Post: #1

http://playboysfw.kinja.com/bros-this-is...1563665480

Quote:Unfortunately, that reaction [to the Duke pornstar] isn't surprising. It's simply a more extreme version of a common double standard that echoes throughout the misogynistic corners of college campuses (and their corresponding blogs). "Women are sluts if they sleep around, but men are not," the bro-site Return of Kings decrees. "This fact is due to the biological differences between men and women."

Buckle up kids, this is gonna be a bumpy ride.

First - "by Zhana Vrangalova" - why is Playboy publishing female authors on "misogyny?" This a men's nude picture magazine publishing Jezebel style social criticism.

I was shocked by the source. This is the kind of trash oxjane or slate usually publishes. But then again, the purpose of the articles in Playboy is to provide men who are ashamed to look at the female body a rationalization for buying the magazine.

"I read it for the articles." Sure man, and I fuck your mom for the exercise.

Quote:Even more interestingly, these studies reveal that guys who seek out casual sex are the ones who are more likely to disrespect females with the same interest.

Men with game are more likely to have harsh standards? You don't say?

Quote:This not only exposes a serious hypocrisy, but it seems counterproductive: Disrespecting women on whom your casual sex depends can only lower your chances of finding willing partners in the future, right? So why would slutty guys feel this way?

This argument is negated by the previous quoted evidence, but nevermind. Every successful player is proof that "respecting" women is not a requirement for sleeping with them.

Quote:Such views are part of a more general traditional gender ideology, explaining why studies have found that men with more traditional gender role attitudes also tend to want more casual sex.

I would have liked to have known about that study when people were criticizing ROK for having traditional sex roles week and teaching men how to have success with women.

Quote:Indeed, while the desire for casual sex might be partly due to nature, genetic analyses of twins show that the tendency to support gender inequality is almost entirely due to nurture. In other words, if your environment promotes sexism, it's likely you'll hold sexist views.

Traditional sex roles are environmental, but being gay or practicing non-traditional sex roles is genetic.

Quote:Over the years, studies consistently found that men who are more into casual sex are also more dominant, aggressive, narcissistic, arrogant, manipulative and lacking empathy. (The evidence is less clear about whether this is true for women who are more into casual sex.)

I hear laughter coming from dark triads of Chateau Heartsie.

Also, funny how those parentheses doge the obvious implication that slutty women probably won't make good partners or moms.

Quote:Scholars have argued that these personality traits and a high interest in casual sex often cluster together as part of an exploitative short-term mating strategy where men attempt to seduce many different women—using deception (what bros would call "game") or coercion (what law enforcement would call "rape") if necessary—without feeling remorse.

Game is not deception.

The only people who think they to deceive women for sex are those who think they have less value than women, or feminists who believe that all women have more value than men and that all sex is rape.

Quote:None of this is to say that all men who are into casual sex are sexist and exploitative. (Nor that all men who aren't into casual sex are respectful and sweet.) It's certainly possible to be a highly sexual man who goes about acquiring sexual partners in an ethical way.

Go playboy readers hamster's! Go!

Don't worry girl who writes for jackoff magazine. I'm sure none of the guys you slept with in under an hour were sexist.

Quote:Luckily, such "jerks" are a minority in the Western world. The online sexist manosphere has a vocal anti-sexist counterpart, from ManBoobz to the Good Men Project.

The only thing I can think of more pathetic than someone who still pays for porn would be someone who reads either of those websites.

Quote:Even Tucker Max, the one-time king of the bros, recently gave up his "game".

I take back every remotely nice thing I ever said about Tucker. All his haters were right.

Also - are feminists writing for Playboy holding Tucker Max up as the posterboy for treating with respect? Has the world gone mad? It doesn't get more dark triad then a guy who openly admits he struggles with narcissism and whose website begins "I am an asshole."

Quote:More good news is that women's lesser interest in casual sex isn't immutable. For millennia, women have lived in environments that have made them dependent on men for survival and taught them to be sexually conservative. But when social and economic circumstances change to allow for greater female independence and freedom of sexual expression, gender differences in the desire for casual sex become less pronounced

Closest the article gets to a red pill truth.

Quote:When the slut-shaming stops, everyone is likely to get laid more.

And getting laid is it's all about, amirightfellas?

Of course, the harsh truth is having standards and judging women's sexual choices doesn't hinder your game, it actually improves it.

Though every argument the author gives in the article could be torn apart by every scientific study cited in the article, there were two things that stuck out to me:

1. This is being published in Playboy. PLAYBOY.

2. They felt the need to call out ROK by name.

Apparently ROK is the lone source of "bros" left on the net. Even Tucker Max has retired into manginahood.

Post: #2

Dear Zhana Vrangalova,
Your bullshit will never work.

The boner never lies
And women that sleep around are sluts - men are not.

Post: #3

How do you know old school publishing is dead?

It is run by women.

Post: #4

OK boys, we've been through this exercise before and we know only one thing matters...........



WYB?

Post: #5

(04-22-2014 11:50 PM)xpatplayer Wrote:  OK boys, we've been through this exercise before and we know only one thing matters...........



WYB?

Who cares about her face?

Show me the tits!

Post: #6

^^^^
In addition to that manjawed pic, there are some FB pics I found of her with the usual ugly cliche tattoos. She also teaches at NYU, which is a breeding ground for idiotic, pseudo-academic ideas.

(I once had an editor from there who took all my freelance pitches and gave them to the asshole she was sucking off.)

To any man from the outside reading this: worry less about what she says about Return of Kings or the manosphere and worry more about what these women will do to your kids or you after you marry them. We've seen what their mothers did.

Playboy turned to politically correct crap when Hugh Hefner's moron daughter started running it into the ground. This is a prime example of why.

Post: #7

Wtf! She looks like a friend of a friend wearing drag:

Post: #8

Nope.

Post: #9

(04-22-2014 11:52 PM)Glaucon Wrote:  Who cares about her face?

Show me the tits!

On the other hand......



My guess is that she was always a feminist but always got the alpha cock she craved. She became more rabid once she hit the wall and stopped getting it. Sad tale..... but I would still bang.

Post: #10

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

Nope.

That jaw looks like it could slice depleted uranium.

Post: #11

Why the "bro" title and how was this allowed to happen? If even male oriented pork magazines are now soap boxes for spreading social justice doctrine, this mode of thinking really is planting itself everywhere.

I took a lot of flak for arguing against 'pussy over everything' a while back, but for good reason. Even appearing to be without dignity and only about notch number makes you look extremely pliable, corruptible.

The mainstream narrative is obvious; promise them sex for delivering acceptable behaviors under our guidance. They are like dogs, they can be trained as long as you reward with pussy intermittently.

As false as that may be, the radical left is running the narrative and defining our motivations for us. It may not be an issue to everyone, but I see how this can result in even less common respect, for any male in particular, when viewed through the eye of society. Those feminist, future-fiction works speaking on envisioning man more and more like an animal are coming true.

Post: #12

(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.

Post: #13

Don't be fooled by the glammed-up, airbrushed publicity pic.
From her Facebook page:

   

Her ugly tattoos:
   

Post: #14

This woman still cares about what the college bro's think of women? Thats a red flag for "I got fucked by so many college jocks I lost count".

She looks like a hippie and is in NYC of all places. guaranteed to spread her legs on the regular.

Post: #15

This makes me not want to bang her. Guys help me out! This is a tough decision!

Post: #16

(04-22-2014 11:58 PM)xpatplayer Wrote:  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'd lower my standards if I felt like it, but never for something that reminds me of a man.

Post: #17

(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.

Post: #18

(04-23-2014 12:01 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  From her Facebook page:

Her ugly tattoos:

WNB, holy shit one ugly bitch!

Post: #19

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

(04-22-2014 11:58 PM)xpatplayer Wrote:  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'd lower my standards if I felt like it, but never for something that reminds me of a man.

Just saw the post with your friend. Can't say I wouldn't agree if I were on the same boat.

But damn, I'm having a hard time figuring out if I would bang!

Post: #20

She couldn't get VIP access into the sexy club, so she beat the door down with p.c. indoctrination and shaming.


She has old woman teeth, waxy cheek skin, wrinkles, absent breasts, tired hair and a big nose

Post: #21

That second pic posted by Days sealed it for me.

Grotesque. Disgusting. A caricature of the anglo female. Can't call them ladies, and even the term "woman" seems too generous for this reprehensible one.

Nah, she's a female. She was born with a vagina, so she's definitely a female.

Post: #22

I also found pics of her husband, who seems to be a much older bald guy. I won't post because I'm a nice guy and because being married to her must be punishment enough...and when he gets divorced raped, he'll need our support.

Post: #23

I just can't belive this ugly thing can find a husband.

Where I live much cuter girls go without a husband.
You are living in a very dark peroid in America indeed.

Post: #24

Playboy still exists? Even in the age of the magical masturbation genie, Google?

Post: #25

Originally, the bug eye sunglasses preventing me from making a calculation.

However, it turns out that the sunglasses were doing her a favour by covering up her face.

Therefore, 2/10 WNB.