See this is some bull**** right here

[backbreaker]

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskMen/comments/27szuq/what_do_you_think_of_ceo_sheryl_sandbergs_advice/

reading this **** makes my blood boil. What do you think is going to happen to all those guys who didn't do **** to you but just be at the wrong place at the wrong time while you're experimenting?


Then the same ***** will come along 15 years later *****ing about why can't men "be seruios" "grow up" etc al

 

[cordoncordon]

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskMen/comments/27szuq/what_do_you_think_of_ceo_sheryl_sandbergs_advice/

reading this **** makes my blood boil. What do you think is going to happen to all those guys who didn't do **** to you but just be at the wrong place at the wrong time while you're experimenting?


Then the same ***** will come along 15 years later *****ing about why can't men "be seruios" "grow up" etc al

BB you need to chillax. This is nothing to get upset about. It's one person's opinion. A miniscule blip on the dating advice radar. On a one to ten scale of how I would view this as important to my or anyone's life it's a .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001.

Plus, just looking at it objectively, isn't this the same advice we give to younger guys? Date around? See what is out there? Don't think of getting married until at least 30? We can't be hypocrites.

You seem to be very short tempered as of late. Everything ok?

 

[backbreaker]

the advice between the two is QUITE different and I would expect someone as astute as you to be bale to pick up the difference.


The difference being, men (generally) don't tell men to just **** a bunch of women and then find one when you are 30. What they is to slow down and don't plan on marriage until you're later. That's at lest what I say and most here say. I never tell anyone intentionally to **** a bunch of women then settle down when you are 30.


The difference being, men don't tell other men to intentionally **** over good women, like the woman author is doing here. The woman author is basically saying see the nice guys, **** them over until you get ready to date them. ; Men don't say that, partially because we understand how difficult it is to find a good woman. You're probably not going to find one until you've had some experience, but you happen to find one, don't treat her like **** just because you're young.


That's exactly what the author here is saying to do to men.

 

[( . )( . )]

Plus, just looking at it objectively, isn't this the same advice we give to younger guys? Date around? See what is out there? Don't think of getting married until at least 30? We can't be hypocrites.

Sounds like "equalist" hodgepodge.You can only be hypocritical if both sexes are the same. Men have been phucking around for thousands of years with no detriment to society. This stratagem of alpha fux/beta bux writ large upon society by these high IQ Jewesses however will ultimately destroy Western civilization as you know it. Unchained hypergamy is brutal on a society and will always cause it to devolve. When civilization builders (today's betas) are no longer incentivized as we are seeing clear signs now will assure the future will not be looking good for our children and their children etc etc. Matriarchal societies always fail.

Sorry mate but those civ builders have to want to get out of bed of a morning and get to work and innovate and build and compete and invent and they need a carrot, when they don't get that carrot we all suffer. That carrot was once his own castle, a wife and his genetic continuation. Grand theft auto and porn is not really cutting it.

It's one person's opinion.

These people backing and funding this current social/cultural re-engineering are not just some random loons off the street. Their voices reach millions of moldable men and women daily.

 

[BeDJ]

Sounds like "equalist" hodgepodge.You can only be hypocritical if both sexes are the same. Men have been phucking around for thousands of years with no detriment to society. This stratagem of alpha fux/beta bux writ large upon society by these high IQ Jewesses however will ultimately destroy Western civilization as you know it. Unchained hypergamy is brutal on a society and will always cause it to devolve. When civilization builders (today's betas) are no longer incentivized as we are seeing clear signs now will assure the future will not be looking good for our children and their children etc etc. Matriarchal societies always fail.

Sorry mate but those civ builders have to want to get out of bed of a morning and get to work and innovate and build and compete and invent and they need a carrot, when they don't get that carrot we all suffer. That carrot was once his own castle, a wife and his genetic continuation. Grand theft auto and porn is not really cutting it.

These people backing and funding this current social/cultural re-engineering are not just some random loons off the street. Their voices reach millions of moldable men and women daily.

So what?

You are so concentrated on obliterating "The Cathedral" that you will compromise the well being of young men to achieve what you think is 'right?' You have to understand that things will never be the way they were. Even as rational as it may seem, 100 male dumbfvcks are born a minute.

 

[BeDJ]

I was being acerbic when I said "slvts," but I absolutely think men should be told to date around before settling down. You can do it with out fukking over anyone, and moreover you SHOULD when women are being instructed to play the field in young adulthood. Connect the dots...why should "nice" men live in sexual poverty in their 20s when women are told to date bad boys and have fun?

And what we say here is far from mainstream. Young men are still told a bunch of lies when push comes to shove.

If middle class feminists are going to be told to date bad boys, then young men should at least be kept in the loop so they know not to ruin the rest of their lives by wifing up these chicks in their 30s. It's easier to find a good woman when you have options. And as t!ts said there's no equivalence at play, the sexes are complementary, not equal.

That is the assumption of Red Pill ideology that should be destroyed.
@ T!ts PM sent.
@ sacktaker, perhaps you are not happy with your marriage?

 

[( . )( . )]

So what?

You are so concentrated on obliterating "The Cathedral" that you will compromise the well being of young men to achieve what you think is 'right?' You have to understand that things will never be the way they were. Even as rational as it may seem, 100 male dumbfvcks are born a minute.

No offence but did you misread something? I'm not really following your statement. How am I compromising young men?

 

[BeDJ]

As a young man, t!ts I'm looking forward to your response on my PM since that 10 post limit...

"You and I know that gender dynamics are never going back to the way that they should be. White knights and and favorism of female will not allow it. As much as I was in the past on MRM, it's really not effective. Red pill ideology will always be labeled as misogyny. It's how our current society works, you will never find enough men to believe in what is fair. Our only advantage is adaptation."

 

[( . )( . )]

As a young man, t!ts I'm looking forward to your response on my PM since that 10 post limit...

"You and I know that gender dynamics are never going back to the way that they should be. White knights and and favorism of female will not allow it. As much as I was in the past on MRM, it's really not effective. Red pill ideology will always be labeled as misogyny. It's how our current society works, you will never find enough men to believe in what is fair. Our only advantage is adaptation."

???

I'm hearing you man but what's that got to do with my post to cordoncordon as to why the encouragement and ultimately acceptance of alpha fux/beta bux is destructive to a society? I think one of has our wires crossed. I'm not denying it's too late to reverse it.

 

[BeDJ]

There was a great quote I saw here a week ago.


If I am not good enough for her during her hottest years, then she doesn't deserve me for her declining years.


BeDJ,


It doesn't matter what hordes of other men are doing. You still have the power to filter out women and date the one's who are 10-15 years younger. And when the inevitable shaming comes, just link them to this article and tell them you are helping young women achieve their dreams.

If you aren't there for my worst, then you shouln't be there for my best (?) Quoted by Rhiahanna, don't spit all that crap about her wanting to come back to Chris Brown. You Aren't Chris Brown and neither am I. Yeah, my princess is in another castle, but that doesn't mean I'm Tom Brady

You still have the power to filter out women and date the one's who are 10-15 years younger.

Tell that to other (experienced) posters on here and see how they respond, ego aside.

Perhaps your experience is very different from most. It is not the norm and understanding 'Game' will not achieve that goal.

Game will not get you women. It's a very small factor in attraction. I say this because I once believed that 'Game' was all that mattered. It does not. The further you venture down this deluded path, you will be unhappy. Game does not build attaction.

 

[Alvafe]

I just open that link and that is the first comment I read there

"I'm not a dating retirement home. "

guys that is all, woman goes around? fine is not me who will settle with her, will have fools who will? yes, woman like her who do whatever to sell also not help, but unless we could teach all men in doing what is good for then, we can only wait for everything burn, then rebuild, only question is how much it will burn before everyone do something

 

[BeDJ]

It was actually Marilyn Monroe, not Rihanna. I don't care about her going back to Chris Brown and do not see the relevance.


Do you truly believe that game plays no rule in getting women? I can attest differently but it doesn't matter because you have already dismissed that.

I thought that quote was initially made by Rhianna, learning something new everyday.

I never said that game has no value, but most glorify it compared to other aspects in attracting women. Putting a heavy emphasis on social status has helped me open many opportunities I thought were closed.

If you are having trouble getting women, the problem is within you, not anyone else.

Stop assuming other people you are having a gentle discussion with can't get laid. I'm ALPHA I sweeaaarrrr!!!!!!! :cuss:

 

[Bokanovsky]

We can't be hypocrites.

Actually, we can be in this instance. Men and women are fundamentally different. Some things that are okay for women are not okay for men and vice versa. It's okay for women to be submissive, deferential, vulnerable and weak (all undesirable qualities in men). Likewise, it's okay for men to have sex with many different partners but the same does not apply to women. There's a reason why "slut" is a female-specific term.

The reason why's it's bad for women to have a high partner count is quite simple. Women form emotional bonds when they have sex; men do not. A woman who has sex with many different men eventually loses her ability to form strong bonds with a male. And a woman like that will never be a devoted wife.

 

[BeDJ]

I agree that game is glorified relative to other things. Status in my opinion is highly under-rated as well.


I only assumed you were having difficulty with women based on your statement about game. I strongly believe that game is attractive to women so we only disagree on that aspect. The trick is knowing that you need other factors besides game to get laid. Too many men don't realize that there is more than one Raw Material necessary to get laid consistently (outside of status imo).

Agreed. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Lexington]

Actually, we can be in this instance. Men and women are fundamentally different. Some things that are okay for women are not okay for men and vice versa. It's okay for women to be submissive, deferential, vulnerable and weak (all undesirable qualities in men). Likewise, it's okay for men to have sex with many different partners but the same does not apply to women. There's a reason why "slut" is a female-specific term.

The reason why's it's bad for women to have a high partner count is quite simple. Women form emotional bonds when they have sex; men do not. A woman who has sex with many different men eventually loses her ability to form strong bonds with a male. And a woman like that will never be a devoted wife.

Right on.

Besides that, there are also evolutionary and biological reasons why it's terrible for a girl to be a slut. For starters, reliable birth control is a relatively recent invention. For most of human history, a girl sleeping around carried potentially devastating consequences. Next, paternity tests are also a recent invention. A woman can always be sure it's her child but a father can't. Men are hardwired to be repulsed by sluts.

Sure modern technology has changed things, but why are women attracted to tall and muscular men? A scrawny computer genius who is going to MIT is in many ways better adapted to modern day society. The times may have changed, but we still have many hunter-gatherer instincts. Sluts are reviled in just about every culture in the world.

Finally, it's no great accomplishment for a woman to sleep with a lot of guys. Any woman who isn't hideously ugly could easily have her pvssy stuffed by 10 different guys in a month. This is why 22 year old female virgins are praised...it's such a feat for them not to get laid. On the other hand a 22 year old male virgin is labelled a loser.

Women are the gatekeepers of sex and men are the gatekeepers of commitment. A woman who could not secure commitment after fvcking many guys is probably not worthy of commitment or incapable of it.