The glaring inconsistency of the manosphere

[Soolaimon]

First off, "Bob", if he was a man of value, would not argue on the definition of exclusivity with a plate.

This contradicts your entire boundary theory claim.

Here you are saying that Bob is a low value man for discussing the definition of exclusivity with a plate.

The whole mantra of your boundary claim is to discuss and define the definition of exclusivity with a woman. That is a contradiction!

You cleverly added the word "argue" to save face with your previous contradiction.

We all know Bob wasn't arguing cause he was doing what you told him to do. Define his terms, discuss exclusivity, teach her what is acceptable.

I agree that low value men have to do this in the first place cause they are betas.

First off, "Bob", if he was a man of value, would not argue on the definition of exclusivity with a plate.

Because I have value and I am therefore capable of setting my expectations and defining exclusivity when she requests it.

You contradict yourself calling Bob a low value man but say you have value for doing the same exact thing of setting expectations and defining exclusivity when she requests it.

First off, "Bob", if he was a man of value, would not argue on the definition of exclusivity with a plate.

Men without value have no ability or backbone to filter or clarify what exclusivity means

You call Bob a low value man for filtering and clarifying what exclusivity means to his plate.

That is the whole point to your boundary claim. You call Bob Low value for performing your boundary. That is a contradiction to your boundary claim!

Then you say "Men without value have no ability or backbone to filter or clarify what exclusivity means" but Bob did clarify what exclusivity means and you called him low value for clarifying exclusivity.

Another contradiction!

Because you missed it, again. This woman was not worth defining exclusivity for because she already said she wanted to hang out with other men.

Her: I don't like the idea of you dipping your schlong into other girls.
You: What do you mean?
Her: I want to be exclusive.

You: I can't take you seriously when you have these other men in your life.


That women will automatically cut off all men if their current man is high value. This is completely false, because she does not understand the term exclusivity.

Here is this contradiction!

Your contender and Bob's contender both have other men in their life cause you say women won't automatically cut out other men from their lives.

You say Bob's contender is not worth defining exclusivity for but your contender is worth it even though your contender still has men in her life.

According to you women will still have men in their life regardless cause they don't understand the term exclusivity.

You were setting your terms with your contender even with other men in her life and you say Bob's contender is not worth it with men in her life.

Another contradiction!

Amazing!

Because you missed it, again. This woman was not worth defining exclusivity for because she already said she wanted to hang out with other men.

That women will automatically cut off all men if their current man is high value. This is completely false, because she does not understand the term exclusivity

Next contradiction!

Bob's contender never said to Bob she wanted to hang out with other men.

She was only thinking it cause you claim she needs to be taught what exclusivity means by Bob.

She will still have men in her life cause your last statement says she won't cut men out of her life.

That means Bob's contender was worth it when according to you she needs to be taught what exclusivity means when she has men still in her life.

You contradict yourself saying she isn't worth it when women will still want to hang out with other men according to you.

If all women never automatically cut out men then no woman would be worth it according to your last statement.

That is your contradiction!

If she is too stupid to know what they are after, she is not worth committing to.

She doesn't know any better so when the time comes that she wants to, she will engage in behavior unacceptable for a committed relationship.

Here's this contradiction!

First you say if she is too stupid to know she isn't worth committing to.

Then you say she doesn't know any better and you need to teach her with your quote below.

Your whole mantra is that women don't understand the definition of exclusivity which makes them all stupid according to you.

According to this contradiction of your whole boundary claim no woman would be worth committing to cause women don't understand exclusivity and what they are after according to you.

LMAO!

It is your job as a MAN to teach her what is respectful for a relationship.

It needs to be defined because so many women today want to have a boyfriend plus an army of orbiters

I have evolved my position where I will likely not commit to a girl who already has male orbiters

That women will automatically cut off all men if their current man is high value. This is completely false, because she does not understand the term exclusivity

According to this latest contradiction of yours you would never commit to any girl cause you believe all women have orbiters and never automatically cut off all men.

You said that women will have orbiters cause they don't understand the term exclusivity.

That means you would never be able to commit to a woman according to your latest contradiction and revelation with your theory you believe in about women and boundaries cause you believe all women have orbiters and will not cut them out automatically.

Hilarious!

Give it up man! All you do is lie and contradict yourself.

Your theory is crap and you know it!

You don't even know what you're saying.

Everybody sees that!

 

[jurry]

Bollocks. The creation of all these gubmint make work cubicle "careers" to accommodate the other half of non-productive working age Westerners so the ruling elite could double their tax base is not "independence" you fugly b!tch. The only thing that has changed is she relies on many men who are taxed even more now so we can keep the charade going instead of just one.

"Doesn't need your financial security anymore" :crackup: Yeah that 193 billion dollars a year in wealth redistribution is being used to set up space colonies as we speak.

stfu you silly woman.

Right, let me know when you get a hold of some facts moron. Men are being taxed more to pay for women? Lol.. And you arent even going to bother trying to support it because somewhere in there you know its bullshît and that i will destroy your argument.

Federal government job levels are at historical lows. Weird that the private sector would be hiring women for "make work cubicle jobs" no?

Keep spewing the anger and hate, maybe soon you'll come to grips with the fact that you're a sexist racist douche whos at the wrong end of history wishing he could return to the "golden age" when a woman was forced to rely on a man for money.

 

[jurry]

This contradicts your entire boundary theory claim.

Here you are saying that Bob is a low value man for discussing the definition of exclusivity with a plate.

The whole mantra of your boundary claim is to discuss and define the definition of exclusivity with a woman. That is a contradiction!

You cleverly added the word "argue" to save face with your previous contradiction.

We all know Bob wasn't arguing cause he was doing what you told him to do. Define his terms, discuss exclusivity, teach her what is acceptable.

I agree that low value men have to do this in the first place cause they are betas.




You contradict yourself calling Bob a low value man but say you have value for doing the same exact thing of setting expectations and defining exclusivity when she requests it.



You call Bob a low value man for filtering and clarifying what exclusivity means to his plate.

That is the whole point to your boundary claim. You call Bob Low value for performing your boundary. That is a contradiction to your boundary claim!

Then you say "Men without value have no ability or backbone to filter or clarify what exclusivity means" but Bob did clarify what exclusivity means and you called him low value for clarifying exclusivity.

Another contradiction!



Here is this contradiction!

Your contender and Bob's contender both have other men in their life cause you say women won't automatically cut out other men from their lives.

You say Bob's contender is not worth defining exclusivity for but your contender is worth it even though your contender still has men in her life.

According to you women will still have men in their life regardless cause they don't understand the term exclusivity.

You were setting your terms with your contender even with other men in her life and you say Bob's contender is not worth it with men in her life.

Another contradiction!

Amazing!



[/B]

Next contradiction!

Bob's contender never said to Bob she wanted to hang out with other men.

She was only thinking it cause you claim she needs to be taught what exclusivity means by Bob.

She will still have men in her life cause your last statement says she won't cut men out of her life.

That means Bob's contender was worth it when according to you she needs to be taught what exclusivity means when she has men still in her life.

You contradict yourself saying she isn't worth it when women will still want to hang out with other men according to you.

If all women never automatically cut out men then no woman would be worth it according to your last statement.

That is your contradiction!

[/B]

Here's this contradiction!

First you say if she is too stupid to know she isn't worth committing to.

Then you say she doesn't know any better and you need to teach her with your quote below.

Your whole mantra is that women don't understand the definition of exclusivity which makes them all stupid according to you.

According to this contradiction of your whole boundary claim no woman would be worth committing to cause women don't understand exclusivity and what they are after according to you.

LMAO!
[/B]


[/B]


According to this latest contradiction of yours you would never commit to any girl cause you believe all women have orbiters and never automatically cut off all men.

You said that women will have orbiters cause they don't understand the term exclusivity.

That means you would never be able to commit to a woman according to your latest contradiction and revelation with your theory you believe in about women and boundaries cause you believe all women have orbiters and will not cut them out automatically.

Hilarious!

Give it up man! All you do is lie and contradict yourself.

Your theory is crap and you know it!

You don't even know what you're saying.

Everybody sees that!

Incredible the lengths and absurdity that danger will resort to to avoid admitting he has no idea what he is talking about..

 

[jurry]

So in your next reply, please try to address the two points we are talking regarding the system, instead of engaging in personal attacks and trying to shift the discussion to another area when we have not even agreed upon two of the basic concepts in the process first.

In your next reply please try and suck my dîck danger. You deserve the personal attacks for how excruciatingly painful you are making this, and please dont start whining about personal attacks now as if you havent tried to insult me numerous times.

We do not agree on any of the points, weve already been though them page after page. Why would i continue on with this nonsense after how long it took for you to understand the basic premise of the term "progression"? I simply have no interest in going through all that again.

Im presenting reality to you, you and the other "red pillers" are in opposition to what IS already happening. The burden of proof is on you to find legitimate support and evidence (not hypotheticals, or anecdotes like zekko above) of rampant and large scale abuse of men by women in the court system, as compared with say 30 or 40 years ago before womens rights began to take off.

Why is it so hard to produce support for this if its such a big problem holding men back? It should be everywhere! Why is it that the ONLY PEOPLE complaining about it happen to be a gang of butthurt beta internet warriors? I get the hypothetical that you are proposing about a man being accused by a woman, but it isnt happening! Ive worked for many companies, went to a college with over 20000 people in it, I cannot recall one instance of hearing about that kind of scenario. It is always a "well yea but I know a guy who said it happened to his friend" sort of thing. Ok, that shows you how rare this kind of thing truly is.

 

[VikingKing]

This contradicts your entire boundary theory claim.

Here you are saying that Bob is a low value man for discussing the definition of exclusivity with a plate.

The whole mantra of your boundary claim is to discuss and define the definition of exclusivity with a woman. That is a contradiction!

You cleverly added the word "argue" to save face with your previous contradiction.

We all know Bob wasn't arguing cause he was doing what you told him to do. Define his terms, discuss exclusivity, teach her what is acceptable.

I agree that low value men have to do this in the first place cause they are betas.




You contradict yourself calling Bob a low value man but say you have value for doing the same exact thing of setting expectations and defining exclusivity when she requests it.



You call Bob a low value man for filtering and clarifying what exclusivity means to his plate.

That is the whole point to your boundary claim. You call Bob Low value for performing your boundary. That is a contradiction to your boundary claim!

Then you say "Men without value have no ability or backbone to filter or clarify what exclusivity means" but Bob did clarify what exclusivity means and you called him low value for clarifying exclusivity.

Another contradiction!



Here is this contradiction!

Your contender and Bob's contender both have other men in their life cause you say women won't automatically cut out other men from their lives.

You say Bob's contender is not worth defining exclusivity for but your contender is worth it even though your contender still has men in her life.

According to you women will still have men in their life regardless cause they don't understand the term exclusivity.

You were setting your terms with your contender even with other men in her life and you say Bob's contender is not worth it with men in her life.

Another contradiction!

Amazing!



[/B]

Next contradiction!

Bob's contender never said to Bob she wanted to hang out with other men.

She was only thinking it cause you claim she needs to be taught what exclusivity means by Bob.

She will still have men in her life cause your last statement says she won't cut men out of her life.

That means Bob's contender was worth it when according to you she needs to be taught what exclusivity means when she has men still in her life.

You contradict yourself saying she isn't worth it when women will still want to hang out with other men according to you.

If all women never automatically cut out men then no woman would be worth it according to your last statement.

That is your contradiction!

[/B]

Here's this contradiction!

First you say if she is too stupid to know she isn't worth committing to.

Then you say she doesn't know any better and you need to teach her with your quote below.

Your whole mantra is that women don't understand the definition of exclusivity which makes them all stupid according to you.

According to this contradiction of your whole boundary claim no woman would be worth committing to cause women don't understand exclusivity and what they are after according to you.

LMAO!
[/B]


[/B]


According to this latest contradiction of yours you would never commit to any girl cause you believe all women have orbiters and never automatically cut off all men.

You said that women will have orbiters cause they don't understand the term exclusivity.

That means you would never be able to commit to a woman according to your latest contradiction and revelation with your theory you believe in about women and boundaries cause you believe all women have orbiters and will not cut them out automatically.

Hilarious!

Give it up man! All you do is lie and contradict yourself.

Your theory is crap and you know it!

You don't even know what you're saying.

Everybody sees that!

You are slow. Defining exclusivity and arguing what the definition of exclusivity are two different things. Deciding whether or not some one is worth defining what exclusivity is, is also different. Its obvious you get very emotionally involved with blurs your reasoning skills. Just like a woman.

 

[VikingKing]

In your next reply please try and suck my dîck danger. You deserve the personal attacks for how excruciatingly painful you are making this, and please dont start whining about personal attacks now as if you havent tried to insult me numerous times.

We do not agree on any of the points, weve already been though them page after page. Why would i continue on with this nonsense after how long it took for you to understand the basic premise of the term "progression"? I simply have no interest in going through all that again.

Im presenting reality to you, you and the other "red pillers" are in opposition to what IS already happening. The burden of proof is on you to find legitimate support and evidence (not hypotheticals, or anecdotes like zekko above) of rampant and large scale abuse of men by women in the court system, as compared with say 30 or 40 years ago before womens rights began to take off.

Why is it so hard to produce support for this if its such a big problem holding men back? It should be everywhere! Why is it that the ONLY PEOPLE complaining about it happen to be a gang of butthurt beta internet warriors? I get the hypothetical that you are proposing about a man being accused by a woman, but it isnt happening! Ive worked for many companies, went to a college with over 20000 people in it, I cannot recall one instance of hearing about that kind of scenario. It is always a "well yea but I know a guy who said it happened to his friend" sort of thing. Ok, that shows you how rare this kind of thing truly is.

:moon: :crackup: :crackup:

 

[jurry]

Danger, let me repeat. I have ZERO interest in "working out the process" with you. We've already gone through the points, last time it took multiple pages for you to understand the concept of progress (not surprising youd have difficulty with that idea).

You find me EVIDENCE of the systemic abuse, and that will serve as support for your presentation of the process. Why is it so hard to do that? As a certified red piller, havent you at least entertained the idea that the things you are supporting should, you know, ACTUALLY BE HAPPENING?! Or have you just accepted them on blind faith because the narrative fits your personal viewpoint on women?

 

[jurry]

No, youd rather discuss the process and the hypothetical all day because you KNOW the evidence isnt there.

And I know it too. How? Well one because ive looked, and two because IF YOU DID YOU WOULDVE ALREADY SHOWED IT. You'd show it and be like look at this shît, and id be like damn danger thats some good info there thanks for illuminating the red pill for me.

But thats not going to happen is it?

 

[( . )( . )]

Federal government job levels are at historical lows.

Yes there was more government bureaucracy and nonsense HR credentialism before the Rockefeller's and Rothschilds decided to uproot half of the Western population and thrust them into their non-productive make work cubicle "careers" :crazy: Nice strawman btw but lets go a little further back eh?

you're a sexist racist douche

lulz Marxist buzzwords? . Uh oh she brought out the sh!tlib big guns. Anything but that!! :nervous: .

Getting a little flustered there sugar tits?

 

[VikingKing]

Yes there was more government bureaucracy and nonsense HR credentialism before the Rockefeller's and Rothschilds decided to uproot half of the Western population and thrust them into their non-productive make work cubicle "careers" :crazy: Nice strawman btw but lets go a little further back eh?



lulz Marxist buzzwords? . Uh oh she brought out the sh!tlib big guns. Anything but that!! :nervous: .

Getting a little flustered there sugar tits?

Jurry is clearly either a woman, or a homosexual (not that there is anything wrong with that(the homosexual part))

 

[dasein]

Yes there was more government bureaucracy and nonsense HR credentialism before the Rockefeller's and Rothschilds decided to uproot half of the Western population and thrust them into their non-productive make work cubicle "careers" :crazy: Nice strawman btw but lets go a little further back eh?

In addition, though the number of government employees in the US is down since Reagan, that's due to 1. Much higher military staffing during the Reagan years in a less mechanized Cold War military, together with even more military staff reductions this year and last under Obama. Don't let them count strategic military staff decreases due to technology and other factors as a "reduction in govt workforce." 2. More important is growth via contracting, contracting spending has risen from $100 billion or less in the Reagan years to half a trillion today, lots o Snowdens out there, 10million or so, that statists somehow fail to account as government employees, despite that's exactly what they are.

The actual bureaugov employment in the US is growing hand over fist and no signs of letting up. All that stimulus money where we wonder where the bridges and schools are? Right into the pocket of insider special interest contractors and grantees, including lots of feminist derailment:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/659dkrod.asp#!

Feminism and its web of lies affect us all.

 

[jurry]

See tîts at least dasein here is able to construct coherent sentences and give links as opposed to your word jumble of nonsense. Like honestly what in the fvck did your last message even say?!

Thats appears to be a legit story at first glance though, although we arent presented with any actual jobs numbers or sources of any kind to see what the impact was on the economy, not that the amount earmarked for the bill would have been enough even if it had gone all to men. And i dont know much i can blame feminists for lobbying for womens jobs, every constituency does this, just the way washington works unfortunately.

Since 2009 though job recovery (which hasnt been nearly good enough) has been pretty even numbers wise by gender. The unemployment rate for women is still lower, which seems logical considering this was a housing crisis - an industry that employs predominantly men to begin with. We should be doing more now to get them back to work though i agree.

 

[Soolaimon]

Solly,

I never said this. This is why all of your posts are useless. Like any 18 year old, you only think in terms of black and white.

Your MO is to build strawmen, exactly like this statement above. So, go out and find where I said the above.

This is hilarious! More lying and projecting from you again. I guess it never ends with you.

No, your posts are useless including your crap boundary theory that you can't answer for.

You think in black and white terms cause you believe all women do not understand the term exclusivity. That is black and white thinking. I disagree with that.

Your MO is to lie, contradict, shift your position, claim straw man when you have lost an argument to save face.

You made that statement through your many lies and contradictions

Here it is!

I never said this.

I will likely not commit to a girl who already has male orbiters

That women will automatically cut off all men is completely false, because she does not understand the term.

You are lying cause you did say this through your contradictions.

Don't you know what contradicting claims you make with your own boundary theory?

Everybody can see it too.

I will likely not commit to a girl who already has male orbiters

That women will automatically cut off all men is completely false

Here it is again! Your bottom statement says your top statement is completely false.

How do you answer for that?

How can you not commit to a girl who already has male orbiters when you believe that all women have orbiters with your boundary theory?

Why are you lying saying you never "said it" cause you did say it. It's right there!

Your contradiction supports my quote below.

According to this latest contradiction of yours you would never commit to any girl cause you believe all women have orbiters and never automatically cut off all men.

That women will automatically cut off all men is completely false

See? Women all have orbiters according to you. How can you commit to a girl that doesn't have orbiters when you say all women won't cut off all men?

That means you would never commit to any girl cause you believe all women have orbiters and never automatically cut off all men.

women will automatically cut off all men is completely false

women today want to have a boyfriend plus an army of orbiters

I will likely not commit to a girl who already has male orbiters

That women will automatically cut off all men if their current man is high value . This is completely false, because she does not understand the term exclusivity.

Awesome contradictions here!

You state in your first line that women today want a boyfriend plus an army of orbiters.

That contradicts your latest claim in the second line that you won't commit to a girl who already has orbiters.

You state again in the third line that your claim in the second line is false. That is your contradiction right there! That is exactly where you said that!

You say in the third line women will not automatically cut off all men. That means women will still have orbiters.

How can you commit to a girl who has no orbiters when your entire boundary theory claim is that women have orbiters?

That means you can never commit to any woman cause your boundary theory is that all women have orbiters cause women don't understand the term of exclusivity.

Can you not understand your own contradictions that you are now lying about?

You believe all women have orbiters no matter the value of the man.

I disagree with your claim cause women will cut out orbiters for high value men.

That's what we have been arguing in over 4 threads now.

You believe all women have orbiters no matter the value of the man. You stated that very clearly above.

Now you switch your claim contradicting your boundary theory.

Your contradictions fully supports my statement below that you lied about saying you never said that calling it straw man.

According to this latest contradiction of yours you would never commit to any girl cause you believe all women have orbiters and never automatically cut off all men.

This is exactly what you are saying with your contradiction.

How do you answer for that?

Where is the straw man you claim?

There is no straw man cause it's your own words in contradiction!

I will likely not commit to a girl who already has male orbiters

That women will automatically cut off all men is completely false, because she does not understand the term.

I will likely not commit to a girl who already has male orbiters

That women will automatically cut off all men is completely false because she does not understand the term.

You clearly believe that women have orbiters.

You say it is completely false that women will cut off other men. That means women have orbiters according to you.

Then you say you won't commit to a girl who already has orbiters.

How can that be? That is a terrible contradiction!

How can you commit to a woman with no orbiters when you believe women have orbiters no matter what?

That means you can never commit to a woman cause you believe all women have orbiters according to your theory.

According to this latest contradiction of yours you would never commit to any girl cause you believe all women have orbiters and never automatically cut off all men.

I will likely not commit to a girl who already has male orbiters

That women will automatically cut off all men is completely false. , because she does not understand the term.

That women will automatically cut off all men. if their current man is high value. This is completely false, because she does not understand the term exclusivity

women today want to have a boyfriend plus an army of orbiters

Your latest first claim is contradicted by the last 3 you repeat over and over with your phony beta boundary theory.

I will likely not commit to a girl who already has male orbiters


She doesn't know any better

Women need to know what is and isn't acceptable in a committed relationship

You must tell her what is and isn't acceptable.

That women will automatically cut off all men is completely false because she does not understand the term.

Your boundary theory is crap.

You have contradicted everything about it and it was proven to be a joke!

Boundaries are for insecure betas who are scared of other men stealing their woman.

It's here for everyone to see with all your lies and contradictions.

Only a raging insecure beta would go through this much trouble defining useless insecure terms with a woman to keep her.

Hilarious!

You are slow. Defining exclusivity and arguing what the definition of exclusivity are two different things. Deciding whether or not some one is worth defining what exclusivity is, is also different. Its obvious you get very emotionally involved with blurs your reasoning skills. Just like a woman.

You are an idiot cause nobody was arguing in the example.

According to your boundary theory all women still keep orbiters even for high value men so that contradicts your "worth" claim of the woman.

That's why betas like you believe in this crap theory and need to define your insecure terms cause you are terrified of orbiters.

According to Danger defining what exclusivity is makes you a low value man. I agree with that.

First off, "Bob", if he was a man of value, would not argue on the definition of exclusivity with a plate.

Actually it's "discuss" cause we all know Bob wasn't arguing with his plate. Bob was defining, discussing, and teaching his contender like Danger told him to do according to his boundary theory.

Danger now says low value men will define the definition of exclusivity with a plate.

That completely contradicts his bounfary theory of high value men setting boundaries.

Finally I can agree with Danger's contradiction.

Boundaries are for low value men!

 

[DemFeeelz]

Hooooooly $hit Solly!!!! Your reading comprehension is so low, that you think I said "ALL women". I said ALL orbiters. Holy hell no wonder you make posts that are a mile long which are unreadable. You can't even get your own straw-men straight. Your WHOLE obsession with me is based upon your inability to read properly. Good god man, go get an education and some reading skills.

Typical coward, has to put up lies and accuse the other person of it.

Solly,

Listen, it just isn't working.



DemFeelz is right. I am breaking up with you Solly. Don't get too hurt, you will find someone. Let's just be friends though. You are completely welcome to join my army of orbiters!
Solly, your constant straw-men are ridiculous. You

Soil-y mon soils his shorts just getting a reply from you. It must make his day oddly enough even with all his busy time fending off the females beating down his basement door.

I even think Soily-mon fashions herself as the women you date as he seems to speak for them. Soil-y is probably dancing around his basement dressed as Buffalo Bill to Goodbye horses as we speak talking to a mirror about: "I'd fcuk me. I'd fcuk me so hard!" Lmao

 

[jurry]

Its ok danger youve just been spouting this bs philosophy for years without ever having looked to see if its true, it takes time to come to grips with these things i understand.

 

[zekko]

Typical coward, has to put up lies and accuse the other person of it.

Solly,

Listen, it just isn't working.

Danger, I told you it was a waste of time trying to discuss anything with that kid. All you will get is your words twisted and rows and rows of strawmen, not to mention his made up stories that he presents as "facts". I really do think at this point this dude is PlayHer Man, because he was the same way. I really hope this is some grade schooler typing on his mommy's computer, because if he not, this guy needs to get himself some serious, serious help. Who talks like that? Throw him in your ignore file where he belongs.

 

[The411]

Danger, I told you it was a waste of time trying to discuss anything with that kid. All you will get is your words twisted and rows and rows of strawmen, not to mention his made up stories that he presents as "facts". I really do think at this point this dude is PlayHer Man, because he was the same way. I really hope this is some grade schooler typing on his mommy's computer, because if he not, this guy needs to get himself some serious, serious help. Who talks like that? Throw him in your ignore file where he belongs.

I've been thinking it's PHM. Same exact trolling style. Put's words in your mouth, dodges replies, changes directions, tries to antagonize, claims everyone "else" is in full support, builds strawmen, tries to purposefully mis-represent topics, tries to get you to give more info to re-frame, mis-represent, twist (as if he's some hack lawyer in a kangaroo court), pats "yes" men on the head, KJ's etc. It's all typical run-of the mill trolling.

Same basement dwelling virgin clown. PlayHer_Mon.

 

[jurry]

Espi, thanks for an intelligent response that doesnt resort to absolutist positions and insults.

Definitely, the alpha, don draper type of the 1950s as you describe it still kills it with women as he always has and probably always will. Now that the scale has moved a bit closer to center though (in terms of gender equality), many on the manosphere act as if the sky is falling and men are close to extinction. Its just absurd.

I also agree it really isnt even that bad for betas now, I think I overstated the effect in the first post because anyone with a working dîck and a brain can still get laid if they are willing to put a little time in.

Its of course hard to quantify or support women being harder or easier for "betas" in any meaningful way, but it does seem logically that as women are more independent financially and can be more selective this would make it harder for the low value men, who didnt have as much need to work on themselves when they could get a woman based simply off financial security.

If anything this seems like a good thing, men who were operating in a beta mindset before are now more likely to learn and adapt instead of being stuck in their ways.

 

[VikingKing]

Espi, thanks for an intelligent response that doesnt resort to absolutist positions and insults.

Definitely, the alpha, don draper type of the 1950s as you describe it still kills it with women as he always has and probably always will. Now that the scale has moved a bit closer to center though (in terms of gender equality), many on the manosphere act as if the sky is falling and men are close to extinction. Its just absurd.

I also agree it really isnt even that bad for betas now, I think I overstated the effect in the first post because anyone with a working dîck and a brain can still get laid if they are willing to put a little time in.

Its of course hard to quantify or support women being harder or easier for "betas" in any meaningful way, but it does seem logically that as women are more independent financially and can be more selective this would make it harder for the low value men, who didnt have as much need to work on themselves when they could get a woman based simply off financial security.

If anything this seems like a good thing, men who were operating in a beta mindset before are now more likely to learn and adapt instead of being stuck in their ways.

Jurry as long as you agree that single mothers are worthless trash leaches, and only good for fvck and chuck, your cool with me.

 

[VikingKing]

To blame or credit the past is disempowering, because I'm putting outside circumstances in control of my destiny.

In my opinion, in today's society, there are simply new challenges to contend with. I find a way to adapt and make things work for me. I use my strengths to my advantage.

Look at this way:

Even if it were 100% beyond-a-doubt true that attracting women is "harder" in 2014 than it was in 1954, how would it actually help me believing in that? Aren't I better off thinking that I'm a DJ and that NOTHING can stop me from attracting the kind of women I want?

In 2014, there are more women than ever who are available for no-strings- attached sex. We live in an unprecedented society in which morals are valued subjectively. They shoot people in other countries for dressing or speaking in ways that are deemed too expressive.

In my mind, this is the Golden Era of Loose Pvussy. A man like myself is free to date as many women as I want. In 1950 there was no Internet. These days, I can spend several hours on my computer and have access to several women within a day or two. How great is that?

Think about how challenging and restricting it was to meet women in the 1950's.

Again...just another era, with another set of challenges.

I agree with this. The problem is not the women, or how they decide to conduct themselves. Its what boys are taught to believe about women from a young age.

Of course if boys were taught the truth about women from a young age instead of lies, many women would end up feeling very alone and maybe in turn teach there daughters not be whorves, and taught to be loyal. It's like a repeating cycle.

The big issue for me is that now the slvtty women, especially the older "ex" slvts want to convince society, and especially young men that its ok for women to sleep around and when they are done sleeping around men should just be ok with that, and committee to them and understand they are done "exploring" their sexuality.

But really women who have at any point slept around should not be committed to, and we should teach the young men about this. Its fine to get married and committee but if a woman has slept around at all in her past, she doesn't deserve it.i
Thus, young ho's and old ho's alike should be socially acceptable in terms of its ok to sleep with them, but they deserve commitment from no man.

Let women do as they like, but judge them accordingly. If they sleep around at all, the public should know so men can protect themselves (and their commitment) from the deceit (and women will deceive you about their past sexual history) and when the slvts grow old alone, they will teach the young women to not be slvts or else end up with the same fate.

So the solution is to preach to other men, regardless of age or experience to use any women who ever just slept around for sex, never forgive her history. But women who are not attention whorves or slvts may be able to earn your commitment.