The BBC is taking a lot of heat for including a panda in a list of the top 12 female “faces of the year” for 2011. As the Daily Edge explains:
While the men category featured 12 actual men, the women’s page featured 11 women and one panda, albeit a female panda.
There’s a new Twitter hashtag — #pandagate — for those who wish to express brief thoughts on the matter.
I too, am outraged. A panda on the female list but none on the male list? This is blatant discrimination against male pandas. Mispandry, if you will. And it is discrimination against pandas generally.
ALL OF THE ENTRIES IN BOTH LISTS SHOULD BE PANDAS!
This is just one more example of mispandrist Anti-Pandaism in contemporary culture.
Here you can see more anti-Pandaism in action – notice the crowd laughing – laughing! – at this panda’s athletic prowess.
And here is some footage obtained from an illegal underage panda fighting ring.
Today, a GUEST POST from Catherine! Thanks, Catherine! And the rest of you, enjoy!
Over on Chateau Heartiste, the (He)artist(e) Formerly Known As Roissy devoted a recent post to the conundrum of handsome men coupled with ugly women. It’s essentially an open thread for the denigration of women who don’t live up to Roissy’s porntastic standards (17 to 20 years old with a BMI of about 18 *and* a D cup, and related WTF?! attributes), as well as ragging on those awful beta manginas who are punching below their weight – or, to quote Heartiste himself, are “polluting the gene pool with pigwoman blood.”
I was participating in a mobile conference which included question and answer periods, and I noticed an odd couple standing to my side. He was youngish and good-looking — most women would agree on his physical attractiveness — and his wife was a snout-nosed, inbred-looking, stringy-haired, big fat pig dressed in sweatshirt and ill-fitting jeans. In other words, the typical American woman. I assumed they were married because I saw their rings and she had her hand on a stroller with an infant tucked away in it.
He’s just getting started.
What abomination is this! I thought. But then the reason became crystal clear after only a few moments watching and listening to them interact.
Speaker: Any questions?
Big Fat Pig: [nudging her hubby with her elbow] Honey, remember…
Handsome Husbandry: [tentatively raising his index and middle finger, and haltingly talking] I have a question… I have a…
So obviously the young good-looking man is totally under the thumb of the big fat evil feminist woman, who has sucked out his brains and reduced him to a quivering lump of hesitation and uncertainty!
As he asked his question, he kept looking over at his wife — in fact, staring at his wife more than the speaker, although he was ostensibly addressing the speaker. One would be forgiven for having the impression that he was seeking constant real-time assurance from his wife that his question was acceptable for public discourse. Nervously shifting from one foot to the other, leaning into his wife, gazing downward when the speaker responded to him, his body language was so beta it was painful to watch. No, it was repulsive to behold, almost as repulsive as the visual effrontery of his wife’s blubbery carcass.
So, sniveling, indecisive beta manginas are repulsive… but not as repulsive as a corpulent woman! Gotcha, Roissy.
After getting in a few more digs at the contemptuous, unsympathetic wife, Roissy sets forth his views on various types of couples. First, the kinds of couples that should be allowed to exist:
Handsome man with beautiful woman
All is right in the world. You infer the man has alpha characteristics to complement his good looks, and he has cashed that in for a hot babe. …
Ugly man with ugly woman
All is right, if depressing, in the world. You infer the ugly man has beta or even omega characteristics, and that an ugly woman was the best he could do. You assume the ugly woman resents him for having to settle, but knows she has no other options. Love between them is less about passion than it is about task delegation and avoidance of suicidal loneliness.
All is well in the world of alpha males with hot babes, but those in ugly people combos need to find some highly diverting hobbies to keep from offing themselves.
Now Roissy turns his attention to two apparent mismatches, and delineates his usual double standards:
Ugly man with beautiful woman
Wow, he is shooting out of his league! But then, thinking on it a bit, you recall that you saw quite a few couples like this mismatched pair during the week. It’s less rare than popularly imagined. You may ask yourself “What does she see in him?”, and from that you infer the ugly man has compensating alpha attributes to snag such a hottie — maybe he’s wealthy, or slick, or funny, or a dominating asshole, or some combination of each. You assume this ugly man has options to be able to choose a beauty for a girlfriend.
Moral: ugly men are permitted to have counter-balancing attributes! Can you guess what is coming next?
Handsome man with ugly woman
Whoa, what is he thinking?! An uncommon sight, (occurrence less frequent than its polar opposite), you presume the handsome man has some debilitating personality flaw — maybe social awkwardness, or shyness, or micropenis — that prevents him from fornicating with his true potential. Unlike the mirror image couple of the ugly man with the beautiful woman, you do not give the ugly woman the benefit of the doubt in assessing why she was able to catch a handsome man. You simply conclude, reasonably, that the handsome man is not the alpha male on the inside that he looks like on the outside, and therefore the ugly woman is not really dating out of her league. There must be something wrong with him, you think.
Women have no value beyond their looks, so the pitiful man dating someone wretchedly below Roissy’s artificial standards must likewise be sub-standard, in some way invisible to us, to have abased himself so humiliatingly.
Having drawn these pictures, Roissy rounds out the post with a sermon on female ugliness, which is to be universally shunned:
There is an instinctive, deeply primitive understanding chugging away behind the prefrontal cortex in every one of us that women sexually respond to a suite of male attractiveness traits, of which looks are only one desirable male quality. It is therefore not inconceivable to most non-brainwashed observers that an ugly man might have other characteristics that appeal to a beautiful woman on his arms, or that a handsome man might be crippled with weakness and self-doubt that constrains his ability to attract no better than a big fat pigwoman.
And we’re back to the disparaging references to pigs. Why, oh why does Roissy hate pork so? (That he detests women is more or less expected.)
In the mismatched couple I witnessed, it was clear that whatever good will or tokens of desire that the handsome man had inspired in his pigwoman were completely squandered by his beta behavior. It was easy to see by her loathsome demeanor that his looks no longer held — if they ever did beyond the first couple of dates — any sway over her feelings for him. But being the big fat pigwoman she is, she knew she could not do better.
And that is why the generational increase in human beauty is a slow, painstaking process, punctuated by tragic reversals to a sloping brow norm (see: Appalachia, Detroit). Handsome betas are polluting the gene pool with pigwoman blood.
What the hell was that? I’ll quote it again: “Handsome betas are polluting the gene pool with pigwoman blood.” Oh, the huge manatee! Shrink in terror from the impending doom to be brought about by porcine-human hybrids!
Naturally such hyperbole is a cue for some predictable misogyny in the comments, such as the following from regular tool Tyrone:
That’s why its good to be older to get a good sense for how a woman will age. There are loads of women who look hot when young but turn into cattle as they age. Mom is usually a good bench mark. If you’d do her Mom, you’re probably safe. Check out how Ginger Lynn looks like nowadays. You’d never recognize her from her porn days.
A view right in line with Roissy’s famed dating value regimen that women lose value once they’re older than, say, 29; and Tyrone follows it up with some white supremacism:
White people won’t survive without more kids. Smart white men need to breed more in our country- with white women.
What, you might ask, about women with great bodies but unappealing faces? One Anonymous coward urges his brethren to go for it :
[O]ne of my biggest regrets was not doing a girl who had the hottest body around but an ugly face. Temporarily of course.
But for fuck’s sake don’t marry them. Right, tenderman100?
Some years ago, before I was married for the first time (twice married, twice divorced) I was banging this babe. Amazing body. Amazing tits. But a kind of a bucktoothed face. When I first met her, I thought, wow what amazing tits…yeah she’s kinda ugly but she’s friendly and I just have to see those tat tas. Well, not only did I see them, we banged for a few months. She was incredible in bed, highly orgasmic, very flexible (did ballet). Haven’t seen her in decades, but if she is a fat cow, I wouldn’t be surprised. Yeah, she was ugly but she pounded like a pro. So it isn’t always what it seems. Then again, I would never have married her.
If not marriage, then what about a long-term relationship? Over again to Tyrone:
A good woman who has reparable shortcomings is still a good option for an LTR. Fugly is a whole different animal.
But if you marry one of them, Tyrone adds, make sure you have a contingency plan!
My wife knows if she ever lets herself go, talks about divorce, whatever that pisses me off enough to leave, I will simply disappear into the night. No arguments or emotions, it will be a complete coup de main. There won’t be anyone around to serve papers to. I’ll be overseas in an undisclosed location screwing LBFMs.
In case you don’t already know, LBFM is short for Little Brown Fucking Machines, a term of art to refer to Asian women (frequently underage) sought out by sex tourists — which should be sufficient to outline Tyrone’s sophisticated moral principles. He continues:
I say this with no emotion or bravado, just let her know its a fact that she must deal with. Marriage is like defense policy, the best defense is a good offense. Strike first, strike to kill. Identify a location and buy yourself some property there, so you have somewhere to go. Move enough money there to live well until you can start a bar or whatever to live. Plan this for a few years in advance if need be. Life is too short to be some stupid broad’s wage slave.
How charming!
Heartiste really has a way of bringing out the best in people!
“Feminists Take Up Arms in War on Christmas.” That’s the headline over on The Spearhead, where W.F. Price tries to spread some good old-fashioned anti-feminist cheer with a post dredging up the old Fox News crapola about a “War on Christmas,” with feminists in the role of villain this time.
His proof of this feminist perfidy? This video on the “Top 5 Creepy and Sexist Christmas Songs.” In it, Anita Sarkeesian of Feminist Frequency takes a critical look at some Christmastime “classics,” including the really quite odious “Baby it’s Cold Outside,” which depicts a man pressuring a woman into staying with him for the night, aggressively shutting down every one of her many objections. The message? Fifty nos and one yes means a yes. It might as well have been written by Reddit’s date-rapey “seduction” experts.
Naturally, the Spearhead regulars offer deeply insightful critiques of all of her main points. DT wades in with a witticism worthy of Wilde:
The reason she hates “Baby It’s Cold Outside” is because no man would ever even dream of trying to stay at her house.
Baby, it’s cold inside, and you’re stuck there alone.
Feminists are so far out these days that they resemble bag ladies rather than genuine social critics. Their endless shit opinions take on a comic quality.
Life is wonderful, and life is extra nice without a cunt woman whining in one’s general vicinity. Happy snatch-free holidays, brothers! 🙂
Further proof.
The ever-so-slightly-addled Geography Bee Finalist himself sets forth a theory to explain why feminists might be critical of traditional holidays:
If feminists hate men, and since no holiday comes to mind that can be extricated completely from men, as even the turkey baster needs semen (and men probably invented the centrifuge that sorts X sperm cells and Y sperm cells) so the dyke couple can conceive a kid out of wedlock but in principle cannot celebrate Mother’s Day as fetuses need semen to exist, but Jehovah’s Witnesses expect the FATHER to almost always be the head of the Jehovah’s Witness nuclear family, I wonder what the feminist is left to do.
Oh, that’s right. She is left to not celebrate a single holiday of any religion or country, nor be a Jehovah’s Witness if she wants to have any principle left when it comes to holidays, but then again “feminist principle” is another oxymoron.
Well, all that probably seemed to make more sense echoing inside his empty skull than it does actually written down.
Feminism envisions either a world without men; or at least one where men are kept in a state of subservient subhumanism. Christmas has to go, along with all other religious holidays and traditional religions. All traditional religions and their associated holidays stress the importance of monogamous marriage and family; and feminists exalt feminine independence, abortion, and misandry.
But it’s Andybob who wins the thread with this unique close reading of the video:
Notice that she says, “downright creepy” at exactly the same moment that an image of a pair of jingle balls appears threateningly above her head. It this a feminist’s sledge-hammer subtle attempt to subliminally associate testicles with creepiness? Lesbians never stop trying to recruit.
Andy, I’m sure that you, in your own small way, have helped to make this ongoing lesbian recruitment drive a little bit more successful.
Santa is no longer interested in bringing joy to girls.
Christmas came early for the MRAs this year. Earlier this week, a generous soul calling himself AgentOrange posted a 165 MB present online for them, an assortment of super-secret internet postings from a private forum connected to the RadFem Hub, which Mr. Orange collected by bravely going behind enemy lines and, er, screencapping a bunch of shit. As the OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE declared:
[B]oth feminists and MRAs alike, have been anxiously awaiting the promised complete files of screen shots and associated materials collected by Agent Orange.
These files are apparently so vile and incendiary that Mr. Orange has deemed it necessary to reveal the personal information of some of the RadFemHub commenters. Not to encourage anyone to stalk or harass or harm them, just so that those offended by them can do whatever it is people do when personal info is leaked on the internet that doesn’t involve stalking or harassing or harming them. Send them postcards?
So, you might ask, what dastardly secrets do these new files disclose? Oddly, the PRESS RELEASE doesn’t actually specify. The AgentOrange website doesn’t say either. And the 165 MB download is just a bunch of files with no explanation.
But I have spent some time going through these files myself in a completely random manner, which is evidently what AgentOrange expects everyone who downloads the files to do. To be perfectly honest, I haven’t spent that much time on this. I’ve really been quite busy with other things. But I have spent some time. More than twenty minutes, anyway.
So let me share with you some preliminary findings.
Here, straight from the AgentOrange files, are some RadFems discussing a news story about a male midwife who thinks that mothers should embrace the pain of childbirth as a “rite of passage.” (Click on the teensy image on the right to get it full-sized.)
Apparently some of those RadFems don’t think this is a good idea! One of them says:
Does he even know what uterine cramps/contractions even feel like?
Another adds:
I read that and rolled my eyes. … If only it were possible to subject mister midwife (my ass) to the joyous pain of childbirth. I guess a swift kick to the balls is as close as he’s ever going to come to it.
Clearly suggesting that a male midwife suffer pain similar to what he suggests women should suffer is nothing short of GENOCIDE!
But wait, there’s more! Another woman writes:
There is no reason why women should have to endure pain like this in this day and age.
That sounds exactly like something HITLER would have said! (If you replace “women” with “Jews” and “no reason” with “every reason.”)
Still another adds:
This is phenomenally stupid, and completely out of step with current pain management theory and procedures.
Is there no end to this feminazi depravity!?
Oh, but there’s more, much more. In this thread — click the image to the right — the evil RadFems complain about guys trying to pick them up in a creepy manner. One of the ladies suggests that a good way to get the guys to leave you alone is to tell them you’re a widow.
You see now that feminism is all about DECEPTION!
Maybe it should be called Deceptionism!
Ok, ok, just one more. In a thread called “I’m mad as hell” — right over there on the right again — one commenter complains about getting a computer virus.
She’s so mad she says she’s even considering downloading Ubuntu and forgoing all Microsoft products, which are frequently targets of viruses! What? Huh? DOES NOT COMPUTE. BZZZZZZZ. LADY USING LINUX ERROR ERROR. *$^*$()*%(*$$$$$$$$. EMERGENCY SHUTDOWN.
CARRIER.
REBOOTING.
FLUSHING CACHE.
Ok. I’m back. Another commenter there says something about castrating guys who write viruses.
That does seem a little excessive. Though I don’t think she means it literally.
I will return to this topic later, after I recover.
In the meantime, if you want to see the most ridiculous comments on the matter from Reddit’s Men’s Rightsers, you can find some of them collected together here. Among the highlights:
Oh, and by the way, two of the Reddit quotes above come from a fellow known on Reddit as Sigi1, but who may be more familiar to Man Boobzers as Eoghan. Without clicking on the links, can you guess which two?
If you wonder why some dudes get so worked up about “false rape accusations,” it may be because their notion of “seduction” is pretty much indistinguishable from what most of us would call “date rape.” And chances are good that they sort of know this.
The original poster writes in with a heartrending tale: it seems he can’t get the ladies to touch his penis. Throw5891away writes:
So I have little problem getting numbers, little trouble turning those numbers into dates, I can keep her interested during dates, but i can’t make the move to anything physical beyond a kiss or some light making out.
Let’s have the deets!
A lot of my problem, I think, comes from the fear of possibly making it awkward. I’ve been in a few situations where i’ve tried to slide a hand down the pants of a girl and she turns timid. This is after some over-clothes touching, or pressure with my thigh. Warming them up, i think, is not the major problem. Obviously if a girl says no, i’m not going to push through with it because that’s when it gets awkward.
Yes, trying to stick your fingers in a woman’s vagina when she doesn’t want you to does tend to get a little … awkward.
Beyond me failing at making a first move, it’s nearly impossible for me to get a girl to notice I have an erection and attempt to do something about it.
Maybe you need to wear a t-shirt that says “erection” on it with a big arrow pointing to your crotch? Otherwise how on earth are the ladies you’re making out with ever going to realize you have a boner?
I’m average in size there, so them not noticing is not an issue. I feel like I almost have to physically take their hand and place it on my junk in order to make it happen. And after a while of them paying no attention to my erection (mind you, they’re still gropey elsewhere/into making out), it really starts to make wonder if they’re really into having sex with me at all.
It seems you might just be onto something here. And how on earth can you possibly tell if a woman actually, for real, wants to have sex with you? It’s not like you can ask her directly, because she has the power of speech, or anything like that.
Instead, you’d better ask the dudes on r/seduction. So let’s just see what they have to say.
PuaCurveBall suggests that the best way to avoid the “awkwardness” spoken of earlier is just to ignore it:
I hope this advice doesn’t sounds rapey, but you need to keep going until they seriously tell you no.
Pro-tip: Any bit of advice that starts off with “I hope this advice doesn’t sound rapey” is advice you SHOULD NOT FOLLOW.
Them not telling you firmly to stop (more than just “we shouldn’t be doing this” or “it is too soon”) is the signal. Escalate until they tell you to stop.
Yes, because “we shouldn’t be doing this” is such an ambiguous statement. It could mean anything! It probably is just girl-code for “we should be doing this, so please grab my hand and put it on your dick.”
Either you should get a firm “no, seriously get your hands off me, I’m not ready yet” or you should be having sex with these girls. Everything in the middle is working against you.
So long as she doesn’t literally mace you, you can assume she actually wants you to keep going.
Naturally, the suave Lotherios of the r/seduction community rewarded this sensible advice with upvotes.
Women want a man to be dominate. Other women lead you to believe you have to ask for permission, don’t listen to these stupid feminists. Go be a man, if she says no, you say ok, and keep doing exactly what you were doing. You get an erection, make it freaking known!!!
NOTE: The title of this post is sarcastic. If you found this post through a Google search because you’re actually looking for tips on how to exploit desperate young women, you’re a piece of shit, and this post is not for you. Go away, and go fuck yourself.
Fellas! Want sex, but don’t have the money to shell out on prostitutes? Hate the time and effort it takes to talk a non-professional sex-having women into having sex with you? A recent post by Advocatus Diaboli on the always delightful In Mala Fide offered an elegant solution for horny but frugal men. In a post titled Pooning on a Tight Budget, AD explained the technique that has worked for him:
Getting poor, but good-looking, young girls (18-23) to have sex with [you] in return for some timely financial help.
Turns out that women who are poor and desperate can be exploited for your own sexy purposes!
Of course, it’s not always quite as easy as it might seem.
I should be upfront that getting amateur women to have sex for money can be tricky as most of them believe that they are not whores. Moreover, poor young women often have “boyfriends” and white knight orbiters. So I created a set of filters and rules to screen out the most problematic types.
According to AD, all you have to do is to:
Avoid all girls who have obvious and serious drug and mental health issues or have lived on the street for over 6 weeks at a stretch.
Happily for you, that still leaves lots of girls ripe for the picking! AD suggests you focus your attention on:
Freshly homeless young girls, especially those who hangout in mixed groups.
The safest ones are those who are into pot, drumming, dreadlocks et cetera. You can find them in many larger cities in the spring and summer. While I would never trust them with any significant amount of money, many are reasonably decent human beings.
You might not think you’d have much in common to talk about with these women – what with them being “reasonably decent human beings” and you being a “completely reprehensible pile of shit” – but you’d be surprised.
Strike up a conversation with them, engage them and see where it leads. But you must make it plainly obvious that you are interested in them sexually, but that all favors require reciprocation. Once you get to know them, a decent round of drinks, snacks, money for pot, a small necessary item of clothing, decent dinner with booze will almost guarantee you a good lay (or at least a couple of BJs).
And if you crunch the numbers you’ll see it’s really quite a frugal solution.
Your initial financial hit for hanging out with them is very small, and once they are sleeping with you.. it will often work to about $30-60 (cash equivalent or cash) per session. You may also get freebies..
But girls don’t necessarily have to be literally homeless to be desperate enough to sleep with you for money. Nope! You may also find great cost-savings from targeting:
Girls who are not homeless, but are just hanging on.
How do you find these lovely ladies? Keep an eye out for women working really shitty jobs that don’t pay shit! You’ll find them conveniently located
in smaller retail stores or businesses that pay minimum wage with no tips. Build a rapport and be fairly upfront about your interest, but do not come across as desperate. Go to her workplace and talk to her when you are in that area, but do not stalk her.
Yep, it turns out that even desperate women can be creeped out. So play it cool! Stalking’s for fools!
There’s another possible hurdle: other dudes.
Such women often have “boyfriends,” however, they are often just as poor or poorer than her. You can get pussy as long as you are firm about the need for reciprocation. This category of girls might be more willing to give BJs than having ‘real sex.’ But do you really care?
Just remember to keep to your budget!
Restrict your help to less than $200 at any one time AND only after she has put out a couple of times.
And then there’s AD’s favorite category of desperate women:
Girls who are poor, but not homeless and have no “boyfriends” + have moved to the city within the last eight weeks.
You have hit the jackpot!
Just don’t get carried away. Remember: you’re in charge, and she should know it!
Remember these girls can become de facto GFs, but do not restrict yourself to one. While you do not have to rub it in their faces, they should know that you are always looking around for a better deal. But treat them a bit better than type 1 and 2, they do give more per dollar spent on them.
Your accountant will be so, so proud of you!
Just remember:
They will play by your rules as long as they are not too dehumanizing, and they are often cheaper than professional whores.
Now that’s a motto to live by!
Amazingly, not all of the readers of In Mala Fide appreciated AD’s little treatise.
Pretty damn creepy. You sound like you have no soul. Actually, you might be the first member of a new species: the perfectly rational, purely selfish utility-maximizing agent (Homo Economicus) that Austrian economists and Randroids have always droned on and on about.
Yes, I was as surprised as you are to read an actually reasonable critique of the post on In Mala Fide.
Don’t worry, though, the rest of the comments mostly lived up to the foul standards of the blog.
Ryu worried about the old slippery slope. If you start by suggesting that PUAs target homeless women, the next thing you know they’ll advocate sex with children! And then down the slippery slope you’ll slide:
This is the direction that PU takes one in. I’m surprised that there haven’t been any PUAs who say that during a dry spell we should go to gay bars and pick up men. Just to keep your dick wet, you know.
There’s a problem WNs have yet to deal with. Well off second-generation foreigners like AD taking advantage of your impoverished women of older native stock, after they’ve taken your jobs.
Can’t keep ‘em here, can’t send ‘em back.
What to do?
Blog proprietor Ferdinand Bardamu waded in to take a shot at all the “white knights” sticking up for the gals.
ROFLMAO at all these white knights. …
If you want to blame someone, blame the morally debased white women who would rather blow a stranger for $200 then work honestly (pull yourself up by your bootstraps, slob! nobody owes you anything!).
We’re living in Soviet Amerika (and Soviet Kanada). All of your daughters are whores or will become whores, soon as the price tag gets high enough.
Meanwhile, Stoner With a Boner, who sometimes graces the comments section here with his always trenchant wisdom, took a stand on behalf of the real victims here: dudes paying their own hard-earned money to icky ladies for sex.
Personally, I find the idea of clocking more hours at a job I hate just to hand $200 to a prostitute who would probably leave me dying in the street rather than help degrading.
Gay men, stop falling for these man-hating ladies!
Gay men, when will you learn that feminists are fickle friends? Christian J. – the blogger behind What Men Are Saying About Women and the inventor of the MRA two-dot ellipses – offers gay men a trenchant warning about the evils of these seemingly friendly “allies.”
Fascinating how gay men are of the opinion that they are seen as humans where feminists are concerned. I am not quite certain how many more times we have to demonstrate that feminists loathe gays, with a passion, the male type ofcourse, not the lesbobo version..
Yes, obviously the lesbobos — much like lesbos, but with twice as much bo — have no problem with male hating. But gay men need to open their eyes to what is really going on.
Feminists have jumped aboard the Gay Rights Movement in order to spread their own male hating message. A message that the Gay Community appears to ignore. When feminists call for the removal of all men, the Gay man is definitely not exempted, I cannot understand how they can be in denial of that fact, that certainty..
Also, that whole “gay marriage” thing you guys are always on about is really kind of pointless, since the evil ladies have already ruined marriage for everyone:
Feminists are only concerned about destroying marriage and families and the Gay community can help there as well by demanding that marriage should be renounced as null and void.
Of course, the lesbobos love feminism, and vice versa. Or at least they profess to:
Feminism and feminists only support lesbianism as most of the radical feminists are lesbians and they possess sufficient toxicity and male hate in order to spread their anti male loathing. They attached themselves to any movement they think they will have some advantage or benefit to spreading their elitist, sexist message..
But gay men?
Ignore these warning at your own peril. Feminists will dump you faster than typhoid when they have achieved their own outcomes. It’s that simple..
If a man give his woman 100 dollars a week for food shopping, she will spend say 60 on food and keep the rest. When he enquires why there’s no food in the house come Friday he will get bitched at for not trusting her. And made to feel guilty for accusing her, even though she has deceived him.
When they say they are going out with the girls, they could be out doing Anything. This ranges from doing hard drugs to stripping to boinking strangers to sitting alone on a curb to arson. You can never be sure.
How about when they try their version of the Jedi mind trick on you. You know the thing they brag about in private. Trying to make something that’s her idea, seem like it’s *your* idea so that you’ll do it. And then pat you on the back to boost your ego like a trained dog when in reality you did what they for *them* all along.
Sooo many guys fall for this. Suddenly they’re buying crap they don’t need or moving the inlaws in because the woman made it seem like *he* wanted it. Classic.
Women spend so much time on their appearance… why?
That’s right, to catch a sucker into paying the bills. Once the contract is signed, and the babies are popped out, she has you by the balls and doesn’t need to pretend anymore. Next she’ll wear more “comfortable clothes” and cut her hair short. It’s the beginning of the end.
In 11th grade high school, I was in the wrestling team. One day, during a water break, this cheerleader next to me started getting panicky and asked me if i could help her find her ring. She “dropped” it and did this just as an opener, i suppose. I ended up ‘being’ with her and it quickly diminished; she was bunk. Another cheerleader came up to me while i was with her and told me “what are you doing her?, you’re way too good for her!”
Luckily, the fella calling himself Tha Big Daddy C-Master, who started the thread, has a simple solution to all this. Well, two simple solutions:
You can always turn the other way, or just use a woman. Human toilets and all.
Found on Wedded Abyss, linked to by some MRA dude on Reddit. I believe the thing on the right is a high-heeled shoe, which like most high-heel shoes has a woman’s mouth on it with a chain coming from out of the mouth, with a little silhouetto of a man in handcuffs attached to it. Because that totally is what marriage is all about these days, amirite fellas? We’re just tiny silhouettes of men chained to the giant mouth-having shoe of feminazi injustice!!
Today, a lesson in advanced Facebook dating mathematics, courtesy of our friend Roissy/Heartiste.
First: fellas, remember that online dating is stacked against us, due to the ability of the ladies to post pictures of themselves looking cute on Facebook – one of the gravest injustices of the modern world. As Heartiste explains, in a post with the bracing title You’ll Need Hard Negs For Facebook Game:
So you’ve got millions of women posting flattering pics of themselves and personal details that are uniformly positive on their FB walls, and you’ve got a bunch of cloying betas feeding the egos of these women even further with painstakingly crafted supportive comments, and you expect to make any headway with tepid game? That is a bitch shield too strong to breach.
But if you must engage the ladies on this unfavorable terrain, remember to adjust your calculations accordingly. As Heartiste explains this new math:
The combination of self-selected profiles and nonstop beta adulation will boost a 5′s self-conception to a 7. Since 5s already have a self-conception of 6 thanks to the phenomenon of female upward dating momentum and the alpha cock carousel, you now have a double-strength bitch shield to bust instead of a single strength.
I’ve prepared a simple chart to illustrate this point:
How to date on Facebook
But wait! There’s more:
Remember, if a 5 believes she’s a 7 (“But I *feel* like a 7!”) she is also going to believe that male 7s are not high enough status for her. Women are not truly happy unless they are dating men 0.5 to 2 sexual market value points higher than themselves.
Five thinks it’s seven. But seven is five. SEVEN IS FIVE!
The reality, of course, is that the male 7 is two full points higher than the female 5. But the Facebook wall has meddled with the primal forces of nature. An unbridgeable chasm brought about by the advance of technology has severed the organically emergent hierarchy of the dating market where there is no escape from soul withering judgments made in mere seconds.
So, as always, the best bet for the modern man is to find some lady in the real world who actually thinks she’s the number she is. Then, simply neg her until she hates herself. That’s how the math is supposed to work.
