Bobby_2021

The attractive thing about being being younger is not just for having great sex, but that she will have a lot less trauma and baggage accumulated throught her life. Youth has a whole different energy to it. If a woman can maintain her "young mind" and "teachableness" even after being older physically, then that's fine. The kind of wreckless stories that women tell me after they hit their 30 is insane. These are hot women of course. And my experience is biased, which I completely accept. I don't go for boring normal women. @StarStruck didn't know you were 30 man. Thought you were like 20.

This is totally normal from a sexual Market value perspective. Woman's smv peaks at around 23 while for men it's around mid 30s. So as a 19 year old, your smv is quite low. Almost as same as that of a 35 year old woman. You will see plenty of relationships where women in their mid thirties with a young guy. It's probably not for a long term relationship though. You might have a better chance with 35 yo than a 23 year old. Securing a 23 year old would be a lottery if you are in your mid 20s.

The challenge of dating is to gauge the quality of a partner within a few seconds of exposure to that individual. Huge muscles are unnatural signals steroid use or high maintenance, none of which are desirable. A lean muscular body indicates that the man works out and takes care of himself. If he is fat, then that may be a sign that he doesn't take care of himself, and there is a chance that the women is turned off by that. For the same reason, men get turned off by fat women.

This is ingenious. My man is spitting out pure gold.

?

@StarStruck I don't have nay serious knowledge about red pill content, but here is my presumption. Red pill is much like religion. It's tenets were made by people who has real understandings of intergender dynamics, but it's followers are blindly regurgitating it's content with *no understanding*, perhaps ideologically motivated and abuses it Selfishly. People who opposes this(atheists) are usually better than the average red pill guy, but still are ideologically notivated devoid of any real understanding of the underlying principles of intergender dynamics. Many stable, sane and well respected people in society subscribe partially to red pill ideology or atleast to some parts of it. Because it captures core truths of female nature, which are usually not politically correct. But they will never admit it in public and would rather prefer to have their image to be woke/neutral. Which is why red pill ideology is not merely a fringe ideological eco chamber and remains in the mainstream.

This feature(quote this)pops up when you select a part of the text and long press it. Comes in handy.

How so? So what? Does this imply that my argument is wrong? Women date up on social standing or status. Men date up based on beauty, age feminine traits etc. If he can be with 23 year old, instead of 29 year old girl, he will go for the younger one in most cases. That's perfectly correct. Two things can be correct at the same time. That's okay. I don't understand what you are trying to say by bringing up a different argument. It has nothing to do with my argument. So you already agree that your mom should to sacrifice her career for two years just to take care of you. Why should she sacrifice her career? That's so oppressive and patriarchal to require women to sacrifice her career. Now realistically speaking the age is more like 10-12 years old. No one can understand their child better than their mother. This is true because they used to be one body. Humans beings are so closely attached to their mothers. Article: Child's Cognitive Health directly linked to time spend with mother. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/dec/03/childs-cognitive-skills-linked-time-with-mother "Now a new study suggests that the answer – at least for mothers – should be as much as they can afford to give." Denying a child the time to spend with the mother will negatively affect their IQ and social skills later into their life. A father role become more important as the child gets older. For a father, physical proximity is not as necessary to impact the life of the child in a positive way.

We on this forum shouldn't simply fight on values but take into account how people came to have different values. It depends a lot on the environment in which one is bought up in. From my culture, it's a big turn off for many women to require them to split the bill, generally speaking. I don't think the bill is such a huge deal no matter whatever way it goes. It depends a lot on the situation you find yourself in. It should be even more fun, if you ask her to pay the entire bill and see how she responds. ?

This was the initial point of discussion..... about social skills. A woman with a hot ass may be providing some value, but it's not like she has to grow herself and acquire skills to provide value. And bro it's not like every women on yacths are 10s. Almost any women can look beautiful in the eyes of most men given she is in her 20s if she takes good care of herself and not be a fatass. Look at Jeff Bezos wife for example. She is ugly af. The initial point was about "why women get accepted into social circles easily". The yacht situation was one such example. I can easily assert the nuanced point that men have more social skills than women, yet men are less social than women. Having a sexy ass is not a social skill. Having an ass will get plenty of people to be around you. If men have plenty of people around him, it's not because of his ass. It's because of the value, money, status etc. If you get it, you get it and if you don't, you don't. I explained it as clearly as humanly possible.

I give all the lengthy answers on my phone. Take responsibility bruuv.

70 percentile man is a man who is better than 70% of the men out there. I am not attached to any idea. I am making a well documented and well observed claim. I would change my mind if studies suggested otherwise. Go ahead. Make up whatever arguments you want about men. No one is stopping you. My claim is generally, that women date up, based on social status. Not money/resources, but STATUS. And status is an extremely relative thing. It depends a lot on the situation what the status of a man is.

Thats not the point of the article. Women will always date up if she has the choice. When she runs out of men who are "up" then she selects men who are *equal* to her in social standing. But that's not out of choice, but scarcity. She will not date men of similar social standing as her, if she has the obvious choice to date up. But a lot depends on the social circles she is at the moment. Is she is in a small social circle with little to no exposure, then she may settle down with an idiot, simply because she doesn't know aby better. Are you seriously joking or what? Imagine me breaking up with my gf like this "babe you are earning too much cash... What are we going to do with $200k that you are earning?... we have so much cash laying around... Damn we have to break up... Let me go find a broke ass woman to marry so that we grind at Burger king together for 30k ." Said no man. ? No man will rejet a woman because she has too much cash laying around lmaoo.. your arguments are hysterical. No man is intimidated with too much money. What kind of a lazy argument is that? I would love to settle with a rich woman from a rich family. That would be such a lottery.

He will definitely get accepted into a social circle with similar value as his, not higher. An amazon warehouse minimum wage worker wouldn't hang around with web developers earning 100k. You will not see men earning 100k speeding time with senior executives men earning 1M$+. But a woman can be on a $100 million yacht simply because the millionaire is in love with her. He will not invite a brokie into his yacht, unless he wants to clean it. He will be more than happy to have hot submissive 19 year olds with him who will not be a pain in the ass to him. Here is what you need to understand: No one gives a fuck about "average" men. They are not even in my analysis. It's the above average men that disproportionately influence the analysis no matter whatever your point of interest is. I don't care if the average man is worse off than average women. This was true all throughout history. This is why men would rather die than being called average. Because they are practically invisible. To be technically accurate, there is no such thing like an average man that makes realistic sense. The word average is to be taken loosely afterall. Average man is adding up all the attributes of 4 billion men and dividing it by 4 billion. Average woman is adding up the attributes of 4 billion women and dividing it by 4 billion. I don't see how you can reasonably and boldly make such claims. Although I don't necessarily disagree with either. I think that the average man is shit. Which is why the average women dates Up. Who wants to be with an average man afterall? But that's not something you can scientifically assert. In reality, the average man probably equal to average woman, if you want to go by the true meaning of the word average. But no one can substantiate that claim, unless you go evaluate the social skills of 4 billion men and 4 billion women. As if the yacht example was not enough, you should know that women have no fee to enter into parties while men have to pay a fee. This is the setup in a city that I know. OR You too get a free entry if you come with a girl as your gf. So we used to reserve the girls from our class to act as our gf so that we get free entry into clubs. Most hot girls don't even have a decent personality let alone social skills lol. A hot girl can smile and have legions of men and even women as her "friends". Woman have more friends because she is hot, sexy and being in her presence alone makes people happy or joyful. That's what gets her accepted into social circles with little to no social skills. An introvert hot girl will have tons of friends. What does an introverted man get? Probably bullying. Who cares about a stupid career? A wise woman will not sell her soul to a corporate if she has the option to take care of her kids. I would rather have my mom take care of me instead of forcing her to sell her soul to the workplace where she follows the instructions of some random man who doesn't care about her. She could choose to feed me and spend time with me but instead she choose to grind in some bull shit corporate. Irresponsible behaviour. When you are on your deathbed what is your most likely regret? 1. I couldn't spend time with my kids who loved me the most. 2. Shit I sacrificed my career for me kids. You will not regret not spending more time in the office. But you will regret not spending time with your kids. Your knee jerk reaction will now be to ask "why can't the father do it?". A father & mother brings different skill sets to the relationship. As far as a child is concerned, the relationship with the mother is more intimate because the child is the same body as the mother. No one can provide the comfort of a mother to her children. A mother is simply more nurturing and loving to the fragile psyche of the child. Hypothetical speculation. Not true imo. Also this is an over generalisation with no briefing of the specifics of the situation. No point in discussing this without examples. Of course. If he can grind in the workplace the she can cook some good food. And no one takes credit away from her. She doesn't need superficial credit from society. Her children will give her all the credit for being with them. On the other hand, her children will definitely Regret not spending time with her mother is she choose to grind in the workplace. You can choose whose credit you want.

He is not tweeting them directly. They are probably managed by his social media team.

This is false equivalency. Women can improve herself out of choice. For men, getting into powerful positions is a matter of life and death. A man who cannot be of use/value is treated like shit in society. And most men inherently understand this. So they suffer like hell to get there. And I don't claim that men have it bad overall. Who has it worse? Men or women? I don't know. With respect to expectations from society, men have it worse. The feelings & chemistry is not that random as you would like to think. You get feelings for chads because their conduct signals high status, playfulness etc. Men would get a lot more chemistry from women by signalling high status. Most women are not self aware enough to accept this. When they say that she wants an emotional, nice, kind sweet guy, she is implying that she gets a sexy hot jacked stud who also mentioned qualities like nice, kind emotional as an icing on the cake. Women has two sets of qualities they want in men. The sexy ones and the unsexy ones. Women are unaware and hude their preferences of the sexy stuff and make it everything about unsexy stuff. Again, I don't expect you to see this and most probably you don't. From your perspective it's all Fallin in love in the magic of the moment. Not that he already hit the standard, but that he already surpassed the threshold the woman had for him. Of course relationships are continuous work. Or you can get a young 22 year old woman and develop her into her ideal self with your experience and guidance and she will play along. That way you get both pussy and high value. Nothing is lost. The thing is that by the time she matures a lot of time would have already passed which makes for worsened prospects when it comes to having children. Not saying that it is, but I was responding to an argument on current dating dynamics. I was responding to a guy who said pussy was the main thing that gives women leverage over men. Obviously I don't agree to it. But I was discussing further points with him, not that I agree with all of it.

It's just a 6 min video that shares something that many men struggle to understand. You wouldn't expect it to reveal the secrets of the universe per se. Women/male feminists will dismiss the point of the video simply because of the "vibe" without actually listening to the actual content of the video nor discussing what's being said. It actually ties down well with my earlier post explaining why men want submissive exactly like an employee is submissive to the employer. Generally I think guy is trying to communicate important stuff in a decent manner.

Naah bro look at the stats. As a women's IQ increases(in the case of College educated women for example) the more she struggles to find a partner because she is effectively reducing the pool of men she can select from. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/nov/10/dating-gap-hook-up-culture-female-graduates A woman with a masters degree will be hesitant to marry a man without a degree at all, for various reasons that are strenuous for me to explain here. At the same time, a man with a masters degree is more than happy to be with a woman without a degree, thus even lowering the chances for women with masters degrees. As we know women are graduating at higher rate than men in colleges. "I Don't think". I am not speaking of the things I think are the way they are, and neither does a few exceptions disprove the rule. These are not the requirements for a man that he must fulfill to get into a relationship. These are just the pressures society puts on men in general. The consequence of failing these expectations is what causes men to kill themselves at a higher rate than women. These expectations also forces men to level up. You can argue that the average man doesn't level up and stays in him mom's basement playing video games. But even an 70th percentile man is far superior in what he brings to a relationship compared to 99 percentile woman precisely because of heavy expectations put on to you by society. It's dead wrong to say that women have more social skills than men simply because she has a wider network of people to talk to. A woman can be a complete introvert, but if she is pretty and she smiles she will get accepted into almost any social circles. Women have a low barrier of entry. Who cares about a man who stands there and smiles. He would get called a creep in no times lol. He needs to work to be a Charming dude if he doesn't have that already. Men have real problems that need real tangible solutions. It's met by by working on yourself and acquiring skills. Therapy where you pay thousands of dollars for some woman to nod to the things you say is particularly of prime importance. It's nice to have, but not necessary at all. You are overinflating the importance of "opening up" which is nothing more than some wishy washy hippy value. If men don't have real solutions then they are happy with gym, some fresh air and some hobbies, passions. Men kill themselves more because of unmet expectations. Opening up isn't a solution. The solution is to reduce the expectations. But meeting tough expectations also forces you to level up significantly. It's a double edged sword. Listen, In this kind of wretched economy, staying at home washing plates and changing diapers of your kids is much better than grinding and selling your soul to some exploitative corporation for 60 hours a week. You are making it sound like changing diapers is a huge burden and providing resources is a cake walk. I will happily stay at home watching YouTube videos, washing plates, reading, and working on myself if my partner can handle all the financial aspects. I consider it a huge advantage. And it's also a steriotypes than men don't change diapers or teach kids. Even the most patriarchal men do it without making much qualms. It's not something that requires immense skill to do.

I don't actually disagree with your statement. But it's incomplete. Most men are not drooling over some 35 year old pussy while a 23 year old pussy can leverage over most men. That's true. Nuance matters. 1. Basing woman's value on pussy & boobas is typical of red pill guys and somewhat disrespectful to women. So I was a bit surprised to see you base your arguments on a typical red pill talking point. Obviously every (real) woman has it and it's going to grow old and depreciate in value. So better have something else more valuable than her body parts. 2. Men have to work on a lot of tangible things both for short term and long term relationships. You have to be charming and attractive, develop social skills and make money, build a network, etc. All these things are expected of men by society. While women are under no pressure to develop these stuff. So whatever non-pussy leverage points (feel free to elaborate) you can come up with, from the average women, it's highly likely that average man has it more. This is especially true since most women never go for the average men as you mentioned. It's usually men who is better than her, so there isn't much she can contribute that he already hasn't. (Except for a big P). 3. Your initial point was that women divorce men since men don't contribute to anything in the relationship and that men are bad partners. But my point is that it's women don't contribute anything significant to the relationship, other than a pussy that deteriorates over time. A man's contribution in a functional relationship is far greater than that of a woman's. Just by getting into a relationship with him, she is indirectly stating that he is an above average man. She wouldn't obviously be with an average man for reasons stated above. If you ask me personally, I still think it's a man's fault that divorce happens. A man's contribution is not merely restricted to love, but an understanding of how women & relationships work. 60% of it is in picking a women who actually feels the need to contribute something tangible to the relationship and holding her to standards. A man already is of standard the moment she is in a relationship.

Stay strong comrade. ? Our revolution will be smooth and quick. Until then, stay low.

Lmao . Can't you think of anything but pussy and boobas ? ?? Think harder. It's like the bare minimum. Whatever, I have to appreciate the honesty for laying it out so cold. The fact is that most women don't have anything to contribute to relationships but pussy. There is no longer a social pressure for women to develop herself while men have to face monumental expectations from society. This is trying to escape reality by switching on a pragmatic approach. According to the current dating dynamics it is be okay for men to dumb 25 year old pussy for 20 year old pussy. Guess what? Pussy gets old. I guess you have no moral qualms when men go for younger, higher quality pussy, because apparently that's what gives women "leverage" over men. I get it. We are all supposed to wake up everyday play like kids singing ring o roses ring o roses while government acts as our big daddy welfare state.

What exactly does women contribute in progressive modern relationships?

How do you deal with things that trigger you? For a lot of time I used to expose myself to things that trigger me until I become sensitised to the trigger. For some reason I changed that strategy and stopped exposing myself to such experiences due to it's uncomfortable nature. I feel now that my earlier approach of exposing myself repeatedly to it was the better approach. I am not just talking about hardcore triggering material specially designed to trigger people. (Although I love to hear your opinion on that as well). I am talking about normal experiences in everyday life that triggers you? How do you approach your triggers? Thoughts?

@Emerald In the 1950s women were expected to be housewives being dependent on her husband for finances. Now that we have gone past that, what are the qualities a woman must have in the modern age to be in a functional relationship?