Do you want to know how women see physically undesirable men?
Think about how you view an elderly woman, around mid 60's. You don't look at this woman and think about a relationship with her, you think of her as a nice old lady and purely as a friend or acquaintance. If she were to ask you out on a date you would be completely shocked that she would even consider that a possibility because you're obviously not compatible. At no point would you ever consider going out of your way to try and pursue a relationship with this elderly woman.
As far as relationship prospects go, you are invisible to women unless you can over compensate in other areas just like if that elderly woman was very wealthy and offered to take care of you financially
>>25076949
pretty much
if you aren't in the top tenth percentile, they don't see you as a man. Just a person
The internet and years of rejection have made me believe this and I hate it. Is this really true? Is this really how women are?
>>25076949
The point may still stand insofar as how women see undesirable men, but what about physically unattractive men who are wealthy? Women flock to those as well. I don't think its just physical traits. (Although it does seem to be cut down the middle between physical appeal and financial appeal.)
>>25077053
Of course, the two aren't mutually exclusive and a big, strong domineering man who's very physically attractive and rich is basically every woman's fantasy. Nothing wrong with fantasy, except that women all apply their fantasies to real life and expect it to come to them. (Or else the "screeching" strategy is employed. (i.e., feminism.) )
>>25077053
You mean the young girls who look for someone to fund their lifestyle and take care of them financially as part of a harem or the older girls who have already been around fucking all the good looking guys and want someone to settle down with and live the life as a housewife and raise some kids while never having to work?
Because that's true love and loyalty and this woman obviously wouldn't move on to a more attractive and wealthy partner if they believed it was possible.
>>25076974
Yes, embrace the red pill.
Maybe I could create a situation where I was the only man. And then they'd have no choice >:D
>>25077214
"Congratulations to all you 100 finalists in the "r9k bikini competition", now when our boat arrives at its destination you'll be able to disembark and go back to your normal l... oh what's that? We're sinking? Well lucky we're only 50 metres from the shore of this dessert Island!"
great, the thing we needed was more mgtow. ew. its the same as feminism, unattractive people who blame the other gender.
>>25077259
Kek
I like you anon
>>25077277
I don't think MGTOW generally want to change women though. Or at least, they are those who have given up.
Feminists seem to want to change men.
The female equivalent to MGTOW is probably every cat lady ever.
>>25077277
Feminist opposites are MRAs
>>25076974
Yeah.
Regardless of how ugly they themselves are, they are repulsed by sub-8/10 men when it comes to sex.
Remember, if you're sub-8/10 you're essentially not a man to them. This leads to a selection bias in whom they choose to date and fuck, where so many of them think men as a whole are manipulative philandering pieces of sex obsessed shit, when in truth we're not, Chad (sometimes) is. The selection bias leads them to think that Chad is "all men", because in their minds there are not "men" BUT Chad.
>>25077318
Not that guy,
but there is certainly a large subset of MGTOW who are men who want to basically "coerce" women into playing nice by withdrawing their support. It's a bit sad, really. Men who are basically saying "That's it! I've had it! I'm going out the door...this moment...right now I'm about to leave...forever...hun??"
Real MGTOW is pretty good, but you can't deny that some of them are just being annoying.
>>25077340
MRA's have legitimate, demonstrable grievances.
Feminists don't, and never did. History is a case study in men building entire nations on their own disposability for the sake of women and kids.
>>25077367
Well, I don't know much about it desu.
But it's sad that viewed objectively, every movement including feminism often has some amount of reasonable goals. But primitive monkey people ruin everything.
>withdrawing their support
Support for what?
>>25076949
So ignore them back. Problem solved
>>25077425
>every movement including feminism often has some amount of reasonable goals
But what feminist goals were ever reasonable? How was it 'ruined'? If anything it's become more moderate.
>Support for what?
I mean, even by pursuing women and being systematically rejected, men are contributing in a sense to their own oppression, a lot of MGTOW types have been burnt hard and they feel like threatening some sort of collective male 'withdrawal' from society will make women think again about things - this isn't going to happen, though.
>>25077277
>some people actually believe this
>mfw
>>25077367
MGTOW is basically all men can do to change anything. As men, no one at an institutional level really cares enough about us to listen to our problems and help us. We're considered disposable, always have been and will be, which is why while I have no gripe with MRAs, I do think they're wasting their time which would be better spent doing other shit.
>>25077506
Oh, I thought MGTOW was just guys going "This is dumb, I'm gonna go have fun instead, knock yourself out, girls."
>>25077520
It is, mostly. My earlier comment was that there's still a large number of men who are MGTOW because they believe that MGTOW is some sort of collective male political action against women. These are the men who actually use the term "MGTOW" in public.
I'm personally "MGTOW" because I don't pursue women and don't ever intend on doing so. I don't talk to female relatives and won't be going to their funerals. But the desire for a female partner is natural, and so is hoping that women could 'soften' and actually consider male feelings...so I completely understand how the annoying loud "collective movement" MGTOW's come about.
>>25077367
OP here
I don't like MGTOW, I don't like MRA, I don't like feminism
When you start saying you're part of this group and that group you fall into a hivemind and possibly attach yourself to ideals you don't support.
This realization just hit me the other day while I was in the gym and noticed that the girls would only ever initiate conversation with the tall, muscular and attractive guys while it's not the same the other way around. They're not trying to ignore these guys, they're just invisible to them just like the elderly women doing there thing on some machine are invisible to me. And the emphasis on the distinction between undesirable and invisible must be noted.
>>25077506
>But what feminist goals were ever reasonable
the vote? Equal rights, not to be literally owned by her husband?
>threatening some sort of collective male 'withdrawal' from society will make women think again about things - this isn't going to happen, though
"threatening" might not achieve anything - actually doing it, will of course have effects. Supply and demand, normalisation of a different type of man, blah blah.
I doubt it will happen, sure, mostly due to threats being empty and most people being neither feminists OR mgtows.
>>25077562
>I don't talk to female relatives and won't be going to their funerals
Wow, that seems a bit more extreme to me even than MGTOWs... Unless they really are terrible people vs the male relatives.
>>25077512
I used to like Milo, but since that attention whore started shitting over atheists and comparing autists to sociopaths, saying Christians have so much empathy compared to the horrible atheists and their high correlation with autsim. There's also a high correlation between Ashkenazi jewis and autism, that might explain why their race has such a high iq on average.
Fuck Milo, he's just an attention whore and a bug chaser.
>>25077506
>collective male 'withdrawal' from society will make women think again about things - this isn't going to happen, though.
If you mean "women thinking about things" won't happen, I agree.
If you mean men won't collectively withdraw, and that there aren't serious repercussions from their doing so, you're wrong. The herbivores in Japan are a huge problem for them.
An increasing population of young men with no woman and family of their own thanks to several factors (in our case, one of which being unrestrained hypergamy) is never good for a society. A wife and family are supposed to be positive vectors for a young man's energy, which he can use to work to support his family and society since he has to work more than he would just to support himself. In absence of that stick-and-carrot schema, you get wasted potential via placid laziness at best, and violent young criminals and gangs at worst.
Basically young masculine energy is a loose cannon and you need to give men a stake in society if you don't want them to turn into lazy Pineapple Express characters or go full Supreme.
>>25077679
>the vote? Equal rights, not to be literally owned by her husband?
These are all literally strawmen and historical revisionist claims and misrepresentions made by feminists, who basically openly admitted in the first wave they were against the idea of equality.
>Wow, that seems a bit more extreme to me even than MGTOWs... Unless they really are terrible people vs the male relatives.
They aren't terrible people, but they haven't contributed much of any good to my life, and they've spent their whole lives accruing female privilege and watching as my basic rights, even basic reasons for existing - were eroded. I'm living in a country where I have no hope of a wife or children, where I'm actively insulted regularly by the government and police, I've left jobs because of discrimination at work, and a handful of women here could get a PUA guys visa revoked in 24 hours... women have all this power and use it against men, and never for men. I'm not going to be helping them at all.
Men do the same thing though. They want to cute or hot girl, not the average or slightly fat girl. Everyone's standards are higher when they haven't been shot down a lot. After getting put into their place however over time, they start to realize where they fit in. I'd say only a small percentage actually aim at their actual level or below in terms of attractiveness.
>>25077767
Sex and love are very much based on physical factors, yes.
But you simply can't equate the way women act with the way men act. All through growing up, I saw girls idolise and desire "pop star" males, these are guys who have millions of fans, super handsome, rich, etc. The opportunity for boys to do the same was always there, and often we would have crushes or desire a woman on TV... but in my experience MOST of the time young men around me were falling in love with girls they knew in real life, girls with very obvious faults of their own.
Sorry, it's just dishonest to compare the way women are with how men are. Women are highly selective, aggressive, hypergamous, and even quite chauvinistic when it comes to which guys they go for.
>>25077679
>the vote?
In exchange for what? fucking nothing. Men are still obligated to defend the right, women still don't *have* to do shit.
Not to mention the vast majority of them didn't even want the vote, and the vast majority of men also could not vote. Never hear about that, do we? :^)
>Equal rights
Equality of outcome. It was never about equality.
>not to be literally owned by her husband?
Women were treated as property, but what the feminists missed was that men were treated as less than property. Men were expected to die before their property was hurt. They were expected to protect their property before themselves. If a woman committed a crime under english law, the man went to jail. Feminists never told us about that.
>b-b-but women couldn't own anyth-
Property was passed down through men because men were not worthy of a woman until they had property. It was the mans responsibility to provide the property. Providing property was a sign of obligation, not a privilege.
This did not mean that the man had more obligations in the larger picture than women did. Women had the obligation and responsibility to provide for the children. neither sex had rights. That is the misunderstanding of Feminsm It was expected that the sexes had rights. Both sexes did not have rights, but obligations and expectations, and if they fulfilled those obligations and expectations, they received status and privileges. The status and privileges were the bribes to get people to fulfill their obligations.
Men and women received status for being subservient to one another out of necessity dictated by our environment. On this mutual subservience we built Civilization.
If anyone was oppressed by anything, it was a lack of technology.
>>25077926
>feminism has liberated men from having any kind of responsibility towards women
Thank fucking god
>>25077821
maybe so, but it's just the way they are.
Just like how they hate guys for being sex hungry animals, or how men seek to increase and diversify the number of women they sleep with vs simply picking the best one. Just differences. Hating women for this reason is the same as women hating men for how men act. It's differences in sexes nothing more nothing less.
>>25076949
Unattractive men are not invisible. Women are wired for resource attraction so the unattractive men are seen as a salesman views a potential customer.
>>25077767
>le high standards maymay
Literally no.
Men are wired to be attracted to many different women, probably out of a mechanism to improve their chances of spreading their genes.
Women on the other hand are attracted to a much narrower range of men.
Case in point, in the distant past, 17 women reproduced for every one man. Even now it's 5 women for every one man. Of course male deaths do factor in, but female hypergamy is the main factor.
>>25077713
Good to see someone here finally noticing that Milo is shit, and not someone you should be rallying around.
>>25077926
>b-b-but women couldn't own anyth-
It's also not true that women couldn't own property. They could and did own property.
>>25077713
>>25078021
He's also absolutely worthless because so long as you have to openly 'eunuchise' yourself in order to argue against feminism, men are still losing the game.
>>25078001
and that's okay. Simply differences in sexes. Not sure why you or anyone else is whining like babies?
>>25077767
>Men do the same thing though
No
The whole point is that while men see women further away from their ideal as inferior, women don't even see the inferior men.
Maybe it's still difficult for people who have been sucked into the social hivemind to understand but isn't the mere inequality of what either sex has to offer to a relationship to be desirable a slight indication that the sexes are different? For a woman to get taken care of for the rest of her life by an average man she just has to be there and not be ugly, she doesn't have to ever approach anyone or get a career and a vehicle and a circle of friends or participate in hobbies - she just has to exist
>>25076974
It's how everyone is, senpai.
>>25077748
>These are all literally strawmen and historical revisionist claims and misrepresentions made by feminists, who basically openly admitted in the first wave they were against the idea of equality.
Do you have source for that? (Seriously, I know little about this and am curious.)
What country is that?
>a handful of women here could get a PUA guys visa revoked in 24 hours..
Sounds more like SJW moral authoritarian bullshit rather than specific to feminism, although their is certainly big overlap in the groups.
>>25077926
Most of your arguments are simply saying "men had it worse". I wouldn't disagree with that, even today. That doesn't mean the lot of women hasn't improved (as has men). I don't think it's possible to prove what the cause of improvements were, but there is something that separates us in the west from Saudi Arabia.
>>25078050
Not him, because people complain when their gf breaks up with them. Not only is it inevitable, but its beneficial for that to happen
>>25077962
Not quite. We're still shamed if we don't get out there and cater to the pussy, and an unmarried man is looked at with suspicion after a certain age. We live in a gynocracy of sorts, so if you're not being validated by a woman people will think on some level that you're a bad person or there's something wrong with you, since they tend to conflate attractiveness with moral virtue.
Rollo Tomassi puts it this way
>One of the primary ways Honor is used against men is in the feminized perpetuation of traditionally masculine expectations when its convenient, while simultaneously expecting egalitarian gender parity when its convenient.
>For the past 60 years feminization has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man (Man Up) while at the same time denigrating asserting masculinity as a positive (Shut Up).
>What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a mans masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled Patriarchy and Misogyny.
>Essentially, this convention keeps beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime theyre conditioned to believe that theyre cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to Man Up when it suits a feminine imperative. So its therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women dominate the world (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it.
>This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when its convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.
Relevant video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPETpCVrH9Y
>>25078095
>We're still shamed if we don't get out there and cater to the pussy, and an unmarried man is looked at with suspicion after a certain age.
Who cares? What they think doesn't matter
>>25076974
Why wouldn't this be the case? Do you really want to meet new people who can't do anything for you? Those things could be making you laugh, giving you stuff, having interesting friends you can connect with, having a car when you don't, being interesting, being sexy, being fun, etc.
Most of life is transactions with other people, what do you have to offer?
>>25078139
>Most of life is transactions with other people, what do you have to offer?
Avoid people who think like this, they're your classic "It's just business" when they inevitably fuck you over
>>25078086
>Most of your arguments are simply saying "men had it worse"
That's true, but it's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the "oppression of women", this idea that men were privileged sadists meeting in secret to conspire new ways of tormenting, misusing and abusing women, was really due to the limited technological conditions of the time. Men are not inherently hateful of women or violent towards them, and the few that are are always "dealt with" by...who? Other men.
I'm tired of seeing this narrative that we're raping, murdering psychos by default due to our chromosomes and that we're wired to hurt women when, in aggregate, the polar opposite is true. I'm tired of seeing women portrayed as either victimized by men or dominating men.
Basically I'm tired of seeing only the shadow side of masculinity and the light side of femininity depicted in media and in schools of learning.
>I don't think it's possible to prove what the cause of improvements were
Fucking technology, can't you read?
>>25078158
If you are the guy who is just hanging around with a group of people, never really saying anything or doing anything interesting, you are eventually going to get ignored. You have to actually be valuable to others in some way for them to be interested in becoming friends.
Why would anyone want to be your friend if you have absolutely nothing to offer?
Do you just expect women to throw themselves at you randomly?
>>25078050
Explaining something to you is now "whining"?
>and that's okay
Not if you like a first-world civilization of creature comforts, friend :^)
Sorry, but part of a stable civilization is the redistribution of pussy.
>>25078114
>what people think of you does not matter
It matters, kid.
>>25078295
It's a value thing.
If someone is principally sizing you up as some kind of transaction, stay away from them, because that's how they view everybody. Which means, once they're not getting what they want, they leave. Meaning, if you look at them from their own transactional model, they're a bad long-term investment, and short-term likely won't reap too many rewards.
>>25078348
Other people don't think of you all that often, and what they think of you doesn't matter all that much because they don't think all that much as it is
>>25078348
because you think it matters. this may seem like news to you, but you can change what you think.
>>25078139
This is correct to a point, but I have to say...if the poster you're talking to was a woman, "what do you have to offer?" wouldn't even enter your mind.
And therein lies the rub; men are told they have to be everything just for a shot at a soggy hole that a dumb bitch was born with, and women are told that's just fine and fuckin dandy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYKsVppiO-A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfrj-va6PHg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2KutX6MNFU
>>25078388
>>25078394
What other people think of you has direct effect on your quality of life. Job opportunities, for one.
Face it; social proof matters. Saying otherwise is solipsism.
>>25078114
Other peoples opinion of you matters because if they don't like you you won't be able to get the stuff you want from them. How old are you?
>>25078462
because you let them dominate you. even if you are ugly, if you are not a beta coward, other men will be too afraid to treat you badly.
>>25078462
If that was true, shitty people wouldn't get jobs.
>>25078466
There's always someone else to get stuff from if you really need to
>>25078139
>relationships are transactions
Holy shit what an unbelievable toxic idea, you are an idiot.
>Think about how you view an elderly woman, around mid 60's. You don't look at this woman and think about a relationship with her, you think of her as a nice old lady and purely as a friend or acquaintance. If she were to ask you out on a date you would be completely shocked that she would even consider that a possibility because you're obviously not compatible. At no point would you ever consider going out of your way to try and pursue a relationship with this elderly woman.
I'd probably want her for a cuddle buddy and if she was hot I wouldn't mind a sexual relationship.
>>25077679
>>But what feminist goals were ever reasonable
>the vote?
Here's an interesting argument I've heard: why did they deserve the vote?
They were never subject to the same legal requirements that men were. Men could be drafted, men were expected to work dangerous, filthy jobs, men were the ones taking all the risks.
Men were the ones who dealt with all the shit on life, therefore, men deserved the right to choose who would be making decisions that could affect their lives.
Men took all the risks, thereby earning the rewards.
What did women do to deserve it? They got to stay home, tasked with the safe, easy job of "homemaker". No risk, why reward?
I mean fuck, it's practically the same today. Feminazis bitching about MAH EKWALLITEES in the workplace ... as long as it's the workplace they want, the workplace they think they deserve. You'll NEVER them harping about "inequality" in construction (unless it's standing and holding a stop/slow sign), mining, automotive maintenance, civil maintenance... all those dangerous, dirty shit jobs, yeah, men can have those.
No risk, why reward?
>Equal rights, not to be literally owned by her husband?
It's literally the other way around now. Get married, divorced, now she owns half your shit, your kids, alimony and child support... because she borrowed you her holes for a while and got bored.
>>25078511
I'm not even him and I don't like him.
But he's right; most of what we do, we do because it satisfies some sort of need we have.
Do you just waddle around spending time with people you derive no pleasure from being around or something? Healthy relationships really are mutually beneficial transactions. It's not like we're consciously thinking about it when it happens, bit it's still happening.
>>25078139
>Do you really want to meet new people who can't do anything for you?
Literally every time it is clear that someone wants to be my friend we became friends, so yeah I guess so. Who the fuck treats people like a commodity and evaluates whether it's "worth it" being friends with someone? Unless someone goes out of their way to be mean, which has never happened to me (probably exactly because of this mentality btw), I'll be friends with them.
>>25078481
>if you are not a beta coward, other men will be too afraid to treat you badly.
You're literally agreeing with me that what other people think of you matters. Right there.
>>25076949
Not really.
Women only care about social status. If you can't improve hers, or at least potentially improve hers, there's no reason to communicate.
But, we agree on the basic tenet. Women who deem a man as ugly/poor immediately become 'invisible' beyond short-term needs like normalfags who feel uncomfortable if they're not yapping 24/7 or a c uck that will give her simple things like homework or free dinner.
Whereas we feel sorry for old people because they're going to die soon, and they've already lived their lives. We don't feel sorry for ugly males. We don't care about you.
>>25078370
If you are not getting what you want from a relationship, and you can't fix it, do you stay or leave?
>>25078638
I don't get into one in the first place.
But people do stay in relationships exactly like that all the time.
>>25078444
I agree it is fucked up with women, but most people here just close their eyes and ears and deny that this is happening and then complain when they go out to the mall in their autism shoes and get laughed at by chicks.
>>25078517
You have to remember, back then before modern appliances, homemaking and child rearing was hard as fuck. I can agree that it was easier relatively speaking than mining or railroad shit, but still.
>>25078619
So if an ailing 65 year old black woman came up to you and asked to be your friend, you would accept them as a friend? Probably not. Because you have nothing in common and have nothing to offer each other.
Friends dont just become friends, there are all sorts of reasons they are attracted to each other, but there are reasons and needs that each person wants fulfilled, even if they are not consciously aware of this happening.
>>25078601
>I don't like him.
Why would you say this? Your post echoes exactly what I said, and you agree with it, that's all I've been trying to say, most people don't understand it. Not sure why I'm the jerk for saying the truth.
>>25078767
>Friends dont just become friends
Yes they do, you apparently live in some other, idiotic world. Also nobody "asks to be someone's friend", that again shows how far removed from the real world you are.
>>25078659
All your connections to other people are relationships. Friendships, family, work, etc.
>not fucking a cougar
>>25078783
because it seemed like you were giving women a pass for being as boring and useless as the men they scoff at.
>>25078790
I never said you sign some sort of agreement, you are over focusing on the world transaction. But there are reasons you become friends with other people, and vice versa, it may just seem like it happens, but that is not true.
Why didnt you answer the question about the old woman? Could she be your friend if she just asked, like you implied in your post?
>>25078793
Then I don't have very many that aren't family
>>25078807
Not giving women a pass, i fucking hate them because they are shallow vapid cunts in general, but you can't ignore reality, women want something from men, and if men dont know or realize that and just expect love to magically happen like some anime, they are going to be disappointed.
>>25078767
During lunch I often go to a nearby park and chat with little old ladies there.
>>25078828
I answered it by saying that you don't ask to be someone's friend, so this situation would never happen (hasn't happened before). If she worked at a shop where I go to and we got along then sure why not.
>>25076949
>>25076974
No, they actually see us as a hated and despised source of derision. All moral-qualm free of course, because only bad witches are ugly
>>25078828
I've actually found friendship is more about familiarity. Being stuck in the same place at the same time or going to the same places at the same time or randomly running into each other
>>25078876
>and we got along
this is what I am talking about. You get along because you have something to offer each other in some way. If you didn't then you would just ignore each other eventually.
>>25078630
because you care about how people treat you. I am telling you that despite being ugly, you are not completely fucked.
I guess some folks genuinely don't give a shit what others think about them, but that's another matter.
>>25077592
So if girls initiate conversations with me at the gym, does that mean I'm attractive? I thought I'm a 4/10 at best
>>25078890
This is true to some extent, but once again, there has to be some sort of attraction or value you see in each other (value in any sense of the word, not just monetary or purely mercenary). You arent friends with everyone on the train to work (lets imagine this) in the morning and you may see them every day, you are in the same environment. There are reasons people become friends, and they are subconscious for the most part, not explicit.
Once again, you need to offer something to other people for them to be interested in you, and you probably feel the same way subconsciously too but dont realize it.
>>25078805
>Problem
I'd rather fuck preteens and so-called "cougars" have a real problem with that, they even infect their hubbie slaves with it. What a damn shame.
>>25078957
I would consider those people friends if they just acknowledged or otherwise recognized that we know each other and see each other regularly
Women need to be utterly subjugated and pump out babies for men to enjoy and raise then off the broad once she becomes frivolous.
>>25079001
those are just acquaintances, not friends.
>>25079052
All friends are acquaintances
>>25079261
right, but all acquaintances are not friends, you fucking dense cunt. holy shit.
>>25077351
Maybe every girl isn't a "Stacy" either.
>>25079298
"Friends" are just acquaintances who hang around a little longer until they find something better to do
>>25079346
You could say that. Once there's no reason to hang out with you, why bother.
>>25079536
It's more that your "friends" priorities will eventually change to not include you in them. They'll move for jobs, or they'll get married, or have kids or whatever. They're temporary, which makes them no different than the people you're hypothetically riding a train with to work every morning
>>25078083
I was going to post this.
People in general act this way.
>>25077351
and when we say women we say women we'd actually wanna fuck too
>>25079779
Which when men talk is in reference to around 85 to 90% of women. When women talk about men they want to fuck that is only like 10 to 5% of men.
>>25078517
Keep in mind in the US at least they were enraged that black men were getting the right to vote. They couldn't have that. They don't like to talk about the racist origins of the Suffrage Movement though.
>>25079845
>85 to 90% of women
lol no I have standards too
>>25079582
You don't know what friends are because you've never had anything. You're making a bunch of claims you can't support with evidence and your "reasoning" doesn't hold up to the reality test. You're a hopeless, depressed loser and you should fuck off instead of popping off your mouth and draining the hope from people who might have a chance. Fuck /r9k/. This board should have never been revived.
>>25080111
Ad hominem means I'm actually right
>>25079342
Of course not. They share the same mentality, but they can be much uglier.
>>25080223
Not him. His ad hominem attacks neither validate nor invalidate anything. At best, you could say that neither of you gave sufficient proof or facts for any sort of evidence based reasoning.
>>25080223
Not really. That poster could just be edgy, might not know how to put his case forward properly, might be frustrated, all sorts of reasons to insult. It does not automatically mean you are right. Your logic is faulty.
>>25076974
Hmm, here's how I see women. If she isn't with a good attitude, like a really nice girl, really really polite, I don't see her as a girl, just a person.
>>25080450
This. A girl can be a literal 10/10 but if she shows herself to be a bitch I lose all interest. I actually met a girl last year who I came to develop a bit of a crush on, but when I started hanging around and got to know her I found out she likes to talk shit about people and is your typical dumbass young 20s bitch. I lost all interest.
>>25078983
Preteens have narrow hips and pelvic areas with no ridges in their vagina.
You just have bad taste if you can get aroused to girls with no waists and big retarded baby bellies.
>>25076960
A potential rapist* fix'd for you
No, it's not the same.
It's different with age as they are not of an age to be able to produce offspring.
People of the same age will assess the other person whether they are compatible and will actually think about it, maybe not for long if youre ugly as fuck, but still the thought will be there even for a millisecond.
I'm just lucky im realtively good looking, it's good to make eye contact with a grill on the train and notice the sexual tension
>>25076949
Except physically undesirable men get women all the time, and indeed, everyone with your genes has procreated at some point, otherwise you wouldn't even be here.
Excuses are for faggots.
>>25077053
>does seem to be cut down the middle between physical appeal and financial appeal.)
Charisma completely kills both.
Get outside more. Being on r9k and adopting the worldview espoused here is profoundly poisonous to your soul. Reality isn't that simple.
>>25080000
Get the fuck out, you normal faggot
>>25076949
Well seeing as its partially true
