maregal wrote: » She will begrudgingly partake in sex with the beta for the first year or two of marriage until the children have arrived. She will then divorce the beta, taking the house while collecting monthly child support payments in the process. She no longer needs the beta as she has a steady income. This is a tough pill to swallow but we've seen the same story play out countless times before.
PucaMama wrote: » This is insane. Women are not behaving like this. Any married women I know are very happily married and plan on staying that way. You seem delusional. Men who think like this seem to place very little value on marriage. And very little value on doing things that are for the benefit of society e.g having and raising good children to become good adults.
maregal wrote: » Prepare for the ultimate red pill on human sexual dynamics: the top 20% of guys get 80% of the women. For centuries, humanity practiced polgamy. The alpha male kept a harem of available women to mate with while the betas either got to have the ugly leftovers or died as virgins thereby not passing on their genes. This is apparent in the modern dating game where a select few good looking men ("Chads") are getting laid every weekend while the rest of the male rejects (betas) fap to internet porn. As women reach age 30+ they have passed their peak Sexual Market Value (SMV) and realize that they can no longer attract Chad as he has moved onto younger models. The women are then willing to settle with a beta, provided he has a good income, a flashy car and spacious house. She will begrudgingly partake in sex with the beta for the first year or two of marriage until the children have arrived. She will then divorce the beta, taking the house while collecting monthly child support payments in the process. She no longer needs the beta as she has a steady income. This is a tough pill to swallow but we've seen the same story play out countless times before.
RDM_83 again wrote: » The previous thread I think the OP is referring to is a decent example of this, a woman espousing "political lesbianism" in the LL might get told to try a different approach but male posters attacking the op wouldnt be tolerated and I think the a lot more support to their issues would be evident (to the issues they face as it were not to their response to said issues).
Arevaci wrote: » The MGTOW movement is based primarily on two factors: 1} Increasing expectations among men regarding sexual activity; 2) An increasing proportion of men not getting any sex. The media has fuelled the former and increasing female choice has resulted in the latter. For example, all we hear in the media is about the increasingly sexuality of younger generations, sexual liberation, tinder/hook-up culture, when in reality the current generation is only slightly more promiscuous than previous generations and the overall level of sexual activity is declining due to the increasing number of single people. Everyone was very surprised with a recent study in the US which showed reduced sexual activity amongst current the generation relative to older generations. But it makes complete sense if you think about the fact that women have lower sex drives and aren’t as forced into sexual activity for financial purposes these days. The problem for men is that today the average female is economically independent and is not particularly physically attracted to the average guy. Decades ago when less women worked this average guy would have been more attractive for financial purposes. As women have lower sex drives they’re more than happy to wait around for the right guy to either have sex with or start a relationship with, whereas the average guy is overflowing with sex drive and wants it now. When this sex drive is not met, it results in anger and the most obvious direction to channel this anger is towards those perceived as depriving them of the sexual needs (i.e., women) TLDR: MGTOW is the product of an increasing number of guys not having regular sex with increasing expectancies that they should be.
intheclouds wrote: » Just for fun I went to thejournal.ie and did a search on the term "CEO". Several articles about male CEOs popped up, nothing about any female CEOs. At all. Not one. In fact, unless you can produce some evidence for your claims above I'm going to have to dismiss them as nonsense.
py2006 wrote: » MGTOW seems a bit extreme alright. I've made a conscious choice to avoid marriage and long term relationships. It just isn't for me. I find them claustrophobic and I do like spending time on my own. That doesn't mean I hate women, in fact I get along quite well and enjoy the craic with them. However, being single as a man in mid 30s you do get a lot of strange looks and direct questions like, "Why aren't you married?", or "Why are you single?". Really odd questions to ask people in a social environment. I usually respond with, "I can't afford a woman or marriage". Gets a laugh...sometimes! It amuses me how much of a turn off for some women a single mid thirties guy with no house or permanent job can be for them. I've a couple male friends in their 30s/40s with wives, mortgages who attract a lot more attention than I do. haha Life isn't fair! Doesn't help that I am neither the sharpest tool in the box nor anything that resembles physically attractive. Just depressing myself now.....off to the pub!
silverharp wrote: » so a good strategy for them if the odds arent in their favor?
looking on it does seem like economics and the modern dating and the Tiderisation of dating is creating a "drought" for some young men particularly in large US cities. the common way its put is that 80% of women are chasing 20% of men. Under such a regime opting out isnt insane.
super_furry wrote: » All this talk from Irish lads about "white straight men" being victimised - there's barely any other kind of men in Ireland and we're not victims.
Mr Arrior wrote: » Ah OK, but again wud the guys doing that possibly get a better reaction from women as its more of a rarity. Either that or they'll be seen as odd.
Richard Hillman wrote: The game of courtsmanship
Mr Arrior wrote: » The game as in married and kids? Cos if it is plummeting then that's great news for the guys that want those things.
Thelomen Toblackai wrote: » Not saying this is the case with yourself but I most often here this argument from those who don't have a third level education or those who graduated by doing the bare minimum. They seem to think the education system is supposed to configure them to walk into the world with their opinion worth something even though they don't even take learning or developing their own opinion seriously. They end up with a degree in something they couldn't give two ****s about having dragged themselves through exams by learning enough facts to answer the questions and then turn around and blame the education system for not spitting them out as a finished product ready to change the world. From what I see the education system is supposed to educate. Give you knowledge, teach you how to find knowledge and teach you how to apply that knowledge in different ways. Sure it could and should be better in almost all aspects but it's not the reason most people are "worker drones". The mindset and intelligence you use to apply what you learn doesn't solely come from school. If the vast majority of people don't care about education or the area they are studying and want to do other things at the expense of developing a good foundation for applying themselves and becoming an expert in their field then all they will be suited for is drone work. They are natural drones happy to do the minimum, happy to have their weekend of fun as a reward for a weeks work and happy do it all again the following week. They themselves develop that habit and choose to live like that, it's not enforced by the education system. So those who end up doing the grunt work\drone work are those who never took learning seriously and expect everything to be handed to them. Those who don't end up in those positions are those who got from the education system the foundation upon which to build on with their own interest in learning, passion for a particular area and progressing and growing as human beings.
Richard Hillman wrote: Women are going to have to get used to sharing their man because the pool of men interested in playing the game is plummeting.
Richard Hillman wrote: » Speaking for a long term viewpoint, I think we are just returning back to our primal roots now that Christianity is a non player in society anymore for white males. The notion of coupling up for mammals is folly. Only Penguins need to form a couple to function. And a select few other animals. Mammals work in an aspect of one alpha male gets many females. With the other males living a solitary life. Women are going to have to get used to sharing their man because the pool of men interested in playing the game is plummeting.
super_furry wrote: » This whole concept all seems so American-centric and based in the notion of white American men, that I'm struggling to see how Irish lads can buy into the concept at all. All this talk from Irish lads about "white straight men" being victimised - there's barely any other kind of men in Ireland and we're not victims.
Thelomen Toblackai wrote: » That's the problem though, you only hear the ones who go on about it. And those who are inclined to go on about it are the ones with the chips on their shoulders and want to get attention. Meanwhile there's probably a lot of people who identify with the concept, live the way they do because it's just the life they fell into and are comfortable with. But then people make blanket statements about something labeling everyone who's related to is as women haters or pathetic saddos who can't get laid. There's plenty of vocal assholes with chips on their shoulder in every group\organisation\movement\advocates of a concept etc. Doesn't mean we should go labeling everyone or defining everything based on the comments of a few.
Colser wrote: » True I suppose..I still think they'd take the ride if they got it though..just my opinion anyway.
Thelomen Toblackai wrote: There's plenty of vocal assholes with chips on their shoulder in every group\organisation\movement\advocates of a concept etc. Doesn't mean we should go labeling everyone or defining everything based on the comments of a few.
Colser wrote: » And they are so vocal about it that I actually don't believe a word of it...he who protests too much etc.
eviltwin wrote: » Anyone who has to publicly announce that they are avoiding women like anyone cares and who subscribes to this red pill rubbish is a bit of an idiot. You'd do well to avoid that kind of nonsense.
