110 comments on “The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves

  1. Unfortunately with feminism that tactic works, as a lot of boys have been conditioned to take beatings from a female authority as a sign of love.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the feminist beating technique works on boys who were abused by their mothers and internalized it.

    • Unfortunately with feminism that tactic works

      I of course don’t mean “it works in general”, but it works on some men, the ones who’ve internalized abuse as sign of female authority to be followed.

      So while Marcottian type abuse will repel most men, which will call her crazy, some men might actually become feminists *because* of it… as on some level they’ve learned to respect females that abuse them.

      It’s one reason Stefan Molyneux keeps pounding on and on about mother-to-son abuse and the effects it has on society. He’s on a “crusade” to bring light to it, because its so accepted.

    • A brief hello … I’ve read all of your posts on comments on this blog and I appreciate all of your insights. Many thanks for the time and effort.

      I am certain many men will be spared wasted years on “game” by your contributions here and elsewhere.

    • I think you’re right, this will work on some men. A lot of men will say “I’m not one of the bad ones so I don’t have to worry” not realizing that to feminism we’re all bad.

      The icing on the cake is that feminists offer nothing in return for doing what they want, but thy do reward men who really don’t like women. Remember that stupid feminist you blogged about who refused to date feminist men?

      • how the fuck is Marcotte different than a garden variety slavering racist like GL Piggy? Besides the fact they both put white woman on a pedastool and see low status men as subhuman pieces of shit, the only difference I see is one self identifies as feminist and the other as alt-right race realist…

    • Stoner,

      That article has potentially harmful information, and it’s comments are just sad. If a guy doesn’t like that aspect of play, then he shouldn’t be shamed for it. Same as if a woman doesn’t, then she shouldn’t be shamed for it. That some people are is great…for them. Why get so upset if someone disagrees with an opinion? Unless *they’re* the ones who see sex involving penetration as “power plays”, in which case they are so contradictory it’s amazing.

      • Yes, they are the one’s trying to tell straight men they are defective if we don’t want plastic driven by a hateful sadist up our butts…

        Hugo Schwyzer had “legal problems”-it was speculated by the losers at the-spearhead that Hugo would be sodomized by a black man in prison. The more likely thing that would’ve happened is Hugo would’ve tried to coerce a young guy who was in jail over a minor drug offense into gay sex he didn’t want and then berate him by saying patriarchy made him hom-0-phobic.

        That just shows that the-spearhead are a bunch of shit heads and fake men’s right’s who read HBD blogs. They are as bad as Dean Esmay and AVfM. WF Price is another scumbag male feminist who tries to berate low status men and pedal “game” on his bullshit race realist site.

    • That is not going to work because they offer nothing. They won’t even stop the shaming and man up language if I give into them. I, like pretty much every other man, have no incentive to support them and many incentives to oppose them. And that is true even if they’re right about their enemies because their enemies (Jews, patriarchy, whatever) are implicitly offering a better deal.

  2. Great comments here.
    Say old chap,It is off topic,But I have to wonder why %93.46 of women chortle with glee when the topic of penis cutting,ball kicking,or other mutilations to the male genitalia are discussed?

    WHY IS THAT?

    I am past the half century mark and still do not understand what is going on here.
    Where in the DSM IV catalog is this behavior described?
    Not at all I would imagine,as it’s “Normal?”

    Seriously my good man,if we could get to the bottom of this we may have a better understanding of that which we deal.

    I love Dalrock’s new headline:
    “She who must be obeyed,”
    HI MOM!
    (go to hell mom)

    • “A recent German study found a clear negative correlation between consumption of Internet pornography and marriage rates among young men.”

      Lol. You don’t say…Of course, it’s *only* due to porn consumption, right?

      • as I said on my blog, I never understood the work “consumption” –I just consumed a pizza. I listened to Carcass and Metallica–did I consume Carcass and Metallica? Did listening to Carcass and Metallica cause me to have less empathy for womyn? Did listening to Carcass and Metallica create kyriarchical misogyny because I should’ve listened to a female artist like PJ Harvey or Tori Amos? Is thrash metal the ultimate cause of the decline of western civilization? It’s kind of like when feminist’s say you “buy a prostitute.” Do you also “buy a gardener” if you pay for landscaping? Do you also “buy a massuese” if you get a massage (non weewee massage)? I bring this up because feminazi’s have controlled the language and thus controlled the conversation…

        • No, you can’t buy people (without delving into the immorality of human trafficking), so this would be the wrong language to use anyway. You can pay someone for services rendered, whether this service is replacing your car’s transmission or providing you with sexual intimacy. If an adult woman (or man, to be fair) makes the conscious decision to go into an occupation involving sex or porn, that is their choice. It’s only an issue if they are being forced into it, but that is true for slavery in general.

          Just ask the women who work as regular independent contractors at The Bunny Ranch…Prostitution and pornography aren’t “evil” or “sexist”. When handled and run properly, they are legitimate jobs, and should honestly be treated as such.

        • that’s the issue I have with “consume.” Merely a rhetorical argument than an ideological argument….

          I still tend to think prostitutes exploit men’s desperation the way payday loans exploit poor people. The counter argument is the payday loan/pawnshop is better than nothing.

        • True, but what would a working solution be? Something *is* typically better than nothing. Though I don’t consider the act of sex to be a resource, many in this section of the blogosphere do, and using this definition should theoretically mean that paying for said “resource” is an acceptable transaction.

          (Btw, my phone is dying so if I don’t respond tonight that’s likely why.)

        • technically, sex isn’t a resource….

          it’s two discussions, politically I think prostitution should be legal as drugs should be legal.

          personally, I think women charging men for sex is explotation (this includes legal prostitution as defined by marriage and dating.)

          So I can agree with the thrust of both Maggie McNeil’s blog and this blog with no contradictions but others my see contradictions.

        • Thanks, Stoner.
          You know, this is an excellent way of looking at it. Obviously I agree that prostitution should be a legal occupation, but on the other hand it does seem unethical to charge people for intimacy. Same for all these “cuddle” businesses opening up…I get that this is how the cuddlers make a living (it’s not a side/part time job, for instance, and they still need to make money to survive) but it is just so surreal sounding to charge people for something so basic. Then again, I don’t like being touched, so my opinion is already a bit skewed.

        • Are prostitutes really charging for “intimacy” outside of the girlfriend experience? Thinking about it, charging for a girlfriend experience seems worse than charging for sex.

          For that matter, what about sex surrogates? They have to be paid too.

        • “They’re related to sex therapists, but more hands on.”

          Don’t see how that’s any different than a prostitute tbh. They’re paid to be “understanding”.

        • Agree with Destructo.
          Sounds like the same thing, basically.
          Are sex surrogates not allowed to actually have sex, and they just touch or something?

    • “…If women ban things like pornography, that will really stop men from seeing them as shrill, joyless harpies who aren’t worth marrying…”

      They’ve ALREADY gotten men to see them “as shrill, joyless harpies who aren’t worth marrying”; in fact, they did that a LONG time ago! Now men are starting to see them as shrill, joyless, lying, hateful, diseased harpies with massive personal debts that are best avoided at all times and places.

  3. White nationalism cannot help men right this instant because White nationalism has no power. It is only after we have power that we can start to repair the damage caused to the race. However, we can offer White men a vision of repairing the society, something to work toward, to hope for, to fight for. What you say with MGTOW is essentially “resign yourself to your omega virgin fate.”

    • That’s not what MGTOW is about.
      It’s going one’s own way in life, doing what pleases you rather than living to please the feminine imperative, and letting men know they have personal value as a human being which isn’t based on a necessary provider role.

    • your soooo alpha because you are a pin cushion to “men” like Jack Donovan and Anders Breivik. I do grant you one thing, your voluntary ass is saving young jr high school boys from being molested by those creepers. Keep up the good work. You’ve done more for saving boys than Elam has done. To bad your understanding of biology is so weak. You won’t create an army of aryan warriors from taking it up the butt. Now go back to eradica and give firepower and ryu their lovin….

      and don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out, even though you’d like that….

      buhbye fuckhead race realist male feminist hbd warrior….

      • It worked for a time. Under Hitler Germany was pulled out of the great depression and German workers enjoyed the world’s highest standard of living, while Germans outside Germany were liberated from the rule of foreigners. They would have won the war if not for idiot Americans who allowed themselves to be drawn into war by dishonest Jews, freemasons, and banksters.

        • I must risk feeding the troll to make a point to observers:

          This is all false and disingenuous.

          No doubt these shibboleths will always be promoted due to the glamour of the National Socialists.

          The origins and outcomes of WWII draw a lot of attention and should be studied but none of these are honest conclusions.

        • “worked for a time?” lolol You realize to keep the economy going Hitler was basically forced to start his wars?

          Hitler lost the war, when he invaded Russia, he was a lunatic.

        • Stalin was eventually going to attack Germany whatever Hitler did. Stalin was engaged in a massive arms buildup during the time before Hitler attacked. It is likely that Germany would have won the war had it not been for American intervention.

      • Yeah, when either hostages or victims begin to identify with/have sympathy for their captors or abusers. It’s thought to be a form of ego protection on the part of the abused, since if you adopt the thought processes of your abuser they cease to be as threatening.

        • It is not ego defense, it is just a trait we have evolved as humans, as we are social animals and we would perish if we didn’t stick together, in the past it would of been better from a survival point of view to stay with someone abusive than go it alone, that would of meant certain death.

          If you didn’t have female approval in the past, you was dead meat, as the women would get the men in the tribe to kill you off.

  4. So, these white vagina-worshipping nationalists… Why not just call them “white vaginationalists?” I mean, they both have that “na.” Step up your game!

  5. Proceed to Hooking Up Smart. Walsh is advertising herself as a “relationship consultant” – for a fee, now!

    And in response to the other comment about male-subs being “broken” they are not the only ones. BDSM of any variety attracts a MOSTLY broken people.

    • That seems true for some of us.
      For example, I do have many years of childhood trauma (though that doesn’t have anything to do with why I use bdsm). However, my partner doesn’t have any trauma at all.

      Perhaps it has more to do with why one partakes of it, rather than simply doing so?

    • hahahaha,

      I give about as much of a fuck about “men” like Roosh and Paul Elam as they give about me….

      Who cares if a femanazi tries to slander them.

      They sure as fuck didn’t care about WN’s infiltrating their “movement.” Besides, to me they are both male feminists and that would be benevolent sexism to give a fuck about them.

      Fuck you Paul Elam!

      Fuck You Roosh!

      Fuck You David Futrelle!

      No –Fuck You– isn’t an invitation for sex and even if I was gay I wouldn’t go anywhere near those fuckers–or Jack Donovan. They’ll either cry misandry or homophobia. Truth is they are the one’s trying to hold back MGTOW’s. Not the other way around.

      • I hate the term deadbeat dad, it shows you how fathers are seen as sub human.

        NO such thing as a dead beat dad for one simple reason. Fathers have no rights in regards to his kids, so he has no moral obligation to pay.

        If a women kicks a man out, she should not get money from the man.

        Paul Elam is pure slime anyway. I agree on that! lolol

    • “If you’re a feminist, setting yourself up to have a one-on-one conversation with manosphere blogger, notorious pick-up artist, and world traveling get-laid-quick strategist Roosh V might not be an ideal situation…so how did I end up talking to him for over 2 hours? I have been seeking out the women Roosh has slept with in an effort to hear their perspectives, which are lacking in the book-based and internet accounts of his conquests. While seeking out these prospective interviewees, I realized that the project could also be an opportunity to try to understand Roosh’s motivations and practice. As an artist interested in creating discussions about feminism in spaces that are typically hostile toward it and creating platforms for women’s voices in underrepresented spaces, I decided to pursue a rare opportunity to interview Roosh himself.”

      hahahahaha….

      she couldn’t find womyn roosh had slept with…

      maybe if she looked for men-Jack Donovan, Clarence in Baltimore, Hugo Schwyzer, Chuck Rudd….

      “Errr, Roosh is inconsiderate, he doesn’t wipe. And, uh, BO.”

      of course for “science” she could pass out drunk and see if rooshiepoops takes the bait….

      Fuck You Roosh!

      Fuck You Feminsim!

      Fuck You M(h)RM!

      • she couldn’t find womyn roosh had slept with…

        That’s more hilarious than you realize. Roosh claimed to have slept with this woman who used to hang around the manuresphere several years ago, named Anouk Ange (or something like that). The story was that he fucked her on a bus in Latin America. There was enough information that if that really happened the author could have found Anouk Ange and interviewed her. This is proof that didn’t even happen so Roosh is rarely getting laid.

        On top of that it’s likely that the rest of Roosh’s fucks were hookers in Europe that he didn’t pay if he’s getting laid at all.

        • I was going to make a joke–infact see my comment to PS. In the interview, he keeps on telling her there are only two genders, M and F. She seems to view more “fluidity” both on gender and on masculinity/femininity. I was going to make a joke that maybe Roosh’s “notches” were with the “3rd” gender in far off lands with the express agreement that he was donating money to their starving families. But then I realized that would be kind of cruel if it did happen and one of the 3rd genders had to endure Roosh.

          It is funny though, I’ve talked to Marine Corps dudes who told me about hooking up with women who looked like models in SE Asia. They would pay about $20 for the “date” and then take the women to McDonalds. Sometimes the women would tear up and say that was the best a man ever treated them.

          I actually really liked Maggie McNiel’s blog as she is very honest in that she openly thinks that relationships between men and women are “transactional.” She would likely disagree with MGTOW as it would be threatening to her livelyhood, but I respect that she is very upfront in her views….

        • Almost always…

          why are men expected to pay for dates?

          It’s not always money, though, could be for protection, etc.

          Of course some PUA?feminist is going to attack me and say…..”of course that is why you are a bitter misogynist with a micropenis.”

          However, if you carefully read what allot of feminists and PUA’s write, they secretly betray the elephant standing in the room.

          Again, that’s what I really respect about Maggie, she’s calling it like she see’s it and not kotowing to an ideology…

        • Honestly, I’ve no idea. If he makes a significant amount more, then the man paying would be alright. But in this economy he could very well bring home the same income…or less…or even be unemployed. Going dutch seems best, or trading off each meal. I have more disposable income, so I pay every time since it makes the most sense.

          Even if you did have a micropenis (obviously not saying you do), it shouldn’t matter. Mocking someone for a physical trait they have no control over is cruel and heartless. Besides, if it does what it’s supposed to…who cares?

          Maggie M. is a very good writer, and I respect her for the same reasoning you have.

        • Some women I’ve talked to do advocate “going dutch” on a first date, however, it is more because they didn’t want the guy to think they owe them sex at the end of the night rather than out of an “egalitarian” gesture.

          Haven’t you mentioned girls witholding sex from their BF’s to get presents before?

        • Eh. I pay because I have a decent paying job, no dependents, very little debt, and enjoy making my friends/love happy. If letting them partake of a good meal at my expense accomplishes this…so be it.

          Yes, and one of my posts spoke of a story from goingyourownway.com, where sex was spoken of in the same way you’d speak of giving a dog a Milkbone when he finally learns a new trick…Pathetic and disgusting.

  6. “Some women I’ve talked to do advocate “going dutch” on a first date, however, it is more because they didn’t want the guy to think they owe them sex at the end of the night rather than out of an “egalitarian” gesture.”

    Why would a person waste another persons time if they where not going to fuck? This is why if I was still interested in fucking, I would make sure the woman wants to fuck soon as possible, so I don’t have to waste time dating.

    I hate the concept of owing someone sex yuck, is that how most female see sex?

    • “Why would a person waste another persons time if they where not going to fuck?”
      -Numerous reasons.
      1. You’re actually interested in dating/getting to know someone before having sex so you don’t become a pump&dump.
      2. You meet them and their online pictures are completely out of date (she’s 40 instead of 30, he’s 70 lbs heavier, etc).
      3. You find them physically attractive, but then they say something that you find immoral or disturbing so you don’t want to be around them anymore (he’s a member of the KKK, she casually mentions hating all her ex-husbands).
      There’s probably more.

      “This is why if I was still interested in fucking, I would make sure the woman wants to fuck soon as possible, so I don’t have to waste time dating.”
      -Which is entirely within your right, especially if sex is all you want. But then why are you “dating” in the first place? Wouldn’t it just be easier to use one of those services that cater to ONS or fuck-buddy situations?

        • Sorry, Tamerlame, but this instance seems to be less of my naivete and more of a difference in definitions. In my mind, dating is not about getting sex but instead about finding a mate for a LTR or marriage. It’s why I don’t date at all…I’m not interested in marriage, so why would I date? It would be cruel of me to lead someone on like that when they’d never have a chance at a committed relationship with me. Better that they find someone who has a similar goal.

        • Which is why it’s ridiculous that prostitution is illegal in 99% of the US. It should be regulated like any other job, and have standardized pricing plus a mandatory review process and STD testing. It wouldn’t solve every problem, but would go at least part of the way.

          I would still not date to get sex if my FwB moved or started dating someone. I’d advertise that I was looking for a new, monogamous FwB arrangement, not a boyfriend. The option to date to obtain sex is certainly there for me, not denying it for a second. It is a sad reality that most women require financial commitment to share sex. If this weren’t so, then maybe more men would have sex partners.

          Believe me, I’d willingly give you my options if it were possible. :/

        • I certainly won’t argue that. Many women are crazy and have at least some entertainment issues.

          But if dating is now just a codeword for obtaining sex alone, what would one do to determine compatibility for a full, mutally satisfying relationship? One that includes sex but isn’t *solely* about putting up with someone long enough for a slam-bam-thank-you-ma’am arrangement)? Or is this a unicorn itself now? :/

      • (couldn’t figure out how to reply below, i’m sorry)

        >But if dating is now just a codeword for obtaining sex alone, what would one do to determine compatibility for a full, mutally satisfying relationship?

        There will always be (a few) blue pill men willing to engage in such an activity as interview-style dating, but I don’t see many men enjoying this. Look around at the articles documenting the “hook-up culture.” I would argue that, where I recently went to school, such a culture rarely existed in the way it was characterized. Instead, what’s really happening is pre-coital communication is now sometimes much more brief than it was in previous decades (e.g. the 1950’s, i guess?) Interview-style dating is being replaced by more casual encounters, such as activity-partner activities or loose plans to co-mingle at larger social gatherings. Think of frat parties and movie dates (without dinner) as opposed to “dinner and a movie”. Better yet, think of the idiom “Netflix and Chill”, an invitation to watch a movie with the subtext of sex in one’s home. Attention is being drawn away from the partners and towards other activities. This makes dating more enjoyable the males and less useful in terms of gauging utility for females.

        I might be totally wrong on this point, but I would guess that traditional interview-style dating was a cost for men in terms of time, money, and the trade-off of whatever more enjoyable thing a man would prefer to be doing. I was surprised, a few months ago, to learn that my brother, a veritable male feminist, doesn’t particularly enjoy talking to women on dates and had therefore neglected a partner because he just didn’t want to participate in such activities! If this attitude is more common among men than mine (the Zoo-Goer’s attitude), and MGTOW continues to spread through the male unconsciousness, I would predict that interview-style dating would continue to decline.

        @Tamerlame

        >Why would a person waste another persons time if they where not going to fuck?

        Feeling desired is one of the only things that women have. It is the one area where they beat every man around them. Women experience pleasure and ego-confirmation when they feel wanted by attractive men.

        It’s like how nightclubs work: men are there to get laid, and women are there to be entertained. One of my single friends who spends a lot of time trying to get laid has had countless make-out sessions in bars with attractive women who give him their numbers and then never respond to a message from him. In fact, most do not respond after drunkenly kissing in the bar. Now, honestly, how fun do you think kissing a stranger is in a bar? Good enough that you’d do it with someone you didn’t ever want to hear from again? I think that women must enjoy feeling wanted in a way that is particular to the female identity.

        • There will always be (a few) blue pill men willing to engage in such an activity as interview-style dating, but I don’t see many men enjoying this.
          That is because interview – style anything is not a particularly attractive way to spend an afternoon or evening. It is more fun to actually go out and do something, like go hiking or play videogames together. Maybe go see a movie you both find interesting, or a play/theatre production, or attend a comic convention. Enjoyable activities are even better when done with someone who cares about you as a person and is as into it as you are.

          It’s like how nightclubs work: men are there to get laid, and women are there to be entertained.
          This just seems so surreal. It must have something to do with the typically female need for external validation. I really must go to a bar or club one day…it sounds like it’d make for some very interesting observations indeed.

  7. “But in this economy he could very well bring home the same income…or less…or even be unemployed. ”

    An unemployed man is not going to be a relationship Tarnished! lolol

    • It’s not 100% impossible…Money isn’t everything. But yes, it would likely be extremely difficult for an unemployed man to find a date. Unfortunately male “sexiness” is still partially connected to the size of their wallets, rather than just their looks and personality.

      “Is this how women see sex?”
      Sometimes, yes. Nowadays it is not as likely. If such a woman goes on a date with a guy, decides he really isn’t her type, and doesn’t pay for any part of the evening’s meal/entertainment…she will feel like she owes him sex for the time/money he spent on her. Honestly though, a decent number of men think this way too. You’ve never been in high school and heard a guy telling his bros “I paid for dinner and a movie, and didn’t even get a blowjob from that bitch”? A lot of people do see sex as transactional, instead of a physical/emotional representation of love and desire. In my mind, if you cherish your man/woman you’d give freely of sex *because* you cherish them. No other reasoning is required.

      • I am a bum and I have had sex, but I know for a fact that most women deselected me due to my low status, when I was looking for a relationship in the past. Only mentally insane women seemed to be interested.

        Women who I sensed were attracted to me, dropped me out, soon as they figured out I was poor.

        Romancing and dating is a losing game for men, that is why men complain, Men are told asking for sex directly is creepy, and they have to wine and dine women. No wonder men complain about dating.

        • Dating sounds difficult, especially for men. It’s a sad thing that those women dumped you simply because you’re poor. If they truly liked you, they would’ve stayed and helped you find a good job or just accepted that they’d pay the bulk of the bills.

          It’s 2015.
          Equality, baby.

        • tamerlame, you might need to get out more. As a black guy I’ve seen unemployed/low status guys in relationships plenty of times. In fact my stepfather was a clerk at K-Mart while my mom was in the military. Recently, there’s a chick at the place I work at now that has had two kids by a guy that’s unemployed and has shown no signs of leaving him (She’s also had another kid from a previous relationship).

          If a woman is attracted to you (for whatever reason) she will not be bothered by your financial status. And in cases like I have stated above will even go out and work while the man sits at home.

        • Oh, and just to expand on some details. None of these cases were what one would call good looking guys. My stepfather was lean back then and perhaps was what one would call decent looking but nothing special. The guy with the chick at my workplace is somewhat chubby, hairy looking guy. Again, nothing special. So I am not talking about good-looking men here, or even ones that work out.

  8. Loots like motirmer has returned under a new name.

    “tamerlame, you might need to get out more. As a black guy I’ve seen unemployed/low status guys in relationships plenty of times. In fact my stepfather was a clerk at K-Mart while my mom was in the military. Recently, there’s a chick at the place I work at now that has had two kids by a guy that’s unemployed and has shown no signs of leaving him (She’s also had another kid from a previous relationship).

    If a woman is attracted to you (for whatever reason) she will not be bothered by your financial status. And in cases like I have stated above will even go out and work while the man sits at home.”

    I go out all the time. (Telling me to go out is a dig at me, implying I am a shut in deweeb.) My life time experience has taught me women deselect men based on money.(science backs this up.) Also I am not looking for a relationship, I was looking for relationships years ago.

    I am not a thug brute, when I was living at a homeless hostel, only the drug dealers, brutes could get girls. (One of their girls was trying to flirt with me back then, but I am not even talking to a girl like that! lolol)

    Also even unemployed guys can have resources. A person I know had this women confess her attraction to him suddenly. She knew him for 2 years why did she wait? The answer is simple, he was given his own social housing flat, she moved him and colonized his flat and took control of him.

    “If a woman is attracted to you (for whatever reason) she will not be bothered by your financial status. And in cases like I have stated above will even go out and work while the man sits at home.”

    Mortimer my son, don’t bullshit me. HAHAHAHAHAHA. That has got to be the most fucked up statement I have ever read. A woman will not work and provide for a man like that. You are talking at most, the odd outlier, you know what an outlier is right? Also I am not even gong to believe your anecdotal evidence, even if what you say is true, your perception is so slanted, that even your interpretation of events is going to be off.

    The lack of respect and contempt for me in you gaslighting is unbelievable.

    Female social dominance has ended, gaslighting and invalidation is not going to work anymore.

    If you create a profile on plenty of fish as a female, you are given options in the search feature men are not. For example women are able to look for men based on income, but men are not. I wonder why that is.

    Anyway fuck off troll.

    • “Loots like motirmer has returned under a new name”.

      No idea who that is, and I couldn’t care less about whatever pissing contest you have with him/her.

      You know why some women will indeed work and provide for guys they find attractive? The main reason is because many women these days don’t need to rely on men directly for income (they do indirectly, through the government taking taxes from men so women are in effect married to big daddy Sam). And then of course there’s cases of women divorcing their husbands and moving in far less financially stable men.

      With women no longer having to worry as much about income (at my workplace for example I see WICs, EBT cards, etc used constantly, this is just one form of welfare we all pay for) it frees them from having to consider financial aspects as much. My anecdotes are merely a few of many and there are plenty of others that can verify seeing the same thing.

      I stand by that point, and its clearly observable by women’s behavior. Black Pill has even discussed it on this very blog. If women were so concerned with financial status over all others then why are engineers, techies and other STEM related jobs for instance not an instant turn on for them? Because women don’t give a damn about financial concerns until they’ve popped out a bastard, their looks start to fade or they are otherwise without the option to use their natural assets to get the men they really want.

      You claim to be extremely experienced with women. I call bullshit based on what you’re saying. If women really were flocking to men simply based on financial status we wouldn’t see the types of men getting laid today.

      BTW what is it with manosphere people and the use of the term ‘resources’? I am willing to bet those that throw it out don’t even know what it means. Few people are truly independent in the truest sense of the word; rather we are all interdependent. Farmers produce our crops, various companies ship them, stores sell them directly to us, electricity is converted and transferred to us in various ways, etc. So wtf resources are you talking about? Women tend to rely on men financially yes. Why is financial support/parasitism being referred to as ‘resources’?

      • “You know why some women will indeed work and provide for guys they find attractive?”

        You know outliers exist? You know some guys are transsexual midgets?

        “You claim to be extremely experienced with women. ”

        The mentally ill tend to strawman people. I never said that once. Define extremely experienced.

        ” If women really were flocking to men simply based on financial status we wouldn’t see the types of men getting laid today.”

        So I’ve just imagined all my life experiences then? I have just imaged all my discussions with my fellow men about female nature, their experiences are invalid dear?

        I move between Leeds, and London. Leeds is poorer than London. Guess what, women are more attractive in London! I wonder why?

        I reject the term manosphere, it is full of people like you. (If you are not a feminist.)

        • “You know outliers exist? You know some guys are transsexual midgets”?

          So all the stories and anecdotes of women getting knocked up by losers are “Outliers”? The whole black community, for instance….all these women are sleeping with men based on their earning potential?

          “The mentally ill tend to strawman people. I never said that once. Define extremely experienced.”

          You mean like the wall of text you typed out earlier, also filled with assumptions and strawmen? Like defending yourself about not being a thug when no-one even mentioned it? I figured since you were going ahead with the baseless shit, might as well have it myself.

          “So I’ve just imagined all my life experiences then? I have just imaged all my discussions with my fellow men about female nature, their experiences are invalid dear”?

          Right back at you. We could go in circles with this seeing as one anecdote can’t simply invalidate another. I was simply pointing out that, that nowadays financial security is not at the top of many women’s lists for consideration in attraction. The types of men being choosen compared to past generations is markedly different, one of the differences being financial security is no longer a huge consideration (yes, I am talking about [sexual] attraction not marriage). As the saying goes, men and women tend to sleep with one type of person and marry another.

          “I reject the term manosphere, it is full of people like you. (If you are not a feminist.)”

          I don’t care for it either, certainly not AVFM or the rest of it. Not sure what you mean by “people like me”. I’m certainly no feminist and get the fact I’m a bitter virgin and need to get laid thrown at me frequently. After all pussy solves everything, and if it doesn’t I’m just a misogynist.

      • Just out of interest, I created loads of fake female profiles on dating sites.

        On POF women could search men based on income.

        BTW I did experiments with profiles, even women who were clearly insane and demanding, got attention from men. You could get messages just by sitting back and waiting for them.

        As a man you could message loads of women and get zero replies.

        • Interesting. I had created a dating profile to view a specific person (the Unfortunate Virgin blogger) before our date, but erased it afterwards. Chose a male username and didn’t put a picture though, so it’s not surprising I got no messages.

          Not that I think this is the case whatsoever, but I think it’d be funny in an extremely ironic way if say, 20 other guys had the same idea as you and each made a load of female profiles. A bunch of regular guys messaging fake women all day and not getting responses because they’re trying to date an experiment…

          Didn’t one of the sites actually get in trouble for doing that themselves?

  9. So all the stories and anecdotes of women getting knocked up by losers are “Outliers”?

    You are an idiot.

    Women are getting knocked up by poor men in communities were most men are poor. Black women use men as sperm and cash donors and kids as hostages.

    Women only respect men of a higher status and only if they can’t steal that man’s status resources for themselves.

    Normal women, middle class women and rich women marry up when they marry. 90% of the time.

    • That’s your mistake. You think ‘status’ necessarily implies money. Higher status in a woman’s eye can be very arbitrary.

      Its not just that black people are on average poorer than others. Because if you knew anything about the black community, you’d see that black men with good jobs in general get noses turned up at them. They get called “acting like their white” and all other sorts of nonsense. I should know, I’m one of them. Even the males say that nonsense.

      Women like thuggery, degenerates. They like violent men. You are full of shit. Women actively turn their noses up at decent men with stable jobs, only seeing them as something to be used as a mens of support or bail out.

      WTF is a ‘normal’ woman? Most women seem to all have this sick desire for degenerate men. Middle class and Rich women only marry up and stay that way due to social pressure to do so. This is why higher status and income families are more stable, they have more people watching them. Their status is important.

      The statistics don’t support your claims. The black out of birth rate is over 70%. Whites in the US are slowly catching up at around 40%. Men tend to modify their behavior in ways that will be attractive to women. Hence the thugish behavior inherent in many young black men. Its gets them laid. If women were really interested in stable, high earning, responsible men that is what you would be seeing. You would not see so many fatherless families, you would not see so many women defaulting on welfare with rotating men in their beds.

      This shit about women prizing men who make money is a joke. Yes, prizing them soley as a walking atm or status symbol to her circle of friends like a diamond ring. But it being the primary thing that invokes sexual attraction? Nonsense.

      • “The statistics don’t support your claims. The black out of birth rate is over 70%”

        Did I make a claim on the out of birth rate one way or another.

        I said being poorer reduces a man’s romantic prospects. Do you not get that?

        I never said anything about sexual attraction and money you fucking tool

        I said women will drop out a man they are attracted too, if he is low status.

        • And you still don’t get it. I’m saying I don’t agree financial prospects necessarily reduces a man’s romantic prospects.

          And seeing as the way things tend to work these days (sex first, relationship later), you not saying anything about sexual attraction is irrelevant.

          Again, ‘status’ in someone’s eyes is arbitrary. Apparently, you think men and women see status the same way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s