I feel sorry as fuk for you 20-somethings (srs)

[Jackslap]

25-30, but mostly 27/28 y/o

The good news is, once you are yourself in the 29-32 bracket the game flips completely and the women need to do a lot of chasing (well, if you used your 20's to make something out of yourself, obviously). Last fuk buddy just turned 30 for example and on one occasion tried to explain to me that she is used to being approached by the guy and that she expects the man to initiate contact and go all out to woo her. I lol'd and explained to her that this is what men my age are used to and that she needs to step up her game if she wants the D.

I know you young brahs laugh about guys in their 30's, but other 30 y/o MISCers will probably agree that its the prime age. I do not look forward to the late 30's though :P

I said this in a thread about a year ago on this forum. In your thirties the girls will fall all over you if you have even just the basic chit together. Decent job, respected by peers and you're damn near perfect.

The argument that people made was "yeah but those are all the chicks that banged like 100 guys during their twenties and are all used up. Or ugly chicks."

Not true. There will always be that risk at any age. There are plenty of girls who haven't gone full sloot mode but have maybe been in some long term relationships etc.

[hyuncho81]

Relationships are beyond dead.

Even IF you find a girl who APPEARS to possess all the characteristics of a unicorn, in the back of your mind, you HAVE to know that if she is a 7+, she is ONE night away from 1k+ matches on Tinder. At this point, you're not betting WITH the odds, you're betting against them.

The worst aspects of female behavior have been unleashed with all the social media/dating apps and the internet in general. Back in the day it made sense that a woman was hypergamous because she really didn't have THAT many choices, take a woman living in bum**** Eastern Europe, from the course of 14 to her early 20s, how many men would she have interested in her if she is a 7+? She might catch glances, but she's not going to get approached, hit on all the time and even if she does, the pool of men is INFINITELY smaller than anything seen nowadays.

A woman COULD go her entire lifetime and see less than 100 men express interest in her, this keeps her humble and gives male attention more value (it's more scarce). Nowadays, a woman could have 100 guys interested in her in LITERALLY 10 MINUTES, lifetime vs 10 minutes....can you POSSIBLY expect ANY woman being to place an OUNCE of value to male attention or males as individuals? What happens to money when too much of it is printed....inflation...there is a MASSIVE male inflation from thirsty ass betas/wks/manginas and we haven't even mentioned the IRL attention....the alpha attention and even the social app attention from randos round the world.

The other aspect of female nature to consider is that women have been PROGRAMMED to NEED male attention because going back even 100 years, IF a woman went long enough without it, there is a VERY good chance she wouldn't survive/wouldn't get to pass on her genetics and would probably die. Why do you think it is that women can't cope with being single? Ffs I've known women that act all "above" online dating/tinder etc that within a WEEK of breaking up with their bf, what are they on?? It's just ease of access coupled with the fact that they're programmed to want/need male attention.

This is the nuclear apocalypse of dating/M-F relationships and it's NOT going to get any better. We haven't even talked about divorce rapes, how women initiate the majority of divorces, how they're more likely to take your kids and how a man literally stands to gain NOTHING if he chooses to marry (no more security, no more sex, no more nothing).

Men just need to focus on their own hobbies/their own passions/improving their LMS (mind/body) and enjoying life for what it is. Don't ever take relationships seriously and remember loving a woman just means that on some level, you think that's the best you can get, when in reality if you can attract one that you perceive to be decent quality, you can attract another. That said don't EVER look for a woman as THE source of happiness in your life.

It never ceases to amaze me when I talk with these young men in their teens and 20s and they try to impress me with their fierce independence in every other realm of their lives, yet they are the same guys who are so ready to limit that independence and ambition in exchange for dependable female intimacy. They’re far too eager to slap on the handcuffs of monogamy, rather than develop themselves into men of ambition and passion that women naturally want to be associated with.[…]

Every man knows that his highest purpose in life cannot be reduced to
any particular relationship. If a man prioritizes his relationship over his
highest purpose, he weakens himself disserves the universe.

Admit to yourself that if you had to choose one or the other, the
perfect intimate relationship or achieving your highest purpose
in life, you would choose to succeed at your purpose. Just this
self-knowledge often relieves much pressure a man feels to prioritize
his relationship when, in fact, it is not his highest priority.

Women that are 7+ do have myriad men ready and willing to get involved with them superficially or intimately, but that doesn't mean those women will. One red-pill doctrine I do give the benefit of the doubt is that more than 80% of men are physically unattractive. Women aren't going to get involved with unattractive men just because they show strong interest in them. You could contend that you yourself would get involved with women who do not fit the physical description of your ideal partner on a superficial level, i.e. casual sex, but for how long would such a relationship last? Yes, looks are the number-one prerequisite for finding a person attractive, but what captivatingly draws us in and keeps us there is a person's character, our respect for which grows stronger over time as we get to know the person on levels that are increasingly intimate. A woman or man with looks that demand admiration and a character that elicits respect is the ideal partner with whom you should seek a lasting relationship with.

Another reason why the advantage you perceive women to have over men through the use of social media, online dating included, is false is that social media are a double-edged sword. Its intended effect of the favorable projection of a user is progressively and backhandedly curtailed with prolonged use at higher intensities. Any discerning audience of a user who continuously presents images and texts intended to be endearing, evocative, and self-sublimating is going to grow unsympathetic and, in time, feel repelled by the tedium of it all. This is keenly demonstrated by the preponderance of Miscers who routinely object to tawdry photographs and haughty texts posted on social media by their acquaintances.

Regarding your rejection of women as the primary source of happiness in life, as backed by the bolded excerpt, and your approbation of the concept of a "highest purpose," you must provide us with the definition of our "purpose," or at least attempt to, as had been done by the greatest thinkers in history. Any definition you give will be as vague as the concept of "love." The writer to whom your bolded excerpt is ascribed, I presume, has been influenced by the Einstein quote: "If you want to live a happy life, tie it to a goal, not to people or things." Einstein was completely justified in this proposition as he was a paragon of contribution to the advancement of man. The "highest purpose" that you so fondly endorse can only be attributed to those that contribute to the world by improving the perceived well-being of people in an unprecedented manner. In most cases, scientists in their due fields are the only ones in a position to achieve this feat. What that means is that both you and I have no highest purpose. We are not important. We are expendable. We are a redundancy. However, we can be important and necessary on a much, much more trifling level. We can be important and necessary by being a nourishing partner to a woman in an intimate relationship, a lasting one in which the bond you share grows stronger, in the end becoming the very truth that defines yours and her existence.

I have hereby refuted your proposition that women that are not the primary source of happiness in life. Indeed, women are the primary source of happiness in life. You have no high purpose, let alone the highest, in life, and you must find a worthy female partner to do away with your discontent, as has been clearly indicated in your writing, and achieve happiness.

[brianmt]

I've embraced the concept

[FryDude]

Are you the old fat slow guy on your basketball team?

[Cmnnn]

I don't know these feels i am homo

[syth1230]

snip

Your premise on which you dismiss the idea of a 'higher purpose' is that one can define their own purpose (which can be a woman).

You then ignore this premise in your last paragraph by saying that one MUST find a 'worthy' female partner to be happy (to do away with your discontent).

A few further points to consider:
-7+ women do not only have more ugly men giving them attention, but also attractive men (men whom are more fitting of her looks level)
-you seem to assume that relationships must last, as if longer lasting relationships are more satisfying than short term relationships. The problem of you setting up long-term relationships as a 'higher purpose' arises, because you seem to have assumed this to be the case while at the same time saying we have no higher purpose.
-considering that most men are unattractive to most women, and you have admitted that physical attraction is important for a long-term relationship, would it not seem to be the case that a long-term relationship with a woman is NOT a source of happiness for many men. Or are you saying that many men will not achieve happiness by virtue of their unattractiveness

I find your refutation rather weak, mainly because the meat of the refutation relies on relativism which the refutation itself dismisses as a way to refute the original point being discussed.

[Tweedurr]

OP speaks truth.

Your premise on which you dismiss the idea of a 'higher purpose' is that one can define their own purpose (which can be a woman).

You then ignore this premise in your last paragraph by saying that one MUST find a 'worthy' female partner to be happy (to do away with your discontent).

A few further points to consider:
-7+ women do not only have more ugly men giving them attention, but also attractive men (men whom are more fitting of her looks level)
-you seem to assume that relationships must last, as if longer lasting relationships are more satisfying than short term relationships. The problem of you setting up long-term relationships as a 'higher purpose' arises, because you seem to have assumed this to be the case while at the same time saying we have no higher purpose.
-considering that most men are unattractive to most women, and you have admitted that physical attraction is important for a long-term relationship, would it not seem to be the case that a long-term relationship with a woman is NOT a source of happiness for many men. Or are you saying that many men will not achieve happiness by virtue of their unattractiveness

I find your refutation rather weak, mainly because the meat of the refutation relies on relativism which the refutation itself dismisses as a way to refute the original point being discussed.

Seek help.

[Wakaaa]

A lot of people think with their dink, they don't fall in love until after they smash, by then they become too poosy and in love with the poosy to notice obvious signs that aren't good for relationships.

[atterson]

The worst aspects of female behavior have been unleashed with all the social media/dating apps and the internet in general. Back in the day it made sense that a woman was hypergamous because she really didn't have THAT many choices, take a woman living in bum**** Eastern Europe, from the course of 14 to her early 20s, how many men would she have interested in her if she is a 7+? She might catch glances, but she's not going to get approached, hit on all the time and even if she does, the pool of men is INFINITELY smaller than anything seen nowadays.

I've said this before, social media + female contraception = perfect storm of slootiness. In the past, females chose mates, not random hookups. That meant balancing a whole host of factors such as physical attractiveness, genetic viability, resources, personality/suitability as a father, etc. Increased chance of pregnancy means you had to be really careful about who you had sex with. There were social considerations as well, being known as a sloot within a small community made it unlikely that men would commit to you monogamously as there was a lower assurance of their own paternity. Today, women can have hundreds of random encounters on the DL with very limited repercussions. I can't even blame them really, it's a natural consequence of technology and culture outpacing human evolution.

[WafflesBrah]

It's simple OP, girls around your age are worn out cum dumpsters way past their prime that look like trash now... why would they post pics of their hideous face on social media.

[BornBeefy]

Ain't that bad OP. If I ever make an attention hungry IG/SC sloot my GF, I will send a video to all her "guy friends" on SC of me smashing her

[Roke]

opie is an old ****.

[ComeAsUR]

All I wanted in life was to achieve my goals and have a beautiful home with a beautiful wife and children and dogs. It truly angers me that no matter what I do, no matter how good of a person I am, I'll never be able to have that. I may put up a facade of it, like so many other people, but I'll never truly deep down respect or love my wife.

Wow... What a post

[scullin]

25-30, but mostly 27/28 y/o

The good news is, once you are yourself in the 29-32 bracket the game flips completely and the women need to do a lot of chasing (well, if you used your 20's to make something out of yourself, obviously). Last fuk buddy just turned 30 for example and on one occasion tried to explain to me that she is used to being approached by the guy and that she expects the man to initiate contact and go all out to woo her. I lol'd and explained to her that this is what men my age are used to and that she needs to step up her game if she wants the D.

I know you young brahs laugh about guys in their 30's, but other 30 y/o MISCers will probably agree that its the prime age. I do not look forward to the late 30's though :P

Try 40's nikka. I still get girls the same age you're talking about. lol

[AlfaAzfuk]

spot on OP its so fukin true

[Kitavi]

Try 40's nikka. I still get girls the same age you're talking about. lol

[img]http://www.gifsforum.com/images/gif/do%20it%20****ot/grand/do_it_gif.gif[/img]

[hyuncho81]

Your premise on which you dismiss the idea of a 'higher purpose' is that one can define their own purpose (which can be a woman).

No, I did not base my proposition on this premise you describe. We have no purpose. As I've clearly indicated in my original post, any purpose we perceive to have will be extremely trivial, e.g. working a tedious job, or forming fulfilling relationships.

You then ignore this premise in your last paragraph by saying that one MUST find a 'worthy' female partner to be happy (to do away with your discontent).

Yes, we all need a worthy female to be happy, and I emphatically targeted my statement at NVious, that he would be happier with a good female partner. I suspect you don't have a woman in your life, either, and I'm going to prescribe the same to you.

A few further points to consider:
-7+ women do not only have more ugly men giving them attention, but also attractive men (men whom are more fitting of her looks level)

Since 80%+ of men are unattractive, the percentage of attractive, attentive men will be proportionately lower.

-you seem to assume that relationships must last, as if longer lasting relationships are more satisfying than short term relationships. The problem of you setting up long-term relationships as a 'higher purpose' arises, because you seem to have assumed this to be the case while at the same time saying we have no higher purpose.

Yes, lasting relationships are more satisfying because the bond you share grows stronger in a longer relationships. I clearly explained this in my original post.

I ascribed a "higher purpose" or "highest purpose" to scientists only. The rest of us only have an inconsequential one. I don't think you read my post thoroughly.

-considering that most men are unattractive to most women, and you have admitted that physical attraction is important for a long-term relationship, would it not seem to be the case that a long-term relationship with a woman is NOT a source of happiness for many men. Or are you saying that many men will not achieve happiness by virtue of their unattractiveness

If you're unattractive, settle for unattractive women. Aim for someone who is your equivalent in looks.

Many people, both men and women, will be shortchanged in life because of their subpar looks.

I find your refutation rather weak, mainly because the meat of the refutation relies on relativism which the refutation itself dismisses as a way to refute the original point being discussed.

I don't give a flying fukk how you choose to interpret my proposition, sonny. It is strong and sound. If you fail or refuse to understand what I'm saying, you're missing out on a good piece of advice, junior. Each of the points I made is logical and sufficiently supported; they are not limited to relative application, especially now that I have them even clearer by refuting your rebuttals.

[Manletbolic]

Social media, betas and white knights ruined it

[Dbowens]

It's a terrible time for relationships. Snapchat is the worst by far. Experience is in the past, it's all about getting "likes" now. Pretty sad for people who aim for social security, because everyone just trying to move up.

[Proscar]

Fukkin sloots. Never getting married crew

[confusedbrah10]

gave up on dating and only 20 yaers old crew

[anonymous]

[Collapoppa23]

Smash and dash...easiest way to hit up 3-6 girls at a time is via snapchat. Same pic but they think it's personalized like a pic of you drinking and caption "all alone, come join " that's also how to game girls throughout the weeks and remove the ones you've smashed and keep on with the works in progress.


You guys are phucking up going after wifeys in 20s anyway lol