Why are we afraid of rejection from women?

[3agle 3yes]

Agree with @Urbanyst

Women maybe appreciated the most (in terms of SMV), but the only exceptional people in the world are 90% men.

And the only under appreciated people (SMV) are also men.

Name at least 20 women that have lived in the past 7 centuries.

Once the average woman reaches 35 or 40 (some even before then) society expects them to become background noise.

The biggest curse is being an ugly fat women...that would be bad.

 

[bigneil]

Dude can you read or not? A man's value is not all about reproduction. Did you miss that part?

Science and technology is all men. If we only had 10 men on earth with 6 billion women.. sure the human race would survive, but not at the current standard of living. You can kiss most modern technology good bye. Men maintain most of what we have in the modern world. Its all men.

Women suck at fighting wild animals too. So you can kiss our safety good bye also. Wild animals will take over again and eat most of us with only women around.

You guys have some real one dimensional thinking. Its like you don't use your brains at all.




Allow me to fix this for you:

"If you are a LOW VALUE man, know that the moment you were born the universe had it in for you. The deck was stacked. The deal was raw. Your expendability was programmed into your wet code before you gained self-awareness.

You got the short stick, now what? Do you contemplate it and hope for a longer one?

No. You sharpen it and jab it into the heart of every obstacle that sets itself in your way."

Men are at the extremes of society. At the very top its all men. At the very bottom its all men. Women are in the middle along for the ride and taking whatever they can get.

Urbanyst, spare us the virtue signalling for men. We know men are the victims of feminism and the welfare state, we know men built most of the world, but that's because they were serving women who were superior and thus provided infinite inspiration via being unpredictable and impossible to please. The bottom line is, anatomically speaking, assuming we don't somehow go from 50/50 women and men to 99/1, women and their limited eggs are more valuable than men and their infinite sperm. A man can continue to generate sperm. A woman is born with her eggs. You're trying to say that the Federal Reserve printing paper dollars is the same as Gold coins. It's not.

 

[bigneil]

Here is the angle I suspect Urbanyst is taking:

Corollary A: Men are just as valuable as women
Corollary B: Therefore, women should pay half of everything

 

[wifehunter]

because we're all a bunch of wussies.

 

[Urbanyst]

You have seemed to miss the point entirely.

I absolutely love being a man. I revel in it.

But to argue that men don't have a harder time for simply being male is to completely ignore the entire way this game is stacked.

The point is to have some fight, and rise to it. If I could sum it up in a picture, it would be this:

View attachment 624

Men have a harder time with some things, while women have a harder time with other things.

To say men have a harder time in life period is narrow minded. Some men have easy lives and some have hard lives. Some women have easy lives and some have hard lives.

Sounds like a lot of you guys never travel or go outside your own little bubble.

Urbanyst, spare us the virtue signalling for men. We know men are the victims of feminism and the welfare state, we know men built most of the world, but that's because they were serving women who were superior and thus provided infinite inspiration via being unpredictable and impossible to please. The bottom line is, anatomically speaking, assuming we don't somehow go from 50/50 women and men to 99/1, women and their limited eggs are more valuable than men and their infinite sperm. A man can continue to generate sperm. A woman is born with her eggs. You're trying to say that the Federal Reserve printing paper dollars is the same as Gold coins. It's not.

Low level, low value men is who you are talking about. And you're comparing them to high value women. More one dimensional thinking.

You're not going to tell me Tom Brady's sperm is less valuable that the eggs of some fat, diseased, third world crack wh*re just because she is female. If you believe that, nothing can help you.

High value male sperm is valuable. That's what allows a man to spin plates. One man that many women want.

I'm not talking about losers. But you guys seem to be stuck focusing on losers and calling them all men.

 

[bigneil]

Sounds like a lot of you guys never travel or go outside your own little bubble.

Low level, low value men is who you are talking about. And you're comparing them to high value women. More one dimensional thinking.

You're not going to tell me Tom Brady's sperm is less valuable that the eggs of some fat, diseased, third world crack wh*re just because she is female. If you believe that, nothing can help you.

I never travel?? I have lived in 25 cities and 12 states. I have visited 46 US cities and 7 countries.

The whole world was made from low-value men??

Everyone who is not Tom Brady is not a low-value loser. If Tom Brady were on an island with 9 other men and there were 10 women, 8 of the women would sleep with Tom Brady and 8 men would die virgins. Only 2 of the men would reproduce, but all of the women would reproduce.

Dating is about the exchange of resources for eggs. This proves eggs are valuable.

 

[bigneil]

What I'm saying is what you do with your life doesn't change your DNA.

This is actually not true, we are learning. DNA is a reflection of what you and all your ancestors ingested in their lifetimes. Good genes simply mean your ancestors lived on better soil and thus had a more nutritious diet. You can slowly improve your genes by improving your diet.

A man is not rated on how pretty he is, so to say that a man can work harder and get a better woman but that doesn't mean he had better genes is not true. The man who extracts the most resources on average has the best genes.

 

[Urbanyst]

I never travel?? I have lived in 25 cities and 12 states. I have visited 46 US cities and 7 countries.

The whole world was made from low-value men??

Everyone who is not Tom Brady is not a low-value loser. If Tom Brady were on an island with 9 other men and there were 10 women, 8 of the women would sleep with Tom Brady and 8 men would die virgins. Only 2 of the men would reproduce, but all of the women would reproduce.

Dating is about the exchange of resources for eggs. This proves eggs are valuable.

Do you know what an example is? That's Tom Brady. Didn't say all men who are not Tom Brady level are losers. You seem to be stuck on one dimensional thinking and don't have the mental ability to see complexity. Its not all or nothing. Among low value men, there are still higher and lower men. Among high value men, there are still higher and lower men. You can't be this dumb.

I already told you a man's value is not all about reproduction. We have nothing left to discuss if you are going to keep repeating the same crap that we already moved past.

I travel plenty.

And do you know how many homeless I see in the streets? What do you reckon the percentage of those that are men?

I also have had many different jobs. One of which was in advocacy.

Can you guess whom we prioritized for assistance?

You aren't talking to an idiot here

Why are you so stuck focusing on losers and low value men? No one on this site is low value, so lets get off that. You think its some kind of crime against humanity that homeless men are not dating supermodels? You think its strange that society has winners and losers?

Yes, society has winners and losers. Everyone can't win. Get used to it.

Some countries look out more for women (U.S. and Canada) while other countries look out more for men (Middle east, parts of African, etc).

This one dimensional claim that all men have a disadvantage in life while all women have an advantage in life is totally absurd and can be proven with facts if you want to keep going. In general, men are both at the top and the bottom. Women are in the middle. The men at the bottom think women have it easier, while women look at men at the top and think men have it easier. The grass is always greener on the other side.

 

[Urbanyst]

You said:



I'm telling you that the more you know, the more stark the reality becomes.

Which then, naturally the discussion shifts to:



Which I have already addressed in the two posts (numbers 44, and 50).

So you are saying all men have harder lives than all women?

That's absurd. I can't take you seriously if you believe that to be true. It is factually false.

 

[bigneil]

You ... don't have the mental ability to see complexity.

I am currently working 3 jobs in computer graphics and scored a 160 on a spatial IQ test. I patented my own computer graphics rendering system in 2002 and I'm using it for one of my clients currently. But I won't compare that to what my girlfriend achieved because she can't compare. That doesn't mean I don't still love her or that I think I am better than her. She has millionaires proposing to her.

Urbanyst thinks that because he makes $99,000 a year now that he's the equivalent of a female supermodel (who should cover half), but in reality he can barely get a date.

I've proven him wrong enough times so he can go ahead and have the last word.

 

[Urbanyst]

I believe that men need to strive more to survive. And, in terms of game discussion, strive to pass on their DNA.

In general yes. In all cases? No.

Would you rather be a woman? If not, that says a lot by itself.

I am currently working 3 jobs in computer graphics and scored a 160 on a spatial IQ test. I patented my own computer graphics rendering system in 2002 and I'm using it for one of my clients currently. But I won't compare that to what my girlfriend achieved because she can't compare. That doesn't mean I don't still love her or that I think I am better than her. She has millionaires proposing to her.

Urbanyst thinks that because he makes $99,000 a year now that he's the equivalent of a female supermodel (who should cover half), but in reality he can barely get a date.

I've proven him wrong enough times so he can go ahead and have the last word.

You haven't proven anything. That's why you are changing the topic.

I never said I made $99,000. I never specified exactly what I made other than 6 figures. You came up with the $99,999.99 as a way to antagonize me, so I just let you run with it without telling you exactly what I make. I know you will try to diminish whatever number I give you, so better to just let you guess.

I'm also pretty young, so I expect to make more money later and one day I might make more than you if I don't already. But for now, I'm still in good shape.

Back to the original point. Women are not more valuable than men. Without men, women could never survive to have a chance to be selective about what sperm they take in. Men are the reason women can thrive in the first place. Men are just as important for survival of the species as women are because men keep women safe so they can actually reproduce without getting eaten by a tiger or a pack of wolves. So it might seem on the surface women have more value, but if you have the ability to think in more than one dimension you will see man have equal value to women.

 

[Mike32ct]

This is actually not true, we are learning. DNA is a reflection of what you and all your ancestors ingested in their lifetimes. Good genes simply mean your ancestors lived on better soil and thus had a more nutritious diet. You can slowly improve your genes by improving your diet.

That makes sense. Fair enough.

A man is not rated on how pretty he is, so to say that a man can work harder and get a better woman but that doesn't mean he had better genes is not true. The man who extracts the most resources on average has the best genes.

Let's forget about looks and take a very broad definition of "good genes." You can include anything you want in there such as intelligence, etc.

If a guy didn't win the "good genes" lottery but still is very successful, will he pass on "good genes" or no?

Or another way to look at it....

If a guy starts out poor and fathers one child, and then he gets rich and later fathers a second child, did child #2 get better genes than child #1?

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

My DNA is not me. As Kramer once said, 'I am not an animal!'

 

[bigneil]

Let's forget about looks and take a very broad definition of "good genes." You can include anything you want in there such as intelligence, etc.

If a guy didn't win the "good genes" lottery but still is very successful, will he pass on "good genes" or no?

Or another way to look at it....

If a guy starts out poor and fathers one child, and then he gets rich and later fathers a second child, did child #2 get better genes than child #1?

No. Both children got the good genes of a man who was capable (at some age) of extracting enough resources from the Earth to be declared rich and thus support more children through adulthood.

You are thinking a pretty unemployed man has better genes than a bald, average looking juggernaut?

 

[bigneil]

I never said I made $99,000. I might make more than you if I don't already. But for now, I'm still in good shape.

I was a self-made millionaire by 29, and lost it in the dot-com crash.

You might make more than me. There is a 1 in 750 chance. I currently take home $9100 per week after taxes.

I'm still not as valuable as a 21 year old HB9+ female with fresh eggs. She gets to reproduce humans, not dollars. In the game of life, she is first prize.

 

[guru1000]

Being ugly is something you can't fix.

Plastic surgery in its extreme can add up to 5+ pts to a face. And a physique can add up to 2-3 pts to your looks. When you get settled down, if ever, always ask the girl to see her childhood pics to know her "before" status. You don't want to find out after your children are born.

 

[Mike32ct]

No. Both children got the good genes of a man who was capable (at some age) of extracting enough resources from the Earth to be declared rich and thus support more children through adulthood.

Fair enough. I wasn't overly concerned about whether the guy INITIALLY had "good genes" or not. I was focusing on whether the genes changed from pre-success to post-success. You answered that. I'm all set. Thanks.

I also get your point that he likely had good genes pre-success.

You are thinking a pretty unemployed man has better genes than a bald, average looking juggernaut?

No. The later guy would have a significant edge genetically. Understood.

But you still needed an extreme example such as a juggernaut to beat out the looks guy.

Yes, a "looks" guy CAN be beaten with money or fame or some other wildcard. But it requires a substantial wildcard, not a small one.

If looks weren't important and it was all about money, then even a small income delta would help an average looking guy win over the hotter guy. But that's not the case. The average looking guy has to out-earn the hot guy by a significant margin in order to compete.

 

[Urbanyst]

I was a self-made millionaire by 29, and lost it in the dot-com crash.

You might make more than me. There is a 1 in 750 chance. I currently take home $9100 per week after taxes.

I'm still not as valuable as a 21 year old HB9+ female with fresh eggs. She gets to reproduce humans, not dollars. In the game of life, she is first prize.

A man's value is not all about reproduction. I've given you real world examples explaining this.

Seems like you have some kind of mental block or learning disability that keeps you from learning and processing new information. Keep thinking women are better than you then. I'm over it.

 

[3agle 3yes]

I'm still not as valuable as a 21 year old HB9+ female with fresh eggs. She gets to reproduce humans, not dollars. In the game of life, she is first prize.

What if a hb10 is near by...what if she's surrounded by other hb9s?

Not only are you referring to one type of woman (a hb9), you aren't taking into account that the woman in your example's SMV decreases everyday she ages...will the same amount of men care about her when she's 35? What can women do to improve their value to men if they aren't attractive? Whereas a man can do many things...and age isn't a problem until we're pushing past 60 and even still then (if you're a billionaire) you can pull women half your age.

I get that society panders to the needs of women, but there is a weakness (that I never want to have) when you have to rely on the state to look after you.

 

[Urbanyst]

What if a hb10 is near by...what if she's surrounded by other hb9s?

Not only are you referring to one type of woman (a hb9), you aren't taking into account that the woman in your example's SMV decreases everyday she ages...will the same amount of men care about her when she's 35? What can women do to improve their value to men if they aren't attractive? Whereas a man can do many things...and age isn't a problem until we're pushing past 60 and even still then (if you're a billionaire) you can pull women half your age.

I get that society panders to the needs of women, but there is a weakness (that I never want to have) when you have to rely on the state to look after you.

Not only that. If its all about reproduction.. what happens when a woman is past reproductive age? Is her value nothing now?

Its not all about reproduction.

bigneil can't get past the one dimensional, autistic, pre-school thinking.