zurew

Yep, Im obsessed with Tate, not you who are making his 5th thread about him or mentioning him in the beginning in your threads

I will make sure to learn all the lessons from Tate's pimping course, how to handle these heartless , transactional women.

So you are picking and choosing from articles the stuff that you agree with and totally exclude everything that you don't agree with, thanks god that you are not doing motivated reasoning and cherrypicking. I don't know why you are referring back to the video, when I responded to your reply about "women being totally transactional" and at the same time implying ,that men doesn't.

You need to get off from slurping Tate and F&F content for a second and think one time in your life from the female perspective as well. You literally did nothing so far, but just reiterating brainded redpill talkingpoints and haven't responded to anything I said. I don't know where you saw, where I implied that women and men don't have different desires and expectation in a relationship, in fact I did the opposite like multiple times, where I made the arguments why its silly to use arguments that you used "women date up and men date down" when men and women desire different things and the evaluation of all those things will be totally depended on what variable you will use as the standard to judge all things by. Its very easy, there are variables where women date up, and there are variables where men date up.

Thats a very weird way and very reductionistic way to use the word "transactional". Your article said, that they were too much of a people pleaser, and thats literally the opposite of waiting for an exact return for what you give. You are trying very hard here to paint women as purely rational, almost sociopathic beings, who can't get attached to anyone and only driven by resources and money. An exchange of value will always happen, and it will happen naturally, without a person consciously calculating and evaluating all the contribution that their partner gave, before they make a contribution to their partner. If we were to use the word transactional the same way you defined it above, then literally all relationships from all end are transactional. Why do you think people leave any relationship? Because they get all the things they want from that relationship, and they are totally satisfied with their relationship or they don't? You are trying very hard to make this a women thing, when this is a human thing.

Nope, your question was to make a comparison between an average men and women, and all my points still stand. Women in average definitely have much better social skills than men, and they have a bigger network also, they have better hygene , they have more beauty and they have more skills when it comes to cleaning and cooking, they are more emphatetic, they are better at communicating in general. Women are more social than men, thats just true in general and from that comes them having better social skills and bigger network. I don't know what social circles you are talking about "getting accepted into", but in general women are more outgoing and have more friends than men. Men don't have friends, some men have business partners and thats basically it. An average men is pretty bad at social stuff. You are making it look like as if men won't get accepted into social circles until they earn 100k a year, going to the gym 5 times a week, develop high charisma and other things. The fact of the matter is that men is much less outgoing in general and don't even look for friends or even if they do, they suck at it, and they have low social skills. I don't even know what a 70% men even mean, but if you stick with the comparison of average men and women , then what you are writing there "men being far superior " is not true, I already wrote down a list of things where an average women is better compared to an average men. An opinion won't become a rule, just because you agree with it. Its not a fact, its just one kind of analysis. The idea that men has to hit so high standards is just not true, as I already outlined, an average men can't even hit a standard that should be basic to everyone (take care of yourself, take care of your hygene, develop bare minimum social skills, dont be a schizo, cut your neckbeard) and as I already said if you look at most relationships you will see, that for most of them these things are true: dating in the (same class, same culture, same intelligence level, same or similar finance level etc) Is it about women not wanting to date men who are lower in education than them, or is it more about men being insecure about not being as educated ,therefore not dating such women? A lot of highly masculine men in general will want to lead the relationship and will be turned off or maybe even intimidated by if a women have a lot of factors that are all giving her a lot of leverage in a relationship. One trait could be intelligence, other could be she earning a lot of money other could be she having a successful career other could be she having a very rich family etc etc. All of those things can contribute to this and the narrative of "women just don't want to date down" is incomplete and most of the time misleading. Your linked article agrees with me (that people date in the (same class, same culture, same intelligence level, same or similar finance level etc): Again if you attached to the idea of "women will only date up" then I can make arguments why men will only date up as well (this game is so silly, because it all depends on what variable you are focusing on, so I dont know why some of you guys are so attached to this idea). Men will mostly only date women who are more attracting compared to them, men will mostly only date women who are younger than them, men will mostly only date women who have a lower bodycount than them, therefore men date up and women date down on all those things. The advice of "just work on yourself bro" is the same low quality advice that brought us here, and there are more things that clearly needs to be done here. Tell me how people are going to work on themselves and become a high value males, when they have 100 unresolved traumas that are making them act impulsively and unconsciously? You can't work on your lifepurpose, when you don't even have your bare minimum things resolved and done with yourself. You don't have to go to a therapist, you can try other healing methods, but as long as men will pretend to be this stoic purely rational humans, men won't be able to massively improve themselves on a big global scale, because their traumas need to be resolved first. You have a strawmen version of what therapy is, and what it is about. The fact of the matter is that men don't have anyone to talk to and men are pretty bad at showing and communicating their feelings. All men are human and humans have feelings and if you ignored and play the stoic rational game, when deep down you are fucked, then you are ending up with a society what we have right now, where males pretending to be "rational" but at the same time quietly kill themselves, because they think talking about their problems is gay or weak and other "rational" men will kill other men for a random passing comment that is targeted at their girlfriend or if someone steps on their shoe they immediately start a fight. Men a lot of times confuse being a pride defending tough guy with simply being emotional and triggered and they do a lot of rationalization afterwards to try to resolve their outburts in themselves . Men kill themselves for a wide variety of reasons , one of them is because of certain unresolved traumas and certain indoctrinations (some of them coming from redpillers), where they put a = between what value they have on the dating market vs what value they have outside of that. Because of that most men have massive self esteem issues and can't differentiate their self love from what they can output and again that comes from confusing dating market value with self value. The other thing is that most men is being indoctrinated with other shit like "you have to solve everything by yourself all the time, and it is weak to ask for help or to collaborate solving certain problems". Again, men in general have almost no real friends and most of the time pretend to be a stoic problem solver who needs to solve everything alone, but that is just dumb and not necessary all the time. We live in a society and we can utilize and collaborate with each other and help each other to solve certain problems and pride shouldn't be more important than solving some of these problems. If men can develop their social skills and start to build real friendships with each other more, then most trauma healing won't be that important anymore + they will be able to solve much more problems + again men needs to realize that asking for help is sometimes necessary and much more better, because it is sometimes indeed necessary to solve certain problems and those times you have to put your ego and pride aside. You can say that, but most men are still incapable to do any of those things. If there is a household where a women outearns the men, chances are high that that women will still have to do most cleaning and cooking and other stuff, simply because men can't do those things. If we were to switch the roles I am telling you, women would be much more capable of doing the men roles than men doing the women roles. Men won't do any cooking and cleaning and taking care of the kids, but most women will be able to do a job. But that aside, it is not easy to take care of the household and to take care of the kids. You have to cook and clean everything and kids are really time consuming and needs a lot of attention and care. You need to be their friend, their parent, their psychologist at the same time keep the house clean, cook and take care of every other social stuff (like going to meetings in school, planning all the holidays and a ton of other stuff). You have to drive the kids to school, and help them solve their homework, if they get sick you need to drive them to the doctor and give even more attention to them and encourage them etc. The other big thing that comes with staying home and taking care of all that stuff is that you are doing that same repetitive thing, that is alone most of the time not really that meaningful, but the husband if he is successful but even if he is average at his career, he can harvest all the compliments from all the relatives and all the friends and almost no one cares to compliment or to acknowledge the work the mother does at home. + the mother has to sacrifice her career for all of that, so none of these things are easy. Most men will go to work and then get home to a clean house, where lunch or dinner is ready, where all the problems are solved and where everything have already been taken care of.

it can say that it is a women thing, but it doesn't make the argument that you were making (that women treating men almost purely in a transactional way and always looking for a better opportunity). This article argues, that women in average have more empathy in general and women in general are people pleasers and because of that they won't talk about their needs and problems much and they will rather just leave, because they will find that easier that to talk about their problems. That is a wildly different from the argument you were trying to build up. But I would say even if I take the article's claim for granted, even then I would disagree that it is a women thing, beause empathy is not exclusive to women and to make this problem a sex specific problem is misleading and not precise. Empathy in general could be developed and most people (regardless of their sex) could be brought up in a way ,where they will end up having more empathy.

Its sad, that you cant follow simple logic. Its not a contradiction, because it still has almost everything to do with leverage and I said that like 5 times now. Just because in general maybe women have more leverage right now, that does not mean ,that having more leverage is exclusive to being a women.

I agree that nuance matters, but in general I would say, that an average men who don't have a girlfriend would really do a lot to sleep with a women (a lot of incels are out there and the number is increasing). I would say, what I said before. For a women to be able to have sex, they generally speaking don't need to do anything, however, for them to get into a high quality long term relationship they will need to contribute, especially if we are talking about being a wife to a higher quality guy. For a high value men to get into a long term relationship with a women, that guy will have much more standards for that women. If you want to compare average women vs men, then I would say, that women beat men when it comes to hygene, social skills (because of that having more friends and a bigger network of people in general), starting to outearn men, better educational levels, better looks and probably a better ability to take care of the house (cleaning, cooking). Yes modern women are probably not as good at cooking and taking care of the house as they were in the past ,however I still believe they are much better than modern men, because men were never pressured to learn any of those skills) For a guy to be able to have a girlfriend I don't think the standard is that high as you and as some of the guys are making it look like. If you look around in the world, you will see that most people having relationships in the same class, same culture, around the same educational level, roughly the same financial level etc. Yes the top 1% men are probably fucking most women, but that does not mean that , that top 1% men having relationships with all those women, in fact thats not the case (thats why we always need to seperate and analyze these stats in different contexts having sex vs long term dating) and its not like those women are actually taken, because they are not. No, I don't think men are expected to be charming, attractive, having a lot of money, and having a network all at the same time, because I can see a lot of relationships, where a loser, broke, charismatic guy have a relationship with a decently looking women. There are a lot of fuckboys who wouldn't be considered a high quality men, but they are normal looking and they have very good charisma and or social skills (but they can still lack financially and in other ways). I also disagree with the notion, that women are always going for a better guy than them, because I think that is misleading. Women and men are valuing different things generally speaking and they are looking for different things. You could say that when it comes to the current dating dynamics, women are still looking more for financies and resources compare to men (but I would say, that be careful here, because this part is not necessarily sex based either, we have never lived in a time ,where women outearned men so we will see in the future what things are actually inherent things to men and women), and men looking for beauty very simplistically speaking (more things could be mentioned here ,but for the sake of being simplictic I won't list all the things). Now, when we are aware of those things, why would we use resources and finances as the ultimate standard to analyze all things by? When someone says "women date up, men are able to date down" that is misleading, because that person using the the variable of finance as the ultimate variable to arrive at that conclusion. If we would to use the variable of beauty, then I could make an argument, that a men in general date up, because they will almost always date women who are more attracting compared to them. We could use other variables and we could create multiple arguments why women or why men dates up, so I think the question who dates up in general is silly, because it is totally depended on what variables you judged it by. I disagree, what I see most of the time is that men don't really contribute much other than resources and doing his work and then expect all the other things to be done by his women (so for instance do all the cleaning, cooking, taking care of the kids (helping them study, take them to the doctor, if that kid is really young ,then changing diapers, waking up early in the morning etc without a father ever do any of those things). If we are not talking about kids, then (doing all the cooking, cleaning at home and doing work at the same time + being a psychologist to her men (who most of the time unfortunately sucks socially , doesn't have much or any friends and therefore he is offloading all his emotional problems at some point on her women or if he doesn't, he will just snap at some point or the relationship will completely go downhill). Depending on the relationship, you could argue that men can be psychologists to their women too, but there is one big difference, and that difference is that women can talk about their problems with their friends (because they are much more social and it is socially considered okay to talk about your problems to your friend) and it is more okay to heal and go to a therapist, but when it comes to men, even if we have friends most of the time those relationships are low quality or purely business and opportunity based and healing is still considered as weak and gay.

I would actually have to see the actual stats on this (the link), but Im not sure what you trying to prove or suggest with these raw stats. If you want to suggest here again, that women are more selfish, then this point alone won't be sufficient enough to prove that point (even if I can't come up with a hypothesis that would explain these numbers), because there are a wide variety of variables that are all contributing to a divorce and selfishness is just one of them. Or maybe men changes during the relationship and he start to not care about things that he cared during his dating phase (not working out anymore, not caring that much about his hygene anymore, not being able to listen and take care of his wife's problems and never talk about those problems, never really doing anything or contributing anything other than doing work and being really terrible at reading certain signs and being terrible at communication). Because, they couldn't see beforehand what they are getting into? Some men are deceitful and good at playing certain roles in order to get what they want and some of the men are successful at it (obviously not to say that all men are manipulative), and of course we could add the option that those girls might have been naive and couldn't see the redflags ( but again, here I have to mention, that some of the redflags could be hidden for a very long time, if that men is good at being deceitful) Its interesting to see some of the redpill guys suggesting in this context (very conveniently) that women are perfectly rational and purely transactional, but at the same time in other contexts argue, that women are very emotional and they are not allowed to have sex with other men , because when women have sex with another men, they do it because they must be emotionally attached to that men.

I can list more points, but that point alone is enough for women to have leverage over most men and that was my overall point. An average men has so little power on the dating market , that a women with a pussy will have leverage over him, thats why the prescription and the talking should be more about how men could become better and not about demonizing feminism. Increase the standards not demonize the increased standards, because those standards won't really go anywhere. I don't really agree with that for this reason: when it comes to women having sex, yes, they don't need to do shit, but when it comes to searching for a long term quality relationship, for that to work they need to provide some value other than their pussy and what they will need to provide will be dependend on the power dynamics of that specific relationship. The more standards she will have for a long term realtionship the more things she will need to contribute ( again, im not talking about only having sex here, Im specficially referring to long term relationship). If she wants a high value/quality guy, that guy will have much more leverage than other guys, therefore she won't be able to play the smae leverage games as with normal guys, so if she wants to stay in that relationship she will need to adapt and will have to contribute more. The term "okay" is a morally loaded word, I haven't said anything other than a description (I haven't mentioned or placed a moral value on the current dating dynamics), what you are doing here is not just a description but more like a moral evaluation. Thats a nice way to distort my point. I didnt say that pussy is the only variable that women could use to have leverage, I said that was one that is enough for them in most cases, because in general, men has so little leverage that they can't even overcome women's one variable leverage (pussy) with what they can contribute. If someone wants to go for younger pussy, then do it, I have nothing against it, but I have more to say if that same men will preach about redpill talking points like: "a men generally loves in a self sacrifical way or in a more selfless way" (because thats obviously is a bullshit). I could literally use multiple redpill talking points to create an argument why the premise of "men loves in a more selfless way" is not true.

Yes, and I disagree with his phrasing, and description, because he is making the focus on gender and not on leverage. To leave for a better option is not exclusive to women. Plus I also disagree with the premise that everyone will just completely act rationally and just purely focusing on their self interest. If there are kids in the mix, that van change things up dramatically , but even if there are no kids, the fact of the matter is that the more time two people spend together generally the more attached they will get to each other (here I could even argue, that women will get more attached generlly) and that alone make leaving the relationship much harder.

If a PhD is important what you will do, if I find a PhD who will agree with me? I will answer it for you, you will have to be able to provide a counter argument, without appealing to an authority. Btw, no one has a PhD specifically in dating dynamics, because its way too broad and complex just for one random person to study.

An average women can contribute a pussy and according to the current dating dynamics that is more than enough to have leverage over most men. My argument about "contribution" has everthing to do with in the context of the current dating dynamics and nothing to do with putting an objective value or judgement on who has what value.

Where is the contradiction? Where did I say that men can't upgrade? I said the opposite, men can and should upgrade themselves, because in the current market dynamics "I am earning the money" won't be enough to have leverage in your relationship. Yes indeed most men are low quality because most of them don't earn much money and even if they do, they lack social skills, they don't properly clean themselves , they don't know how to talk to people, most of them don't know how to take care of themselves without their mother or without their partner doing all the housework and cleaning and cooking for them. Thats just the reality.

Walking away from a relationship and changing partners is much more correlated with having leverage in a relationship (the more leverage and opportunity you have the more likely you will execute on it and leave ) and has almost nothing to do with gender. If there is a high quality men, that men will drop his partner super fast if he feels like it, because that guy will know that he can find another partner in a second . You can say that on average women may have more leverage, but again thats not because of gender, but more because how the current dating dynamics work and because most men are low quality and have nothing to contribute.

This part of the forum shows how many people are just parroting red pill talking points, without thinking about them for 1 second, posting stats without context and without actually showing the details behind them. This part of the forum reveals how people here are engaging with topics and what quality of research and thinking they do before they confidently restate F&F, Tate talking points. "Men loves uncoditionally, here is a set of 20 things that are required for my love as a "high" quality man: be a 10/10, allow me to have a one sided open relationship, where I can have sex with as many women as I want and you can only have me, be totally submissive to me, allow me to dominate and lead the whole relationship, do all the chores at home, cook for me, take care of everything at home, I want you to be quiet, I want you to follow my 100 rule book about what you are not allowed to do, I want you to never complain and not to never cause me a headache etc, but I love you unconditionally and in a self sacrifical way, babe". - the idea, that a men who has as much or closely as much leverage as a hot women on the dating market, wouldn't leave and exploit women just as much is just ridiculously naive and blatantly false and shows how much bias some of you guys have here.

What is absolutely true?

Haven't done any research on this, but I will leave this here, it might be helpful to start to your research here: https://www.quora.com/Is-the-LARQ-Bottle-PureVis-a-scam-It-claims-to-be-a-self-cleaning-water-bottle-that-uses-UV-light-LEDs-to-purify-water edit: okay quora is still shit, because you need to pay to be able to see the comments in full. Here are some reviews on it: https://www.amazon.com/LARQ-Bottle-PureVis-Self-Cleaning-Award-winning/product-reviews/B00CWY2NHA?reviewerType=all_reviews https://www.reddit.com/r/HydroHomies/comments/ks9bca/any_of_you_homies_tried_the_larq_purifying_bottle/ These links hopefully will be helpful to start your research and to see some reviews.

I think going for more money is generally speaking better, because it gives you more freedom and more opportunity. When I say opportunity, in this case I specifically mean instances like: Offloading some of the non creative work that you need to do on your business (so for instance hiring people who will do advertising for your business or hiring people to do certain things that are boring but at the same time, time consuming so that you have much more time working on the creative things on your business) Sometimes offloading some of the work to other people is better, because they have expertise where you don't and your business will end up being better and more efficient (of course assuming you can afford it) + you will have more time focusing on the important parts of your business. That being said, you need to contemplate which can fasten things up more regarding your business (more money or more time working on it) and you need to evaluate exactly how much more money you will get, when it comes to your promotion and how much more work you will need to do. It might be the case, that you still need to do some foundational work on your business in order to get some things going . If thats the case, then maybe you shouldn't go for the promotion, because it might be better to get things going first than to do it later (assuming you haven't already done this).

Nilsi is coming with another hot take. If you only care about sex, then why would you limit It with a random age limit, when there are hot women in a much bigger age range + the older the women, the more sexual exp she will have , therefore the more she will know how to make sex fun.

The logical extension of your argument is that the west has to "respect" all of Russia's requirement(s) all the time and that there is no limits to what requirement(s) Russia can have and they can always give and create more and more requirements without any limits. The interesting part of the conversation shouldn't be this black and white (you either have to respect everything or nothing) but should be more about where would you draw the line, when certain requirement(s) become too hostile or too demanding or too much to handle. This is similar to saying when two person has problems negotiating their boundaries and one of the person has hostile/limiting boundaries (for instance, telling your friend, that he has to spend 4 hours playing games with you every weekend ,because if he won't, then you won't be his friend anymore). Is that really a boundary that has to be respected or more like an agressive limiting factor placed on your friend and by doing all that, you are limiting his boundary. The other implication of your argument is that Russia would have not attacked Ukraine, if the west would have fulfilled all the russian requirements. What is your argument that would support that and do you have a point in your mind, where you would say that certain "requirements" are too much to handle and you don't have to respect them anymore?

Why would you want to make this so adverserial and so loaded. Creating this thread the way you created it , can only end up two ways: Ending up in circle jerk where all conservative people will agree with you and shit on all liberals without making any good arguments or without acttually breaking down such liberal arguments that are not low quality or strawmans. Ending up in personal attacks where people who consider themselves as liberals will find this thread incredibly bad faith and full of strawman arguments If you want to make a thread where high quality discussion can happen, then you need to carefully set up a ground for it, but what you did here is the exact opposite.

That countering can only work with reasonable people who haven't made up their minds yet + we are often times talking about conspiracy theories that are unfalsifiable and so vague and broad that its impossible to counter them (they are so vague , that they can always fit their biases inside those conspiracies) but at the same time, they are damaging given the current political environment and given how regular people are engaging with information. Most people don't engage with politics and with news in a way ,where they individually dissect and research things and where they individually evaluate the given information, but they always place those news in an already built up large worldview and or ideology. So when there is a critique , that critique almost always comes from a larger baggage of ideas and wordview and almost never only aiming at that particular news or idea but aimed at whole set of other things that are projected behind it. - This is not exclusive to conspiracy theorists, this includes people who blindly follow any party or any political ideology. Given all those things, sharing information on platforms have to be done knowing that most people will see and project ghosts to places where there are none and that is often times very damaging depending on what the topic is. If you would ask these people how many of them are actually open and are willing to change their minds on the matter the % would be super low and most of these people can't answer this question: "what evidence or what would it take to change your mind on this particular matter?" Banning is usually effective if it is done by multiple large social media companies, because most people unfortunately only consume information from youtube, twitter, tiktok ,facebook and some other social media companies (and never read any articles or studies). so if you ban certain things on some of those websites,then most people won't even encounter those ideas. You are saying that banning is not effective, but at the same time implying that countering misinformation with more speech is effective or more effective, but I haven't seen any evidence that actually countering misinformation with more speech is more effective given today's political. information consuming environment. Open platforms are almost never used to actually debate and to challenge ideas, they are used to virtue signal (in this case that we are not sheep and we never follow the mainstream), to shit on people and to share ideas that we are agreeing with or triggered by. I almost never see people changing their beliefs and or ideas on social media platforms, but I always see triggered people sharing links and posts thinking they have found some truth, when in reality - they are sharing some kind of misinformation and they don't even watch the video they share or god forbid do a 5 minutes research on it and or read about the thing they are so rapidly sharing and posting on their page. I think this critique is fair.

No, its not. Just because a theory became more plausible down the road that does not mean that it was just as plausible in the beginning as it is right now. This is not about who is right in the end, its about what process, methods and road you used to get to your conclusion using all the known facts at that time and its about how reliable your epistemic toolkit is. This is similar to a bunch of dumb confident crypto day/week traders who say they won one time, and then they assume it wasn't luck, but it was becuase their method is reliable and then they lose all their money in the next run. From 100 conspiracy theory, maybe a handful will become somewhat true. If a conspiracy head believes one theory confidently to be true, then they should use facts and then connecting those facts in a way, where they don't need to make 10x times more assumptions than the mainstream narrative. Its extremely rare to see a well built up conspiracy case that is rigorous and sited with sources and using facts not assumptions.