Amarna Forum

Pages: 1 2

An often repeated and potential old-bald piece of advice. In light of obvious intelligence disparities between us, many simply suggest a nihilistic jaded sort of acceptance of women's dull and unintelligent nature. This is perhaps what could be called "misapplied truth"...for the average moron man, likely there's plenty of wisdom in this yet are there really plain average joes who are debating over the feasibility of le quirky intelligent gf? No I don't think they are because they probably are all most attracted to the same handful of very photogenic and sexy but generic and stupid women. At least that's been the obvservation for most of M. Chat's life.

I don't particular enjoy owning crap stuff either. I tend to like working with the same stuff consistently and seeing the improvements over time. And I have my own particular sort of tastes. Anybody barring me from enjoying girls and women this way thus is obviously an enemy in the same way someone barring me from enjoying my stuff or property is. I wouldn't get a stupid dog or cat I thought was stupid. No, the prospect of being with someone for my entire life means I have to plan to choose someone who I don't want to murder and dump in the desert several years after the intense animalistic lust stuff has become less novel. Better yet I should be perfectly allowed to get someone I like a lot and am proud to have. And if I look at my preferred company the most obviously selected-for trait is intelligence. I don't like talking to stupid people because I can't talk to them about anything that is cool or that matters. So I am not inviting a person who makes me never want to speak to sleep in my bed every single night. Unfortunately, a lot of men get weird about being virgins and seem to give in and end up this way. It's clearly fucking awful.

Indeed the notion of a highly intelligent person marrying dumb seems like it has motivational root in trying to make up for gynocentric scale tipping. A dumb enough girl could maybe be reasonably pretty to you and the intelligence advantage will make her easier for you to control, or you see yourself having to compromise intelligence with looks perhaps. If you want to get laid and thats it then do whatever you want. Otherwise discard this particular frame since you are thinking from the start that you have to cope with not owning the girl. If you don't own her it's not a marriage and if its not feasibly heading towards true ownership you need to understand how you are actually compromising. Maybe it's worth it I don't know. But no thought beneficial to yourself is ever starting with compromising with ZOG. You have to believe you are fighting ZOG and you will win. And its worth noting MGTOW has been the only truly vindicated of the old manosphere factions. Many PUAs are hitting dead ends. Men's Rights Activists have been swept aside due to conceptually cucked framing. Whereas average men are just becoming MGTOW by default at increasing rates. Non-ownership is not sustainable, so neither is marrying dumb obviously. Gynocracy dies or we all die. And marrying off intelligent guys to dumb cunts will just dilute the good genes and ruin everything.

If you are going to marry a dumb girl, then make sure she is white, ideally a similar type of white as you. It’s not optimal but your kids will at least be sentient and may high roll an unusually high IQ or other good talents out of the recessive genes. When you race mix you doom your bloodline to be weak and stupid. The proportion (40-75%?) of young white guys in the south who get married to Mexicans (or Asians) because they cannot handle white women is disturbing.

"Women play their game, and there is no cause to reproach them for it. The reproach should be aimed at men, for playing theirs badly."

Translation: Have you ever done 'all the right things' only to be burned in the end? You can't make sense of it... yeah, you can't make sense of it because there's no sense to be made. Mission failed, we'll get 'em next time. Again and again and again and again, you prostrate before these false idols and offer them praise. And they gladly accept it, but increasingly withhold from you any reward for it. Something's not right here.

(03-02-2024, 03:32 AM)a system is failing Wrote: [ -> ]Whereas average men are just becoming MGTOW by default at increasing rates. Non-ownership is not sustainable, so neither is marrying dumb obviously. Gynocracy dies or we all die. And marrying off intelligent guys to dumb cunts will just dilute the good genes and ruin everything.

Yes this is true. Painfully true, really. But my question to you in the shoutbox regarding how one solves this problem—the framing of which you called a trap—still goes unanswered. We have to reconcile the following: Man wants "intelligent gf" --> as things currently stand, the more intelligent she is, the more incompatible the whole thing is with "owning the girl" from the start... And remember, "If you don't own her it's not a marriage and if it's not feasibly heading towards true ownership you need to understand how you are actually compromising."

I'm not currently convinced that you or I will ever live to see the application of an open-ended "Year 0" conceptual framework, so I look at that as more of a fantasy at best. Yet, I agree with you in that I don't believe that "marrying dumb" is the right way to go. I don't believe that's the right way to go at all, actually...

(10-28-2023, 05:54 PM)august Wrote: [ -> ]It isn't as if what I am proposing is some new and unheard of idea. Very much to the contrary, women going to school and working, en masse, generally IS a completely new and unheard of idea. Surely we can't say that men who went to university in past eras weren't fathering children. Keep in mind as well that this proposal will, in theory, create a somewhat new caste system. The males who attend university don't necessarily have to date and marry the females from the respective sister universities, though they may - and all things considered, they may end up finding that doing so is preferable. It would be crazy to think that the female students at Barnard and male students at Columbia don't already date each other. Altering the dating pool by removing female students from Columbia would create even more incentive for the male students to date Barnard females, and vice versa.

Also important to take into consideration is that the female students at the sister schools will, without question, be gagging for the male students at the universities because they will no longer have as much of a choice not to pair with them (perhaps you know Ivy League or Oxbridge females in your personal life; if you do, you are well aware that it is virtually unheard of for them to engage in the practice of hypogamy). What's more, all of the non-academic but still eugenic female specimens will also desire the male university students because they too, just like the academic females, have a lust and attraction to status. It goes without saying that I will have singlehandedly provided a proven solution to the issue that captivates so much of this forum's attention.

BillyONare Wrote:The proportion (40-75%?) of young white guys in the south who get married to Mexicans (or Asians) because they cannot handle white women is disturbing.

Yes this seems to be another thing that follows the same thread of logic. Marry down far enough and hopefully the imbalance will make up for illegality of your own marriage. This stuff obviously doesn't work, and it's repulsive and depressing to see IRL. My exact reaction to seeing the YouTuber Post10's fat brown GF. That sticks with me so much because this is a guy who is physically active, has millions of subscribers and views, is very productive and has his shit together at a young age. And the reward for all that is a fat and ugly spic girl? That's the reward for all that hard work and luck? Where is his fit yuppie outdoors girl gf? That's obviously the APPROPRIATE match. I don't believe in his entire follower base there aren't a few pretty young white girls like this who would be with him, but obviously he is a very conscientious person and probably has been convinced accessing women in this way is wrong and evil. Especially if they are on the younger side. That's the whole "ownership" thing. The argument seems to be that conscientious, provider type guys like this have to marry fat and gross and clean up the bad life choices of sub-par women, with being a complete sociopath and doing the douchebag gigolo act being the only vaguely permissible way to obtain women that you actually think are hot. It's beyond tiresome.

Literally what the fuck are any of you guys talking about. What???

If you want to get a better grasp on what women are looking for, you need to look at their porn. Look over fanfiction websites and smut novels. They love the idea of being possessed by a strong, dominant, possessive man, but the reality of that is often to scary to have in anything else but written smut. She can read and fantasize all she wants, but she can put the book down at the end of the night. There are these strings of traits and archetypes and whatnot that women seem to look for, simply on a biological basis. My troon friends talk about how crazy reading smut is once you get on hormones. Women biologically crave the feeling of being at once safe and possessed.

There is a mix of “intuitively knowing what I want” (reading enough smut to figure it out) and being a genuinely kind dude that women seek. If its truly a performance to you, if you truly have to fake the behavior necessary to attract a mate, do you really want it? Do you really want to lie to yourself and to your partner? You might just be happier alone.

What you want in a woman is someone that you know you can do this thing with for the rest of your life. Ideally, thats someone who you like to spend time with, wants kids, is attractive to you, and cleans and cooks sometimes. Thats all you can really ask for.

You guys are getting lost in the specifics of matches in a way thats comical to me. They don’t fucking exist. You can meet *the girl ever*. The one who makes you write love poems and cry yourself to sleep at night. The one who likes all the same anime you do. And the chances that you actually feel connection with her are nil, at the end of the day. She could be the same thing to a dozen different guys. Your idea of a “sporty fit qt gf” is a shallow, deliberately curated idea of a human being that doesnt exist.

You will never find your other half, it doesn’t exist. You make room in your life and in your self, you find a teammate, and you have faith everything will work out. If you keep looking for your ideal match, you will end up alone. Forever.

Also, a few other things. More than half of mothers in the U.S. are single, and there is a growing, real sentiment among women that they miss being chased. The bluehairs won for a while with the predominant narrative being that women are strong and independent and being hit on in public is the worst thing ever, until women *became* independent and they *stopped getting hit on*. Now moms are alone and the women miss feeling wanted. Its fucking funny to me. But more importantly it shows to me that the men that would be there for these women in the long term are not the ones knocking them up. There is a growing need of sane guys who could be good dads to step up and stick with a girl.

I’m intoxicated and starving and probably not in the best condition to think coherently — apologies if this doesn't make a lick of goddamn sense.

Guest Wrote:Literally what the fuck are any of you guys talking about. What???

If you want to get a better grasp on what women are looking for, you need to look at their porn. Look over fanfiction websites and smut novels. They love the idea of being possessed by a strong, dominant, possessive man, but the reality of that is often to scary to have in anything else but written smut. She can read and fantasize all she wants, but she can put the book down at the end of the night. There are these strings of traits and archetypes and whatnot that women seem to look for, simply on a biological basis. My troon friends talk about how crazy reading smut is once you get on hormones. (ed: !?) Women biologically crave the feeling of being at once safe and possessed.

Does Porn for Men reflect what men are looking for? One of the worst posts on this site for a multitude of reasons.

Quote:After typing this out I realized it's retarded, but I still want validation so I'm going to post it anyway. If I add a disclaimer feigning self-awareness and referencing substance abuse, I will be perceived as an earnest but quirky "character" who is not posting green nigger-tier word salad for attention, and through this brilliant subterfuge still receive the recognition I desire (ed: but do not deserve) as an intelligent and insightful contributor.

Chuck Wendig Wrote:There is a mix of “intuitively knowing what I want” (reading enough smut to figure it out[b][/b]) and being a genuinely kind dude that women seek. If its truly a performance to you, if you truly have to fake the behavior necessary to attract a mate, do you really want it? Do you really want to lie to yourself and to your partner? You might just be happier alone.

Boilt(sic)Owl Wrote:Also, a few other things. More than half of mothers in the U.S. are single, and there is a growing, real sentiment among women that they miss being chased. The bluehairs won for a while with the predominant narrative being that women are strong and independent and being hit on in public is the worst thing ever, until women *became* independent and they *stopped getting hit on*. Now moms are alone and the women miss feeling wanted. Its fucking funny to me. But more importantly it shows to me that the men that would be there for these women in the long term are not the ones knocking them up. There is a growing need of sane guys who could be good dads to step up and stick with a girl.

A woman Wrote:There is a growing need of sane guys who could be good dads to step up and stick with a girl.

[Image: Im-not-the-step-father-im-the-father-tha...00x600.jpg]

I think I've changed my mind -- need to do away with guests.

I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately. It really is such a terrible situation we're in that virtually every girl who is even moderately intelligent is sent off to college and ruined. I've known so many sweet, pretty girls who have come out the other end as tattooed, pot-smoking, overweight alcoholics. I spent a couple days last week feeling totally despondent on account of a girl I was friends with in high school who's since become a they/them lesbian. So I think that august is correct to identify college as an important part of this issue. However, I'm not so sure that re-segregating higher education alone would do the trick. What proportion of the problem is whoredom and what proportion is the set of other terrible behaviors they acquire from hanging around with a bunch of bad influences for four years? Are the girls at Barnard today really much better off than the girls at Columbia? It seems to me that re-segregation would have to be accompanied with pretty strict behavioral codes and the revival of some of the old finishing school ethos. Restricting off-campus living (other than one's parents' house) seems like a good idea as well.

Guest Wrote:If you want to get a better grasp on what women are looking for, you need to look at their porn. Look over fanfiction websites and smut novels. They love the idea of being possessed by a strong, dominant, possessive man, but the reality of that is often to scary to have in anything else but written smut.

The first thing here is that you haven't understood the thread correctly. This is not a thread about brainstorming women's desires or figuring out what they want. It'a about what I WANT and what I imagine guys like me want and what they should be willing to assert and stick up for. In this case, sticking up for your innate desire to have a WORTHY woman and not just a walking pussy that you can tolerate and get sex out of without too much hassle.

The second thing is, no, actually I don't think creating fantasy worlds in which people are free to indulge tells you anything about what they really want, and esprcially doesn't tell you anything about what they would truly be content with. The hurp gup dominant strong man thing is something you see even more extreme in male porn, because it's male sexuality. Why does porn have such a fixation on big dicks? Because it's male fantasy to fuck tons of girls and make them moan and come on your giant penis. Does that mean men would be happier and have more content lives if you waved a wand gave them 11 inch pornstar dicks? No, it wouldn't and just like over-indulging women there would actually be some very serious and dire consequences to merging the retarded animal lust fantasy with reality. Men don't actually care about having big dicks on deeper metaphysical / philosophical level, it's just something you get into when the lust is kicking in.

Guest Wrote:She can read and fantasize all she wants, but she can put the book down at the end of the night. There are these strings of traits and archetypes and whatnot that women seem to look for, simply on a biological basis. My troon friends talk about how crazy reading smut is once you get on hormones.

I have never read smut, but I did watch and enjoy a teen drama with maybe a 95% female audience with lots of sex stuff in it. I don't think it's very illustrative, as I said. A very common scenario in this show was the guy screwing up or hurting the feelings of the girl and having to have a teary-eyed "I'm sorry, I just didn't realize I love you" type moment. Again, usually the male in these scenes would be actually crying. I think maybe you could have some mild success using this as manipulation tactic if a woman watches these shows constantly and you pantomime it, but in truth I don't think this is a very meaningful or necessary thing for girls in a relationship, it's put there because the show knows the target audience and they know that most women watching are seeking wish fulfilment. The only thing that you can learn from it is women are predisposed to wanting to be told they were right about everything and nothing is their fault, which hoprfully isn't a huge revelation for any of us by now.

Guest Wrote:There is a mix of “intuitively knowing what I want” (reading enough smut to figure it out) and being a genuinely kind dude that women seek. If its truly a performance to you, if you truly have to fake the behavior necessary to attract a mate, do you really want it? Do you really want to lie to yourself and to your partner? You might just be happier alone.

If you actually gave me the charity to try and understand my post you would realize I already touched on this.

Guest Wrote:What you want in a woman is someone that you know you can do this thing with for the rest of your life. Ideally, thats someone who you like to spend time with, wants kids, is attractive to you, and cleans and cooks sometimes. Thats all you can really ask for.

I disagree. I think I can ask for a lot more than that. I think I can ask to have a girl I actually love and if the unanimous response from normgroid sadist freaks is "LMAO nigga you dont deserve that" then I can consider them wrong and a bunch of nasty shitheads who are enemies of true love for saying that. Are you God or something? What gives you the power or clairvoyance to tell me exactly what kind of woman I am allowed to get and what is asking too much? I am not asking women to fly and dispense liquid gold from their nipples. Heterosexual love is a very basic thing and the mass disillusionment with does not have to be passively accepted.

Guest Wrote:You guys are getting lost in the specifics of matches in a way thats comical to me. They don’t fucking exist. You can meet *the girl ever*. The one who makes you write love poems and cry yourself to sleep at night. The one who likes all the same anime you do. And the chances that you actually feel connection with her are nil, at the end of the day. She could be the same thing to a dozen different guys. Your idea of a “sporty fit qt gf” is a shallow, deliberately curated idea of a human being that doesnt exist.

I don't know what the fuck argument you are addressing here. Again, I have sufficiently de-cucked my brain to understand my wants are not exceptional. It's not weird, for example, for a guy who is into music to want his girlfriend to be impressed by that and be able to share it with her and enjoy it together. But all the faggots like you abusing strangers online to mentally manipulate them WILL tell me this is a ludicrous and impossible demand (even though, again, it's fucking not. Women insulting you and degrading you over the tiniest things is what's insane and abnormal, not wanting to experience the most basic types of romantic connection with the opposite sex.)

Guest Wrote:You will never find your other half, it doesn’t exist. You make room in your life and in your self, you find a teammate, and you have faith everything will work out. If you keep looking for your ideal match, you will end up alone. Forever.

I don't know about half, but God literally made woman from man's rib, so you're wrong again. The entire reason women exist is to be a complimentary presence to men. This is LITERALLY what they are for. This is why I hate the framing of guys like you so much. You obviously haven't thought it through enough to realize this but men in your world have a similar role to male anglerfish. That is in your mind, the woman has no context to us and is a fully detached, independnent will that simply exists and can only be forced into arrangements by men, but has no natural affinity for them. We are nothing more than sperm donors for them at best. Functionally speaking men are mortal and women are gods to you. This sad and tired out frame has been solely responsible for all of the rotten, anti-romantic sexual discourse that has dominated literally everywhere outside of M. Chat's mind and posts.

Guest Wrote:Also, a few other things. More than half of mothers in the U.S. are single, and there is a growing, real sentiment among women that they miss being chased. The bluehairs won for a while with the predominant narrative being that women are strong and independent and being hit on in public is the worst thing ever, until women *became* independent and they *stopped getting hit on*. Now moms are alone and the women miss feeling wanted. Its fucking funny to me. But more importantly it shows to me that the men that would be there for these women in the long term are not the ones knocking them up. There is a growing need of sane guys who could be good dads to step up and stick with a girl.

And this brings a nice segue into the reason I say this stuff and make threads like this. The bulk of your argument is "lol, you think can have a girl that thinks like you and admires you and all the things you do and actually loves you for yourself? Lmfao fat chance neckbeard but here's some single mothers you can clean up after."

I'm not even going to bother denying or playing defense againdt le lowstatusdysgenics argument. If YOU are a guy and you believe this, you're fucking yourself over more than anybody else. There is no reason ever to think that the dynamic is tilted squarely in women's favor and we have to make do with whatever they decide to give us (in all cases what they give us is just a mess to clean up). Men obviously can survive and continue society much easier without women than they could without us. The only way they can subvert this ancient and inalieable superiority is the Longhouse, the psyop to teach men exactly the kind of desperation you are advocating for now in hopes they will sabotage the men around them and male superiority will be used only to force women's whims.

My hairline receded by about 2 degrees just by reading this guest post.

I wanted to point out one thing in his post that I think nobody else has: the phrasing of "you find a teammate".
This is the exact same cuckoldry/faggotry that causes people to say "my partner" when referring to their harridan/fag boyfriend. A teammate? No, I am not putting together a team, my woman and I are not on equal footing and never will be.

Muskox Wrote:I spent a couple days last week feeling totally despondent on account of a girl I was friends with in high school who's since become a they/them lesbian.

Guest Wrote:If you want to get a better grasp on what women are looking for, you need to look at their porn.

I might have to sign up and stop being a guest after reading this horrible, horrible post.

(03-03-2024, 12:12 AM)Muskox Wrote: [ -> ]So I think that august is correct to identify college as an important part of this issue. However, I'm not so sure that re-segregating higher education alone would do the trick. What proportion of the problem is whoredom and what proportion is the set of other terrible behaviors they acquire from hanging around with a bunch of bad influences for four years? Are the girls at Barnard today really much better off than the girls at Columbia? It seems to me that re-segregation would have to be accompanied with pretty strict behavioral codes and the revival of some of the old finishing school ethos. Restricting off-campus living (other than one's parents' house) seems like a good idea as well.

My Eugenics thread post flushes it out in much more detail and starts from the premise that, ideally maybe 70 or so percent of unis probably shouldn't even exist. I think it captures these other issues because segregation plus pure meritocracy (affirmative action completely outlawed, as in if you try to get around it, we are going to do things to you that have never been done before) ensures that people aren't ending up where they don't belong. Girls at Barnard are functionally no different than girls at Columbia today, and probably swim in the same dating pool. But female pairing choices aren't of concern because they play on tutorial mode anyway; it's the problem of male pairing choices that needs to be rectified. It was summarised in the shoutbox earlier just fine:

Quote:Chud: now that i think about it; *anything* that renders upper-stratum women unmarriageable will beget a recursive cascade of men marrying down. the fish rots from the head

Unformed Golem: correct, it also causes fertility collapse because women only reproduce with men who are higher-status than them
Unformed Golem: feminism is just the raising of womens' status at the expense of men.
Unformed Golem: The way civilized societies are supposed to work is that within a given social class, men are higher status than women

Male-only academic institutions, paired with complementary female-only sister schools, is first and foremost for the benefit of men. No matter what anyone tells you, there is no way that men derive a net-positive benefit from mixed social environments. On the other hand, women surely do, because as Golem says, it is "just the raising of womens' status at the expense of men."

From The Gay Question by a mysterious "Citizen of Geneva":

Quote:Most men are naturally homo-social, meaning they prefer to deal with other men. A society can encourage this by providing all-male spaces as the default condition while males grow up, or make this impossible—forcing boys into mixed-sex environments all the time—, or anything in between.
[...]
Men deprived of natural homosocial environments reacted by founding and joining fraternal and youth organizations in record numbers. Between 1914 and 1945, as education was being more and more feminized, there was also a great surge of military and paramilitary activity, which further contained the rise of FHS ["forced heterosociality"]. It was only in the aftermath of WWII that all these social defenses were overrun: in the 1960s in particular, physical sex segregation in colleges was abolished, and almost all remaining institutions (notably Catholic ones) became co-ed; then the “bowling alone” effect of ethnic diversity led to the decline of fraternal societies. FHS maxed out finally with the recent ideological campaign to stuff females in every single remaining male space (military, police, Boy Scouts, college fraternities, even men’s college sports).

Was this inevitable in light of—some may not like this, so apologies but I have to say it—runaway Protestant liberality and its notions on equality? It has to shoulder some (or a lot) of the blame. But here's the important thing: re-segregating schools, though just one piece of the puzzle, is crucial. It's crucial because women only go to Columbia because they derive status from doing so. And who doesn't benefit from this? Well, you already know the answer. But in truth, women themselves don't actually benefit from this either, because they don't marry down! If you segregate Columbia and Barnard by either directly or indirectly making the former all male, any given Barnard female that pairs with a Columbia male would be marrying up, and that Columbia male would be getting an appropriate match. Maximising good pairing. Selective Breeding. Eugenic. Common Sense Conservatism. System would be able to get his intelligent wife. No more marrying dumb. We win.

Guest Wrote:Literally what the fuck are any of you guys talking about. What???

If you want to get a better grasp on what women are looking for, you need to look at their porn. Look over fanfiction websites and smut novels. They love the idea of being possessed by a strong, dominant, possessive man, but the reality of that is often to scary to have in anything else but written smut. She can read and fantasize all she wants, but she can put the book down at the end of the night. There are these strings of traits and archetypes and whatnot that women seem to look for, simply on a biological basis. My troon friends talk about how crazy reading smut is once you get on hormones. Women biologically crave the feeling of being at once safe and possessed.

There is a mix of “intuitively knowing what I want” (reading enough smut to figure it out) and being a genuinely kind dude that women seek. If its truly a performance to you, if you truly have to fake the behavior necessary to attract a mate, do you really want it? Do you really want to lie to yourself and to your partner? You might just be happier alone.

What you want in a woman is someone that you know you can do this thing with for the rest of your life. Ideally, thats someone who you like to spend time with, wants kids, is attractive to you, and cleans and cooks sometimes. Thats all you can really ask for.

You guys are getting lost in the specifics of matches in a way thats comical to me. They don’t fucking exist. You can meet *the girl ever*. The one who makes you write love poems and cry yourself to sleep at night. The one who likes all the same anime you do. And the chances that you actually feel connection with her are nil, at the end of the day. She could be the same thing to a dozen different guys. Your idea of a “sporty fit qt gf” is a shallow, deliberately curated idea of a human being that doesnt exist.

You will never find your other half, it doesn’t exist. You make room in your life and in your self, you find a teammate, and you have faith everything will work out. If you keep looking for your ideal match, you will end up alone. Forever.

Also, a few other things. More than half of mothers in the U.S. are single, and there is a growing, real sentiment among women that they miss being chased. The bluehairs won for a while with the predominant narrative being that women are strong and independent and being hit on in public is the worst thing ever, until women *became* independent and they *stopped getting hit on*. Now moms are alone and the women miss feeling wanted. Its fucking funny to me. But more importantly it shows to me that the men that would be there for these women in the long term are not the ones knocking them up. There is a growing need of sane guys who could be good dads to step up and stick with a girl.

I’m intoxicated and starving and probably not in the best condition to think coherently — apologies if this doesn't make a lick of goddamn sense.

Stupid nigger faggot queer fuck you and your tranny moralist friends die die die die die

"Protestant liberality" has nothing to do with the state claiming collective ownership of women. It's the project of a relatively small cabal of individuals enforcing a rather limited number of basic policies. You don't actually need to "re-segregate" schooling for instance -- it would be enough even for all-male colleges to be permitted (because these would outcompete "coed" institutions). Likewise with marriage and patriarchy: you don't need to abolish the entire history of your perfectly functional society that just suddenly stopped working a few decades ago (years in some cases!), you just need to make the state take its boot off of your neck.

“Protestant liberality” has a lot to do with conceptions of egalitarianism that gave rise to all of this. It’s not everything, but it’s definitely not nothing.

Guest Wrote:Literally what the fuck are any of you guys talking about. What???

If you want to get a better grasp on what women are looking for, you need to look at their porn. Look over fanfiction websites and smut novels. They love the idea of being possessed by a strong, dominant, possessive man, but the reality of that is often to scary to have in anything else but written smut. She can read and fantasize all she wants, but she can put the book down at the end of the night. There are these strings of traits and archetypes and whatnot that women seem to look for, simply on a biological basis. My troon friends talk about how crazy reading smut is once you get on hormones. Women biologically crave the feeling of being at once safe and possessed.

There is a mix of “intuitively knowing what I want” (reading enough smut to figure it out) and being a genuinely kind dude that women seek. If its truly a performance to you, if you truly have to fake the behavior necessary to attract a mate, do you really want it? Do you really want to lie to yourself and to your partner? You might just be happier alone.

What you want in a woman is someone that you know you can do this thing with for the rest of your life. Ideally, thats someone who you like to spend time with, wants kids, is attractive to you, and cleans and cooks sometimes. Thats all you can really ask for.

You guys are getting lost in the specifics of matches in a way thats comical to me. They don’t fucking exist. You can meet *the girl ever*. The one who makes you write love poems and cry yourself to sleep at night. The one who likes all the same anime you do. And the chances that you actually feel connection with her are nil, at the end of the day. She could be the same thing to a dozen different guys. Your idea of a “sporty fit qt gf” is a shallow, deliberately curated idea of a human being that doesnt exist.

You will never find your other half, it doesn’t exist. You make room in your life and in your self, you find a teammate, and you have faith everything will work out. If you keep looking for your ideal match, you will end up alone. Forever.

Also, a few other things. More than half of mothers in the U.S. are single, and there is a growing, real sentiment among women that they miss being chased. The bluehairs won for a while with the predominant narrative being that women are strong and independent and being hit on in public is the worst thing ever, until women *became* independent and they *stopped getting hit on*. Now moms are alone and the women miss feeling wanted. Its fucking funny to me. But more importantly it shows to me that the men that would be there for these women in the long term are not the ones knocking them up. There is a growing need of sane guys who could be good dads to step up and stick with a girl.

I’m intoxicated and starving and probably not in the best condition to think coherently — apologies if this doesn't make a lick of goddamn sense.

None of this is worth addressing, but the hilarity of qualifying your own absolutely horrific post with what amounts to "this is some nonsensical shit, sorry" might be worth mentioning.

Pages: 1 2

a system is failing

BillyONare

august

a system is failing

Guest

capgras

capgras

capgras

august

Unformed Golem

Muskox

a system is failing

ourokouros

Virtue

Guest

august

Guest

Unformed Golem

august

Guest