband, you should not be using tinder, that is bad game by definition. Use seekingarrangement.com and be discreet

I don’t necessarily have a problem with a guy who steps out on his wife, but tinder? What the fuck

Just want to point out that if you got Tinder plus you can make it so only the people that you swipe right on gets to see you.

So, in theory, you could just swipe left on the profiles that pops up and shows the woman is facebook friend with your wife or someone you suspect might know who you are, and they'll never see that you're on there.

Post: #65

(04-12-2018 09:43 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 09:18 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Point being: cheating or breaking up with your wife when there are kids involved is not a choice between your happiness and that of your wife, it's choosing between your kids and you. We've had roughly forty years of men and women who chose themselves when presented with those two options, and when you look around you the result of that mass of choices is plain to see.

+1



Pretty fucking solid rationale of why it's about you and your children and not you and her.

Paracelsus put it well and this is exactly what I meant.

This idea that you can leave your sexless marriage and leave your children in the hands of a single mother and an assortment of "uncles" is no way to go about it.

Instead try to make it work somehow with wifey at least until the children are in their teens, rather cheat on the side. When the kids are older, then it does not impact them anywhere near as much.

The only cases where divorce is justified if either the man or the woman is highly toxic for the children. Most frivorces now at rates of 70-80% are initiated by women and not because the Alpha husband cheated too much. That is a ridiculous amount of divorces. Most often women are bored or they cheat behind the backs of their men and then leave them.

My views of marriage are not as "iron-clad-until-death-do-us-part", but there has to be a balance struck. Many women blow up marriages needlessly, men are the lesser evil at least in countries like the US and many Western states.

Also I might add - stable married families are increasingly becoming a privilege of the upper 20%. The other social strata are left in the ruins of the dysfunction, some tribes don't even marry and the majority of the kids are out of wedlock and worse - there is not even much of a bond between the father. You don't necessarily have to be married to create a strong nuclear family.

I am sure that quite a few cheating married men saved their marriages and later did not regret it as the last decades of marriage are seldom spent fucking 24/7. The kids and grandkids still have a home to go to for Christmas and not 2 other places or awkward single-mother shacks of emptiness. Even the cheating husband later may cherish his wife.

Post: #66

(04-15-2018 12:53 PM)questor70 Wrote:  The reason why urban civilizations are more liberal is not because of media brainwashing. It's just sort of the natural order of things. More people clustered together, the more anonymized we become, the easier it is to play musican chairs with our personal lives as you may never cross paths with an ex again as people blend back into the crowd. The more rural things are, the more you grow up and live out your entire lives together. Everyone knows each other's business and the greater the risk of social ostracism (or worse) if you mistreat someone.

Your intuition does have a certain biological basis: there is a Nature study that indicates that risk-aversion only develops as an evolutionary adaptation when the population of a community drops below a certain number, i.e. women only start marrying Mr Beta Provider when there are good odds their genes won't be passed on if they pass him off. As the population rises, the need for that adaptation vanishes and women are more inclined to take risky behaviours, including banging Mr Alpha Chad and waiting until their 30s to marry.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #67

(04-15-2018 06:50 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(04-15-2018 12:53 PM)questor70 Wrote:  The reason why urban civilizations are more liberal is not because of media brainwashing. It's just sort of the natural order of things. More people clustered together, the more anonymized we become, the easier it is to play musican chairs with our personal lives as you may never cross paths with an ex again as people blend back into the crowd. The more rural things are, the more you grow up and live out your entire lives together. Everyone knows each other's business and the greater the risk of social ostracism (or worse) if you mistreat someone.

Your intuition does have a certain biological basis: there is a Nature study that indicates that risk-aversion only develops as an evolutionary adaptation when the population of a community drops below a certain number, i.e. women only start marrying Mr Beta Provider when there are good odds their genes won't be passed on if they pass him off. As the population rises, the need for that adaptation vanishes and women are more inclined to take risky behaviours, including banging Mr Alpha Chad and waiting until their 30s to marry.

Yes and no - personally I think that the gender ratios are even more important below age 30.

Europe had a massive female oversupply from the 1800-1950s. In the US there was a shortage of 7 mio+ men in the 1950s. In Europe there had been many wars and empire building, also men had terribly dangerous professions. A society with far less men than women in the delicate under 25 age range results in women scrambling to marry fast, because no good men are going to be left for them. For example - England and London especially had a huge prostitute population since there was no welfare and the oversupply of women meant cheap pussy.
In the US in the 1950s and early 60s societies were more conservative than before because women were competing for the fewer men and behaving accordingly.

That is a far more important factor than pure population.

People in bigger cities tend to be - I would not say liberal - but they tend to soak up the current-day propaganda faster, also they tend to act more as if the opinions of their neighbors don't count, because they usually don't, while people in the countryside are shaped by the environment and a slutting around girl is going to be infamous, or a known communist is going to be looked upon negatively.

And yes - city folk are easily manipulated by the media and academia. If I owned the media and academia, then I could make the liberal progressives into fascist eugenicists within one generation and they would think this is all natural. In fact the countryside would resist this a bit more.

Post: #68

(04-12-2018 12:24 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  It is not "redpill" to cheat around on your wife, no matter how rich/famous you are. Even if she's ok with it, it's still a dick thing to do (no pun intended).

You're either committed to her and raising your children together or you're not.

The word "cheat" suggests something sly and underhanded, and thus your message may make some sense ... BUT did you consider the possibility that the one who is ok with it is not "cheated" at all? Morals are a very personal thing and it is not my intention to convince you to change yours, but I strongly suspect that you are not talking based on experience here. I do have such experience, and I know for a fact that it is the cheating (aka hiding the truth) aspect of extramarital sex that is destructive, not the extramarital sex itself. Personally, I am committed to my wife and my family but I also indulge in extramarital sex. If my wife is OK with it, it's nobody else's business to pass judgements. Also, I don't see what it got to do with red, blue, or yellow pills (those blue and yellow pills may be helpful when you reach a certain age, but that's another subject).