Sign up and join the discussion. Instant Activation Click here to register in a few simple steps.
Sign up and join the discussion. Instant Activation Click here to register in a few simple steps.
Sign up and join the discussion. Instant Activation Click here to register in a few simple steps.

Thread Contributor: forever_incelIt’s starting boyos...
#61
No, I think you are projecting here. If the majority of men are in relationships with people that do not have the same priorities at all, they are pretty shit at choosing partners. 
Even if the wife is hot at the outset (which you claim makes the misaligned priorities worthwhile), time and ageing will make sure that it's less of an asset for either one a couple decades down the line. What keeps people together is a shared sense of humour, shared hobbies, shared interests, obviously also mutual attraction. You have to be on the same page if kids / the big house are part of your life plan. If there is a mismatch - you need a different partner.  
I would never have tied myself to a guy who wants to impose radically different priorities on me, or who was irresponsible with money. Maybe I was just lucky (we match in looks, education, and in personalities) but I pity all the men that regard their wives as a different, less rational, less capable species. Marriage always involves some settling (settling down is settling for), but you need to go into it with open eyes and know whether you can handle the less than ideal traits of your partner long term.
Reply
#62
(06-06-2018, 05:46 AM)Towie Wrote: but I pity all the men that regard their wives as a different, less rational, less capable species.

they're right tho

why run a race when it's rigged and you're fixed in last

[Image: 2ba24d00f98875d922c47afcc0a74fda.png]
Reply
#63
(06-06-2018, 05:46 AM)Towie Wrote: If the majority of men are in relationships with people that do not have the same priorities at all, they are pretty shit at choosing partners. 
It's almost like you're unaware that half of marriages end in divorce. And have never met a couple that is still married, yet clearly do not like each other and should be divorced.

Yes, literally a majority of marriages go poorly.

(06-06-2018, 05:46 AM)Towie Wrote: No, I think you are projecting here.
Projecting what? I've never been married or even considered it. Stats are stats. Half of marriages end in divorce(obvious failure). Some marriages that continue on are unhappy(also failures). So most marriages are bad.

Marriage is a worse deal for men, because most of the things he does for a marriage he wouldn't do if he were single. While a woman would do most of those things anyway.

TransistorBass-303 Wrote:I need Fat Acceptance because the alternative is self improvement.

Reply
#64
In the human species, it is the female, not the male that chooses relationships. 


This is in response to the severely retarded comment which said that men choose dumber girls to feel superior etc.

Men don't give a shit how smart their wives are as long as they have access to their pussy. 

Women care about this shit because hypergamy is written in their DNA. I'm not even being judgemental about this, it's completely normal that nature configured us in this fashion when you think about it, but to disregard this plain objective fact is pure idiocy.


If husbands are often more intelligent than their wives, it isn't because men are somehow smarter than women on average (although at the extremes it's a different story), and it isn't because men want to feel superior. It's because the women want a man that they believe to be better than them. 


Do you seriously think we as men will look at an intelligent beautiful woman and think "nah, she has a pretty face, nice tits and a great ass but fuck she's too intelligent, I'll pass"? 

Tell me with a straight face that's what you actually think.


It's the WOMAN who thinks "fuck who does he think he is wanting to marry me when iamverysmart compared to him." (of course this is only in the case where she couldn't get Chad, because Chad is allowed to be dumb as a rock) 


Women are statistically unhappier if they provide more financially than their husbands. They are happier in the opposite case. The bigger the gap (the more the woman provides compared to the husband) the bigger the chance of cuckoldery and divorce.


Woman statistically want to be provided for, not to provide. 


You can't rewrite millions of years of evolution where women were seriously handicapped for 9 months+ per child and physically as weak as a child compared to men. Of course it's in their DNA to look for someone they believe they can trust to not only take care of themselves but also of the woman and child. Female hypergamy is the natural cause and consequence of our survival as a species up to this day. 

Don't pretend it's the other way around lmfao, that's just plain retarded, no other word for it.
Reply
#65
(06-06-2018, 12:41 PM)TheGreatCornholio Wrote: It's almost like you're unaware that half of marriages end in divorce. And have never met a couple that is still married, yet clearly do not like each other and should be divorced.

Yes, literally a majority of marriages go poorly.

Projecting what? I've never been married or even considered it. Stats are stats. Half of marriages end in divorce(obvious failure). Some marriages that continue on are unhappy(also failures). So most marriages are bad.

Marriage is a worse deal for men, because most of the things he does for a marriage he wouldn't do if he were single. While a woman would do most of those things anyway.

Sure. All women would do those things anyway. All 3.5 bn of us. Circular logic much?
I like the tone of authority with the stereotypes.
Reply
#66
Straw man. First, you assume that women are less intelligent than men. (Stated as fact, no evidence in sight) Then you pretend that women have no choice but to want smarter men, while men neither choose partners (you contradict yourself two lines down, btw) nor have access to similarly intelligent women.  

I love muh evolutionary biology as an argument. It's usually dragged out to justify your wacky theories on why women act the way they do , or why they should shut up and birth the babies, never in the context of 'no antibiotics for me, it's mother nature's way of killing off the weak before they can breed'.  In other words, you accept and enjoy the perks of modernity but want to look at women through a lense that is several thousand years out of date.

We do not live in a stone age society. Men don't just go after the biggest set of tits and women don't just look at the guys that can fight off a sabre tooth tiger. We have more choices than that.
This entire page is devoted to the idea that you can boil down relationship theory to a top trumps -like set of stats that you can game until the siren goes and your ideal mate falls out. This isn't how lasting relationships happen in real life.
Reply
#67
(06-06-2018, 03:52 PM)Towie Wrote: Sure. All women would do those things anyway. All 3.5 bn of us. Circular logic much?
Hello Cognitive Dissonance. This is the opposite of what I've been saying, which is that it's nuanced, but(in the aggregate) is a mismatch - and one that is worse for men.

(06-05-2018, 12:44 PM)TheGreatCornholio Wrote: There are a minority of women who are conservative with money. Just as there is a minority of men who have similar priorities to most women. But it's not a good overlap. If you have 100 fat guys and 100 fat women, maybe there's overlap between 40 of them if perfectly matched. Which still leaves 60 in a mismatch.

(06-05-2018, 12:44 PM)TheGreatCornholio Wrote: As I said, there is gap which leads to aggregate problems, even if not consistent problems with every couple.

There is a significantly higher portion of women who do this than men. Which is why it's an imbalance. For some men, it's not a big loss. They want to do those things too. And a few women don't want to do those things. But that still leaves a lot of couples(assuming most people end up with someone) mismatched.
You yourself have said things like "More men commit murder than women". Do you think it's rational for someone to infer "All men commit murder"? To draw an absolute conclusion, it should require a statement that it is in fact absolute. 

There is no reason to absurdify my statement rather than disagree with what I actually said. Everything I'm saying comes from the context of American culture - in which I said more women than men do these things. You then tried to pretend I made an absolute statement about the global female population.

So let's instead return to what I actually said. I'd like to see if you agree or disagree with my position.

Regarding what women do in marriages:
Quote:Towie
>>A lot of mothers don't even take the time to maintain friendships and hobbies.

Cornholio
This is something that describes single mothers and married mothers alike. Single fathers are rarely moving into the most expensive housing they can wing. And they certainly aren't angling to snag the wealthiest possible woman than can manage to help give them additional income for their kids. Women do exactly this. Which is why I'm saying that marriage ends up being a worse deal for men than for women. Women do an awful lot of this stuff with or without a man. Men rarely do these things without a wife.
Do you disagree with this assessment? And if so, why?

Quote:Towie
>>If the majority of men are in relationships with people that do not have the same priorities at all, they are pretty shit at choosing partners.

Cornholio
half of marriages end in divorce. [Plus] couples that are still married, yet clearly do not like each other and should be divorced.

Yes, literally a majority of marriages go poorly.
Do you disagree that a majority of marriages turn bad? What percent(ball parking) would you say are a lifelong success? And how would you define a successful marriage?
No stats needed, just a gut feeling is fine.

TransistorBass-303 Wrote:I need Fat Acceptance because the alternative is self improvement.

Reply
#68
(06-06-2018, 04:33 PM)Towie Wrote: Straw man. First, you assume that women are less intelligent than men. (Stated as fact, no evidence in sight) Then you pretend that women have no choice but to want smarter men, while men neither choose partners (you contradict yourself two lines down, btw) nor have access to similarly intelligent women.  

I love muh evolutionary biology as an argument. It's usually dragged out to justify your wacky theories on why women act the way they do , or why they should shut up and birth the babies, never in the context of 'no antibiotics for me, it's mother nature's way of killing off the weak before they can breed'.  In other words, you accept and enjoy the perks of modernity but want to look at women through a lense that is several thousand years out of date.

We do not live in a stone age society. Men don't just go after the biggest set of tits and women don't just look at the guys that can fight off a sabre tooth tiger. We have more choices than that.
This entire page is devoted to the idea that you can boil down relationship theory to a top trumps -like set of stats that you can game until the siren goes and your ideal mate falls out. This isn't how lasting relationships happen in real life.

You literally can't read. 

I wrote: "If husbands are often more intelligent than their wives, it isn't because men are somehow smarter than women on average (although at the extremes it's a different story)"

Men are not smarter than woman on average. The only difference exists in the tail ends of the bell curve where women's bell curve is narrower.

If you're actually interested in this don't be a lazy ass and look it up yourself, I'm not going to spoonfeed you every single piece of information.


"Then you pretend that women have no choice but to want smarter men (you contradict yourself two lines down, btw)"

Do you even know the meaning of statistics, you dumbass? Where did I ever say women have no choice? Yes hypergamy is written in their DNA but that doesn't suddenly take out free will and using one's prefrontal cortex over the more primitive parts of the brain. I'm saying that in aggregate they behave in certain tendencies that reflect their biology. You think I contradict myself because you literally have a problem with understanding the word "statistics" and you also fail to wrap your head around the fact that hypergamy is not only about money but also about looks and status. God damn it feels like I'm talking to a child at this point.


The rest of your post isn't an argument. "muhuh evolutionary psychology is dumb burr hurr." Evolutionary psychology explains the DNA we inherited from our ancestors. Yes, society is different today, and yes we have adapted to it, but genes change more slowly than does our society. 

I'm not saying people are robots that act only in a certain way based on their biology and can't do anything about it with free will. 


But tendencies of behaviour reflected by statistics do exist whether you like them or not. 
Reply
#69
I also enjoyed the little feminist straw man rant, Cathy Newman style "So you're saying... that women should shut up and just give birth to children."

Just lmfao. An entire paragraph devoted to shutting down an opinion that no one here even has. 

You have brain damage. 

Keep spewing your bullshit, it's funny.
Reply
#70
How did Towie even end up here holy shit. 


She's literally a textbook blue-pilled, feelings over facts, statistics are problematic, feminist nutcase. 

Why does she feel the need to post here, we already know the way their kind thinks and that's why it's so easy to shut down. 


If the blue-pilled really want to try to change the minds of the red-pilled, they need to actually study what red-pilled people are saying, but of course that would be problematic as it's filled with "hate speech!!!", and every time we talk about statistics their brains short-circuit and start thinking that we're talking about how 100% of a given population behaves in an absolute way. 

This is literally the number 1 problem with you fuckers. This is why we can't talk about black crime, muslim rape, race and IQ, gender differences, etc. because you are unable to see and understand that we are NOT talking about individuals but about group statistics. 


"Buuuuhhh you're stoopid because actually not all womyn act the way you say, and also muslims are not all rapists or terrorists and also I know a black person who is way smarter than you dumb-dumb" 

Yes you retard, that's already written in the word "statistics" but you wouldn't know that because for some reason your education stopped before you got a full grasp of what the word actually means. Keep saying your obvious shit as if you're teaching anyone anything as it makes you feel smart, virtuous and better about yourself.
Reply
#71
(06-06-2018, 10:18 PM)JustBeRyanBoundless Wrote: Yes you retard
(06-06-2018, 10:18 PM)JustBeRyanBoundless Wrote: feminist nutcase
(06-06-2018, 09:48 PM)JustBeRyanBoundless Wrote: You literally can't read. 
(06-06-2018, 10:18 PM)JustBeRyanBoundless Wrote: This is literally the number 1 problem with you fuckers.
(06-06-2018, 09:58 PM)JustBeRyanBoundless Wrote: You have brain damage. 
Your RedPill is hanging out. Might want to zip it back up.

TransistorBass-303 Wrote:I need Fat Acceptance because the alternative is self improvement.

Reply
#72
(06-06-2018, 10:18 PM)JustBeRyanBoundless Wrote: "Buuuuhhh you're stoopid because actually not all womyn act the way you say, and also muslims are not all rapists or terrorists and also I know a black person who is way smarter than you dumb-dumb" 

Yes you retard, that's already written in the word "statistics" but you wouldn't know that because for some reason your education stopped before you got a full grasp of what the word actually means.
But see, the entire tactic is meant to knock you off balance and change the frame of the debate. Which, you fell for, hook, line, and sinker.
So for someone who is claiming to be much smarter and more reasoned than she is, you somehow just lost the debate by going full angry tirade.

The person winning the debate isn't generally the one with wild crazy eyes shouting about something and riffing off one-sided insults. That's what you do when the other person has the upper hand. So even if you feel like you're winning, to any outside observer not strongly biased in your favor - you just lost.

TransistorBass-303 Wrote:I need Fat Acceptance because the alternative is self improvement.

Reply
#73
(06-06-2018, 11:13 PM)TheGreatCornholio Wrote: But see, the entire tactic is meant to knock you off balance and change the frame of the debate. Which, you fell for, hook, line, and sinker.
So for someone who is claiming to be much smarter and more reasoned than she is, you somehow just lost the debate by going full angry tirade.

The person winning the debate isn't generally the one with wild crazy eyes shouting about something and riffing off one-sided insults. That's what you do when the other person has the upper hand. So even if you feel like you're winning, to any outside observer not strongly biased in your favor - you just lost.


I guess that's true. 


I have anger issues lmao, especially against people who deliberately misrepresent what I say and use these kinds of deceitful tactics.
Reply
#74
Quote:You yourself have said things like "More men commit murder than women". Do you think it's rational for someone to infer "All men commit murder"? To draw an absolute conclusion, it should require a statement that it is in fact absolute.
Well, okay. I said most homicides are committed by young men. Which is a poor example, in a way, because this is a fact we both agree on and that is true pretty much regardless of context (country, region etc).

You made a lot of statements about what women want (and men supposedly don't) that I do not at all agree hold true regardless of context.  Living in a nice neighbourhood was a huge priority for my husband. He used to live in a red light district and had a person stabbed outside his house. Lots of men are status conscious or simply proud of a nice house and garden.

Likewise, you sort of lump women and 'mothers' together in your statement about women & hobbies. Single women do maintain hobbies and friendships. Having babies is something that happens in the context of a relationship. Your statement implies that the women in the relationship are the only ones wanting kids and the men do not. Both the need for a bigger house and the need for a partner with a reliable income come about in that context. That's not something that women 'want anyway' because they'd all spontaneously sprout kids regardless of their partners' attitudes. It's part of the 'baggage' you acquire when you have a family.

Quote:Do you disagree that a majority of marriages turn bad? What percent(ball parking) would you say are a lifelong success? And how would you define a successful marriage? 
No stats needed, just a gut feeling is fine.

We agree that 50 % of marriages fail. These days, people don't get or stay married for religious reasons, and are usually not forced to stay in disastrous marriages for economic reasons either, which partially explains the increased divorce rate. How many marriages are a success? No idea, hope it's the other 50%. Maybe 30%.

I think both people in the marriage need to feel that they traded in their freedom for something that is worth just as much. And they need to have shared values and a ideally few shared interests. I think a successful marriage is made up of two people that genuinely enjoy each other's company, help each other achieve their goals, support each other, give each other space for hobbies and friendships, and can communicate and negotiate with each other. 

I think blaming your partner for your loss of freedom rather than appreciating the things you gain is a big issue in either direction. Example: I love to go out dancing. I rarely get to do it these days because a) most of my friends no longer want to go out dancing b) it now takes me a week to recuperate from a hangover and c) my husband hates it and I want to spend some of my free evenings with him.
The moment I start to focus only on c) and start to subconsciously blame my partner for the fact that I'm not in college anymore, I resent him for things that aren't his fault.
Reply
#75
(06-06-2018, 11:26 PM)JustBeRyanBoundless Wrote: I guess that's true. 


I have anger issues lmao, especially against people who deliberately misrepresent what I say and use these kinds of deceitful tactics.

I did misread your statement about intelligence. So that's my bad. You did make a lot of statement that started out 'statistically speaking' and weren't factual, to my knowledge. 


Example:
Quote:Women are statistically unhappier if they provide more financially than their husbands. They are happier in the opposite case. The bigger the gap (the more the woman provides compared to the husband) the bigger the chance of cuckoldery and divorce.

Which countries did they look at?  What's the metric for 'happiness'? Sample size? Do you really think they got realistic data for how many of the women cheated? I don't believe for a minute there is good data on any of this. I know what passes for a study in the humanities. 

Quote:Woman statistically want to be provided for, not to provide. 
Also a comparatively weak statement that isn't improved by inserting the words 'statistically'. 
I definitely believe that women want a guy with a stable income if they want to start a family. But that's not quite the same thing, in my view, as 'being provided for'. It doesn't take the women's jobs into account whatsoever, or what kind of a work / childcare split they would opt for if they could choose.

Quote:Do you seriously think we as men will look at an intelligent beautiful woman and think "nah, she has a pretty face, nice tits and a great ass but fuck she's too intelligent, I'll pass"?  
Tell me with a straight face that's what you actually think.
Yeah that happens. I don't have delusions of grandeur about either my intelligence or my looks, contrary to what some of you may think. I'm a decent average, pretty much the female equivalent of cornholio based on his description.
But there are quite a few men for whom a smarter woman is intimidating and a turn off. They prefer women that are somewhat deferential, that laugh and nod along when they're being patronized.  (Some guys in management are downright hostile to a woman in the same position, they assume that you can't have gotten there on merit and pretend that you're not in the room. That's part of the same issue. Not meek, self effacing and deferential = freak of nature kill it with fire) 
Try to make it through a full sentence without calling me a baby or a retard. I won't lose sleep over it, but it doesn't help your argument whatsoever.
Reply
#76
(06-07-2018, 08:05 PM)Towie Wrote: lump women and 'mothers' together in your statement about women & hobbies. Single women do maintain hobbies and friendships.
I was careful to use the term single mothers. Because you originally spoke about how married mothers lose their hobbies and friends. Single mothers also often do this. And plenty of women get pregnant without a relationship.

The lose of hobbies and friends is related to the children - not the husband. From what I've seen a woman is more likely to maintain friends and hobbies when she has a child with her husband over having a child with her casual.

(06-07-2018, 08:05 PM)Towie Wrote: Your statement implies that the women in the relationship are the only ones wanting kids and the men do not.
My statement implies that most women want kids even if they don't have a husband. And that most men do not want kids if they don't have a wife.

That's the divide. Women want kids more - on average.

(06-07-2018, 08:05 PM)Towie Wrote: I think a successful marriage is made up of two people that genuinely enjoy each other's company, help each other achieve their goals, support each other, give each other space for hobbies and friendships, and can communicate and negotiate with each other. 

I think blaming your partner for your loss of freedom rather than appreciating the things you gain is a big issue in either direction.
I agree with the first paragraph. But all of those things are perfectly achievable without marriage. I have them with my current girlfriend. We've been dating for 4 years. I have no intention of ever marrying her.

Now the 2nd part? I don't know. I simply don't want a loss of freedom. It's not even required to gain all of the good things.

TransistorBass-303 Wrote:I need Fat Acceptance because the alternative is self improvement.

Reply
#77
(06-07-2018, 08:26 PM)Towie Wrote: Example:
Quote: Wrote:Women are statistically unhappier if they provide more financially than their husbands. They are happier in the opposite case. The bigger the gap (the more the woman provides compared to the husband) the bigger the chance of cuckoldery and divorce.

Which countries did they look at?  What's the metric for 'happiness'? Sample size? Do you really think they got realistic data for how many of the women cheated? I don't believe for a minute there is good data on any of this. I know what passes for a study in the humanities. 
He's completely correct about the divorce rate. I just posted a thread on this last month
http://looksmax.net/Thread-Forever-Alone...vorce-risk

Vitriol has been running around saying divorce risk is mostly about how many men a woman has slept with, but the stats don't bear it out. Beyond virgins, it's basically statistical noise. 2 or 20 all have right about the same number.

However, the income effect on divorce is enormous. When a woman is earning 3x more than her husband the divorce rate is almost 90%.

My study didn't look at cheating or cuckoldry. Though cuckoldry is rare besides(I think it's like 2%). So changes are not even something that could be easily measured. Even a 50% increase(which is massive), would look like noise.

TransistorBass-303 Wrote:I need Fat Acceptance because the alternative is self improvement.

Reply
#78
(06-08-2018, 02:19 AM)TheGreatCornholio Wrote: He's completely correct about the divorce rate. I just posted a thread on this last month
http://looksmax.net/Thread-Forever-Alone...vorce-risk

Vitriol has been running around saying divorce risk is mostly about how many men a woman has slept with, but the stats don't bear it out. Beyond virgins, it's basically statistical noise. 2 or 20 all have right about the same number.

However, the income effect on divorce is enormous. When a woman is earning 3x more than her husband the divorce rate is almost 90%.

My study didn't look at cheating or cuckoldry. Though cuckoldry is rare besides(I think it's like 2%). So changes are not even something that could be easily measured. Even a 50% increase(which is massive), would look like noise.

Had a look around and found this literature review:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5021537/

Much more detail than I should go into here, but it appears that the effect of wives' income on divorce has become significantly less pronounced since the 60s and 70s. It is significantly more common for wives to outearn a husband or have a higher education level than he than it used to be, so societal norms are changing.

Quote:As women’s labor-force participation and earnings have grown, so has the likelihood that wives outearn their husbands. A common concern is that these couples may be at heightened risk of divorce. Yet with the rise of egalitarian marriage, wives’ relative earnings may be more weakly associated with divorce than in the past. We examine trends in the association between wives’ relative earnings and marital dissolution using data from the 1968–2009 Panel Study of Income Dynamics. We find that wives’ relative earnings were positively associated with the risk of divorce among couples married in the late 1960s and 1970s, and that this was especially true for wives who outearned their husbands, but this was no longer the case for couples married in the 1990s. Change was concentrated among middle-earning husbands and those without college degrees, a finding consistent with the economic squeeze of the middle class over this period.
Reply
#79
Quote:I was careful to use the term single mothers. Because you originally spoke about how married mothers lose their hobbies and friends. Single mothers also often do this. And plenty of women get pregnant without a relationship.

The lose of hobbies and friends is related to the children - not the husband. From what I've seen a woman is more likely to maintain friends and hobbies when she has a child with her husband over having a child with her casual.

Well yeah, no shit. The single mother probably doesn't have that kind of time because there isn't a second person to look after the kids . I do understand that there are women that want children without a partner, but that's not a majority preference. I would never, ever consider taking on a responsibility like that without backup. I think thee is an underlying sexist assumption that women just want babies by default, and that those who don't are somehow deficient. There is quite a lot of societal pressure on women to conform to that view. I really got hit by a tidal wave of baby focused ads on every platform the moment I turned 25. 

As for the loss of hobbies and friends - that also happens in a relationship. No one goes out alone as much as part of a cohabitating couple as they did when they were single. 

Quote:Now the 2nd part? I don't know. I simply don't want a loss of freedom. It's not even required to gain all of the good things.

Quite frankly, I'd feel more paranoid about loss of freedom with a kid than in a marriage. You can't ever fully divorce a child or its biological parent. As you said, it's not a big difference to just living together otherwise.
Reply
#80
(06-08-2018, 04:56 AM)Towie Wrote: I think thee is an underlying sexist assumption that women just want babies by default
That's a biological assumption - and it's true. It's literally your #1 purpose in life. Survival is actually just a means to spread your genes.

(06-08-2018, 04:56 AM)Towie Wrote: I do understand that there are women that want children without a partner, but that's not a majority preference.
Maybe I need to explain this in terms of hierarchy.
Woman's preference for having children
1. Children with long-term partner
2. Children without long-term partner
3. No children

A man's preference for having children
1. Children with long-term partner
2. No children
3. Children without long-term partner

So the #1 is the same. But note the difference for #2. A man would prefer to not have children than have them with a woman who will not be there long term. Though a woman would prefer to have children with a long-term partner, she'll have them with a random sperm donor rather than skip kids.

Very few men want kids. They want a family. Without a family, they don't want kids.

Women also prefer a family. But they still want kids if that's all they can get. They don't require a family.

TransistorBass-303 Wrote:I need Fat Acceptance because the alternative is self improvement.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)