What's up with people like this woman?

[Devin]

2 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

You just blew it.

Please elaborate

[Tyler Robinson]

1 minute ago, Nilsi said:

Silly girls galore 

Nothing silly about wanting healthy standards for men. And women. Something incredibly toxic if a man thinks that a woman is not worth being with if she is not a virgin. 

 

[Devin]

10 minutes ago, Tyler Robinson said:

 Something incredibly toxic if a man thinks that a woman is not worth being with if she is not a virgin. 

 

I haven't heard anyone remotely imply that. To derive that from this thread is implying women's value is only based on her relationship with a man

Edited August 23, 2022 by Devin

[Tyler Robinson]

10 minutes ago, Devin said:

I haven't heard anyone remotely imply that. To derive that from this thread is implying women's value is only based on her relationship with a man

Every little word you say screams "I'm a controlling guy." 

You said you want someone who is submissive. Young. 

What has age go to do with love? 

Then you said she should be virgin. 

Is a woman if she is not a virgin? 

What you're saying almost borders on racism. It's very discriminatory. 

What if I told you I will only date men who are under 23 and who have never slept with a woman? That would sound ridiculous. It's obviously objectifying because it's like treating people like piece of meat. 

I did not say that a woman raising a child is sexist. Women must do what women can do and that involves raising children. But if they want to work of course they can.. Pretty reasonable? 

Now if I say men should be providers, there is nothing objectifying about it, because just like women have traditional roles, men too have roles assigned to them. What is a man going to do if the woman is supposed to be doing everything? 

And men don't provide only for their spouses etc, men are providing for their mothers/fathers too. Did your father tell you that you shouldn't be a provider? 

Your argument about men being providers is just out of place. It's not even relevant. 

Whereas everyone knows that younger women are attractive. 

But to think that a woman who hasn't even crossed her 30s shouldn't be thinking of dating is utterly ridiculous and yes objectifying because she isn't past her reproductive age, in fact that's the time that she can be a healthy mother, a lot of girls around 18 have barely any emotional maturity to be a mother because she knows nothing about the world or future. 

Most men who seek out women who are barely adult do so because these women are easily controlled. 

Why don't you say men should marry underage women? If nothing is toxic or wrong in your eyes. 

 

You make stupid arguments in the name of standards. 

Let's see you have a daughter and nobody dates her because she just turned 26 lol. 

[Devin]

2 hours ago, Tyler Robinson said:

Every little word you say screams "I'm a controlling guy." 

You said you want someone who is submissive. Young. 

What has age go to do with love? 

Then you said she should be virgin. 

Is a woman if she is not a virgin? 

What you're saying almost borders on racism. It's very discriminatory. 

What if I told you I will only date men who are under 23 and who have never slept with a woman? That would sound ridiculous. It's obviously objectifying because it's like treating people like piece of meat. 

I did not say that a woman raising a child is sexist. Women must do what women can do and that involves raising children. But if they want to work of course they can.. Pretty reasonable? 

Now if I say men should be providers, there is nothing objectifying about it, because just like women have traditional roles, men too have roles assigned to them. What is a man going to do if the woman is supposed to be doing everything? 

And men don't provide only for their spouses etc, men are providing for their mothers/fathers too. Did your father tell you that you shouldn't be a provider? 

Your argument about men being providers is just out of place. It's not even relevant. 

Whereas everyone knows that younger women are attractive. 

But to think that a woman who hasn't even crossed her 30s shouldn't be thinking of dating is utterly ridiculous and yes objectifying because she isn't past her reproductive age, in fact that's the time that she can be a healthy mother, a lot of girls around 18 have barely any emotional maturity to be a mother because she knows nothing about the world or future. 

Most men who seek out women who are barely adult do so because these women are easily controlled. 

Why don't you say men should marry underage women? If nothing is toxic or wrong in your eyes. 

 

You make stupid arguments in the name of standards. 

Let's see you have a daughter and nobody dates her because she just turned 26 lol. 

I didn't say that's what I wanted

I'm attracted to over 25 actually, I'm 32 and wouldn't look for someone under 25, I don't follow tate, that doesn't mean what he's saying isn't true though. I also don't want submissive or care about sexual history.

You should have whatever requirements you want for a partner

Most people are not even capable of love though, "objectifying" suits them very well though.

Saying men should be providers is clearly objectifying, not in the sense of looks obviously but in the sense of being something other than just a person. Is it wrong for the woman to be the provider? No, what if the man became disabled? Then he's worthless, to use your words?

Objectifying; men are ATM machines(object) = "provider"

Women are vending machines; object

Men are security systems; object

Women are sex toys; object

Edited August 23, 2022 by Devin

[Tyler Robinson]

2 hours ago, Devin said:

Saying men should be providers is clearly objectifying, not in the sense of looks obviously but in the sense of being something other than just a person. Is it wrong for the woman to be the provider? No, what if the man became disabled? Then he's worthless, to use your words?

Providing for someone only makes a considerate person not a machine. This is like saying that if I care for my future husband, then I must be his slave? What's so wrong with providing for your family? I never said that a woman cannot make money in the relationship. She can. But there's nothing wrong if she relies on her husband. And if the man is disabled, she can work. He doesn't become worthless. But there are basic expectations out of men and women. Women cares for her family whereas a man provides for it. 

[petar8p]

He is surely not low iq. He has above average reasoning skills and ability to debate and defend some of his points. He is probably not a genius, but I'm sure that he's well above average. 

 

This doesn't take away from the fact that he has some fucked up stances and questionable confidence.

 

[Devin]

31 minutes ago, Tyler Robinson said:

Providing for someone only makes a considerate person not a machine. This is like saying that if I care for my future husband, then I must be his slave? What's so wrong with providing for your family? I never said that a woman cannot make money in the relationship. She can. But there's nothing wrong if she relies on her husband. And if the man is disabled, she can work. He doesn't become worthless. But there are basic expectations out of men and women. Women cares for her family whereas a man provides for it. 

Nice attempt at a straw man but it's hard for me to believe you believe that.I didn't say it's wrong to provide for a family I said it's objectifying of a man to say he should. That'd be like me saying you said it's wrong for a girl to marry young and a virgin.

That's just like saying "what's wrong with her being pretty and marrying while she's young, that's just being considerate, not an object, she's healthier and more fertile at 20, soooo considerate."

I'm not saying those traditions are wrong, the ability of the man to provide is the equivalent of a woman's fertility though in that tradition. It's also tradition the woman marrys young.

There's nothing wrong with her relying on her husband, just as there's nothing wrong if he wants a young pretty virgin, just basic expectations and traditions as you said

Edited August 23, 2022 by Devin

[Razard86]

4 hours ago, Nilsi said:

The difference is that red pill was mostly an intellectual endeavor. Andrew is actually living it. I find it quite fascinating tbh.

He's not, the true purpose of the manosphere was to actually bridge the gap between Men and Women which is what is currently going in in those spaces on the less popular channels. Again, Andrew Tate is just riding the coatails he is an opportunist. Most of the people on this forum don't even know the history of the manosphere or what chain of events led to it becoming mainstream. 

Majority of the main figure heads in the manosphere know what Andrew Tate is. He's an unoriginal speaker who came in the back door after the house was already built.

[Devin]

3 hours ago, Tyler Robinson said:

Did your father tell you that you shouldn't be a provider? 

Yes, he says the husband and wife are equal in all responsibilities these days including income.

 

3 hours ago, Tyler Robinson said:

You make stupid arguments in the name of standards. 

Let's see you have a daughter and nobody dates her because she just turned 26 lol. 

Thanks, it's hard to believe someone with such loving sentiment wouldn't be okay with objectifying men

[Tyler Robinson]

19 minutes ago, Devin said:

Nice attempt at a straw man but it's hard for me to believe you believe that.I didn't say it's wrong to provide for a family I said it's objectifying of a man to say he should. That'd be like me saying you said it's wrong for a girl to marry young and a virgin.

That's just like saying "what's wrong with her being pretty and marrying while she's young, that's just being considerate, not an object, she's healthier and more fertile at 20, soooo considerate."

A woman is still fertile even if she is 29. These red pill Philosophies like young girls simply because they are attracted to them because they have created a toxic ideology around being attracted to such women. 

A woman can even look pretty at 29.

So it's definitely objectifying because it focuses solely on looks and virginity. 

When a man is providing for family, it's about duty and responsibility rather than looks. Both partners have roles and duties. 

19 minutes ago, Devin said:

I'm not saying those traditions are wrong, the ability of the man to provide is the equivalent of a woman's fertility though in that tradition. It's also tradition the woman marrys young.

Not anymore. We still expect men to provide and women to raise but women Marry men at any age these days. You're talking about medieval ideals. 

19 minutes ago, Devin said:

There's nothing wrong with her relying on her husband, just as there's nothing wrong if he wants a young pretty virgin, just basic expectations and traditions as you said

No. There's a problem if he wants to marry a pretty virgin because it signifies that a woman is not has lost her worth. A man who cannot provide might have reasons to not be able to do so, perfectly understandable but I never said that he isn't worthy of being attracted so there was no objectification. He is still attractive. Yet if you told a woman that she is not attractive because she isn't young or virgin, that's a direct attack on her self esteem even if she is fertile and able to raise children. 

A reasonable counter  argument against me in terms of objectification here would have been if I said - I'll only marry men taller than me. This looks similar to objectifying women based on appearance. 

A more reasonable argument against feminists and in the favor  of the nature of male psychology would have been - a man doesn't want to date  a 50 something woman due to fertility issues. That makes perfect sense because nobody is attracted to someone who is past their fertile age. 

But to consider a woman who has crossed her mid 20s as infertile is not only biologically incorrect but also utter rubbish. 

Because a woman is fertile for quite a long time. 

So it's ludicrous to have such dating standards. It's just based on hating women who are even slightly older and discriminating them on the basis of age. Almost considering them less of a woman and more like a piece of meat. 

It's based on patriarchal notions where something younger is simply considered more desirable simply because it was meant to be so. It's harmful to women's self esteem. 

It's not that women aren't objectifying. But that would include the height argument I stated above, not an argument over being a provider. 

 

[Devin]

7 minutes ago, Tyler Robinson said:

A woman is still fertile even if she is 29. These red pill Philosophies like young girls simply because they are attracted to them because they have created a toxic ideology around being attracted to such women. 

A woman can even look pretty at 29.

So it's definitely objectifying because it focuses solely on looks and virginity. 

When a man is providing for family, it's about duty and responsibility rather than looks. Both partners have roles and duties. 

Not anymore. We still expect men to provide and women to raise but women Marry men at any age these days. You're talking about medieval ideals. 

No. There's a problem if he wants to marry a pretty virgin because it signifies that a woman is not has lost her worth. A man who cannot provide might have reasons to not be able to do so, perfectly understandable but I never said that he isn't worthy of being attracted so there was no objectification. He is still attractive. Yet if you told a woman that she is not attractive because she isn't young or virgin, that's a direct attack on her self esteem even if she is fertile and able to raise children. 

A reasonable counter  argument against me in terms of objectification here would have been if I said - I'll only marry men taller than me. This looks similar to objectifying women based on appearance. 

A more reasonable argument against feminists and in the favor  of the nature of male psychology would have been - a man doesn't want to date  a 50 something woman due to fertility issues. That makes perfect sense because nobody is attracted to someone who is past their fertile age. 

But to consider a woman who has crossed her mid 20s as infertile is not only biologically incorrect but also utter rubbish. 

Because a woman is fertile for quite a long time. 

So it's ludicrous to have such dating standards. It's just based on hating women who are even slightly older and discriminating them on the basis of age. Almost considering them less of a woman and more like a piece of meat. 

It's based on patriarchal notions where something younger is simply considered more desirable simply because it was meant to be so. It's harmful to women's self esteem. 

It's not that women aren't objectifying. But that would include the height argument I stated above, not an argument over being a provider. 

 

Objectifying does not mean looks, it means reducing them to an object, ie; ATM Machine

 

https://www.acog.org › faqs › havin...

Having a Baby After Age 35: How Aging Affects Fertility and Pregnancy | ACOGA woman's peak reproductive years are between the late teens and late 20s. By age 30, fertility (the ability to get pregnant) starts to decline. This decline becomes more rapid once you reach your mid-30s. By 45, fertility has declined so much that getting pregnant naturally is unlikely for most women.

 

Unless you only want 1 kid, yes early twenties is prime time for a woman to marry. Yes she can marry later but early twenty has benefits in this conversation. And many people don't want more than one toddler at a time.

 

Virginity; VDs can leave women infertile, men as well, but hey they're providers right!!

Edited August 23, 2022 by Devin

[Tyler Robinson]

4 minutes ago, Devin said:

Yes, he says the husband and wife are equal in all responsibilities these days including income.

I never said otherwise. Even a woman can make money. But it doesn't absolve the man of his responsibilities. In fact feminism always encouraged women to make money. 

It's kinda ironic that you say I expect women  to sit around and men to pay for them. 

I never said that. A feminist would never Want a man to be an atm machine but why would she marry a man who is unemployed and take up all the burden herself? Doesn't make any sense. 

So you mean to say that both men and women are equal in terms of income but not in terms of age? 

So you don't agree with old standards of patriarchy where women sat at home and men were providers yet you want old standards of marrying younger women. This is hypocritical. 

You want women to adhere to feminist ideals of equal income and responsibilities yet in terms of dating and attraction, you still want old styles to continue. 

 

[Devin]

5 minutes ago, Tyler Robinson said:

I never said otherwise. Even a woman can make money. But it doesn't absolve the man of his responsibilities. In fact feminism always encouraged women to make money. 

It's kinda ironic that you say I expect women  to sit around and men to pay for them. 

I never said that. A feminist would never Want a man to be an atm machine but why would she marry a man who is unemployed and take up all the burden herself? Doesn't make any sense. 

So you mean to say that both men and women are equal in terms of income but not in terms of age? 

So you don't agree with old standards of patriarchy where women sat at home and men were providers yet you want old standards of marrying younger women. This is hypocritical. 

You want women to adhere to feminist ideals of equal income and responsibilities yet in terms of dating and attraction, you still want old styles to continue. 

 

you're mixing shit up

 

I DONT FOLLOW TATES SHIT

 

I never said you said women should sit at home

 

Why would a man marry an unemployed woman and take up the burden himself? Why does that make sense? You don't think a man can be a family caregiver? What you're saying is sexist as fuk

 

 

You want old traditions of man providing and the woman whoring her twenties away. I don't want what you're saying I want by the way

Edited August 23, 2022 by Devin

[Tyler Robinson]

@Devin you carefully want to pick and choose what's desirable for men yet not what's desirable for women. 

So you want women  to be providers but if a woman who is not young enough wants to date, you don't want her to be considered attractive. 

So I see everything has to work out your way. 

Then we as a women didn't gain much through feminism. We are stuck with old dating patterns that objectify us but we shouldn't objectify men and we should make equal income 

So how is it fair and squared in our favor?

It seems everything is only working out for you. Where's a woman's share in your arguments? 

 

Edited August 23, 2022 by Tyler Robinson

[Devin]

2 minutes ago, Tyler Robinson said:

@Devin you carefully want to pick and choose what's desirable for men yet not what's desirable for women. 

So you want women  to be providers but if a woman who is not young enough wants to date, you don't want her to be considered attractive. 

So I see everything has to work out your way. 

Then we as a women didn't gain much through feminism. We are stuck with old dating patterns that objectify us but we shouldn't objectify men and we should make equal income 

So how is it fair and squared in our favor?

It seems everything is only working out for you. Where's a woman's stare in your arguments? 

 

i don't like young women, I already said this

It's fair and square because you choose what you want

Edited August 23, 2022 by Devin

[Tyler Robinson]

Just now, Devin said:

i don't like young women, I already said this

But you're supporting the stances of Andrew Tate.

[Devin]

1 minute ago, Tyler Robinson said:

But you're supporting the stances of Andrew Tate.

Because he should be allowed to want what he wants

[Tyler Robinson]

Just now, Devin said:

Because he should be allowed to want what he wants

But he is not just dating what he wants. Would have been completely fine if the issue remained to just that. He encourages young men to follow his dating patterns by spreading his ideology on dating. He is imposing his dating choices on all men making them believe that his dating choices should be universal. That's where the real problem is.  It's a disadvantage to a lot of women who don't fit those standards and therefore unfair. 

 

[Devin]

9 minutes ago, Tyler Robinson said:

But he is not just dating what he wants. Would have been completely fine if the issue remained to just that. He encourages young men to follow his dating patterns by spreading his ideology on dating. He is imposing his dating choices on all men making them believe that his dating choices should be universal. That's where the real problem is.  It's a disadvantage to a lot of women who don't fit those standards and therefore unfair. 

 

I think most of the young men followers would want the same as him as well, and do want them but have had their desires suppressed by the neo feminist movement

 

Why the fuk are women's wants more important than these mens?

Party your twenties away if you want, and if guys want young virgins that's what they want

Edited August 23, 2022 by Devin