Post: #51

(06-15-2016 09:49 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  Maybe it's me. Maybe I'm not "boyfriend material" that these girls are just itching for me to validate them and accept them as a relationship option - but from where I'm sitting most girls are just down to hook up and nothing more.

   

G

Post: #52

You can have social validation, you can have a commited man who will give you a family, but you can't have both.

Most men, including me, separate girls in 2 categories: fuck buddy material, or wife material. Every stats in the world show that the more partners a girl had (i.e. riding the carousel), the lower her chances are to be in a stable marriage. Who, except omega losers, want to put a ring on a girl who got fucked by 20 men before?

The problem also lies in standards that women have for men: They get a new hookup every month, and for "some reason", he isn't the right one. When she finally finds one that meets the criteria, well, he rejects her because of her notch count.

Post: #53

(06-15-2016 08:11 PM)EDantes Wrote:  Reminds me of the MGTOW crowd who somehow think that being confined to their basement and financially dependent on their mom allowing them to live their well into their 30s is "liberation" from traditional male gender roles.

I admit I'm not the most well versed in it but I don't think that's what MGTOW is at all.

Post: #54

Well, I don't think that's what it's supposed to be, but losers love to co-opt shit.
When I first heard of it, I thought of some dude in his cabin in the woods working on whatever, or a guy who just lives on the beach and surfs every day. Dudes living their lives how they see fit, without a ball-n-chain nagging them down.
Now I just imagine something different, I never looked into it, but whenever I hear about mgtow it's some loser whining about girls.

Post: #55

I've known a new female friend for the past six months.
(friend & friend only as you'll see why).

From our conversations, she's mentioned having four ONS with four different guys.
If that is an average over the last ten years of her adult life.

That put's her notch count at 80.

Post: #56

Aww. What's she complaining about?

Can't she just draw from that big ol' equal opportunity salary and buy herself a mail order asian husband?

Post: #57

(06-15-2016 05:58 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  This is I would encourage any man to take up college, University, hookup apps like Tinder and nightlife. You see for yourself the pure, unadulterated face of the fairer sex.

Hang around guys in frats and sport societies. Hang around guys who are exotic, foreign and can get laid regularly with different women.

It was somewhat shocking (though not in a terrible way for me, at least) when I first started using OKCupid last summer how quickly girls in their mid to late 20s were DTF if I managed to pull them out into the real world. With some girls this even extended into the mid-30s.

The first 25 year old "6" I met was grabbing my cock on a park bench within a half-hour of meeting her - we hadn't even finished our frozen yogurt. I learned that if a girl opened me first on the site and actually wanted to meet up it was pretty much code for "Hey, I'd like you to come fuck me. Now."

It got to the point that if a girl was a "6" she'd get one date to fuck, or it was a next. I might give a "7" or above two, but that was it. Anyone trying to do anything else was a timewaster. And the girls were the same way - there have probably been a half-dozen girls I met from online who liked me and were down, but for whatever reason (poor logistics, time pressure, just wasn't feeling up to it that day) I didn't close with right away, and they didn't even grant me a second chance.

Online game seems to have gone downhill quite a bit since then, but it became clear that for many girls if you simply gave them the opportunity to "hook up" with a guy they felt was a bit higher value than them clandestinely without anyone around to judge them for it, they'd throw themselves at the chance.

Post: #58

(06-16-2016 12:14 AM)Rawmeo Wrote:  You can have social validation, you can have a commited man who will give you a family, but you can't have both.

There was a time when having a committed man who gave you a family was the ultimate social validation.

Post: #59

That looks like a decent article. I think it's cool that a young girl can come out and say this, and admit that maybe the messages they received growing up weren't the be-all-end-all answer to happiness.

So why the hate?

It seems there are as many women-haters here as there man-haters in the neo-feminist realm. You don't get anywhere with that.

Post: #60

(06-16-2016 06:29 AM)RichieP Wrote:  That looks like a decent article. I think it's cool that a young girl can come out and say this, and admit that maybe the messages they received growing up weren't the be-all-end-all answer to happiness.

So why the hate?

I appreciate the caution, but one of the reasons I'm still angry about this article is this: she hasn't actually learned anything. I can respect someone who looks back on their past and changes their ways as a result, but even the last line of her tract reflects the same old feminist shit: self, self, self. She still looks down her nose at "conservatives who wanted to go steady and go to sock hops", still thinks she is entitled to a relationship, and has interpreted her fucking epiphany that hook-up culture is bad for women as the be-all and end-all of the change that feminism needs.

On top of that, she's demanding pleasure-centred sex-ed in schools. This is feminist code to teach kids "Sex is all about the female orgasm, you guys are just meat popsicles whose desires are unevolved, and you need to Man Up In The Bedroom (as well as everywhere else.)" Women got their stupid arses into the education system to try and soften the hard edges of the Prussian model, and completely overcompensated in the other direction, fucking it up so badly that male teachers are in effect excluded from schools and subjectivity replacing objectivity. Why the fuck would they do any better with changing the model of how sex. ed. is taught?

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #61

The last part says it all for me

Quote:The truth is that, for many women, there’s nothing liberating about emotionless, non-committal sex. The young women I spoke with were taking part in hookup culture because they thought that was what guys wanted, or because they hoped a casual encounter would be a stepping stone to commitment. In doing this, we actually deny ourselves agency and bolster male dominance, all while convincing ourselves we’re acting like progressive feminists. But engaging in hookup culture while wholeheartedly craving love and stability was perhaps the least feminist action I, and hundreds of my peers, could take.

[/quote]

When I read the part in bold I just think to myself, "welcome to the world of knowing something is wrong but having absolutely no idea what to do about it."
It's a dead giveaway that she's still an ego-invested feminist(narcissist), incapable of embracing the concept of male dominance being a good thing.

Amazing how being repeatedly pumped and dumped had zero effect on her attitude of entitlement or any notion of responsibility for her actions. She knows she made the wrong choices but still clings to emotionally irrelevant denial in the forms of female agency(lol) and victimhood.

Post: #62

Well it took you only 3 train-wreck generations to realize...

Post: #63

(06-15-2016 11:28 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  I don't know why this article has me so pissed off, but I thought I'd go back through it and have another look. Some random angry thoughts:


She had it right there. Right there. And she entirely missed the point. Women driving hookup culture is not destructive because it separates their cunts from their emotions, it's destructive because female participation in hookup culture is driven by selfish motives.

Great post overall. Notice however, what's driving it. Let's just say that they're not thinking for themselves but instead seem to be imitating media combined with a lot of the same behaviors that you see in poorly trained and socialized dogs: extreme levels of selfish and antisocial behavior.

Sidenote: If a woman seems OK but loves Sex and the City or friends, run like hell.

Quote:That is, a life that requires no compromises, no sacrifices. But relationships involve compromise and sacrifice by definition. The most red pill man must understand this. Even the most traditional 1950s marriage did not include the husband having all the power, he conceded a great deal of the decisionmaking, parenting, and social choices of his family to his wife, just as she conceded him the breadwinner role.

ROK commentor GhostofJefferson(who I highly recommend following if you haven't already) made a great point on that. The tradition model wasn't just female submission. In exchange for that the male submits himself to the good of the family as a whole, and the children submit to the female. It's less of a hierarchy than it is a circle with specialization. The man's job is to think strategically while in most cases the woman will handle the logistics.

Quote:However, I can give you a good statistical reason for why so many college women act like this. It's unresolved, unresolvable childhood fear -- masked as a drive to be independent. With a historical divorce rate at 50%, we know a massive slice of people in the US were brought up by single parents. That means a large percentage of women across the board were not raised in a stable, normal household (with some skew towards the lower socioeconomic orders because whole families are the best predictors of educative and financial success).

Exactly. While not every girl from a traditional family comes out OK, all the ones who are great wife material that I've met did.

Quote:Men’s experiences with hookup culture are equally complex. It’s worth noting that the vast majority of males I interviewed and surveyed also ideally preferred committed relationships. But they felt strong social pressure to have casual sex.

That's actually true to some extent. The whole attitude that you're supposed to do that, I think, first became popular with films like animal house.

Quote:What sort of man actually responds to a survey of the kind that this stupid bitch created - one asking what you think about hookup culture, a survey that's by definition self-selected? The short answer would be: men with an axe to grind, or men who were getting stupid and conflicting messages about their masculinity.

Quote:I don't understand the sort of "cultural social priming" that says you derive your sexuality from your notch count. Your identity as a man isn't based on how many vaginas you've lubricated, it's based on the fact your cock gets hard when a 7 with a short skirt and shoulder-length hair gives you a smile as she walks past.

You're not giving the typical insecure male enough credit. Most guys these days are both competitive and constantly worried about how they'll be judged, and other guys boasting a higher count makes them feel like they're not as good.

Quote: I mean, for fucking real, did any of you guys actually have pussy-count bull sessions back at university? I find the idea about as odd as the dick-measuring thread.

University? No.
Army? Yes.

Quote:Some red pill here. Women can't separate emotions from sex -- not until they've acquired the thousand-cock stare or are getting paid for sex.

Interestingly enough that's still a key point that most Catholic women are trained with. I remember one of my exes saying that one of her friend's breakups was, and I quote "It was probably much harder for her because they were sleeping together". Said ex, incidentally, specifically chose an all girl's school because she knew that her head was a bit too dirty for her to survive with her innocence intact at a state school.

The one I married also has expressed the same sentiment, being worried about friends and family in bad relationships and even arguing with them that their actions were making it physiologically impossible for them to evaluate things objectively.

Post: #64

(06-16-2016 07:18 AM)NomadofEU Wrote:  The last part says it all for me

When I read the part in bold I just think to myself, "welcome to the world of knowing something is wrong but having absolutely no idea what to do about it."
It's a dead giveaway that she's still an ego-invested feminist(narcissist), incapable of embracing the concept of male dominance being a good thing.


[/quote]

Not in that context it's not. Just as in every other aspect of life male dominance is best when it's combined with structure.

Plus she's wrong. It only has that effect when there's an imbalanced ratio, such as college campuses where there's a skewed M-F ratio to begin with and many of those M's will be of the type that is completely invisible to her.

Post: #65

(06-16-2016 06:04 AM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 12:14 AM)Rawmeo Wrote:  You can have social validation, you can have a commited man who will give you a family, but you can't have both.

There was a time when having a committed man who gave you a family was the ultimate social validation.

In absence of a reply-of-the-day award

Post: #66

Definitely reply of the day. Thumbs up.

Being socially validated went from "having a commited man who gave you a family" to "having slept with all the football team". You can thank feminism.

Post: #67

Good looks and pussy cover the down payment, but it takes skills to keep paying the rent.

She wants commitment, but she doesn't offer anything to commit to. All she brings to men is her holes, and once they've had a taste they realize it's not worth the hassle for a repeat taste. She does not even really want the man's commitment for the sake of having the man, and she offers him nothing other than holes. Guess what? Every woman has holes, so it takes more than holes to keep a valuable man. The modern male doesn't know how to get women but the modern female has no clue how to keep men.

No one would rent a place long-term to a person who can cover a down payment but has no source of revenue.

The only thing she gave to men is pussy. There's no mention of acting like a caring sweetheart, cleaning up his place for him, comforting him when he's tired, cooking for him, or any other sort of labor that indicates she values the men as individuals. Notice she mentions grabbing breakfast instead of cooking breakfast for him, because subconsciously her desire to be seen as chosen is coming through as others have pointed out. If the man can get the same breakfast with or without her, what difference does it make if she's there?

It's too late for her. She let her youth wither away before she developed the right skills.

Post: #68

(06-15-2016 08:26 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Quote:We were desperate to know what it felt like to be wanted; desperate for a chance at intimacy. Desperate for a hand held in daylight, for public affirmation of desire typically expressed only after too many drinks. Desperate to try commitment, then decide if it wasn’t working, rather than being prematurely cut off from it.
I wished that I could be like the guys, who seemed not to care at all. Ironically, once we stopped hooking up, we became friends, and he actually developed romantic feelings for me.
If this was sexual liberation, it was hard to understand how it was helping women. But I was pretty sure my friends and I weren’t closeted conservatives who wanted to go back to an era of sockhops and going steady.

Few points:

(1) As I've said, women still have not figured out the real meaning of equality feminism. Women think its implementation means everyone will be considered equally special. The reality of equality is that everyone is equally trivial and equally expendable. I keep being reminded of The Incredibles. As time goes on that movie reveals more and more red pill hiding inside it - the dominant and most important message of the film being that when everyone is special, no one is.

(2) Don't get too sad when you see her pining for a "hand held in daylight," mainly because all of its implied desire for human affection and connection is contradicted, killed, by the very next phrase: "...for public affirmation of desire." The driving desire is still look at me, I am desirable. She doesn't want affirmation from her partner, she wants other people to affirm that she has a boyfriend. This is fucking narcissism.

(3) The phrase "try commitment" is a contradiction in terms.

This desire for public handholding, public displays of affection, well consider me not sympathetic considering Western women are absolutely ice cold about NOT giving the slightest feminine attention to any man deemed not attractive enough (which can be a very high bar).

The single first reverse culture shock I experience when returning from more traditional countries - and I think I am not alone - is the complete and absolute lack of flirtation and attention from random women. Don't get me wrong, of course there are women giving eye contact or flirting, but for most attractive women they look straight ahead or actively go out of their way not to show any interest. They are rationing feminine attention like its a perishable good.

It's all about unchecked narcissism, the complete failure to understand that YOU have a choice in what you give, not just what you get. These women truly don't understand or care that other people have inner lives with the same motivations that women do. All these articles always show a lack of understanding of the simple truth that give to get is the best way in life.

What kind of woman doesn't understand this? The kind of woman who truly thinks she is a princess who deserves a prince, for no other reason that she exists.

Post: #69

(06-16-2016 04:49 AM)XPQ22 Wrote:  It got to the point that if a girl was a "6" she'd get one date to fuck, or it was a next. I might give a "7" or above two, but that was it. Anyone trying to do anything else was a timewaster.

Interesting how this thread is about calling girls out for fucking dudes too quickly and being too easy, but you yourself buy into the notion that if a girl doesn't fuck you by date 2, she's nexted. In other words, if a woman is into you, she HAS to put out quick or you lose interest. But if she puts out quick she's in the ho category and there's no prospect for her anyway.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. In your case women you meet online are in a lose-lose situation when it comes to anything "serious" with you.

Sure the criteria might be different for 8+, but if you're meeting 6-7s, what do you expect?

Not trying to insult you or anything, just a thought I had.

Post: #70

I've been reading through the responses and letting this article marinate for the last day or so, it got me thinking about just how little most girls like this learn, how slowly they evolve in the modern dating world.

Be it ego-centric causes, or selfish ones, or indoctrination from like-minded spinster role models, they just don't seem to see the forest for the trees. They take this survey data about commitment preferences, and lay it out like it's applicable to the majority, when reality is actually minority.

By and large these articles focus on sex, orgasms, and gratification. But what is their end game offering? They are so singular in purpose, completely stunted in emotional growth, why would a desirable man want commitment if the next level of the offer is the same pussy already obtained early on?

With such a large portion of men being game-denialist, weak personas that get cast aside and remain sexless incels- who would gladly offer commitment for steady vag- this population doesn't count towards the focus of the article. It never does, they don't waste breath on the unwanted. She is talking about men who are going places in this world no matter what, men who can break down bitch shields, and cut to the core of the weak facade of pseudo-believer girls.

I regularly see guys crash-and-burn, they have lost or never had the ability to communicate effectively to turn a woman on in her clothes, they have lost before they even start. They can't even wingman a guy with game because they have no clue what's going on and constantly step on their own dick, get frustrated, start taking shots and party past the pussy.

Men who experience success want more of it, they don't just settle early. Risk takers be damned, there is a new girl to interview for the the other side of the bed tomorrow. And once most guys get through the doldrums and panic of their late 20's without marriage, only to find out that the the Life of Wooderson is a reality if you want it, their new calm nature opens the doors to offer something these girls don't see in most guys their age. This confidence is a powerful aphrodisiac, the personality you can offer is on a new level. Yet these girls double down by offering that same pussy trade-for-commitment even when you say no the first dozen times. In the end, you just rip your hook out of her mouth and throw her back in search of a real catch that isn't just a big splash.

We have been navigating the same waters they have, but they are learning nothing. Offer me progress, and we can talk about commitment, but the modern stagnation in the minds of the 20-something needs to change if you expect me to willingly expose and RISK my future to the ball and chain. Show me why you have earned a spot beside a man. They say half the battle of success is showing up, but the millennial age group of girls thinks that it's 100%, and they can't figure out why they can't have it all. I'd tell this girl to stop just standing there with your slow drip pussy hanging out and be better than other women if you want commitment. Offer something of value for Christ sake, something- anything- that would make someone want to be with you every day.

Post: #71

(06-16-2016 12:08 AM)Delta Wrote:  It's simple; if a woman wants commitment, she has to go for a guy on her own level, but most women lack the introspective ability to realize what their "level" is, or even acknowledge that such a concept exists.

I can't pull an acceptably attractive slut to save my life, but I get my share of slim/cute relationship-oriented girls who show interest. This concept holds for the guys I know as well; the ones who go for relationships tend to be with cute and likable girls, while the ones who brag about all the booty calls they have and the "freaky" stuff they do with them always fail to impress me when I finally see how unattractive their chicks are.

The moral of the story is that for a girl, being used as a sex doll is a symptom of batting out of her league. A typical man is actually quite eager to commit to a girl that has as much to offer as he does. The girl in question here is somewhat cute, which makes me confident that the guys she refers to are either ripped semi-famous athletes or outrageously charismatic players.

Genius. Being a slut allows women to bang dudes much higher up the 'leagues' than they are, but not get the relationship they want.

This is akin to dudes, where being a beta orbiter allows them to have 'relationships' with girls way higher up the ladder, but will never get them the sex they really want.

In essence, being a slut or beta orbiter is like queue jumping. It gets you ahead, everyone knows you did it, and no one respects you for it.

Post: #72

^Yes, damn that is a nice insight. Well put, both Delta and Dr. Howard.

Girls can get ONS from guys above their value. Guys can get orbiter-friendships from girls above their value.

The problem comes when people dont take a good honest look at their true value (or rough idea of it), and either seek a partner of equal value, or work on increasing their value so they can get the match they really want.

That's where all the rationalization and BS delusional entitlement begins.

Post: #73

^^Excellent additions to my observation.

If asked "what is the male equivalent of a slut," most people would answer something to the effect of a manwhore or a player, possibly followed by a diatribe about how unfair the double standard is. But the correct answer would be the guy who complains about how he always gets 'friend-zoned'.

Post: #74

That was me. If I found the girl attractive, I would catch some kind of one-itis, bad game would leak out, and I always got friend-zoned.

Post: #75

Attention Whoring. Why are we giving two fucks?