Sugar Babies

DigitalScetis · 2時間前

As despicable as it is, it would at least be manageable...if that was all she wanted.

But she also wants a variety of Chadcock, perpetually, and Chad doesn't tend to pay.

So not only is she scheming men out of their money, she's also leading on on these men with money in an attempt to get the money, while banging Chads at will.

DigitalScetis · 2時間前

Back in the old days, we used to kick these girls out of school for doing these things, because when a girl is playing around with sex and money, bad things happen (murder/suicides, disturbing phone calls, shady characters) that put the whole student body at risk.

These days, even if a teacher knew about it, or a dean, or a counselor, nobody could do anything about it (muh slut shamingz).

DigitalScetis · 2時間前

It's obvious she only married him to get her daughter to college. Once that's done, I'm afraid he'll get divorced.

DigitalScetis · 2時間前

They come here with the idea that it is in our interest to tone police. I've heard the following variants on this theme:

1) "It tarnishes the MGTOW brand." 2) "It makes MGTOW look stupid." 3) "Have you no better things to do?" 4) "It'll give feminists more cause to shut us down." 5) "It undermines all the good MGTOW has done."

I am not going to refute these points here, like I and others here have countless times before, but it's easy to do. If someone else wants to take a crack at them, be my guest.

All I'm going to say is that one of our greatest strengths is to exercise an unapologetic, uncompromising right to speak the truth. I believe this, gentlemen, is the reason so many men have gone their own ways, and is the MGTOW idea's greatest asset as a path to true male sovereignty. If we ever were to lose it, if we ever were to compromise it, two things would happen:

1) Men would no longer trust the MGTOW message of male sovereignty, liberation from gynocentrism, and the ability to pursue and seek the truth, if they can't even practice these things on the MGTOW subreddit.

2) That is when the attacks by enemies of man (the tradcons, feminists, and manginas) on men going their own way will really begin in earnest, because they know that we are sensitive to their criticisms.

In ancient times, tribes would put the skulls of their enemies on sticks as a warning not to fuck with them. And while I do not condone placing severed heads on sticks, I think the "icky threads" serve this purpose quite well.

DigitalScetis · 7時間前

There are two kinds of hypergamy: The natural, visceral kind, and the sociological kind. The dilemma of woman is how to satisfy both; how to fuck Chad, cuck Brad, and have Brad be fine with paying the bills. So, in effect, she can never be satisfied with who commits to her, even if (and especially) if he's rich. She'll always feel as if "something is missing," and she will feel justified in deceit.

Now, is that something blameworthy? That is up to you. But if you think, as you apparently do, that rich men are eugenically superior, this kind of man gets the worst end of hypergamy.

DigitalScetis · 9時間前

When Jesus stepped in to save the adulteress (John 8), He presented her to the gathered stone throwers that she was worthy of unconditional love. He recognized her rights. He was taking a bold gamble, for it was just as likely for the stone throwers to throw stones at Him.

But Jesus also told the adulteress to "go and sin no more," with the operative term being GO.

DigitalScetis · 10時間前

I remember reading about the ladder theory long ago. It was back when socio-sexual psychology was in a real experimental phase, with books like The Predatory Female and Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus.

We have a lot more sophisticated understanding today of a lot of the mechanisms that cause women to keep ladders like this, but it was and still is a rather good resource to decode what women mean when they say the things they say.

Of course, the key word that was missing back then is hypergamy, which no understanding of female mate choice can be understood without.

And if gynocentrism has one weakness, it is that hypergamy is just so obvious and so explanatory of what goes on in the world, that if every man just had a firm grasp of it, whole institutions of society would be undermined.

I think that is why society takes great pains to obfuscate hypergamy by coming up with explanations like "the reason women can't find a date in New York is because there is a lack of college educated males" rather than "the reason women can't find a date in New York is because of hypergamic pressures."

Which I find sort of hilarious. It is as if civilization has this giant elephant in the room named "Hypergamy," and the women and the media are putting a lampshade on its head, hoping people won't notice the elephant.

DigitalScetis · 13時間前

Let's not overestimate their ability to evaluate such things.

Because if the study is correct, a woman would go on about how the Ph.D. in bullshit making six figures is doing "useful work" versus an industrial engineer making five, who is just a "boring technocrat."

DigitalScetis · 13時間前

Agreed, but I don't see this as a speech issue.

I see this as a public utility issue in the same way as a power company or phone company can't make your power and water availability contingent on your political beliefs, nor can they make such services contingent on whether your neighbors think you ought to have them.

DigitalScetis · 14時間前

Yes, it was told to me. I had to figure out later that it was a lie.

It might have been true at one time, back when education equaled a well paid, steady career.

Those days are over. I know people with fine, professional educations in things like mathematics, engineering and law. Nobody will hire them, ergo, no women--beautiful or otherwise--seem to care.

Now I've explained before here in other articles how the MSM is trying to incorporate red pill truths that can't be denied into a blue pill framework that can be acceptable to women. I've been seeing a lot of articles lately that try to answer the "where have all the good men gone?" with "the problem is that men don't stay in school to get their educations." A good example of this is here, and this has become the standard, feminist-friendly explanation of the situation.

But the bluepilled men I know who are educated are actually having a rougher time of things out there on the dating scene than the ones who have finished high school, or the ones who haven't even finished high school.

How can this be? If the problem is a lack of male educational attainment, why are these highly-educated men finding it difficult on the dating scene?

A scientific study by David Ong blows apart the feminist myth of the "lack of uneducated men." He states:

Statistics for men visiting women weren't affected by the educational level of the woman. On the other hand, visits to men, from women of all educational levels, increased when the male profile had a higher education level, and grew even more so when paired with greater income. More highly educated women visiting men were more commonly clicking on male profiles with higher incomes. This suggests that education was merely a by-product of the main motivating factor: income.

Yes MGTOW. Since feminist and progressively-inspired journalists cannot accept hypergamy as a motive, they use the word "education" as a way to justify their hypergamous prejudice. Whenever you see an article that says that the problem with men is a problem of education, substitute "income" for "education" and you'll get the real message, because it was never about education for the women deep down inside. They don't care about your thoughtful conversations, your writing acumen, your highly-cultured sophistication, your principles, your insight or your intelligence if it doesn't translate to dollars at the end of the day.

If it was about the education, there's a whole lot of PhDs, MBAs, JDs and the like who would get far more attention than they get now. But a lot of those men with advanced educations are making $20,000/yr adjuncting, or working in a non for profit at $35,000/yr, or helping out legal aid/public defense at $50,000/yr, or slogging it out as an assistant manager at a retail store for about the same.

Educated? Up the wazoo. But they are all about as lonely as my high-school dropout friends who are working in fast food...perhaps even more lonely, because they still give a damn about appearances.

But I have little evidence that women, on the whole, care about education and intelligence; they are more concerned with what the education can leverage in the marketplace (power, money, ambition).

If it isn't leveraging much, then I have to conclude that the education doesn't matter to them. They want to be the smart ones in the relationship, the "wise" ones, the erudite ones who have a broad understanding of history and culture (which is why, I suspect, they prefer the liberal arts). What they want from their men is a high earning, narrow, technical education that can leverage high compensation, at the price of true wisdom or human insight.

The greatest lie that has ever been told to men these days is that women like intelligent men. They don't; not in the classical sense of forsaking the mundane matters of living for the sake of higher, more noble truth. What they want is the money, and will mask the hypergamy by saying, post-hoc, that she loves him for his "intelligence."

DigitalScetis · 1日前

Of course you and I know that, man. The problem is that Coulter doesn't know that.

DigitalScetis · 1日前

1) Looks to be about 120lbs...how physically "strong" can she be?

2) She can't capitalize at the beginning of a sentence. She can't understand that "even swiping right" is not any more minuscule than simply "swiping right"; she ought to have said don't waste my time and swipe left. Poorly conceptualized prose; how mentally "strong" can she be?

3) Has a one year old; where's the father? Why is she so passive aggressive? How morally "strong" can she be?

4) Baby daddy money...how "independent" can she be?

5) Government aid...how "independent" can she be?

6) Posting on a dating app...how "independent" can she be?

Diagnosis: This woman is looking to branch swing until she can get a guy with money. But she'll settle for a Chad, at which point the one year old will have another brother or sister, and she'll collect another check.

DigitalScetis · 1日前

I enjoy my solitude very much, but as I believe in a god, I'm never truly alone.

Some don't enjoy their solitude. So we ought to show them the joy of it.

DigitalScetis · 1日前

The difference is, I suspect, women aspire to be content in their loneliness.

Men, however, actually can.

DigitalScetis · 1日前

What u/GreatRedYeti said.

Perhaps psychiatry might be the best fit, but not for the reasons of treating only men. You'll learn a lot about female nature when you get one on the couch; this knowledge can be useful in treating both men and women.

I mean, you'll be in the enviable position of getting paid to do the things for these women that boyfriends, beta orbiters and husbands pay to do for these women, thereby relieving men from having to do the shit work of hearing her nag, bitch, complain and obfuscate.

That will help men the world over a whole lot more than anything else you can do for them.

DigitalScetis · 1日前

Take a look at this video and see if you think the same thing.

"The reason why a liberal man so hates conservative women is, I think, correctly, that women are the keepers of religion, the keepers of morality...its always, that's always, the joke on the Simpsons, its always the mother going to church and the husband complaining...And women are the ones who pass down moral traditions and give, and care about moral issues.

Now tell me, how is this any different than Mary Daly, Valerie Solanis, or any other female supremacist who has ever argued that men can't be trusted with power, because they cannot be trusted to use it well without female guidance and oversight?

Sounds like AWALT to me.

DigitalScetis · 1日前

You know, I have never seen in my entire life a group of men who are so united with one another than the men who go their own way.

Men who are black, white, and Asian do more than stand on common ground here, they help each other out. We have rich men here and poor men here, and nobody looks at the other with envy or contempt. We have fit MGTOW and unfit MGTOW, MGTOW with lots of sexual experience and MGTOW who have none at all. We have highly educated men here and high school dropouts, but all speak to one another as equals here.

I have to say that we who go our own way are able to achieve something no men's movement or idea of men has ever, previously, been able to do: create solidarity among men, without falling victim to the things that divide them.

It is this unity that the enemies of the MGTOW message fear most of all. And so, they seek to divide. You get white nationalists who say that white MGTOW are traitors to the white race. You have IBMOR who blame whites for destroying black manhood. You have neo-masculinists who say that there are "real MGTOW" and "bad MGTOW," and that the "real MGTOW" ought to abandon MGTOW or else get associated with them. We have Elam and MRAs who think MGTOW would be okay, so long as they get rid of our "pigTOW" thought leaders. And you have feminists and manginas, who say "MGTOW have a point, but those who say bad things about women deserve zero toleration."

But we have always, brothers, rose above such attempts to divide us on racial, income, rhetorical or political grounds. And by doing so, we have created something very important to the development of man.

DigitalScetis · 1日前

Abundance mentality is predicated on the ability to ascertain and maximize your advantages, rather than to attempt to transcend some real or perceived disadvantages.

I'd kill for a body like that, not because I could pump it up in the weightroom, but because I wouldn't have to be in the weightroom to make it look damn good.

If a man is 6' and 135lbs, his mechanical advantage is far better suited to pushing water than pushing iron.

DigitalScetis · 1日前

You know, some time back, I got to do yoga for awhile with a free week long trial. It made me feel worse about myself. I felt tired, aggressive and I lost focus for the whole day afterword. When the person in charge asked me "how do you feel about yoga?" I told her the truth, but she wouldn't accept the truth.

"You're doing it wrong" she said.

"Umm...no, I did them the way you taught me."

"You must not have, because if you were doing it right, you would not be so frustrated."

"Perhaps this set of exercises aren't right for me?"

"Scientific studies have shown that you this is impossible."

Shrugs

"Then it is obvious you need to work on your mindset."

Chuckle "Have a good day."

Yoga, to the people who swear by it, transcends fitness to become something like a religion. If it doesn't give you what the practitioners get out of it, the problem is never that yoga is not a good fit for you; the problem is always that you are "doing something wrong." Because "science" or "desire" something like that.

And I see the same thing with things like resistance training; it ceases to be mere exercise to the people who swear by it and becomes something like a religion. "If you aren't getting better, it must be that you've 'plateaued'; just keep on doing it" or "If you aren't bulking up, it must be your diet" and, eventually, when the excuses pile up, they say "It's your bad attitude."

Frankly, I think we aren't looking at the question in the right way. Instead of assuming that the question of "how do we put on weight" is the question, we ought to be asking "the question isn't about how to put on weight, but why is it so important for this MGTOW to put on weight?" It is indicative of a man who does not accept the body that he has been given as good in its own right, but flawed at some level, and needs to be radically transformed into something else.

Can people get something out of weight training? Perhaps; but rather than fight against nature, wouldn't it be better to work with nature? There might be something even better for the person; something that is more harmonious with his natural state, that can bring it out to its optimum physical potential, while looking damn good in the process.

At 6' and 135lbs, the man is shaped like a bullet. He's got all the characteristics to be good at swimming, where that long body and limbs can work to his advantage. He can put on weight that way, good weight in the shoulders, abs and chest, all while getting cut like these guys. Who wouldn't want that?

And yet, everyone here is telling this guy to do benches and squats, where his long limbs have to work extra hard, and his frame provides so little support. They sound like the yoga people, where the problem is never that the routine isn't a good fit, but with the moral failings of the person.

It might be fine for an occasional switch, but the guy has already said he's been lifting, and hasn't gotten the gains he expected.

But perhaps the gains aren't the real issue here. Perhaps the confidence in himself is, not in a "fat acceptance" kind of way that refuses to see his inadequacies, but in the kind of way that refuses to see his advantages.

So my final bit of advice isn't to tell him not to do all the bodybuilding things here if he wants to try it. But if they don't work for him, or if he gets discouraged, wouldn't it be better for him to get out of the weightroom and do something else that works to his advantages, rather than become focused on all his perceived disadvantages?

DigitalScetis · 2日前

Ectomorphs have a different kind of physiology that do not respond as well to weights. You have longer, more slow twitch muscle fibers that respond better to moving in space, rather than resistance training.

My advice to look better and achieve fitness (which may or may not put on weight) is to get out of the weightroom and get into the pool, or onto the track, or into the martial arts or dance studio. You've got the ideal body type to respond well to that sort of training.

DigitalScetis

トロフィーケース

本日のreddit gold目標額達成率