Unacceptable Restrictions in Relationships?

[Saiwania]

Has it ever crossed your mind that women do not all want the same thing? Just because you saw one douchenozzle with a woman on his arm doesn't mean we all want that guy. Seriously, catch a clue.

Well of course not all women want the same thing, but my message still stands. I'm speaking in broad generalities to cover the majority of women out there in the western world where toxic Feminism and Divorce is common. Where healthy tradition has almost completely died or is dead, and all that remains is a dysfunctional society in terms of relations between men and women.

In the majority of cases, a woman is going to be more aroused by and attracted to a man who can "treat her like a piece of meat" but get away with it in a socially acceptable manner. Women want a beast in bed, the man who's willing to pull her hair, and etc. but not the guy who's too timid or effeminate, or had Beta game.

A man is supposed to tailor his game to the kind of woman he wants to court, like how people are supposed to tailor a resume to the job that's applied to. A valley girl probably wants a studly athlete, whilst a librarian woman might want a man who can verbally dominate her in debates and is more intelligent than she.

That is the keystone for men, to be aggressive and dominant in most if not all things across the board in life. Men who follow Beta game or Feminist advice, turn off women more often than not- and if women do get with them, they're typically cheated on or exploited only for resources within sexless marriages.

[Page]

Has it ever crossed your mind that women do not all want the same thing? Just because you saw one douchenozzle with a woman on his arm doesn't mean we all want that guy. Seriously, catch a clue.

Well of course not all women want the same thing, but my message still stands. I'm speaking in broad generalities to cover the majority of women out there in the western world where toxic Feminism and Divorce is common.

In the majority of cases, a woman is going to be more aroused by and attracted to a man who can "treat her like a piece of meat" but get away with it in a socially acceptable manner. Women want a beast in bed, the man who's willing to pull her hair, and etc. but not the guy who's too timid or effeminate, or had Beta game.

A man is supposed to tailor his game to the kind of woman he wants to court, like how people are supposed to tailor a resume to the job that's applied to. A valley girl probably wants a studly athlete, whilst a librarian woman might want a man who can verbally dominate her in debates and is more intelligent than she.

That is the keystone for men, to be aggressive and dominant in most if not all things across the board in life. Men who follow Beta game or Feminist advice, turn off women more often than not- and if women do get with them, they're typically cheated on or exploited only for resources.

You know what the biggest turn off for women is? Men who unironically talk about alphas and betas as if it is at all scientifically credible. This paradigm isn't even accurate when it comes to wolves, much less humans.

[Saiwania]

You know what the biggest turn off for women is? Men who unironically talk about alphas and betas as if it is at all scientifically credible. This paradigm isn't even accurate when it comes to wolves, much less humans.

Plenty of ladies are fine with such terminology. While the rankings I refer to don't exist in any literal sense, it does exist in a derogatory sense. It's not meant to be taken too seriously. It just describes how strong or weak someone's sex appeal or skills at courtship currently are, where they stand in relation to the sexual marketplace. People can go up or down in value, but usually they average out into being part of a certain category.

In my example:

Alphas are people with strong game and incredible attractiveness and good qualities, which means people like them. They're highly motivated and always seek improvement and are often rewarded for their efforts. They dominate and generally get more of what they want in life.

Betas are people with weak game and less attractive qualities, which means people don't like them or like them to less of an extent. Women who're lower value in terms of sexual marketplace (via being too old) usually settle down with Betas if they have a good job or career to exploit them for resources, but won't have sex with them. For that, such women usually cheat on them for a man of higher sex appeal or value.

Omegas are people with no game and thus have very low to no status within the sexual marketplace. They are the losers/outcasts of reproduction. They don't love, and never were loved by anyone- in any romantic or sexual sense.

[Nakena]

You know what the biggest turn off for women is? Men who unironically talk about alphas and betas as if it is at all scientifically credible. This paradigm isn't even accurate when it comes to wolves, much less humans.

Plenty of ladies are fine with such terminology. While the rankings I refer to don't exist in any literal sense, it does exist in a derogatory sense. It's not meant to be taken too seriously. It just describes how strong or weak someone's sex appeal or skills at courtship currently are, where they stand in relation to the sexual marketplace. People can go up or down in value, but usually they average out into being part of a certain category.

In my example:

Alphas are people with strong game and incredible attractiveness and good qualities, which means people like them. They're highly motivated and always seek improvement and are often rewarded for their efforts. They dominate and generally get more of what they want in life.

Betas are people with weak game and less attractive qualities, which means people don't like them or like them to less of an extent. Women who're lower value in terms of sexual marketplace (via being too old) usually settle down with Betas if they have a good job or career to exploit them for resources, but won't have sex with them. For that, such women usually cheat on them for a man of higher sex appeal or value.

Omegas are people with no game and thus have very low to no status within the sexual marketplace. They are the losers/outcasts of reproduction. They don't love, and never were loved by anyone- in any romantic or sexual sense.

That terminology is at the very least reductionist and at the worst part of incelism which is a circut-logic dead end ideology.

Into the trash it all goes.

[Andsed]

Has it ever crossed your mind that women do not all want the same thing? Just because you saw one douchenozzle with a woman on his arm doesn't mean we all want that guy. Seriously, catch a clue.

Well of course not all women want the same thing, but my message still stands. I'm speaking in broad generalities to cover the majority of women out there in the western world where toxic Feminism and Divorce is common. Where healthy tradition has almost completely died or is dead, and all that remains is a dysfunctional society in terms of relations between men and women.

In the majority of cases, a woman is going to be more aroused by and attracted to a man who can "treat her like a piece of meat" but get away with it in a socially acceptable manner. Women want a beast in bed, the man who's willing to pull her hair, and etc. but not the guy who's too timid or effeminate, or had Beta game.

A man is supposed to tailor his game to the kind of woman he wants to court, like how people are supposed to tailor a resume to the job that's applied to. A valley girl probably wants a studly athlete, whilst a librarian woman might want a man who can verbally dominate her in debates and is more intelligent than she.

That is the keystone for men, to be aggressive and dominant in most if not all things across the board in life. Men who follow Beta game or Feminist advice, turn off women more often than not- and if women do get with them, they're typically cheated on or exploited only for resources within sexless marriages.

Cut the bullshit Sai. What your describing is in no way the majority of woman and it is delusional to pretend it it.

[Saiwania]

Cut the bullshit Sai. What your describing is in no way the majority of woman and it is delusional to pretend it is.

People deny the truth because it is uncomfortable, but from what I can tell- it is heavily based in realism.

Naruto Shippuden is an anime which had one of my favorite stories of fiction ever. My interpretation for why Obito failed to win Rin's romantic affections is because simply put- Kakashi had stronger game than he did. If Obito's game was just as strong from the get go- he'd of had more of a shot at seducing Rin.

Kakashi was an Alpha whilst Rin and Obito were Betas. But being a woman, Rin couldn't help but to be more attracted to the Alpha of their group. Also perhaps because from early childhood, Rin and Obito were best friends who were too close in a platonic sense- thus he got "only friends" status in Rin's eyes.

Kakashi didn't ever love Rin back from what I can tell, but it was still far stronger game from the woman's perspective than Obito's excessive kindness, shyness, timidity, and misguided attempts to go out of his way for her. Because Kakashi maintained an allure of mystery, skill, and dominance in everything he did, of course that attracted Rin to Kakashi far more. Obito's mistake was in putting Rin too high up on a pedestal and wasn't brave and assertive enough to face possible rejection. He was too nice.

Obito basically turned Rin off too much, until it was too late. He never did get with her, unless we count the afterlife. Where Rin decided that Obito was worth settling down for if she couldn't get Kakashi, but even this was left ambiguous for the viewer to interpret the ending in their own way.

[Andsed]

Cut the bullshit Sai. What your describing is in no way the majority of woman and it is delusional to pretend it is.

People deny the truth because it is uncomfortable, but from what I can tell- it is heavily based in realism.

Naruto Shippuden is an anime which had one of my favorite stories of fiction ever. My interpretation for why Obito failed to win Rin's romantic affections is because simply put- Kakashi had stronger game than he did. If Obito's game was just as strong from the get go- he'd of had more of a shot at seducing Rin.

Kakashi was an Alpha whilst Rin and Obito were Betas. But being a woman, Rin couldn't help but to be more attracted to the Alpha of their group. Also perhaps because from early childhood, Rin and Obito were best friends who were too close in a platonic sense- thus he got "only friends" status in Rin's eyes.

Kakashi didn't ever love Rin back from what I can tell, but it was still far stronger game from the woman's perspective than Obito's excessive kindness, shyness, timidity, and misguided attempts to go out of his way for her. Because Kakashi maintained an allure of mystery, skill, and dominance in everything he did, of course that attracted Rin to Kakashi far more. Obito's mistake was in putting Rin too high up on a pedestal and wasn't brave and assertive enough to face possible rejection. He was too nice.

Obito basically turned Rin off too much, until it was too late. He never did get with her, unless we count the afterlife. Where Rin decided that Obito was worth settling down for if she couldn't get Kakashi, but even this was left ambiguous for the viewer to interpret the ending in their own way.

Are you seriously using fucking Naruto to try and justify your sexist stereotypical view of women? My god Sai that is sad.

[Saiwania]

Are you seriously using fucking Naruto to try and justify your sexist stereotypical view of women? My god Sai that is sad.

It is just an example of relationship dynamics on display within fiction. We can take examples from other cartoons, or from movies and live action, and from non-fiction. Although the stuff that happened in real life is far harder to find and verify. There are plenty of examples at this point, to give people an idea of behaviors from guys that're correlated with turning on a woman more, and behaviors that turn off most women.

What I suggest for men, is a solid recipe for success with most women. Simply be more dominant, more aggressive, and more in control of the situation. A woman obviously will go for a man who has built himself up to be appealing, over a man who is lacking in value and game.

[Sapporo Hyperspace Riftgate Laboratory]

Well of course not all women want the same thing, but my message still stands. I'm speaking in broad generalities to cover the majority of women out there in the western world where toxic Feminism and Divorce is common.

In the majority of cases, a woman is going to be more aroused by and attracted to a man who can "treat her like a piece of meat" but get away with it in a socially acceptable manner. Women want a beast in bed, the man who's willing to pull her hair, and etc. but not the guy who's too timid or effeminate, or had Beta game.

A man is supposed to tailor his game to the kind of woman he wants to court, like how people are supposed to tailor a resume to the job that's applied to. A valley girl probably wants a studly athlete, whilst a librarian woman might want a man who can verbally dominate her in debates and is more intelligent than she.

That is the keystone for men, to be aggressive and dominant in most if not all things across the board in life. Men who follow Beta game or Feminist advice, turn off women more often than not- and if women do get with them, they're typically cheated on or exploited only for resources.

You know what the biggest turn off for women is? Men who unironically talk about alphas and betas as if it is at all scientifically credible. This paradigm isn't even accurate when it comes to wolves, much less humans.

Alphas are parents, duh

[New haven america]

People deny the truth because it is uncomfortable, but from what I can tell- it is heavily based in realism.

Naruto Shippuden is an anime which had one of my favorite stories of fiction ever. My interpretation for why Obito failed to win Rin's romantic affections is because simply put- Kakashi had stronger game than he did. If Obito's game was just as strong from the get go- he'd of had more of a shot at seducing Rin.

Kakashi was an Alpha whilst Rin and Obito were Betas. But being a woman, Rin couldn't help but to be more attracted to the Alpha of their group. Also perhaps because from early childhood, Rin and Obito were best friends who were too close in a platonic sense- thus he got "only friends" status in Rin's eyes.

Kakashi didn't ever love Rin back from what I can tell, but it was still far stronger game from the woman's perspective than Obito's excessive kindness, shyness, timidity, and misguided attempts to go out of his way for her. Because Kakashi maintained an allure of mystery, skill, and dominance in everything he did, of course that attracted Rin to Kakashi far more. Obito's mistake was in putting Rin too high up on a pedestal and wasn't brave and assertive enough to face possible rejection. He was too nice.

Obito basically turned Rin off too much, until it was too late. He never did get with her, unless we count the afterlife. Where Rin decided that Obito was worth settling down for if she couldn't get Kakashi, but even this was left ambiguous for the viewer to interpret the ending in their own way.

Are you seriously using fucking Naruto to try and justify your sexist stereotypical view of women? My god Sai that is sad.

Especially since Kishimoto (The author) admits that he has no fucking clue how to write and handle female characters.

[Sapporo Hyperspace Riftgate Laboratory]

Are you seriously using fucking Naruto to try and justify your sexist stereotypical view of women? My god Sai that is sad.

Especially since Kishimoto (The author) admits that he has no fucking clue how to write and handle female characters.

I admit that my female character is... kinda bad
Nobody will notice anything if I changed the name of my female character to Aleksandr Fyodorovich Kerensky

[Cekoviu]

You know what the biggest turn off for women is? Men who unironically talk about alphas and betas as if it is at all scientifically credible. This paradigm isn't even accurate when it comes to wolves, much less humans.

Plenty of ladies are fine with such terminology. While the rankings I refer to don't exist in any literal sense, it does exist in a derogatory sense. It's not meant to be taken too seriously. It just describes how strong or weak someone's sex appeal or skills at courtship currently are, where they stand in relation to the sexual marketplace. People can go up or down in value, but usually they average out into being part of a certain category.

In my example:

Alphas are people with strong game and incredible attractiveness and good qualities, which means people like them. They're highly motivated and always seek improvement and are often rewarded for their efforts. They dominate and generally get more of what they want in life.

Betas are people with weak game and less attractive qualities, which means people don't like them or like them to less of an extent. Women who're lower value in terms of sexual marketplace (via being too old) usually settle down with Betas if they have a good job or career to exploit them for resources, but won't have sex with them. For that, such women usually cheat on them for a man of higher sex appeal or value.

Omegas are people with no game and thus have very low to no status within the sexual marketplace. They are the losers/outcasts of reproduction. They don't love, and never were loved by anyone- in any romantic or sexual sense.

More accurately, Аs, Bs, and Ωs are all the same thing: deeply flawed terms made up by misogynistic bachelors to wallow in self pity more easily instead of being proactive.

[USS Monitor]

Sai, "bad boys" have plenty of divorces and plenty of women cheating on them. Shallow douchey people that only care about sex are more likely to pair off with other shallow douchey people that only care about sex, which means both partners are more likely to cheat.

When that hunky "bad boy" that was so hot when he was in his 20s gets to be 40, he's not going to be so hot anymore, and a lot of them get dumped or cheated on once that excitement is gone.

[Purpelia]

More accurately, Аs, Bs, and Ωs are all the same thing: deeply flawed terms made up by misogynistic bachelors to wallow in self pity more easily instead of being proactive.

Not really. Some people simply are naturally more confident, talented, skilled and capable and thus naturally have an easier time doing anything they put their mind to. Anyone who denies this needs a serious wakeup call. Now does that mean this fact of life should be used as an excuse to give up on achieving anything? Of course not. But it is there and is real.

[Cekoviu]

More accurately, Аs, Bs, and Ωs are all the same thing: deeply flawed terms made up by misogynistic bachelors to wallow in self pity more easily instead of being proactive.

Not really. Some people simply are naturally more confident, talented, skilled and capable and thus naturally have an easier time doing anything they put their mind to. Anyone who denies this needs a serious wakeup call. Now does that mean this fact of life should be used as an excuse to give up on achieving anything? Of course not. But it is there and is real.

Some people are. That doesn't mean they're "alphas" and everyone else is basically a pathetic loser who will never be truly loved by a person of whatever gender(s) they're attracted to.

[Caliphate of the Netherlands]

Lots of these things happen in the youth/early adulthood dating scene. I am glad I managed to escape that drama for a long time.

Whatever works for you (that is, whatever does not drain your energy) is the best I guess. Different people have different needs. If it doesn't work out then don't do it. Just know that the perfect partner doesn't exist. Relationships always means some give and take.

[Fahran]

I think what sai is trying to say is that women prefer a man with some baggage over a total loser.

Sexual inexperience doesn't make a man a total loser and isn't an automatic turnoff. I honestly think y'all care about stuff like that a lot more than we do because it's a measure of success from a male perspective. And I assure you that I'm not going to ask my partner about stuff like that until we're quite a bit into a relationship. But we're drifting away from restrictions in relationships to talking about the nature of women and what we find desirable. I like how men are telling us what we like now.

[Purgatio]

Cut the bullshit Sai. What your describing is in no way the majority of woman and it is delusional to pretend it is.

People deny the truth because it is uncomfortable, but from what I can tell- it is heavily based in realism.

Naruto Shippuden is an anime which had one of my favorite stories of fiction ever. My interpretation for why Obito failed to win Rin's romantic affections is because simply put- Kakashi had stronger game than he did. If Obito's game was just as strong from the get go- he'd of had more of a shot at seducing Rin.

Kakashi was an Alpha whilst Rin and Obito were Betas. But being a woman, Rin couldn't help but to be more attracted to the Alpha of their group. Also perhaps because from early childhood, Rin and Obito were best friends who were too close in a platonic sense- thus he got "only friends" status in Rin's eyes.

Kakashi didn't ever love Rin back from what I can tell, but it was still far stronger game from the woman's perspective than Obito's excessive kindness, shyness, timidity, and misguided attempts to go out of his way for her. Because Kakashi maintained an allure of mystery, skill, and dominance in everything he did, of course that attracted Rin to Kakashi far more. Obito's mistake was in putting Rin too high up on a pedestal and wasn't brave and assertive enough to face possible rejection. He was too nice.

Obito basically turned Rin off too much, until it was too late. He never did get with her, unless we count the afterlife. Where Rin decided that Obito was worth settling down for if she couldn't get Kakashi, but even this was left ambiguous for the viewer to interpret the ending in their own way.

.....and now you're using a children's cartoon to justify your bizarre worldview about the 'nature of women'? Jesus fucking Christ....

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Are you seriously using fucking Naruto to try and justify your sexist stereotypical view of women? My god Sai that is sad.

It is just an example of relationship dynamics on display within fiction. We can take examples from other cartoons, or from movies and live action, and from non-fiction. Although the stuff that happened in real life is far harder to find and verify. There are plenty of examples at this point, to give people an idea of behaviors from guys that're correlated with turning on a woman more, and behaviors that turn off most women.

What I suggest for men, is a solid recipe for success with most women. Simply be more dominant, more aggressive, and more in control of the situation. A woman obviously will go for a man who has built himself up to be appealing, over a man who is lacking in value and game.

You want to know why you are finding it hard to be in a relationship? This shit posturing. Stop buying into what frustrated red pillers dish out because it’s more often than not, total bullshit. Stop focusing on irrelevant racial purity crap and give real life a try. Actually talk to women. You will learn a thing or two or a thousand and you may find yourself having better chances at being in a meaningful relationship. But unless you stop this idiotic posturing, no whammy.

[Rojava Free State]

Has it ever crossed your mind that women do not all want the same thing? Just because you saw one douchenozzle with a woman on his arm doesn't mean we all want that guy. Seriously, catch a clue.

Well of course not all women want the same thing, but my message still stands. I'm speaking in broad generalities to cover the majority of women out there in the western world where toxic Feminism and Divorce is common. Where healthy tradition has almost completely died or is dead, and all that remains is a dysfunctional society in terms of relations between men and women.

In the majority of cases, a woman is going to be more aroused by and attracted to a man who can "treat her like a piece of meat" but get away with it in a socially acceptable manner. Women want a beast in bed, the man who's willing to pull her hair, and etc. but not the guy who's too timid or effeminate, or had Beta game.

A man is supposed to tailor his game to the kind of woman he wants to court, like how people are supposed to tailor a resume to the job that's applied to. A valley girl probably wants a studly athlete, whilst a librarian woman might want a man who can verbally dominate her in debates and is more intelligent than she.

That is the keystone for men, to be aggressive and dominant in most if not all things across the board in life. Men who follow Beta game or Feminist advice, turn off women more often than not- and if women do get with them, they're typically cheated on or exploited only for resources within sexless marriages.

Pretty sure women don't want a man who abuses them nor one who degrades their ideas and tells them he knows better than they do. If this was the reality, 99% of the incels out there wouldn't be incels. They don't realize that their toxic beliefs and behavior is not only a major turnoff for women, but makes every one want to be as far away from them as possible.

you worry about betas without even realizing that half the so called alpha males in our society are beta males trying to pump their chest up, thinking beating on a woman makes them the shit. It just makes them absolute pussies who no one respects. No one. Not a soul. America is clearly having a masculinity crisis with men unable to strike a middle ground between being a sociopathic, violent psycho and a timid coward who lets himself be abused. Both sides share one thing in common though. They won't fight for what matters. One will go hide in the shadows while the other side beats on or berates the people theyre supposed to care for to take out their anger against a soft target.

[Rojava Free State]

Sai, "bad boys" have plenty of divorces and plenty of women cheating on them. Shallow douchey people that only care about sex are more likely to pair off with other shallow douchey people that only care about sex, which means both partners are more likely to cheat.

When that hunky "bad boy" that was so hot when he was in his 20s gets to be 40, he's not going to be so hot anymore, and a lot of them get dumped or cheated on once that excitement is gone.

Most so called bad boys get the bottom of the barrel women no one wants, and it usually ends very badly for them as a result. I live in an area that is rife with these savage beasts. Usually the story ends with them one night picking up a woman at a bar (cause they're such a pick up artist) and then when they get to the motel, the boyfriend the chick didn't tell the PUA about suddenly confronts the PUA and the so called self described bad boy ends up in the news as a violent crime victim. You play a stupid game and you will win a stupid prize. This is why actual mature people don't live in a stupid world where you gotta act like a total idiot to impress women that will do nothing but give you hell. The chicks with real potential are gonna take one look at one of these pick up artist types and think they're a creep and a loser that isn't worth a penny.

[Thepeopl]

Where did you read that?



https://nltimes.nl/2019/02/08/fewer-cri ... sex-crimes

You said Dutch males use inebriation as an excuse for cheating.

Yeah, funny thing, most developed nations consider being inebriated as not being able to give consent, so either they're having sex while drunk (Which is them being raped) or their having sex with drunk partners (Which would be them raping others). Since you didn't specify what inebriated means in this context, and I can't understand Dutch, that doesn't paint a pretty picture of The Netherlands.

A part of dutch males will cheat, and when found out (or when they admit it) will say: I was drunk. So that is why I cheated. Sort of insanity plea.

[Diopolis]

I think what sai is trying to say is that women prefer a man with some baggage over a total loser.

Sexual inexperience doesn't make a man a total loser and isn't an automatic turnoff. I honestly think y'all care about stuff like that a lot more than we do because it's a measure of success from a male perspective. And I assure you that I'm not going to ask my partner about stuff like that until we're quite a bit into a relationship. But we're drifting away from restrictions in relationships to talking about the nature of women and what we find desirable. I like how men are telling us what we like now.

I don’t disagree with you, but it’s not quite the point you were responding to.

[Fahran]

I don’t disagree with you, but it’s not quite the point you were responding to.

My experience is that a woman would rather sleep with a man who's slept with several women, than to be with a man whom no women currently wants. If a lady has to choose between an Alpha and a Beta, of course they're going to choose the studly Alpha, even if it were the case that the Alpha is more likely to ditch her for the next woman he'll lay with than the Beta- who'll probably be too committed but will be boring/unappealing across the board from the woman's point of view.

I was responding mostly to the first bit here.

[Katganistan]

How is all of it a "display of power"?

How is it not? It communicates a message that, in order to be sexually gratified, you must be dominant and you must annihilate the other person.

Well I suppose that's your experience.