Whenever I am out cycling, I see that almost 8 out of 10 females, irrespective of age who are “exercising” in yoga pants simply don’t have a body worth showing off.
These dillusional bitches think that they have such amazing physique/legs that it simply needs to be “displayed” for our viewing pleasure.
The 2 good ones have narcissism written in bold on their face.
There is a time and place for EVERY clothing style…..but who is to drill this into their pea sized brain?
It just seems shameless….. marketing their wares to random strangers on the street.

I know that you don’t get to 7 billion people without people being obsessed with sex. That’s evolution, pal. Not “culture” or whatever else you want to blame your shortcomings on.

Ha ha….I’m not your pal dipshit….

Still avoiding the substance, like a girl. Not surprising because men act like women when they experience cognitive dissonance. You’re a good case study.

Case study? You think you’re an academic? Even more laughable.

That cat is full of shit, trying to sound bigger than he is. First thing he does is insult all of the commenters here

Thanks for the heads up…..

Evolution doesn’t necessarily take hundreds of thousands of years. If some virus spread that didn’t affect a certain race and it wipes the other races out in a month..boom …the next step of evolution.

J- You don’t understand that people are constantly battling to fulfill deprivations of various kinds their entire lives, that you’re always unsatisfied and looking to fix things. You probably live a decent life and yet look at you: on here complaining, unsatisfied, trying to fix society, trying to “rise above” lol. Story of evolution. Of course, to admit this would be too painful, as you need to convince yourself things will get better one day.

Typical soyboy reasoning, gasp.

You reek of projection.

Yes he does. I’ve never heard a man who actually gets pussy ever brag about it. Just like pretty women, they never have to say it.

He’s full of shit and so is Rooshv and every other incel on these sites.

Btw Roosh banned me for telling him he doesn’t get any sex. The truth stings like a bitch.

Your sarcasm is true, its not a good model to emulate on a national scale. The christian model of one man one woman is great and everything that came with it made western success among other things.

On an individual level thou this is fucking epic if one can pull it off in current world.

No, the only true way we can get more red pill is to breed more red pill. The opposite is how we got into this crazy situation in the first place.

There is no red pill beyond the understanding that everything is futile and all life is is the fulfilling of deprivations over and over until you die.

MGTOW

MGTOW

You’re really all sunshine and lollipops aren’t you?

I thought people came here for the truth. Nah, you all just want to feel better about yourselves

It was a joke sweetheart. There is no joy to your life. You are purely mechanistic in thought.

We all have creative energy. When we keep wasting it, after a while our soul starts calling for creating something more significant.

“you’re a very wise man, roosh”

I’m definitely one of those guys. Reading your work finally helped me make sense of the dating market. Most of all, your article on things you “require in the future mother of my child” was a major influence on my deciding to get married and have kids. My wife was a little older than 25 when I met her (but still over 12 years younger than me) and her skin tone isn’t that close to mine, something I don’t care about, but other than that she matches up perfectly.

http://www.rooshv.com/7-things-i-require-in-the-future-mother-of-my-child

Thank you for your input.

Seriously, please tell us how well your arranged marriage is working, as well as the number of offspring you have sired as a result. (White) family formation is key to the survival of Western Civilization.

Clearly, you are practicing what you are preaching, right?

Hes prob hypothesizing about the past. Not necessarily claiming it would work in today’s sesspool.

r/k selection is an observable fact in biology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

Applying this biological reality to human political groups is an induction that seems to have some useful predictive power.

No, it is pseudoscience. Anonymous Conservative peddles this claptrap. A classic takedown from a while ago…

It is obvious why the author is ‘Anonymous’, this is a pure and simple restatement of Social Darwinism. Psychology is a science; this is anti science propaganda written solely to support the author’s political agenda. The author’s lack of understanding of the basic principles of behavioral and brain sciences, and inability to think outside the box of his/her obvious biases, is apparent within the first few pages. Although the author lists many references, the titles appear to have been selected purely to provide an air of legitimacy, not based on an understanding (at any level) of their content. I am sure this must be a favorite of Fox “News” fans as it is at much the same level. As someone who has taught Evolutionary Psychology, and considers this an area of expertise, I shudder at the impression this creates. I am unsure what to do with this ‘book’ now that I have it since it is too insubstantial to function effectively as a paperweight.

A footnote: The simplest way to debunk the notion that Anonymous is presenting a scientifically valid evolutionary theory, without using too much science, is to examine chimpanzees, our closest living relative. Both species of chimpanzee (the common chimp and the Bonobo) carry about 99% of the same genes we do, and both (based on number of offspring and investment in them) must be classified as K selected. Common chimps are often violent and maintain a strict dominance hierarchy, even to the extent of warring with (and even killing) their neighbors; whereas the Bonobo is peace loving and promiscuous, generally settling disagreements by having sex. The authors total lack of understanding of basic differences between r and K selected species is apparent in his designation of K selected species as predators and r selected species as prey. The concepts of r and K selection are based on differences in parental investment and are applied at a species or population level; r selected species tend to be short lived and produce large batches of offspring all at once, K selected species tend to be longer lived and produce smaller numbers of offspring over a longer period of time. The author wants instead to apply r and K designations to different individuals within the same populations of the same species, and often appears to conflate numbers of offspring produced by members of a species with the total number of members of a species observed (more = prey), although this appears to be a deliberate distortion it is possible that Anonymous is simply ignorant of the established use of r and K selection. So many species violate Anonymous’ approach to classification,however, that it is difficult to understand how the author could have come to this conclusion.. Applying this principle would mean that elephants, giraffes, gorillas, many antelopes and other herbivores … etc etc etc which are K selected should be classified as predators. The author’s total lack of understanding of evolution is apparent in their use of the term de-evolution … there is no such thing, Evolution occurs when some genes become more prevalent because animals with those genes survive and reproduce better than others … it is a response to the environment organisms are exposed to, Whales lost their legs and gained flippers because it was advantageous for them to do so … if the oceans began to dry up legs could be selected for again! This is NOT de-evolution … simply an evolutionary response to a changing environment. The term de-evolution assumes there is a hierarchy of evolution with some species being ‘more evolved’ than others, and assumes that more complex is some how better. This is absurd. Sharks are more ‘primitive’ in their design than whales because their design was successful, once it evolved it did not require change. Are there any terms in the title I missed? … this is not a book about science. Science uses rules for collecting and presenting data to ensure that the information presented is valid. When you redefine the terms being used (e.g. r and K selection, evolution, etc) to fit your agenda you can no longer claim to be presenting science. ONE final comment. The author appears to be fond of attacking negative reviews by stating the reviewers are not using science …. but does not ONCE support ANY specific statement in their own book by directing the reader to a specific scientific reference that could be used to check the accuracy of the absurd conjectures presented. The author instead uses smoke and mirrors by listing a number of apparently relevant references to mask their ignorance (or deliberate misrepresentation) of the content of these references.

No, K-R selection theory is pseudoscience. Anonymous Conservative peddles this claptrap. An epic takedown some time ago…

It is obvious why the author is ‘Anonymous’, this is a pure and simple restatement of Social Darwinism. Psychology is a science; this is anti science propaganda written solely to support the author’s political agenda. The author’s lack of understanding of the basic principles of behavioral and brain sciences, and inability to think outside the box of his/her obvious biases, is apparent within the first few pages. Although the author lists many references, the titles appear to have been selected purely to provide an air of legitimacy, not based on an understanding (at any level) of their content. I am sure this must be a favorite of Fox “News” fans as it is at much the same level. As someone who has taught Evolutionary Psychology, and considers this an area of expertise, I shudder at the impression this creates. I am unsure what to do with this ‘book’ now that I have it since it is too insubstantial to function effectively as a paperweight.

A footnote: The simplest way to debunk the notion that Anonymous is presenting a scientifically valid evolutionary theory, without using too much science, is to examine chimpanzees, our closest living relative. Both species of chimpanzee (the common chimp and the Bonobo) carry about 99% of the same genes we do, and both (based on number of offspring and investment in them) must be classified as K selected. Common chimps are often violent and maintain a strict dominance hierarchy, even to the extent of warring with (and even killing) their neighbors; whereas the Bonobo is peace loving and promiscuous, generally settling disagreements by having sex. The authors total lack of understanding of basic differences between r and K selected species is apparent in his designation of K selected species as predators and r selected species as prey. The concepts of r and K selection are based on differences in parental investment and are applied at a species or population level; r selected species tend to be short lived and produce large batches of offspring all at once, K selected species tend to be longer lived and produce smaller numbers of offspring over a longer period of time. The author wants instead to apply r and K designations to different individuals within the same populations of the same species, and often appears to conflate numbers of offspring produced by members of a species with the total number of members of a species observed (more = prey), although this appears to be a deliberate distortion it is possible that Anonymous is simply ignorant of the established use of r and K selection. So many species violate Anonymous’ approach to classification,however, that it is difficult to understand how the author could have come to this conclusion.. Applying this principle would mean that elephants, giraffes, gorillas, many antelopes and other herbivores … etc etc etc which are K selected should be classified as predators. The author’s total lack of understanding of evolution is apparent in their use of the term de-evolution … there is no such thing, Evolution occurs when some genes become more prevalent because animals with those genes survive and reproduce better than others … it is a response to the environment organisms are exposed to, Whales lost their legs and gained flippers because it was advantageous for them to do so … if the oceans began to dry up legs could be selected for again! This is NOT de-evolution … simply an evolutionary response to a changing environment. The term de-evolution assumes there is a hierarchy of evolution with some species being ‘more evolved’ than others, and assumes that more complex is some how better. This is absurd. Sharks are more ‘primitive’ in their design than whales because their design was successful, once it evolved it did not require change. Are there any terms in the title I missed? … this is not a book about science. Science uses rules for collecting and presenting data to ensure that the information presented is valid. When you redefine the terms being used (e.g. r and K selection, evolution, etc) to fit your agenda you can no longer claim to be presenting science. ONE final comment. The author appears to be fond of attacking negative reviews by stating the reviewers are not using science …. but does not ONCE support ANY specific statement in their own book by directing the reader to a specific scientific reference that could be used to check the accuracy of the absurd conjectures presented. The author instead uses smoke and mirrors by listing a number of apparently relevant references to mask their ignorance (or deliberate misrepresentation) of the content of these references.

It´s more of an outdated concept than a fact. Wiki says ¨The theory was popular in the 1970s and 1980s, when it was used as a heuristic device, but lost importance in the early 1990s, when it was criticized by several empirical studies.¨ That said, there may be a grain of truth to it.

Nice catch.
The wiki page claims that themes from r/k selection have been incorporated into the broader “Life History Theory”, which also has its own Wiki page and has a section on r/k selection theory.
I suppose as a formal theory it has some holes in it, but I think even a serious biologist would understand that it is a useful heuristic for describing reproductive patterns.

Just found this video by Jean-Francois Gariepy defending r/k selection theory. Not saying appealing to his authority de facto proves it right or wrong but I think it counts for something that a published biologist with a PhD thinks it is a useful concept.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX7Tj9Gyc4o

Just for your information, Wiki (by a MAN) is now being infested by femicuntism !! Most of the content is altered to change facts and realities. Deliberately and desperately, images of pussies are shown, instead of MEN who put up the hard work and/or Invented the product/technology/concept etc.

I have downloaded previous/original (read: not altered, adulterated or infested !!) Wiki Dvd Images and will only use them.

No, it is pseudoscience. Epic takedown of Anonymous Conservative, who peddles this claptrap…

“It is obvious why the author is ‘Anonymous’, this is a pure and simple restatement of Social Darwinism. Psychology is a science; this is anti science propaganda written solely to support the author’s political agenda. The author’s lack of understanding of the basic principles of behavioral and brain sciences, and inability to think outside the box of his/her obvious biases, is apparent within the first few pages. Although the author lists many references, the titles appear to have been selected purely to provide an air of legitimacy, not based on an understanding (at any level) of their content. I am sure this must be a favorite of Fox “News” fans as it is at much the same level. As someone who has taught Evolutionary Psychology, and considers this an area of expertise, I shudder at the impression this creates. I am unsure what to do with this ‘book’ now that I have it since it is too insubstantial to function effectively as a paperweight.

A footnote: The simplest way to debunk the notion that Anonymous is presenting a scientifically valid evolutionary theory, without using too much science, is to examine chimpanzees, our closest living relative. Both species of chimpanzee (the common chimp and the Bonobo) carry about 99% of the same genes we do, and both (based on number of offspring and investment in them) must be classified as K selected. Common chimps are often violent and maintain a strict dominance hierarchy, even to the extent of warring with (and even killing) their neighbors; whereas the Bonobo is peace loving and promiscuous, generally settling disagreements by having sex. The authors total lack of understanding of basic differences between r and K selected species is apparent in his designation of K selected species as predators and r selected species as prey. The concepts of r and K selection are based on differences in parental investment and are applied at a species or population level; r selected species tend to be short lived and produce large batches of offspring all at once, K selected species tend to be longer lived and produce smaller numbers of offspring over a longer period of time. The author wants instead to apply r and K designations to different individuals within the same populations of the same species, and often appears to conflate numbers of offspring produced by members of a species with the total number of members of a species observed (more = prey), although this appears to be a deliberate distortion it is possible that Anonymous is simply ignorant of the established use of r and K selection. So many species violate Anonymous’ approach to classification,however, that it is difficult to understand how the author could have come to this conclusion.. Applying this principle would mean that elephants, giraffes, gorillas, many antelopes and other herbivores … etc etc etc which are K selected should be classified as predators. The author’s total lack of understanding of evolution is apparent in their use of the term de-evolution … there is no such thing, Evolution occurs when some genes become more prevalent because animals with those genes survive and reproduce better than others … it is a response to the environment organisms are exposed to, Whales lost their legs and gained flippers because it was advantageous for them to do so … if the oceans began to dry up legs could be selected for again! This is NOT de-evolution … simply an evolutionary response to a changing environment. The term de-evolution assumes there is a hierarchy of evolution with some species being ‘more evolved’ than others, and assumes that more complex is some how better. This is absurd. Sharks are more ‘primitive’ in their design than whales because their design was successful, once it evolved it did not require change. Are there any terms in the title I missed? … this is not a book about science. Science uses rules for collecting and presenting data to ensure that the information presented is valid. When you redefine the terms being used (e.g. r and K selection, evolution, etc) to fit your agenda you can no longer claim to be presenting science. ONE final comment. The author appears to be fond of attacking negative reviews by stating the reviewers are not using science …. but does not ONCE support ANY specific statement in their own book by directing the reader to a specific scientific reference that could be used to check the accuracy of the absurd conjectures presented. The author instead uses smoke and mirrors by listing a number of apparently relevant references to mask their ignorance (or deliberate misrepresentation) of the content of these references.”

No, K-R selection theory is pseudoscience. Epic takedown at Anonymous Conservative, who peddles this nonsense.

It is obvious why the author is ‘Anonymous’, this is a pure and simple restatement of Social Darwinism. Psychology is a science; this is anti science propaganda written solely to support the author’s political agenda. The author’s lack of understanding of the basic principles of behavioral and brain sciences, and inability to think outside the box of his/her obvious biases, is apparent within the first few pages. Although the author lists many references, the titles appear to have been selected purely to provide an air of legitimacy, not based on an understanding (at any level) of their content. I am sure this must be a favorite of Fox “News” fans as it is at much the same level. As someone who has taught Evolutionary Psychology, and considers this an area of expertise, I shudder at the impression this creates. I am unsure what to do with this ‘book’ now that I have it since it is too insubstantial to function effectively as a paperweight.

A footnote: The simplest way to debunk the notion that Anonymous is presenting a scientifically valid evolutionary theory, without using too much science, is to examine chimpanzees, our closest living relative. Both species of chimpanzee (the common chimp and the Bonobo) carry about 99% of the same genes we do, and both (based on number of offspring and investment in them) must be classified as K selected. Common chimps are often violent and maintain a strict dominance hierarchy, even to the extent of warring with (and even killing) their neighbors; whereas the Bonobo is peace loving and promiscuous, generally settling disagreements by having sex. The authors total lack of understanding of basic differences between r and K selected species is apparent in his designation of K selected species as predators and r selected species as prey. The concepts of r and K selection are based on differences in parental investment and are applied at a species or population level; r selected species tend to be short lived and produce large batches of offspring all at once, K selected species tend to be longer lived and produce smaller numbers of offspring over a longer period of time. The author wants instead to apply r and K designations to different individuals within the same populations of the same species, and often appears to conflate numbers of offspring produced by members of a species with the total number of members of a species observed (more = prey), although this appears to be a deliberate distortion it is possible that Anonymous is simply ignorant of the established use of r and K selection. So many species violate Anonymous’ approach to classification,however, that it is difficult to understand how the author could have come to this conclusion.. Applying this principle would mean that elephants, giraffes, gorillas, many antelopes and other herbivores … etc etc etc which are K selected should be classified as predators. The author’s total lack of understanding of evolution is apparent in their use of the term de-evolution … there is no such thing, Evolution occurs when some genes become more prevalent because animals with those genes survive and reproduce better than others … it is a response to the environment organisms are exposed to, Whales lost their legs and gained flippers because it was advantageous for them to do so … if the oceans began to dry up legs could be selected for again! This is NOT de-evolution … simply an evolutionary response to a changing environment. The term de-evolution assumes there is a hierarchy of evolution with some species being ‘more evolved’ than others, and assumes that more complex is some how better. This is absurd. Sharks are more ‘primitive’ in their design than whales because their design was successful, once it evolved it did not require change. Are there any terms in the title I missed? … this is not a book about science. Science uses rules for collecting and presenting data to ensure that the information presented is valid. When you redefine the terms being used (e.g. r and K selection, evolution, etc) to fit your agenda you can no longer claim to be presenting science. ONE final comment. The author appears to be fond of attacking negative reviews by stating the reviewers are not using science …. but does not ONCE support ANY specific statement in their own book by directing the reader to a specific scientific reference that could be used to check the accuracy of the absurd conjectures presented. The author instead uses smoke and mirrors by listing a number of apparently relevant references to mask their ignorance (or deliberate misrepresentation) of the content of these references.

You’ve forced me to think harder on this issue so thanks for that.

My understanding was that K-selected behaviours are an adaptation to an environment of scarce resources, which leads to complex organisms requiring adaptations such as longer parental care for offspring, and a slew of other complex behaviours.

I don’t know if Anonymous Conservative (AC) is implying that all K species are predators, but rather that K species adopt certain behaviours such as more characteristically “conservative” social behaviours (e.g., explicit dominance heirarchies, in-group preference, deeper attachments between members, etc.). I think he would agree that Rhinos, Elephants, and other herbivores that operate in complex groups and exhibit K behaviours can be classified as K selected species.

As you point out, Chimps and Bonobos are almost identical genetically and yet their behaviours are vastly different. The Bonobos as plant eaters have adapted to the vast amount of resources available to them, while Chimps need to maintain their strict social order to survive in an environment where catching their next meal requires greater constraints and behaviours as a group (e.g., hunting gangs and respect for social rank).

I suppose based on R/K selection theory, one might expect that the “R-selected Bonobos” would mate and reproduce very often, and yet they are on the endangered species list. I agree with you that they should be classified as K selected because they must care for their young, but I think it is interesting that they mate and use sex indiscriminately as they do. This behaviour reflects in my mind the fact that strict competition between males is simply not necessary because resources are abundant for them. They seem to be a species that is evolving in the direction towards R selection, but they are constrained due to having already become so complex that parental care remains necessary.

In either case, I still think R and K selection are useful concepts. The Bonobo/Chimp example seems to fit along the R/K spectrum fairly well, despite the fact that the Bonobos appear to be a unique case. Essentially, I disagree with you because I think you have mischaracterized Anonymous Conservative here in claiming that he equates predator species with K selected species, and your Bonobo/Chimp example only shows that R/K selection is better thought of as a spectrum with some species acting as exemplars reflecting common responses to patterns of selective pressures.

And also, I am not entirely convinced that the entirety of homo-sapiens cannot be broken down further into sub-species. There are some clear differences between the races, and sub-species in nature have been divided by scientists on even less substantive lines.

Hi Clark Kent ! How are you !?

haha good bro
so much has changed since the good’ol days of ROK a couple years ago eh? lol

Indeed. Those were the great days to share opinions, ideas, suggestions and comments. Ironically, the Disqus platform is by MEN !

Seriously tho fuck Disqus… bunch of faggots…
Those old ROK comment sections really were gold mines of real talk.

Quite true. Hopefully ROK will find a similar Comment platform soon. Its nice to talk to you after a loooooong time !! Have a good day.

You too man.
Glad someone recognized my avatar hehe.
Cheers.

Anonymous Conservative has a section in their book that deals with this sort of criticism, though it is past the first few pages. It doesn’t matter what other people “meant” when they referred to r/K unless AC relies on those other people’s definitions instead of AC supplying their own.

So not only is it a complaint that AC didn’t use the definitions and framing “everyone else” uses, so AC is wrong, AC is also wrong for not citing the definitions and framing “everyone else” uses which happens to be wrong and considered pseudoscience? Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it too.

AC is quite open about how many of the criticisms of r/K stem from how loosely the terminology has been handled over the years, but you’d have had to actually read the book instead of playing with logical contradictions.

Anyway, parental investment is a result of adaptation to, not the cause for, resource shortages. The reason I phrase it that way is that not being the causal factor for K-selection viability, using it alone to distinguish between r/K would certainly be very silly.

That would be akin to saying that classifications of automobiles should be by their emissions or fuel efficiency alone. Petrol or diesel doesn’t matter, engine performance doesn’t matter, pickup or sports car doesn’t matter, any logically distinct causes for the behavior observed should not be used to properly categorize the behavior?

Of course that is absurd and provides no coherent mechanism for analysis.

This is also why Anti-Gnostic hopes you aren’t keen enough to notice they are also anonymous and yet attack AC’s credibility for being anonymous. An anonymous person with no apparent credentials saying another anonymous person with no apparent credentials has no credibility is rather self-defeating.

When people don’t want to discuss ideas, due to laziness or incompetence, they’ll instead try to discredit the need to discuss those ideas in the first place. Dialectic is not an effective tool against rhetoric, and vice-versa.

Are you assuming that all European women prefer Muslim men? Unlikely. (If you really believe that and you’re of European descent, your insecurities are showing. Most women find European men attractive.)

All women prefer men from patriarchy (muslims).

Nah.

failed troll has failed

Actually I succeeded. Beautifully. Witness how buttblasted your incel friend is below. Stay salty, my friend.

still failed. try agian

It was a figure of speech, dickhead. But the point stands – yoga pants are vulgar.

Can’t be any more “vulgar” than all the hardcore butthole porn you’re addicted to, eh there incel?

Only the ones your mom’s involved in. Hold up – I have a webcam coming up with her right now.

Unsurprising a sick piece of shit like yourself would joke about banging someone’s mother. And you unironically have the nerve to be “offended” by women wearing “vulgar” yoga pants?

I just “unironically” busted on her face, too.

Don’t lie. You don’t bust anywhere except into your poor lonely incel gym socks.

Better write your congressman and get those big scary workout yoga panties banned you silly little incel!

I have the feeling you’re a female. You certainly write like one. I would guess you’re fat and unattractive, as well.

Couldn’t be any less overweight or attractive than an incel like yourself who nuts inside his little brother’s gym socks.

Bottom line is, you need to quit blaming your embarrassing sexual inadequacies on women and their yoga pants. Your life failures aren’t other people’s problems, they’re yours.

For the record, I only nutted on your mom’s face and back.

No wonder you can’t get a woman to fuck you. You’re still stuck at summer camp for bullied fat kids telling retarded yo mama jokes.

Grow up and maybe some 2/10 will let you see the inside of her yoga pants. That way you won’t have to cry like an incel bitch about it here.

How do you think I met her? Your mom’s a counselor over here at Creampie Camp.

^woman

If your only argument is “woman”, you’ve lost the argument.

If you say so, woman.

Bye loser.

If you say so, woman.

Lol’s woman tell is her super pissy, hateful comments. Plus this:

“No wonder you can’t get a woman to fuck you.”

No man would say that. Women don’t “fuck” anyone. Women get fucked.

Whatever happened to you to have such disgusting thoughts, I am sorry for you.

All that hate and prejudice is neither good for you nor your environment.

You problem is that you have no notion of respect. It’s sexual harassment from women to expose their sexual attributes this openly, even if you are not interested in them nor find them attractive.
It’s public, and the same way you don’t shout, spit, or punch people, you don’t shove yourself in their faces, just to feel validated.
It’s immature behavior, especially when it’s regular. And even more ridiculous when you don’t feel ashamed for it.

For some reason nobody understand limits anymore, it’s not social just warrior or left or right wing or anything else. It’s something many have forgotten: basic human decency.

All has it’s place. When you want her or like her it’s different, but there is a place for that.

For some reason women think that this is a one way street. They can be vulgar, but don’t accept the same in return. Well, a lot actually like it as well, if you treat them that way, but you get the point.

And that desperate need to get validated by men who want to fuck you. Pathetic.

Grow up. If you get criticized, it’s not because everyone wants in your pants or is jealous. That’s like saying that people who call you out for spitting want to swallow your spit.

How can you be so full of yourself? Again: pathetic!

or the beach. they shouldnt wear flip flops either. I’m not trolling I’m serious. Tired of women showing off nonstop. It’s fucking annoying.

No, you’re trolling.

I explained my experience and I said it works for me (and maybe for others too) and it won’t work for everybody. As I said, your mileage may vary.

On the contrary, you start preaching telling what to do and what not to do to other people that you don’t even know (God is a drug. Don’t do it. Do meaning things and something that seems to be your purpose – as if God couldn’t be those things).

“It’s amazing how many simpletons are on these sites. Amazing!”

“What’s up with all the pussies on here who are so obsessed with aging.”

You need to be more humble and less arrogant, as if you own the truth and everybody else is wrong. You seem the preachers of yesteryear.

People who are successful and valued in real life don’t need to waste time to come here to pretend they are the mega-man that should be admired by everybody. Successful people don’t treat others like a shit, only losers and wannabes do it. I guess you are a loser that masturbates every day because you don’t have a real relationship and comes here to try to improve your low self-esteem being rude to strangers in a 4-month-old thread. This goes beyond pathetic and you should get a life.

How’s that freedom going for western women now?

Fantastic.

Including women have their freedom to open their legs to anyone and everyone and call it empowerment. Fantastic indeed.

The freedom to do so, yes. But the will to actually go through with it? Not necessarily.

Stop your whining.

Just look at the statistic. Single moms are glorified. Children are suffering because of that. Your women now are nothing but a cum bucket.

I get it, you are angry because you get rejected repeatedly by women. Buy Gorilla Mindset, it will change your life!

Lol.
You are so original. Never heard that mockery before. I’m so burned. Roasted. Big time.

I get it, you are angry because you get rejected repeatedly by women. Buy Gorilla Mindset, it will change your life!

No, you don’t need shaming or other manipulative tactics.

You need boundaries and respect, and have parents teach that again, instead of excusing themselves by lame replies like “they are kiddssss!!!!”.

It has been common to degrade and belittle people, everywhere in media, and not in a good hearted way, but in a mean destructive one.

With purpose and respect a lot gets better. It’s simply basic human decency.

Bah.

Bah.

Thing is, we simpletons with families usually end up happier than you sophisticated genetic dead ends. If you don’t believe me, volunteer in a rest home some time. Even the ones whose kids don’t visit much at least have some hope from the fact they have family out there, somewhere.

I’ve been following Roosh for years. He’s progressed a lot, and I get the strong impression that he’d be better off with kids.

It’s probably because they take those females as their whores. Whores are whores. Whores don’t follow Sharia law. Or any law for that matter. They will never let their own women expose their skin like those females.

Love is real (emotionally, spiritually and physically) but it doesn’t hold relationships together. Social structures and honest people do that. Many people “love” each other and still cheat. Its just not enough

DXM, though it looks structurally like it could be an opioid, does not bind to any type of opioid receptor in the brain (at least in humans). It´s mostly an NMDA-antagonist like PCP or ketamine. DXM can be a fun psychedelic and can work as an antidepressant, but it doesn´t repress your sex drive. Codeine will however diminish your libido.

“And, today, people have the liberty of choosing their mates.” And it doesnt work. Love is a product sold to women. No reason for men to expect that it’s real. Treat it like a business decision again, and it will last. (just based on history.)

“nor are divorce laws designed to make men single.” They are designed to benefit women, which incentivizes women to choose divorce instead of working on the relationship. 80% of divorces are filed by women. Great work.

“nor are various social places trying to make coin at your expense.” Research shows over 90% of men at clubs are hoping to meet a woman. Bar owners hire hot, scantily clad girls as bartenders to attract the men. The whole business model is meant to make money off of men if you put those two facts together.

” gamma virtue signaling.” Not sure what that is. BRB reading my red-pill glossary

“And it doesnt work. Love is a product sold to women. No reason for men to expect that it’s real.”

Of course it works, since love is not a product. And assuredly men (and women) today have experienced it as real and genuine.

“Treat it like a business decision again, and it will last. (just based on history.)”

That’s not reality.

“They are designed to benefit women, which incentivizes women to choose divorce instead of working on the relationship. 80% of divorces are filed by women. Great work.”

No, they are designed to enable men and women, unfortunately, to at times take the easy way out, and, fortunately, to at times get out of a bad situation.

“Research shows over 90% of men at clubs are hoping to meet a woman.”

Perhaps you found a research study that had this statistic. Congratulations. In reality, men and women go to clubs to meet the opposite sex, to people watch, to dance, and to enjoy themselves.

“The whole business model is meant to make money off of men if you put those two facts together.”

No, the business model is to make money off of patrons, and preferably attractive ones.

I’m sorry, but didn’t mention that I have already achieved those goals (marriage and children), no, I would rather enjoy sex at this point in my life but not have more offspring or care about moving any particular needle for civilization sake. Social sexcare is a worthy agenda to be pushed in this country.

“Social sexcare is a worthy agenda to be pushed in this country.”

That would be dysgenic.

I think that’s all relative to the individual. If I’m making plans with one of my buddies and they flake on me 50% of the time, I drop them because it’s kind of weird. Even with females that -initiate- something with me, they flake at about that rate and think nothing of it. Then when you spend hours getting to know them, they ghost or it goes nowhere, and there goes 12 hours I could have been focusing on my business or health with nothing to show for it. Maybe it results in a lay, maybe not. But THAT, to me, is too steep of a price.