Post: #101

^ Relationships based on sex don't create a stable society with stable families, the most basic unit of society. That "doctor's" advice is great in our hedonistic times, but complete rubbish in traditional societies that were made up of people who shared a lot more commonalities than differences.

Post: #102

(03-21-2019 09:00 AM)TheBowery Wrote:  @girlpowersupply, isn’t beating herself up over the party-line transgression. After all, “Sex for pleasure is a form of self-care,” she says.

Wow if that isn't red pill nothing is. Soulmates be damned. Women are turned on by conflict that comes from their man having a totally different value system and being unwilling to change. The proverbial bad-boy or jerk.

Of course the net result is that they are "rewarding" men who harbor beliefs they abhor, and this will in turn encourage more and more men to adopt those belief systems. So it's basically negative social engineering, the opposite force of the Gillette ad.

Post: #103

It's funny that she doesn't consider that the reason it was good was DUE to the fact that he was not a fake, lying, smarmy, weakling --- like the feminine leftist males she claims to intellectually prefer.

Post: #104

(03-17-2019 09:24 PM)benopolis Wrote:  We all know that looks are just a small part of attraction, and yet dating apps are forcing any guys who choose to be involved to rely only on their looks.

This is a good thing if youre willing to go meet girls in day/night game. Less competition. Other guys are letting their skills erode. Real in person interactions are still much more impactful to her than whatever online chat she has going on

Dont waste your time on dating apps trying to figure out if that retarded 8 is really a 5 with good filter skills

Better to develop actual approach skills which will allow you to date up. Fuck tinder. And I'm saying this after living in Thailand which I certainly have it pretty good compared to most. The same shit still applies

Good advice for guys who aren’t killing it on tinder. I don’t hold it against guys who do well. I Imagine, though, that those guys may be awkward approachers IRL or may get better quality girls in real life if they actually tried.

Post: #105

(03-17-2019 09:24 PM)benopolis Wrote:  We all know that looks are just a small part of attraction, and yet dating apps are forcing any guys who choose to be involved to rely only on their looks.

This is a good thing if youre willing to go meet girls in day/night game. Less competition. Other guys are letting their skills erode. Real in person interactions are still much more impactful to her than whatever online chat she has going on

Dont waste your time on dating apps trying to figure out if that retarded 8 is really a 5 with good filter skills

Better to develop actual approach skills which will allow you to date up. Fuck tinder. And I'm saying this after living in Thailand which I certainly have it pretty good compared to most. The same shit still applies

Good advice for guys who aren’t killing it on tinder. I don’t hold it against guys who donwell. I Imagine, though, that those guys may be awkward approachers or may get better quality girls in real life if they actually tried.

Post: #106

(03-20-2019 07:51 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  ^ This is what I was about to say, that is, one of the things. In a nutshell, because of biology, as everything is in life.

First, as for.petes.sake reiterates from Delta, supply and demand, something everyone can understand. But look deeper, we're at a moment in history where supply is high because for the time being, our ancient biological realities are shocked and men haven't been killed by animals, wars, plagues, invading tribes, intra-tribal battles or strife, etc.

High numbers of males isn't suitable for our evolved sex roles: The Stronger Sex rightly identifies that males (in the short term) particularly on a dry spell will drop several SMV points for an easy lay. That confuses uncontrolled sluts to think they are worth something, until it happens several times to them, and then it's too late. Please notice that this is contingent on a society NOT controlling its members, particularly women sexually since they are the gatekeepers. Theoretically a controlled sexual atmosphere can have closer to 50-50 ratios of men to women, though less men is still better for both long term.

What's more, men, being principled and activated by achievement, don't need as much outside stresses or pressures to get better. Getting better is the competitive drive in them because of what naturally comes from that (money, power, sex). Whereas women, without pressures, show a race to the bottom without pressures much more easily and significantly than males. Thus, we go full circle as to why few men in supply will activate women to stay fit, offering femininity and caretaking, and thus become worthwhile partners.

Throw technology in, on top of a surplus of men, and you get an exacerbation of the problems = minimal selection to be any better, AND validation from male orbiters, since so many subpar men are still around they'll do anything to get a sniff. Voila, there you have the 21st century "West".

Love this forum so much even though the media likes to criticize the manosphere. Always amazed how knowledgeable everyone is. Anyway you are 100 percent correct and I would like to add on the evolution aspect of your point. The probability of having a son or daughter is not an even 50/50 split but in reality it more like 50.1 to 49.9 split. This is because the Y chromosome is lighter than the X chromosome and the male chromosome will reach the egg faster. From an evolution stand point this worked out because men were more likely to die (due to all the causes you pointed out) so we are biologically needed to produce more male heirs in order for the success of our species. But we now are in a time were people aren't dying so the ratio is being skewed.

Post: #107

(01-06-2019 07:03 AM)Nefarias Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 11:06 PM)PharaohRa Wrote:  1) Who the hell uses dating apps these days? You have to be a fool to do so because you are just validating 6s as 9s. Just go out and day and/or night game. Yeah, rejection sucks (as Roosh's book Game will note) and everyone knows the feeling of it but you miss 100% of the shots you do not take.

So you are suggesting leaving online game but also preaching "you miss 100% of the shots you do not take". Even if you got only 1 match per year it's still better than not participating at all.

This is faulty thinking.

Look up the term “opportunity cost”. Even though 1 match is greater than 0 matches, those countless hours spent swiping on bots, transvestites, catfish, hookers, and decade old photos of women could’ve been spent gaming and connecting with women in real life, reading, lifting, traveling, developing your business, hanging out with friends, etc.

Sitting in your room swiping right is a terrible allocation of time, not to mention unbelievably antisocial.

A 4/10 receives well over 1,000 swipes per month on Tinder. An 8/10 gets approached 0 times per month while she’s out of the house during the day. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out where the ROI is here.

Post: #108

(03-23-2019 01:48 PM)GoingHAM20 Wrote:  

(01-06-2019 07:03 AM)Nefarias Wrote:  

(01-05-2019 11:06 PM)PharaohRa Wrote:  1) Who the hell uses dating apps these days? You have to be a fool to do so because you are just validating 6s as 9s. Just go out and day and/or night game. Yeah, rejection sucks (as Roosh's book Game will note) and everyone knows the feeling of it but you miss 100% of the shots you do not take.

So you are suggesting leaving online game but also preaching "you miss 100% of the shots you do not take". Even if you got only 1 match per year it's still better than not participating at all.

This is faulty thinking.

Look up the term “opportunity cost”. Even though 1 match is greater than 0 matches, those countless hours spent swiping on bots, transvestites, catfish, hookers, and decade old photos of women could’ve been spent gaming and connecting with women in real life, reading, lifting, traveling, developing your business, hanging out with friends, etc.

Sitting in your room swiping right is a terrible allocation of time, not to mention unbelievably antisocial.

A 4/10 receives well over 1,000 swipes per month on Tinder. An 8/10 gets approached 0 times per month while she’s out of the house during the day. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out where the ROI is here.

You can autoswipe on google chrome (pc) with some extensions or any free autoclicker leaving the laptop unnatended. Then you start filtering from the matches you get.

Post: #109

I swipe while taking a shit, what’s the opportunity cost of that?

Post: #110

Also, the vast majority of hot girls are not on Tinder or do not take it seriously if they are.