Why do girls think they have some magical value?

[bigneil]

Okay so here's an example of girls I can get with just a little money...

Please tell me who amongst you can do this for free?

Prove it. Prove that you f*cked them, and for how many minutes, and in what position, and what day.

 

[nismo-4]

It's as if they think they have some insane amount of value just for being female.

They could be an unemployed drug addict, yet they will still think that the fact that they are female gives them enormous value. What is this about?

For example...

If a guy works at a bank, he is just a guy who works at a bank. If a girl works at a bank, she is a girl who works at a bank AND SO MUCH MORE!!! (especially if she's hot). What is this about?

The hotter the girl is, the worse this is. I understand that they lie and manipulate for their survival, but they take it to extremes that are not fun to deal with and can easily anger people.

It's a combination of:

1. Their beauty
2. The fact that all straight men enjoy female companionship i.e. millionaires get tired of talking to their money and Bentleys, Tech developers get tired of seeing computer codes and bugs.
3. They have desperate guys chasing them i.e. orbiters, fans, followers.
4. They have a vagina, hence they think every guy wants it.
5. They get a lot of attention from social media and online dating media.
6. Female value inflates by male attention. Men don't get off on female attention.

Case closed.

 

[RichardTheFrog]

Prove it. Prove that you f*cked them, and for how many minutes, and in what position, and what day.

I didn't **** her. But I could for money.

Nobody else, not even Mr. Pimp from the hood, has been able to post any picture.

With the exception of you, glass guy, and dynamically.

 

[Epicurus]

Prove it. Prove that you f*cked them, and for how many minutes, and in what position, and what day.

I also want the amount of pumps, girth, depth, size of condoms used and brand. All pics or it didn't happen

 

[RichardTheFrog]

It's a combination of:

1. Their beauty
2. The fact that all straight men enjoy female companionship i.e. millionaires get tired of talking to their money and Bentleys, Tech developers get tired of seeing computer codes and bugs.
3. They have desperate guys chasing them i.e. orbiters, fans, followers.
4. They have a vagina, hence they think every guy wants it.
5. They get a lot of attention from social media and online dating media.
6. Female value inflates by male attention. Men don't get off on female attention.

Case closed.

I believe it is also because they think they hold the future of the human race in their ovaries. Seemingly oblivious to the fact that they can't reproduce by themselves, either.

Even drug addict girls who have ****ed a million guys still assume this value.

 

[bigneil]

I documented a 9 month relationship, documented my walking away after a sudden breakup, documented 7 weeks of thoughts during NC, documented how she came back, how I responded, and how I took her away for the night. I have it all in writing and it never mentions money.

Then certain members said if I paid for the hotel when we got back together that made her a prostitute (oh, and that they didn't think she was that hot). They simply can't stand the thought of my getting her back because they were tired of my throwing down the ace. And now I have an even hotter girl who they also say is a prostitute even though we never had sex.

Tell SS when you score, and hear the virgins roar.

 

[marmel75]

It's a combination of:
2. The fact that all straight men enjoy female companionship i.e. millionaires get tired of talking to their money and Bentleys, Tech developers get tired of seeing computer codes and bugs.
Case closed.

Hey now! Leave the tech developers out of it!!

The stereotype is only half true---front end developers are often times very outgoing, "normal" people that have no issues in social interactions...back end developers on the other hand....

 

[BeExcellent]

Here are my counterpoints. I have added emphasis in bold to the material quoted.

I'm talking about the MUCH LARGER AMOUNT that I will make flipping houses.

You assume you will make lots of money flipping houses. However you haven't made any yet. Now I am a huge proponent of self belief and of success thinking. It's something I absolutely believe in as a self made millionaire. However it requires success creating thinking patterns. What I observe from you is not a success mentality, but rather an entitlement mentality. You ASSUME you WILL make lots of money flipping houses, which is fine, but you are as we say in Texas, "big hat, no cattle". Go prove me wrong. Get results. Come back and rub it in my face. That would be great. When everybody made fun of me for sharing my dreams I got ridiculed a lot. I had to overcome plenty of obstacles. I didn't have family money to assist me. And that's fine as it was the situation. I simply decided to make it anyway. People who used to laugh at me come to me for advice now. Nobody ridicules me anymore. I've got a whole thread about this in the Wealth and Success forum. I wanted to share my story to encourage everyone here that achieving dreams IS possible if you have self belief, a plan, and are too determined to quit.

But an entitlement attitude is the height of arrogance. If becoming a millionaire was easy peasy everyone would be doing it. Make no mistake, it CAN be done and I hope you do achieve success flipping houses. But don't insult those who have achieved success by the assumption that you'll just waltz in and it will happen no sweat. If it does? Awesome. You are going to find out just how many sharks and charlatans and shrewd experienced business people are out there looking to separate you and your money. And it takes great people skills to deal with them. I think your people skills are in need of improvement.

It is unfortunate that I can't reproduce by myself. I believe I have mentioned that on this forum a few times. People don't have families like they used to in the 1950's. And I believe that females have shown their true colors since they were "liberated" by feminism and it would be completely stupid to trust them.

I know lots of people who DO have families that function like 1950's families. I can think of more than a dozen examples among friends that I know with out thinking about it. There are men who have been contributors to this site, esteemed members, who have families like this. Casanova and Penkitten for starters. Colossus. There are others. What you fail to see is any value whatsoever in women, period. You don't like them. With such a belief system and such an attitude you simply fulfill your self defeating narrative. The truth is more along the lines once again of entitlement. You don't attach any value to women as an excuse not to improve yourself. So it's all ego protection. Then you come here and whine.

My sister was in town recently and we went out to dinner with all our children. We ran into a doctor and his wife who are good friends of mine and my ex. They are Catholic, married while he was in medical school (and she happily GAVE UP her ambitions of becoming a physician herself to be his wife - she was a Rhodes scholar.) They have 7 children, have been married 25 years, and she is still a size 4 and beautiful and sweet and just a wonderful human being. He is the head of that household, the leader. She is the dutiful wife. I know other couples just like them, some newly married, some married 50+ years, and all in between. It exists and it's out there, but you have to be a good enough man to attract these kinds of women. My sister's comment as we left the restaurant was "I can't believe she has had SEVEN children! She looks like she never had any and she looks like she's 28!"

That is what a happy life does. It keeps you youthful and it keeps you healthy.

There are plenty of happy Catholic families where I am. They all drive the full size 8 passenger vans to haul their broods.

Thanks @Trump and @FMCSMT I think your comments are valid. It is true that there are never guarantees FMCSMT and you and I both know that well through different destructive behaviors promulgated by our ex spouses. I find the key to that is releasing bitterness and embracing the future possibilities unencumbered by the past. We can't saddle new people we meet with the scars inflicted by those who have hurt us. We have to develop the strength to 1. Accept the market as it is (and I agree it can be challenging) and 2. Know that the value one brings to the table is intrinsic and do not undercut our own value and 3. Trust another human being at some point. It takes time and healing to be able to do this when you've been through a lot.

For Trump and the younger guys here in particular keep in mind that many men here have been burned and burned badly. Many are licking old wounds and many are on the road back to abundance at various places on the continuum. It's tough to peel back the rosy glasses and see things the way they are. But it's also possible to thrive in the environment if you work on yourself.

To be honest what I see especially from the older guys gives me hope in that there is collective wisdom to draw from, collective experiences to learn from, opportunities to see others' experiences as cautionary. But at some point you have to act.

That is what I hope you can take away from this Richard. The road to success in life is through action. Sitting around complaining, assuming and expecting accomplishes nothing.

 

[RichardTheFrog]

I have done thinking and researching and I think I have discovered more about why females seem to believe that their "femaleness" gives them some large value. It has to do with evolutionary biology where we lived in groups of less than 100.

It is entirely true that males contributed much more to these societies than females did. The females took care of the children (which males are also capable of doing) and they gathered plant food (which males are also capable of doing). So this post is not about inherent worth. I suppose you could say this is an evolutionary explanation for "sexual market value" if such a thing exists.

Assuming there are an equal number of men and women.... this means that eggs are more valuable than sperm. An average guy produces over 500 billion sperm in a lifetime and is capable of impregnating several women each day. A female only releases about 350 eggs in her lifetime, and can realistically only get pregnant a few times (although the world record is actually 69). This means that the female must CHOOSE WISELY about who she "lets" (if she's lucky enough to have a choice in the matter) impregnate her. In such primitive groups of people, it is often ONE MALE or a FEW MALES that impregnate all the women. These males are the strongest, have access to the most resources, and can protect and provide for the offspring. They have the best genes and it makes evolutionary sense for many women to want this one man or this select few group of men.

This is the same thing that happens with other animal groups, such as mountain goats. The mountain goat with the biggest horns can fight off predators so he is selected by all the females. Of course, this "alpha" male changes over time as younger goats get stronger and the old goats get weaker.

It was mentioned that it was the attention that females receive from men that makes them think they are valuable, but I don't think this is where it starts. This may inflate their ego, but I believe it starts within themselves. Perhaps, in an evolutionary sense they are right and they are valuable. They contain one of the few eggs of the primitive human community. But today, they are over 3.5 billion females in the world so "being female" isn't enough to get by and for the tribe to value you enough to keep you alive. Yet, it is still rooted in their brain to believe so. And, yes, the hotter the girl, the higher her value. But there are so many "hot girls" in the world today that even beauty is extremely common.

By the way, if you read this article...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_the_most_children

You will see that the greatest seducer of all time is Genghis Khan. Also at the top of the list are other powerful rulers as well as sperm donors.

 

[BeExcellent]

I have done thinking and researching and I think I have discovered more about why females seem to believe that their "femaleness" gives them some large value. It has to do with evolutionary biology where we lived in groups of less than 100.

It is entirely true that males contributed much more to these societies than females did. The females took care of the children (which males are also capable of doing) and they gathered plant food (which males are also capable of doing). So this post is not about inherent worth. I suppose you could say this is an evolutionary explanation for "sexual market value" if such a thing exists.

Assuming there are an equal number of men and women.... this means that eggs are more valuable than sperm. An average guy produces over 500 billion sperm in a lifetime and is capable of impregnating several women each day. A female only releases about 350 eggs in her lifetime, and can realistically only get pregnant a few times (although the world record is actually 69). This means that the female must CHOOSE WISELY about who she "lets" (if she's lucky enough to have a choice in the matter) impregnate her. In such primitive groups of people, it is often ONE MALE or a FEW MALES that impregnate all the women. These males are the strongest, have access to the most resources, and can protect and provide for the offspring. They have the best genes and it makes evolutionary sense for many women to want this one man or this select few group of men.

This is the same thing that happens with other animal groups, such as mountain goats. The mountain goat with the biggest horns can fight off predators so he is selected by all the females. Of course, this "alpha" male changes over time as younger goats get stronger and the old goats get weaker.

It was mentioned that it was the attention that females receive from men that makes them think they are valuable, but I don't think this is where it starts. This may inflate their ego, but I believe it starts within themselves. Perhaps, in an evolutionary sense they are right and they are valuable. They contain one of the few eggs of the primitive human community. But today, they are over 3.5 billion females in the world so "being female" isn't enough to get by and for the tribe to value you enough to keep you alive. Yet, it is still rooted in their brain to believe so. And, yes, the hotter the girl, the higher her value. But there are so many "hot girls" in the world today that even beauty is extremely common.

By the way, if you read this article...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_the_most_children

You will see that the greatest seducer of all time is Genghis Khan. Also at the top of the list are other powerful rulers as well as sperm donors.

And every male on the planet required a woman to give birth to him & nurse him & make sure he didn't die as an infant & young child.

Genghis Khan had a mother.

Men built & did everything? Not a single man can exist or reproduce without women.

Obviously.

 

[RichardTheFrog]

And every male on the planet required a woman to give birth to him & nurse him & make sure he didn't die as an infant & young child.

Genghis Khan had a mother.

Men built & did everything? Not a single man can exist or reproduce without women.

Obviously.

Okay. And every female on the planet would not be alive without a father (sperm). Eggs are not more valuable than sperm. "Mothering skills" are not more valuable than "fathering skills."

You are pointing out the fact that no one can reproduce by themselves, but unfortunately, that's all females have going for them. Men could say the same thing. The human race would end without sperm just as much as it would end without eggs.

Men do all that AND MORE. (although this is confused by the fact that we live in a post-industrial technological service economy where people are protected by the law and many of them work office jobs).

 

[BeExcellent]

Richard have you ever heard of the rate limiting factor in an equation? That is the factor that effectively limits how quickly something can occur. Somebody mentioned this the other day. If you had two isolated islands of stranded people, whose population would survive?

A. The island with 10 men and 100 women?

OR

B. The island with 100 men and 10 women?

The answer is A. Why? Because while a man can impregnate lots of women, a woman can only carry 1 baby to term at a time AND that process takes about a year, 9 months pregnancy, 3 months on average before a woman can conceive again after that. This also doesn't factor in the fact that childbirth KILLS women still today (and this was a very real danger in times past - still is in 3rd world countries - STILL happens occasionally even in the west.)

The population on island A could effectively reproduce exponentially faster than on island B. So the number of WOMEN is the rate limiting factor in the human population (especially given the fact that most pregnancies are single births rather than multiples.)

Mothering skills ARE more valuable for infants. Mothers make human milk and nurse babies. Men don't do that biologically. Prior to western medicine if the mother died the baby's life was in grave danger, wet nurses (lactating women) were kept in royal families and wealthy households to guard against a mother's death. So that would mean than rich families had more than 1 woman to care for babies. There was no need for more than one man, although women who were without a husband or a male protector were at high risk for adverse outcomes. This is why historically populations sacrifice men in wars (women and children first) and preserve women. This is why harems always had one man and many women. Women are essential for population survival. So biologically speaking yes, eggs are indeed more valuable. That's biology and evolutionary science.

The best adjusted children have both mothers AND fathers raising them. The skills are complimentary. Men are more single minded and task focused and goal oriented. Women are more nurturing, have higher emotional intelligence, and are better at multitasking. These two skill sets, taken together are better for child-rearing than either skill set on its own. In modern society it is easy enough to lose sight of biology and evolutionary science.

In today's world more opportunities exist for women to survive without men to protect them in westernized parts of the world. I don't see that as a net (-) or a net (+), it just is. In China, where the one child mandate has created an imbalance in ratio of reproductive age men to women, tons of single young men are finding there are not enough women to go around for sex and/marriage. Sons were more valuable to Chinese families than daughters so often daughters would be neglected or discarded or left to die so that families could try to have a son. The result is an off-kilter male to female ratio that takes decades for a population to recover from, and historically, when imbalances in male/female ration occur, wars break out. All that testosterone has to have something to do if there aren't enough women to keep the men happy. Google it. It's actually pretty interesting.