My favorite incoherent MRA blogger at the moment is our dear friend Christian J from the blog What Men Are Saying About Women. In recent days, Dr. J – famed inventor of the MRA two-dot ellipsis – has delivered up some truly inspired prose. I’d like to share some of the highlights (by which I mean lowlights) from a few of his recent posts.
Women dish it up on a platter in line with their feminist education (free love/free sex mentality) to the alphas as they turn them on, the most, in the hope of either pretending to be carefree and casual about it all or they just have a high sex drive that requires servicing on a regular basis. It’s not that difficult..
The girls ofcourse have been trained to think that they can get away with just about anything as they possess the magic “V” which has a very high trading component as well as a social exchange rate, not unlike the Euro or an open ocean oil exploration license, but the magic “V”is more mobile and comes with it’s own carrier and operator, batteries not included though. Perfect really, when you think about it.
As feminism gets messier and even more morose, one does have to wonder what efforts those masterminds of insanity will do to cover their obvious and blatant erroneous experiments on human biology.
I don’t know if it’s even possible for me to get messier or more morose.
[N]o one really considers them to be anything but a waste product, whose relevance is yet to be determined. A pretend girlie-man if you like, who wavers between reality and the dream state of their female masters. A neutered sycophant living on a different plain where reality and fantasy mix to form their delusional, ethereal world..
And let’s finish up with this muddled attempt to call feminists a bunch of lying liars:
We have on numerous occasions, demonstrated the continual lying and misinformation that the feminist hegemony consistently wallows in without what they believe is, in any fear of contradiction.
I have no idea if the second half of that sentence is the result of some sort of grievous editing error, or if he actually thought it made some sort of sense. With Christian J, it’s impossible to tell.
Don't put the pussy on a pedestal. Unless it's this pussy.
The blogger Fidelbogen likes to think of himself as some sort of grand theoretician of “counter-feminist” thinking. Which means that his posts are usually far too long and ponderous to read, much less to write about. His ideas – at least judging from the few posts of his I’ve had the patience to wade through — are really not much more advanced than your typical MRA; he’s just much more pretentious (and long-winded) about it.
He is, in other words, the sort of guy who could take 3000 words to explain the rather basic MRA notion that women control men with their vaginas.
I’ll give him credit for one thing: despite his vague title, Fidelbogen states his thesis quite plainly at the start:
Female sexuality is raised high upon an altar like a golden calf. Male sexuality is looked upon as a ratty old kitchen chair with a cracked vinyl seat, under suspicion of mildew.
Well, ok, not the very start. Right about here:
This disparity, this imbalance, this . . . . inequality, accounts for most of women’s power over men. By extension, it accounts for a great deal of feminism’s leverage in the realm of gender politics.
In other words: vagina=power.
I leave it to the poets to wax lyrical about the mysteries of the eternal feminine, and to the psychoanalytic priesthood to plumb its shadowy depths. As a political tactician and theorist, it is my cold-blooded task merely to figure out how the world works, blabbity blabbity bloo.
Ok, those last three words are my paraphrase of his argument. Focus, Fidelbogen, focus!
The higher valuation assigned to female sexuality generates a seller’s market for women in the so-called game of love. That is how the world works; women do not queue or cluster in quest of men’s favors. No, it is nearly always men who act this way around women.
Deprived of euphemism, the case is this: women have cornered the market on sexual intercourse, and are able to dictate the price and the accompanying politics much as OPEC might set the terms for oil. …
Understand, that the higher valuation of female sexuality translates into both female power and loss of male power. Since female supremacy is feminism’s driving ambition, it makes sense that the women’s movement has undertaken to siphon power away from men using every siphon hose imaginable.
Normally, I would assume this last bit was some kind of sniggering reference to blowjobs. As Fidelbogen seems to be utterly without a sense of humor, I have to assume it’s merely a belabored metaphor.
So how do the evil feminists siphon away male power? By driving along some sort of road:
Certain lanes, deeply rutted by age-old usage, serve handily along feminism’s route to power.
So after siphoning their way down this road, we (and the evil feminists) arrive at what I’ll call (to keep Fidelbogen’s metaphor going) “Courtship Lane.”
The word “courtship” is revealing. Men are the “courtiers”, which is to say lackeys or sycophants who wait upon the pleasure of their “lord”. In courtship, more often than otherwise, women hold all the cards. Feminists, being women, are well aware of this. But they are also aware that the realm of courtship, while being women’s greatest zone of power over men, is likewise a critical link in the chain of power which binds men specifically to the designs of feminist domination.
After a bit of empty rhetoric, Prof. F continues:
Most women are aware of their superior sexual bargaining power. And many women have been politicized to some degree (more or less) by feminist ideology. This latter group will most certainly carry their politicized outlook into the sexual bargaining arena, and in their minds both feminist ideology and the knowledge of their age-old power will meld together into a troublesome sort of hybrid entity.
Fidelbogen, alas, does not take the opportunity to name this dastardly “hybrid entity.” Let’s just call it THE FEMIGINA!! (In all caps, with two exclamation points.)
At this point, Prof. F loses what little steam his argument has, and begins prattling about this and that and the evils of feminism. I will attempt to convey the gist of it with the following excerpts. In order to truly capture the flavor of it, I will replace the traditional ellipses – used to indicate excised material – with the phrase “blabbity blabbity.”
Blabbity blabbity to gauge the extent of feminist indoctrination among the female population would be like measuring the spread of a gaseous substance with a rubber band. Blabbity blabbity [f]eminism has blabbity blabbity secured a tremendous power over men by means of a momentous bio-political conjunction. Blabbity moral corona of the ideology blabbity female noosphere blabbity blabbity feminist-tinted spectacles blabbity blabbity the path lies clear before us.
And then he comes to his point:
Men should cease to value female sexuality beyond a certain fixed rate. Once the cost exceeds this rate, the value should fall to zero—leaving the purveyors in their deserted market stall.
Yep. That’s right. He’s talking about what we here on Man Boobz know as the Cock Blockade.
Blabbity blabbity it would go against nature blabbity blabbity laborious gritting of teeth. Blabbity blabbity supremely human accomplishment. Blabbity blabbity we are more than simply animals.
And he comes to another point:
Devaluation of female sexuality would alter the balance of power between the sexes. There would come a point where a man, any man, could make the personal choice to cast loose from women altogether—in all but the peripheral aspects of his life.
Blabbity blabbity men would need to cut each other some slack blabbity blabbity stop competing with other men in the customary arena where female flesh is the prize. Blabbity blabbity. The question “are ya getting any?”, along with the adolescent mindset it signals, would be out of place in this altered scheme of things.
And this would put the ladies in their place – standing lonely in their vagina stalls, gamely trying to interest men in their now worthless vaginas.
Women would be the courtiers, the ones who queue and cluster. Deny women their fundamental age-old power, and feminism would find itself reeling in shock as though from a serious blood loss. The best way for men to free themselves from the boa-constrictor grip of feminism is to free themselves from the power of women.
So now I have the image of lady boa-constrictors with head wounds standing in a line, displaying their boa-constrictor vaginas with a sort of desperate hopefulness to the wholly uninterested men who pass by.
After a good deal of blathering so tedious it’s not even worth quoting in part, Fidelbogen begins to ponder the power of “no.”
[M]en must play hard to get. They must learn to exercise the very same option which has historically been the province of women, namely, the power to say NO.
Saying no lies coiled at the very heart of playing hard to get. Saying no signifies a withdrawal which generates a vacuum along its line of retreat, and this vacuum by its draft draws the other into a pursuit by default.
I feel a bit of a breeze myself, but I think that’s just because Prof. F is talking a lot of wind.
Let’s move from breezes to earthquakes:
The changes I am discussing here would amount to a tectonic realignment of unquestionably world-historic magnitude. An inversion of the Victorian pedestal.
The old way of doing things, Prof. F tells us,
I have decided to call it the pussy paradigm—a somewhat vulgar expression to be sure, but it has the common touch!
Ironically, the common touch is something hetero dudes will have to become masters at if they swear off the ladies. Prof. F continues:
So, this pussy paradigm belongs in the category of things which predate feminism’s arrival in the world. And when the feminists got here, they saw in a flash where their advantage lay, and they closed in, and they threw a harness around it.
They threw a harness around a paradigm?
The heart of feminism is female supremacism, and the heart of female supremacism is the pussy paradigm. Remember this if you remember nothing else.
So what does Prof. F call his pussy-optional way of doing things? The “optionality paradigm.” That is, dudes can have sex with women or not, whatever they want, and shouldn’t pressure one another to score with the ladies. (I’m not quite sure how, in Professor F’s economic model, the price of pussy can be reduced to zero if some dudes are still interested in it, but I confess that I only sort of skimmed that bit of his post. Life is short, and Fidelbogen’s posts are long.)
More blabbity blabbity:
The future, in theory, should see a migration of the optionality paradigm toward the center of the map within hetero-normative male culture, along with a corresponding displacement of the pussy paradigm toward the perimeter. This would exactly reverse the present disposition of forces. The optionality paradigm would, at that point, become the ruling paradigm.
After reading this turgid turd of a paragraph , I decided to cut my losses and skip directly to Professor F’s grand conclusion. Which turns out to be neither grand nor much of a conclusion:
My endeavor in writing has been to flesh it out somewhat. To write about it is to give it a form, to make the inchoate choate, to fashion an anchor of words that can hold things usefully in place so we can discuss them, if need be, with a view toward implementation and concrete action. The time to draft contingency plans is now. Put these ideas in your thinking cap and ponder their utility.
Even better, put them in a small bag, weigh it down with rocks, and toss it into the nearest large body of water.
Jesus, this turned into a long post. Still, it’s only about half the length of Prof. F’s original.
MGTOW nightmare: Sexy robot ladies turn out to be stuck-up bitches.
Are MGTOWers all a bunch of closet romantics? In a recent discussion of some research which concluded that men value kissing and cuddling more than women in long-term relationships, a number of the regulars on MGTOWforums.com confessed that they … actually missed the affections of women.
I’ve gotten along for decades without sex OR cuddling. And I miss the cuddling, the snuggly affectionate feel of a loving partner, FAR more than I miss the sex. That’s one reason why I don’t call the call-girls; all they offer is the sex.
I’m going to have to agree with the touch thing, too. Hell, I can cut my own hair, but I’ll still drop the cash to have it done with a wash and a scalp massage just for the contact.
I don’t know anyone elses reasoning for cuddling over sex but my own personal reason would be a huge deprivation in my life of affection. I get zero from women so thats a no-go for me. My male friends think hugging is gay via society programming so men show affection by “bumping fists” and “being cool”. My dad IS anti-affection. My mom showed me some affection, but she was so busy working to the bones, I don’t think I ever got enough. My sister and brother never showed me any love.
I think I value cuddling just because its something I never got to do. 26 Years without affection.. dam thats a long time.
That’s actually sort of heartbreaking – at least until I remember that this is the same guy who once argued that vaginas were like strange venom-injecting mousetraps:
This poison … creeps into the male brain and literally makes him stupid, it shuts down his intellect, and activates all his hormones for more pussy. She’s got the bastard. Now she can slowly but surely take all his wealth and keep pumping more poison into him.
It sucks – I mean really, genuinely sucks — that you got no affection from your parents, dude. But if you view women as monsters secretly plotting to entrap you with their vagina-poison, you’re not likely to get a lot of affection from them.
If you want to live a life that has more to it than bitterness and misery, get yourself off of MGTOWforums.com and find a good therapist.
And whatever you do, don’t listen to avoidwoman, MGTOWforums’ budding futurist, who thinks he’s got a woman-free solution to the affection deficit: perfectly realistic robogirls, which he predicts will be here in 2030. (Let’s just hope they’re a bit more reliable than the Cherry 2000 model.)
Yep, we’re back to the topic of sexy robot ladies.
In several comments in the thread, starting with this one, avoidwomen explained his waiting game:
I personally don’t even care for sex and I never want it. I would love romance, such as cuddling and kissing but not with human women, only women substitutes! …
I will get the chance to cuddle as much as I want by 2030 with robogirls and probably earlier when VR technology becomes advanced enough for the simulation to feel realistic. …
The few times I got the chance to be romantic with women, I really enjoyed it and never thought of going “further” or being “sexual” whatsoever. …
Then we got a reminder of just why he’s not getting affection from real, live human women:
Nowdays I just avoid women like the snakes they are! …
I am no white knight in real life, I will not protect a woman. But when VR and robogirls come, I will hold them in my arms. My robogirl will protect me outside the house and inside the house, I will cuddle and hold her. 🙂
Well, Man Boobz Super Fun Time Video Party is back, and you may notice a few changes. First, the bad news: Tiny Bunny and Small Dog are on hiatus. The Good News: I’ve moved on from Xtranormal to a real animation program, Muvizu, and am now using actual human beings for the voices.
This episode takes us to scenic Los Angeles to meet a fellow calling himself John, who offers some reflections on North American white women. He’s not fond of them. Apparently he’s much more fond of African and Latin American women. It’s not clear if any women of any race are fond of him and, if so, why on earth that would be. I found John’s little monologue on the blog Boycott American Women.
Playing the of John from Los Angeles, or at least his voice, is Jack Rose. Big, big thanks to Jack for an excellent job, and on very short notice.
Here’s the somewhat edited version of John’s monologue I used in the video:
Many of the stupidest women i have ever met were white females from North America. Truth is, white north american females are really like the old Ford clunkers our grand-parents used to buy: they are unreliable, expensive, rather grotesque, and dangerously unpredictable.
White women are truly pigs. Can we expedite the caliphate so that they get the come-uppance they richly deserve? …
Ask any man who was stupid enough to marry one of these pigs and you’ll see exactly where I’m coming from. they have emotional problems, are deviants, amoral and just flat-out nasty; plus, they really are overweight, smelly and ill-mannered.
Only losers marry white females. The tragedy for american women is that they’ve bitched their way right out of the marketplace. Men want something better and the rest of the world offers that. bye, bye, whiney-vagineys; the jig is up and men are looking elsewhere.
You’ve got to give the Spearhead men credit for one thing: vivid imagination. Browsing through the comments on a recent W.F. Price post on marriage in Asia, I ran across a whole host of little gems, all of them eagerly upvoted by the assembled mob.
Asian style whoring here in the U.S., which is inevitable anyway as the world “flattens out” and we become more third-world as China becomes more first-world.
In the not too distant future when a fella goes to the “barber shop” he will be greeted by Heather, Madison, and Chloe, who will be eager to attend his needs in support of paying off their student loans.
You’re right Elmer, every female student is a potential prostitute in the making, once the economy takes a nosedive and they can’t pay their loans.
Makes you wonder if the primarily Female university attendees aren’t intentionally being sold a “bill of goods” regarding the value of their university “education”.
So young women are being convinced to go to college, even though college education for women is useless (because, you know, they’re women), so that in a bad economy they’ll all start giving handjobs in barber shops to pay off their student loans?
Who exactly is doing this convincing? The American Association of University Women? The Illuminati? Uncle Elmer?
Lets be blunt here for a mo. How many men do you think would even bother talking to todays women if she did not have tits and a pussy ? How many women do you know that you could spend many hours or days with engaged in interesting conversation or leisure persuits?
Spearheaders, sparkling converstationalists all. A regular Algonquin Round Table, with the part of Dorothy Parker played by some random internet misogynist who can’t spell the word “pursuits.”
Gem #3: Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c), offers up some reflections on his life as an Australian expat alpha dog in Germany. And some thoughts about, um, agriculture?
Because I am alpha with a great track record of being a “father and husband” and I have the ability to earn money I have women lining up to have a chance of marrying me. It is good to be at the top of the tree for a change. Shame the tree is about to fall but I am ok with that too. Those below me will cushion my fall.
As my new business venture fleshes out over the next few years I see the following happening. Men will band together to corner the income generation for many areas and they will insist on the “women as chattel property” marriage contract if any marriage at all…..men will exert their dominance in all things that are useful and productive in a competitive environment where they operate outside “guvment control” and the assets they corner will provide women galore.
I am with Angry Harry on this one “men farm cattle and sheep, why not women?” Women have always been “attracted” to the one they think will pay for them. Since we were living in caves. Women are no different today than they were 10,000 years ago. It’s just that we had a highly dystorionate PR system telling us “sugar and spice and everything nice” for a few generations.
And no, “dystorionate” is not a real word, at least in any language I or anyone else on planet Earth is familiar with. Google it, and see.
I suspect you can guess their unanimous answer – women are incapable of love — which is pretty much what you’d expect men who hate women to say about women and love. Some highlights:
Fairi5fair thinks women are monsters; he just can’t figure out which kind:
Women are just incapable of love period. The thrill of being able to use her pussy to get free shit is what women mistake for “love”. …
They are cold, grasping, selfish, and heartless parasites. They have no souls. They are all vampires. Undead zombies lurching from meal to meal.
Wait, so are they vampires or are they zombies? I think I can handle either one by itself, but if they are both at the same time we’re doomed!
Goldenfetus seems to be smoking something powerful:
Yes, they are less capable of love than men, or totally incapable.
One possibility I’ve considered is that in a natural … environment male ‘love’ (platonic) would be reserved only for other men, while women would be viewed as property or objects of reproduction whose value was derived from fertility and subservience without any basis in ‘love’ reciprocation. If so, I would identify feminism as the factor that misled men into extending this love, disastrously, to females – tricking them into believing that females have souls and are like males.
Loving a woman is like trying to pet a toilet, water a sandwich, or plow a parking lot and then wondering why you aren’t getting results. The defect (of understanding) lies with the man loving an object incompatible with love, rather than in the female whose nature precludes reciprocity.
Arctic thinks it’s all about the Benjamins:
Love to a woman is a man who is their servant 24/7 365 a day. …
The idea of love involving sacrifice to a female is as foreign as periods are to men. Why should she care about a relationship involving sacrifice on her part, when she is taught all her life to exploit men for her own uses? Sacrifice herself for a mere man? WHY? Why, when beta males are selling their souls to sniff her crotch? …
[I]ts safe to say the idea of women being in love begins and ends at the ATM of her committed male asset.
The Accomplice agrees:
Women do not seek love or companionship. Their main objective is to find a man of the highest status possible (Richest men, the toughest guys, most popular guy etc) who will protect them, provide for them and satisfy their selfish desires. … [T]he majority of women are too weak physically and mentally to do these things on their own, hence why they always chase after men …
A women’s idea of love is all hypergamy, nothing more.
Superion goes all Evo-Psych on us:
Women are incapapble of love is the great, horrible secret that society has tried to hide from men since the dawn of time.
Women are physically and mentally weaker than men.
In order to survive and pass on their genes they need the resources of the strongest and best providing male available.
To do this, women rely on beauty and guile to trick a male into being her slave.
Women do not love.
For men, love is a self-delusion.
We trick ourselves into wasting our resources on one particular female.
This makes no sense so we tell ourselves we’re in love to justify it.
Such an unromantic bunch! Maybe this will cheer them up.
My favorite Redditor these days is an angry little fella named AntiFeministMedia. How much of a douche is he? So much of one that sometimes he actually manages to get downvoted in the Men’s Rights subreddit for his excessive douchebaggery.
You may recall him as the author of the “the female gravy train of victimhood” quote I highlighted the other day. But I’ve been going through his comment history and have unearthed a number of other wonders.
It’s going to take more than one post to truly convey his charms. We’ll start today with some of his comments on women, and their vaginas, and why both need to be kept in check.
what happnes when you give women economic and sexual freedom, is that you get major social problems.
It simply doesnt work, because women are incapable of behaving themselves, men see their society disintegrating, their children suffering, and then decide to ‘put women in their place’.
If women wernt so irresponsible when they got their freedom, men would not have to step in and take it away from them. Seriously, do you really believe men have ‘oppressed’ (read: restrained) women for no reason?
people are scared of women. Thats the truth about it. Women can be such nasty pieces of work that no one wants to get on their bad side for fear of them becoming hysterical … The female world is an animal world which a lot of men, being human, simply dont understand).
True, they do have vaginas, but that isn’t enough to make up for that whole not-being-human thing:
You may or may not believe this, but I am quite happy alone.
The only thing I’d want you from is a vagina, the rest of the time I’d despise you. You see I dont like who you are. I am a human being, while women are from the animal world. They think like animals, and that is not something I would want to pair with. While women are thinking about survival, Im thinking about god.
You seem to think in groups, not as individuals. Thats why I believe women shouldnt be given a choice. Children should automatically be the property of the male (again). If women cannot understand simple situations like those I’ve outlined, or even the fact that men should be consulted first before a child is created … then they are not the best people to be in control of reproduction.
It takes two to tango, and one to get pregnant. The one that gets pregnant bears the ultimate responsibilty, particularly since she has full control over reproduction in the modern west. …
It is up to women to screen out bad men, and to choose a man capable of being a good father. That is the responsibilty of women. If a woman opens her legs to any sob, without spending the time and energy to assess wether he would make a good father, and then he runs off, then thats the womans fault. But again, we go back to women not being able to take personal responsibilty.
Exactly. When a man deserts his children, it is obviously the woman, not him, who is being irresponsible.
Given how badly women are doing at this whole reproduction thing, wouldn’t it be great if we could just remove women from the equation entirely?
AntiFeministMedia has some thoughts on this as well, which we will examine in a future post. Stay tuned.
Like women, pandas are too lazy to have sex properly.
So, porn. Apparently women just HATE it, and a fellow calling himself Womanhater over on the MGTOWforums is here to tell us the REAL reason why. Well, reasons. Obviously, everybody already knows
that porn makes men not have to deal with women, and therefore lessens the value of the snatch mafia and the pussy pricing cartel.
But, Womanhater thinks “there may be another factor at play.” Let’s let Mr. Hater explain:
[W]e all know that twats will throw sex at a man and lie to him endlessly to seduce him into legal slavery/marriage. But porn makes the sex she has to throw at him much more unpleasant.
Remember, sex is pretty unpleasant for most women to begin with:
We know that that vast majority of twats either do not enjoy sex at all, or they only enjoy it with thug cock. As such, they have to engage in a physically unpleasant activity with a man they’re not physically attracted to, but only financially attracted to.
But then along comes porn, and suddenly women discover that they have to actually make an effort as well:
Porn means that she cannot simply spread her legs, lay there like a dead fish, and let her victim bust his nut. Porn has made her have to act now too. She must work much much harder to emulate the digital twats her victim has been seeing for a decade or better, and only a true sociopath can fake emotion that well that long.
Also, they can’t get away with being big fat fatties either:
Porn has also raised the expectations of her victim vis a vis her physique, which as we all know is a challenge for Western women these days.
In the end, it all comes down to sheer laziness:
In short, if the twat wasn’t lazy, she’d not be trying to loot a man. And that laziness is exactly what has porn has challenged. While there’s still plenty of victims in the world for the vile cunts to loot and torture, they’re having to work much much much harder to do it now, and THAT is why the twats dislike porn.
Chicago New Wave pioneers Phil 'n' the Blanks (pictured above) want you to FILL IN the blanks.
Last night, 540-or-so comments into the Atheist Elevator thread, Ion took a moment to school us all in the cold, hard realities of love in our time. Offering his own formerly flailing but now highly successful sexual career as evidence of this theories, he explained why it’s better to be called creepy than courteous. And apparently, acting like a five-year old will score you heaps of hot poon. Who knew?
As much as I learned from Ion’s autobiographic account, I feel as though there is much more wisdom to be gained from reading the stories of other commenters here. So, using Ion’s tale as a template, I would like to offer the first in what I hope will be a long and successful series of Man Boobz Mad Libs. Simply fill in the blanks in the text below to tell your own tale of heartbreak and triumph, and post your results in the comments below. We will all be the wiser for it.
You know what’s funny? You try to come off as [ ] and [ ], but in fact, I actually used to think like you when I was younger and [ ]. I bought into all the “men are [ ], men are natural [ ]” crap spouted by feminist [ ] and their neutered mangina [ ]. I was concerned about not coming off as [ ] or creepy. I was courteous and [ ] and [ ], I respected women, but I forgot to respect [ ]. And while the [ ] boys, playa gangstas, and abusive [ ]bags were [ ]ing around town with an “I take what I want” attitude and a new [ ] on their [ ] every week, I was hearing “Wow, you’re a great [ ], but I like you as a [ ]. Well, see you later, gotta go have [ ] with the [ ] boyfriend I’ve been complaining to [ ] about!”
So you’re right about the [ ]-puffing part, but not so much about the being [ ]. I’m less [ ] now than I ever was. I put myself [ ]. I don’t apologize for being a [ ]. It took me a while to [ ] up, but I did. And let me tell you, things are better than [ ]. I got my first [ ] after acting ‘inappropriate’ and going for a [ ] the night we first met. A day later, she was the one would wouldn’t [ ] me [ ]. So much for “[ ] give in because of [ ] pressures”, I guess. Second [ ], in college, I [ ] like a five-year old [ ]. Totally out of character, even I was ashamed of my [ ]. Afterwards, she was [ ] me to hang out. Sometime later, I met [ ] I really [ ]. Like an [ ], I decided to play it cool, be [ ], be [ ], take [ ] slowly. Guess what? Zero interest. Learned my lesson then and haven’t [ ] back. As for “friends who will [ ] me”… I don’t know what the [ ] are like where you live, but the [ ] I know just don’t fit your [ ] [ ]. Also, currently half my friends are [ ]. Weird, huh. But uh, keep telling yourself you’re so much better for being a neutered [ ]. I’ll be busy having [ ] in the [ ] world meanwhile.
