Women Are Allowed To Find Soulmates While Men Must Settle

For the last month or so, I’ve been running a bit of an experiment, with the purpose of putting together an article about the Millennial dating scene. I’m not sure if I will ever bother writing it or not. For one: it’s very depressing. Two: it might be a little skewed. I’m not the best looking dude, but that’s mitigated by how much I work out, and my fairly good grasp of the female mindset. I wanted to present the article as what a typical young guy of today has to go through when attempting to be romantic with his female peers, and I do not think I can do that since the typical Millennial man seems to be a downtrodden simp who’s infinitely grateful when a woman who isn’t an absolute troll deigns to talk to him and I…well, I act quite differently than that.

Part of this poorly executed experiment is going on dates with a variety of women: ones I ask on the street, at bars and nightclubs, online and through hook up apps like Tinder. I haven’t dated a girl since high school (there’s no point since I can usually get the best part of the relationship, sex, with absolutely minimal investment), so I have no first hand experience of the extreme bullshit most twenty-something men have to deal with just to reach the middle of the needs pyramid (that was a poorly implemented Maslow reference, by the way). I want to see the common tics and behaviors Millennial women display while dating and hopefully give some of the younger ROK readers an idea of what warning signs they should look out for when entering the minefield that is a modern relationship.

Here’s an example of what I’m researching: During the first and subsequent dates, I keep track of how long it takes my date to pull her cell phone out once the date has started, and how often she checks it during. Quickest draw: 9 seconds [we said hi, sat down, her cellphone was out]. The longest any chick lasted before pulling it out was roughly 7 minutes. Record amount of checks [that I noticed]: 49 times over an hour period. Least amount of checks: 10 over an hour period.)


Anyhoo, one of my most recent dates was with a university gal just going into her second year whom I’ll just call Gina. Gina is nineteen, with long blonde hair (which she dyed stupidly with a strip of blue and green on one side), a visible neck and wrist tattoo, a stud in her nose (though the occasional ring makes it’s appearance), and on the ten scale is about a 6.5. I met her on Tinder, and judging by her pics I more or less expected her to show up to our first date (coffee house, which I intentionally chose since it’s the most common and boring first date idea I can think of) dressed like a slutty mess.

Surprisingly enough she showed up looking like a human being, wearing a dress with a knee length skirt and a jacket over the top. She even left her nose stud at home (but not her cell phone: it was out within 3 minutes and was checked 16 times during the date. The fact that I know that really makes me feel like Patrick Bateman).

The first fifteen minutes were as dreary and boring as could be. I was intentionally acting as much as a Beta male cliché as I could without crossing the line into being a full blown parody, and her interest was visibly waning by the time our drinks arrived. On one of her many bored scans away from me and around the coffee shop, Gina smirked and said, “Look at those two.”

I looked to where she was nodding. Across the store, at another table, a gay couple were kissing. The one closest to us was brown haired and dressed bizarrely, wearing some kind of dress shirt and a pair of suspenders.

At this point I need to explain that I am a closet nerd. And I don’t mean that I know the difference between Star Trek and Star Wars. I mean I am a Nerd. Not only is Trek the better Star franchise, but I’ve watched all the Star Trek series and have ranked them from best to worst: DS9 [season 7 sucked], TNG [Season 3 and beyond], TOS, Voyager blows and Enterprise never happened. I have watched anime films and can coherently describe the plots of Ghost in the Shell, Akira, Jin-Roh: The Iron Wolf Brigade and even less mainstream anime films such as Royal Space Force: The Wings Of The Honneamise and Venus Wars. Many of you reading just had your eyes glaze over, and now you understand why I am a closet nerd.

Anyways, one such nerd show I like to watch is Torchwood, a spin off of the famous British Sci-Fi show Doctor Who. The lead character in the show is Captain Jack Harkness (played by John Barrowman of Shark Attack 3: Megalodon fame), a bisexual from the future who fights aliens. The gay guy at the other table also just happened to be dressed similarly to Harkness’s signature style.


“Yeah, look at Captain Harkness go,” I muttered more than said.

Gina’s eyes seemed to actually light up at that comment, and the bored look on her face was gone instantly. “Was that a Torchwood reference?” she asked eagerly.

I was stunned that this above average looking girl knew what show I was referencing. Not needing to act Beta, I more or less stuttered out: “You watch Torchwood?”

Practically giddy now, Gina went on about her love for the show for the next few minutes. The conversation moved onto other shamefully nerdy passions of ours (Gina, unlike myself, is a gamer), what nerd shows we watch (a surprising amount, including the various Star Treks and a few of the animes I mentioned above). We have both played Dungeons and Dragons before.

In short, Gina and I discovered we had a lot of shared interests. As a teenager, I would have been in love right then and there: the only serious girlfriend I’ve ever had I dated because during a high school party (she was a Freshman, I was a Junior) she got really drunk and started calling me Dean Winchester all night (due to my ridiculous teenage fashion sense of wearing boots everywhere and my cousin’s ratty old military jacket), a reference to the television show Supernatural (which I am also a fan of). The next time I talked to her sober we found out we liked a lot of the same stuff, and we dated until I graduated and left town.


But I’m an adult now, one with knowledge of the cold harsh truths of the world and the women that inhabit it. And the fact is that Gina is nineteen, well into the female lust phase (18-28) with one year of university residence living already under her belt. Being an educated idiot myself, I have seen—and freely dabbled in—the slut training academy that is college, so I know exactly what sort of environment Gina lives in. Plus the idiotic tattoos and nose piercing are universally recognizable signs of sluttery (for those curious, the neck tat was a rainbow swirl and the wrist were stars, so tres unique).

We met on Tinder, which is self explanatory. And although she has a great body at the moment, Gina admitted during our second date that she doesn’t work out (but she reassured me that she’s totally going to get into it when school starts up), so this will undoubtedly be the year of the Freshman fifteen. Oh, and we had sex within 72 hours of our first meeting, sooo yeah, there’s that too.

Even though we shared numerous interests, if I chose to date Gina I would be dating a girl who has: marred her body with ugly and faddish mutilations, has likely slept with numerous men before me (she wasn’t a virgin and Tinder sure ain’t no Chaste Christian Singles app), and will likely be getting fatter sooner rather than later. I asked her if she’s working, even part time, and Gina said no, so she’s already dug into a pile of debt. Plus she’s nineteen, and out of the hundreds of young woman I’ve met, I know of ten total who stayed, or currently still are, with the same man they met at that age. Heartless mathematical odds are in favor that any investment of time, money and love I make in her would be repaid by Gina with cuckoldry and crazy-bitching, as is the wont of the modern woman.

And who would she be dating? I generally try to be humble about myself, but if we dated Gina would get a twenty-three year old man who: has a university degree from a fairly prestigious school (although it’s an English major, not that impressive); is debt free and owns his own vehicle (and I have enough savings that I could almost outright buy a house); who has electrician’s certifications and will possibly be making six figures within the decade (or this year, if I opted to go to the oil sands); who shares a good amount of her interests; who busts his hump at the gym several nights a week to look good physically; who believes in monogamy in relationships (I may participate in the hook up culture but if I was dating I wouldn’t stray); and who has a family that isn’t a dysfunctional mess. I even have some sisters that she could bond with.


Am I perfect man? No, but compared to a lot of true Trekkies and other nerds I am a phenomenal human being. Gina is above average in looks and only exceptional in personality to me simply because she knows who Finn The Human is. I am likely amongst the top tier of genuinely nerdy men since it’s not unfair to say that the average guy with in-depth knowledge about the Federation’s war with the Dominion is likely to be out of shape, socially awkward, and poorly employed.

If I locked her down, Gina would be getting one of the best men possible who also shares her a good chunk of her interests and passions: she’d be getting the closest thing to a real soulmate there is. I would be getting a mediocre woman who would stop laughing at my Doctor McCoy impressions once the first baby came along.

And that dynamic plays out in many relationships, because a woman who is genuinely interested in something other than her mirror are comparative rarities. How many men out there have lowered their standards to date a woman simply because she shared some of his hobbies or interests, while that woman gets an absolute prize of man? I know of many.

Next spring a buddy of mine is getting married to a woman he dated because she loves going hunting; he makes six figures a year and almost got a four plate deadlift the last time we worked out together. She has a belly and when not hunting religiously she reads Cosmo and watches reality TV all day (she doesn’t work). My roommate is a good looking gamer guy who often works out with me (making good progress with his Squat, Bench and Dead, having seriously started lifting around four months ago) and is dating a short haired chubster simply because she is a genuine gamer gal.

I’ve seen men become enthralled when a woman they’re talking to not only says she likes punk music but can actually name bands beyond Blink 182; I don’t know if they’re still together today, but an old room mate of mine who was quite a womanizer dropped out of the university pump-and-dump game because he started to date a chick who was really into the Rockabilly scene like he was. He voluntarily gave up sleeping with in-their-prime women because he met a girl who liked The Cramps and wore polka dot dresses.

When it comes to rivalry between the sexes, many double standards are often brought up. The most common one is the “a woman who sleeps around is a slut but a man who does the same is not,” but the most painful double standard is exactly the one I’ve been ranting about: the Soulmate double standard. So long as she doesn’t foul it up by completely screwing away her twenties, most women have the option to find a man who will truly love her, share her interests and sacrifice everything he could and ever will be to give her a comfortable life because he truly believes she is his soul mate.

Even young women whose interests lie solely in themselves can still find men who will worship them, but a woman who is into Hot Rod cars and Tae Kwon Do and Radiohead has an almost infinitely better chance of finding a good man who shares her soul than if the sexes were reversed: and that man will love her with a fiery passion simply because of those shared passions.

Most men have to lower their standards in order to find a woman who has even a passing interest in what he is into, and far too many men must completely surrender their souls by dating and marrying women with whom they have nothing in common, who often simply tolerate a man’s passion. Men are the interesting sex, while by and large women like sitting on the couch reading about and watching all the other women they wish they were.

I won’t link it out of respect for the guy, but I recently watched a video where a fitness enthusiast was making cookies to help people get gains—and this guy is a shredded beast who knows what he’s talking about—and at one point in the video his out of shape, average looking wife comes in and gives the guy a shoulder so cold I’m surprised their breath didn’t start showing in the air. She was angry because he was participating in his passion, one which she clearly does not share.

Then, at the other end of the spectrum, in his autobiography “On Writing,” Stephen King freely admits that if his wife had told him that his writing (before he made it big) was a waste of time, he would have lost heart and quite likely quit, probably winding up a drunken old teacher as opposed to a billionaire best-seller. Instead his wife, also a writer, encouraged him because she shared in his interests. That’s how extreme a difference the love of a woman who shares a man’s passion can influence his life.

It’s too bad so few men will get the chance to find soulmates. Double standards aren’t just for men.

Read More: 5 Dating Conventions That Women Killed

262 thoughts on “Women Are Allowed To Find Soulmates While Men Must Settle”

    1. You know, “soulmate” did not even begin as a romantic term. It used to mean two people who had the same interests, beliefs, and passions, and was completely platonic (usually two male friends). Now of course, it’s a bunch of gush used to sell movies, music, books, and especially marriage 2.0.

      1. Soulmate concept is entirely possible among two males. It should not be a sexual thing. The same goes for best friends: a best friend should not be conflated with lover. I may love a woman more than anything or anyone else but she will never be my best friend. A best friend has to be someone that you are not in love with but like them for other very important reasons.

  1. Line up twenty girls and most guys will find three or four that they would (at least) take on a first date. Line up twenty guys and most girls will find reasons to reject every one.

    1. The 80 / 20 rule proven by the OKStupid survey. Almost all women find almost all men to be unattractive, while most men find most women attractive. It is the cross we bare as men. My feelings are that I don’t give a crap what a woman wants or finds attractive. As long as I am getting what I want I am good to go.

      1. “As long as I am getting what I want I am good to go.”
        How does that make you any different than some female douchebag?

    2. Yep..agree. Too much of that “Sex in the City” philosophy going on with women. They can hold out until the “better” man comes along….except many hold out and he never does come along.
      It’s because that requirement list that they all hold in their pocket is ridiculous. They want a man to be so much but they offer so little in return?
      A woman is how tall or how fat or how educated and she wants the man to fill her list of requirements?
      Good god, it’s fucking ridiculous. So, many women will be lonely with cats (or dogs). Probably get into a marriage or two…ending in divorce.

      1. I predict that the dog phase will end. Dogs require actual attention and socialization and as such are too similar to human beings to be accepted long term by this narcissistic “me me me” generation of chicks. Expect a glut of 4-6 year old abandoned dogs showing up at the shelters in a couple of years.

        1. I’ve known a number of women who keep their dog locked up in a cage in the basement while they go to work. Kind of how they’d like to treat us.

        2. That is absolutely tragic. I’m a big fan of dogs. Hate to see them treated like that by mindless “I can have it all!(tm)” simpletons. Exceptions given for the cotton ball sized dogs which were bred basically as a prank.
          Kind of how they’d like to treat us.
          Hence the term “mancave”.

        3. I fucking hate people who buy large, active dogs and keep them in an apartment/cage all day. You have to buy the breed that matches the energy of your lifestyle, but you know women only pick a dog breed based on how cute it is.

      2. “Too much of that “Sex in the City” philosophy going on with
        women. They can hold out until the “better” man comes along….except many hold out and he never does come along.”
        women and white-knights complain that porn deludes men into having unrealistic expectation towards women. can’t we complain back that chick flicks deludes women into the same thing they accuse us of?

        1. Yep, good point. I have a habit of saying just that at the time if it fits the bill.
          Chick flicks, Disney, Sex in the City, etc…have created these delusional women.
          Life is real, it has it’s ups and downs. Sometimes it’s boring sometimes it’s exciting…and no there isn’t always a happy ending.
          That’s reality.

      3. Can’t really call it “holding out” if they’re sleeping around like there’s no tomorrow, though, can we?

    3. Thought exercise, friends:
      Line up twenty girls and twenty guys.
      But, the girls can’t see the guys and vice versa, each guy and girl can talk to each other as much as they like, about anything they like, for as long as they like.
      When/if a girl and a guy decide to meet, they then get to see each other.
      I would wager that the ones who liked each other enough to take a look and ALSO liked the appearance of each other, would not have many problems for as lng as they chose to be together.

    1. Be careful there, Chris. You won’t want to be seen as a “nerd” in a time where watching the Kardashians and the umpteenth CSI spinoff makes you enlightened. Stupid hew-mons.

  2. Never stop approaching Billy. Think about it like this, in the society we live in it is difficult to be a real man in the way we define it on ROK, and by the same standards it’s also difficult to be a real woman in the way we define it on ROK, however, we do know that these women are out there. Go and find them Billy, don’t waste your time with Tinder, women with tattoos and piercings, etc. Just spend your time walking down a main university campus street profiling what a nice girl looks like and approach the ones that meet your standards. Sure, not even most of them will be up to your standards, but continue to do so, run through the numbers and you’ll find a girl whose company you will genuinely enjoy, it may be difficult but she is out there my friend go find a real woman who wants a real man.

    1. This is the attitude that men need to rediscover. Men with discretionary taste and a high set of standards is kryptonite to feminism.

      1. Part of the problem is that many men do not know how to assess a woman beyond the way she looks (i.e. her level of intellect, how she behaves in public, does she get drunk, what is her family like, etc.). If they could, many women would clean up their act immediately.

        1. Agreed. This is where good fatherhood and responsible stewardship of our culture come into play. Men who have sons MUST teach them to be discerning, not just by his standards, but also by the son’s standards which are formed by independent and logical thinking. Men who do not have sons should seriously consider taking up a mentoring role for a younger man/adolescent. We are the bulwark upon which the future generations will look for guidance, it is our responsibility to both teach and set the example.

        2. I am short on time so I can’t be as thorough in my question, but I would like to know what these standards are. Pretend for a minute that you are teaching a man to be discerning, what would you tell him? And truly can one be successful in this discernment knowing that women are fickle and socially malleable to begin with?

        3. My two cents….use your gut feeling. To me, this is an important rule that’s really overlooked by guys because they are so intrigued by the looks of a woman.
          Don’t ignore that gut feeling if the woman is flaky, rude or other (it means she’s a flake, not worth it…move on).

        4. I understand that a woman can sell herself as one thing and be another, so I know this is not perfect. However, there are big glaring red flags that women are giving us all right now that tell us that they are herd following simpletons who cannot be trusted in a long term relationship.
          – Ink – any ink, even a cute butterfly tat on her ankle
          – Excessive piercings. One or two ear piercings are fine, I’m talking nose rings and such here.
          – Career obsession/You Go Grrrl power suit types
          – Arrogant attitudes/I don’t need no man! ™ attitude
          – Leftist views (as in openly expressed as a challenge)
          – Short hair, especially if she used to have long but decided “I don’t need no man!(tm)” and had it chopped such that she could easily be mistaken for a Marine.
          – Expressed pro-feminism/pro-abortion statements
          – Fat
          Those are major signs. And yes, I know, it’s hard pickings to not find at least a couple of things on the list on any given woman these days. The reason is because *we* as men have quietly accepted their appearance and the women saw that as consent and ran with it.

        5. ROK has an article on slut characteristics. Know the list and avoid any girl that exhibits those traits.

        6. Open rebellion to the dignity of the genders is what you need to look for.
          If she openly hates masculinity, then she hates femininity and she’s out.

        7. Bit of a question here about the slashing of abortion and feminism. Definitely, abortion is not ideal. But is out-of-wedlock that much better?

        8. That is one of the most vital points i can think of (mentoring).
          There is as far as i can see a big lack of empathy and solidarity towards the younger men from the older or more experienced men in our world generally,
          i have seen it too many times and experienced it myself in my own adolescence.
          This tradition is probably a result of men experiencing feelings of psychological and emotional scarcity in relation to their surroundings and previous life experiences, ofcourse its a sad excuse to try to push down the younger generations out of some kind of jealousy that they will evolve faster than we did instead of trying to motivate them, or whateverer reason people have for feeling enmity towards the up and coming.
          Hey there is enough to go around for both the younger and the older lions and everyone in between.
          Btw please excuse my writing skills in english, i am fully aware its bad, hehe.

        9. Right, quite correct. Single-moms who have never been married. I think that’s a given though and pretty well known across the manosphere, they are pump n’ dump at best. Back in the day they were what we called “shamed” and made to feel “baaaaad” for being tramps. But I digress.

        10. You said in two sentences basically what I outlined in my answer to the gentleman. Wish I had the gift of succinct brevity, heh, well done.

        11. Don’t avoid them, just use them as practice. The more you interact and are able to keep your eyes open to say/do hypocrisy, the better you are able to avoid being trapped by them.
          There are some keepers, somewhere out there, but for now just use the sluts as they wish to be used, never do anything for their benefit.

        12. AFAIK, back in the day, guys were also shamed into ‘manning up’ and marrying them leading to issues as well. IMO, for both sides of the equation it seems like abortion is the lesser of two evils.

        13. Murder is never the solution to any problem.
          And this isn’t a pro-life/pro-death debate, so much as me stating that women who go on about “a woman’s right to choose!” and “it’s my body, my choice!” is an indignant twunt that you may want to walk away from, fast.

        14. Englishbob there is no way your my age unless your wisdom exceeds the average 28 year old. Too many males chose to get laid as quickly as possible instead of discerning a woman’s character. Then they get pissed off when she reveals her true nature lol.

        15. This is very true. More men need to discern a woman’s character/spirit before getting involved with a woman. Excellent comment! I thank my father for his wisdom he bestowed on my life. It literally saved my life. @disqus_ZkPFIbCmbX:disqus

        16. Lol true I am older and experience earned was expensive. I have no problem laying these hoes but the trouble is many young men can’t distinguish between women for marriage/LTR and women for fun. They get their heads all messed up on girls who just aren’t worth it.

        17. Lmaooooo
          “I have no problem laying these hoes” #classic
          This is true. Guys have to step their insight up very quickly…. I refuse to go through everything like every other guy… I just gain insight from older men. Saves me time,money, health, energy.

        18. I heard it was once said by Stalin that it is foolish to learn from your own mistakes. Better to learn from the mistakes of others and not make those mistakes in the first place. You’re on the right track my friend.

    2. I’m not even the prize. I’m the carrot on the end of the stick that they’ll never…quite…catch.

  3. Soulmates?
    Eh, it’s much more important to have very, very strong physical chemistry than to have very closely shared interests. The shared interests do NOT tide you through relationship rough spots at all — in fact, women are very good at taking shared interests when the weaker chemistry fades and LJBFing you, because you, well, make a good friend due to shared interests. Wives do this fairly often. And if you have very strong physical chemistry, she will support you in your interests and also become interested in them, because women generally do become interested in the things the men they are hot for are into, even if they were not interested at all in them before. My ex-wife and I still share a lot of common interests, and it didn’t help at ALL in the marriage, in fact it probably hurt us. My GF and I share very few interests, although she has become more interested in my own interests since we have been together — this is the natural way of things.
    As for nerdy stuff …. my recommendation is to drop them like a hot potato. That’s one area that is very limiting for men in relationships (STR is fine, because it’s not relevant in the timeframe). If you absolutely MUST be a nerd about something, make it be something like fitness or lifting or photography or musical instruments or something that is not at the same time both nerdy AND geeky. Look at Andrew Luck — he’s a nerd …. about football. That’s “good nerdy”. If you are nerdy about something that is also geeky, you’re really limiting your potential in LTRs/marriages, because the women who are into you are also the geeky ones, and well, as you say above … enough said about those.

    1. This, exactly. It’s ok to watch nerdy TV. But those are really ephemeral things, it’s like being obsessed with what Beyonce is wearing on any given day. Sci fi shows change like the weather and keeping up is a huge time suck that can be used for more useful hobbies.
      Fitness, music, photography and stuff like that are long-lasting and permanent arts, and sports news (not obsessive nitpicking) are a social lubricant. Hell, soccer can be a bridge between different nationalities. Your boss probably doesn’t know the difference between TNG and DS9, or Torchwood and original Dr. Who. But he probably likes the local football team.

    1. They don’t know any better, friend.
      Programmed for seeking, finding and bonding to one’s own painful, public, embarrassing self-destruction since youth, many a time in one’s own youth and home, what else can we have expected?

    2. There is simply a shortage of quality potential brides: I’ve met a fair amount of innocent and attractive young girls with some skill in classical music (the best I
      could ask for). By the
      time they reach a socially acceptable age for marriage they are no longer as good; they’ve had sexual experiences, quit music, taken drugs… The sad thing is that if one were to seduce them when they were 16 with the intention of wifeing them up, everyone would disapprove.
      Thus we settle for less.

      1. Men have to realize there is no point settling for less. We have too much to loose settling. At this point of my life I know there is no women who I would marry to. I just have too good life to ruin it with a female. Pump and dump for me.

      2. I have received disapproval from everyone working in my office for dating a 19yr old – I’m only 24! They act like i’m a sex offender! The hard truth is there are many 16yr old girls who would probably make great wives and mothers (especially for those of us who want large families) but what was once common less than a century ago has now been labeled a sex crime. The reason is the capitalist attack on family; making individual consumers instead of family units is more profitable.
        From 16-18 girls have nothing to do but make bad choices; and they make them. From 18-24 (college years) they simply continue to make shitty choices AND create a pile of debt for themselves. 25-onward they are almost all too old and jaded. Now i don’t dislike women over 25 and unlike many here i still find many of them to be beautiful but it is the wear and tear of making it own their own that makes them unattractive as a wife. I have to carry the burden of making in this world, i don’t want to come home to some jaded woman just as hard as i am – that should be my burden not her’s.

    3. that’s exactly why i don’t get the hostile attitude of even some self-admitted red pillers towards porn. when all the available women to you in the 50 miles radius where you live are land-whales then which one is more dignified :
      A. falling all over oneself in attempting to woo the land-whales.
      B. wanking to the images of 10s.
      i’d choose B.

      1. Because porn kills your motivation to engage in productive and creative endeavors that are wholly unrelated to chasing women. In fairness, so do video games, television and surfing the net. But ubiquitous, easily accessed internet porn of today has an especially insidious hold on people in a way that Playboy/VHS tapes did not.

  4. These days when women ask me why I’m not married I just smirk and say “I haven’t found my soulmate!” lol

    1. Or when they assume that it’s because you haven’t found your “soul mate” and you just smile, nod your head, and say…”yeah, that’s what it is…”

  5. All my life since I was young I’ve never settled for nothing less than what I wanted regaurdless if I deserved it or not.Maybe it was because I was spioled as a kid I don’t know.This includes women, I’ve never settled for less than what I want in a woman especailly in a Ltr or for a one night stand.I’ve found this attitude intreagues women,intimidates them.I’m no more than a 6.1 lol.

    1. That attitude is also borne by men who were raised in a rough environment. You learn quickly what you will and won’t put up with, and if you have heart and strength, you sally forth with an uncompromising view of life.

    2. Good attitude. I’m sure I settled when I was much younger but as I got older I started to hold women to a standard (similar to my own). Not a high standard (like the ridiculous list that they have on men) but a standard, none the less.
      If she didn’t make the cut, then the bus stops…and I let her ass off.

  6. The problem with the “soul mate” thing is not that women buy into it so heavily, but that so many men genuinely believe in it as well these days.
    As to the article, it’s quite fascinating. There’s nothing that I can contribute when it comes to dating for Millenials, I simply wince and feel horribly every time I hear accounts of what you younger men have to deal with, regarding Millenial women.
    I’d make y’all a time machine and take you back to better times, but I suspect that would be illegal according to the matriarchy.
    Parting shot: Chubbs, dude, nerdy? That’s like, so totally trendy (thank you Big Bang Theory, a show I thankfully have never seen). You should be slaying Millenial pussy dude, heh.

    1. Agree. Ghost and I are probably about the same age (been around a few decades myself). The beauty of it is that I have witnessed a time ‘back when’ where we didn’t have all of this flakiness with women.
      It was simple: You went out, you had a good time, you enjoyed (or didn’t enjoy) the immediate company and you went on more dates (or moved on). There was none of the competition from social media (or even the rash of ADHD or ADD) going on with women.
      Fast forward, today, and it’s a mess. So many women have been brainwashed by other women, blogs on the internet, FB, the media, etc…..instead of thinking for themselves.
      They all think there is a secret formula to being happy….there is one. Stop watching reruns of Sex in the City or any bullshit reality show on TV today…that’s it.

      1. And what’s bad is that this you speak of, which I lived through and enjoyed as well, is an absolute foreign concept to most. They literally have no frame of reference outside of hearing how others used to live.
        It was *fantastic* to have people’s undivided attention when you went out. People actually *knew* things because they didn’t have easy access to Google, hence they had to retain knowledge. Take away a Millenial’s phone and ask him/her even basic questions and they are blank faced with mouth agape.
        And the dating, just as you state. And to uninked, non-boozy, non-foul mouthed, non-iZombie addicted, generally decent acting women who almost all had long hair and who wore makeup. I cannot possible imagine dealing with what young men today have to deal with, I’d go hermit in an instant, or start trolling high school graduations to snatch up the 18 year olds before they hit their first tattoo shop (probably within hours of graduation). Gadzooks.
        For those who want to see the way people in these united States used to look, I present to you Spring Break in the 1980’s, photos of Ft. Lauderdale from the late 70’s through early 90’s. The first pic has a chubby guy (gah! but by today’s standards he’s normal) but the rest, just take a look. Of the 70 photos there are maybe, maybe, three to five people with any weight on them to speak of. And the women – creamy white skin, tight bodies, and *talking* to other people instead of looking into their hands like a dead zombie.

      2. Yeah if you were old enough to have watched the original Land of the Lost when it was airing the first time, then you are in the last generation where NAWALT was a possibility. There were a few good women left but I’m talking of a ratio here of bad to good to be like 20 to 1. Back in the day it was possible to say to a young fellow “just keep looking” and there would be 4 to 5 out of 100 that was certifiable wife material who you could be nice to and have a real lasting marriage, but demographics also played into this heavily. Where I come from, I never met any but I knew fellows from the midwest who married at 17 and over 20 years later still are.
        And that 4-5 out of 100 are now obese and sullied.
        As far as we should be concerned, it’s a wasteland. Imagine some Road Warrior shit where it’s a sausage fest and all the women you do find are gross mutants. Not so much science fiction now, is it?

        1. Yeah if you were old enough to have watched the original Land of the Lost when it was airing the first time, then you are in the last generation where NAWALT was a possibility.
          Heh, yep, that’s me. Hong Kong Phooey was also on its first airing. And All In The Family was still being produced. Gah.
          Your numbers are about right. It depended on where you lived of course, which I believe you mentioned. There was a better ratio out in the sticks/country, but otherwise yeah, the balance you mention sounds right.

        2. Happy Days. Laverne and Shirley (where the ‘bad girl’ was a virgin who only thought about screwing around but never did).
          And, God help us all, The Love Boat.
          On the bright side we had hours of actual un-censored Looney Toons every Saturday morning, so there was that.

        3. And you knew who you were then
          Girls were girls and men were men
          Mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again
          Didn’t need no welfare state
          Everybody pulled his weight
          Gee our old LaSalle ran great
          Those were the days…

        4. All In The Family was the great liberal show for a long while until it was noticed, somewhere in the early 90’s that Archie Bunker was right on almost everything. When comedians started saying this in public the rush away from the show by the left was astounding, heh.

    2. Heh, I keep my nerdiness as far back in the closet as I can. It was just such a rare occasion to actually meet a (semi-legit) nerd girl that I opened up that shameful little crawlspace and let it all out.
      It’s funny – I more or less like look the bastard grandchild of Nikita Khrushchev, and people often tell me I look like a scary, angry guy…but they’ll never know that Star Trek and Harry Potter are amongst my myriad of guilty pleasures.
      I have a password on my external hard drive, and anyone trying to get into it would probably just think it’s full of porno – but it’s all crappy television shows like The Adventures Of Hercules and Firefly.

  7. “Then, at the other end of the spectrum, in his autobiography “On Writing,” Stephen King freely admits that if his wife had told him that his writing (before he made it big) was a waste of time, he would have lost heart and quite likely quit”
    This hit home for me Chubbs.
    I was in a 4 year relationship like this and as far as I could tell we loved each other and got on really well with each others’ families. We pushed each other along in our careers and had plans to do all sorts of shit down the line like trek the Yukon. We both loved the same anime, both fascinated by neuroscience and psychology (Ghost in the Shell is amazing), both into the outdoors. Working together we got into the same neuroscience graduate program and I knew it would take a lot of hard work to win in the academic stream… but I was up for the challenge… I felt like I had a concrete reason to succeed.
    That is when things changed. All of the sudden I was a junior who had to work his way up. Within a year she was cheating on me with a PhD mangina (not just saying that out of bitterness… this guy was a vocal feminist with a landwhale wife and a drinking problem) that worked in the same office as me. That is when I realized absolutely that women are driven by hypergamy… it will override all feelings of love and loyalty. What hurt the most is how cold she became so quickly just kuz she had some “alpha” dick. I threatened this guy’s life (I went into a seriously feral state for a little while) and he left the country (no exaggeration) with his fat wife. I never saw him again after I discovered what was going on.
    It took about 6 months after that but she eventually realized how much she utterly fucked everyone’s lives up. I guess the drama wore down and people stopped giving a shit. Over a year has passed since these events and I still get calls from her sometimes (I don’t respond). In fact, the last time I had to spend any time with her she blurted out as I walked away that she just wants to be my little wife.
    I know it seems like I’m writing this out of self-serving bullshit and maybe I am but I am just expressing that this shit can deeply affect you. This is the kind of shit that will tear at your fucking soul and make you want to kill somebody. The kind of shit that will leave you with nightmares. It is the kind of shit that makes you question whether to give up on your dignity so you can live a simpler less cumbersome life… but I know that life doesn’t exist…
    Excuse the melodrama gents… and take your red pills…

    1. I hear ya! Best thing to do in those situations is just to turn your back and walk away into the sunset…never looking back.

      1. Exactly. She gave me no respect until I turned my back on her.
        And that was when all the sudden I was her “abusive” ex-bf.

        1. “Abusive”? What else could she say, the truth? That you were a fine man who loved her sincerely and she repaid you with a big dose of turdish behaviours? Obviously she has to say that.
          You should be thankful, brother, that you didn’t indulge any of her degenerate sexual tendencies (that was all behind your back I presume) – for if you had, you would have earned repayment with the monicker of “Ghastly manipulative pervert who got me to do so many whore-able things”, too.

    2. No need to excuse yourself mate, its nothing to be ashamed of and i think many of us have found themelves here because of similar experiences as your story tells… thats how one learns usually

    3. Brother Kent,
      You got screwed and blindsided do to your innate innocence, naivete and goodness.
      Nothing one can do can stop one from getting screwed by another who is actively manipulating your goodness, UNTIL one learns to identify and pay attention to the types of persons who will do these negative deeds.
      That ex is the scum, not you. She is doomed to herself, inescapably, no matter if she hooks 50 rich studly guys as her total slaves.
      You however, are better than that and have not failed. You are striving to improve yourself and not fall into the same trap ever again.
      Good luck and don’t let this crap bother you (or at least as little as possible).
      Always be aware of and gain solace from the fact that you have escaped the poisoned embrace of that soul-killing douchebag, not only with your integrity intact, but as a positive, future-oriented man.

    4. Thank you for sharing that story, Kent. It should be voted to the top.
      AWALT, and when that switch gets flipped, it doesn’t matter how Alpha McBadass you are. It doesn’t matter how good your Game is. You can be in the top 5% of all men on this planet, and she will still drop those panties for the totally hawt Klonopin addict with the neck tattoo who works at Wendy’s.

    5. This is another reason i don’t but into “soulmates” anymore; the whole “shared interests” thing is really a better foundation for friendship, not a sexual relationship.

    6. More evidence that the ‘Best Actress’ Oscar is an absurd redundancy…they’re ALL ‘actresses’ ALL THE TIME!

    7. um, you probably could find a more loyal woman to marry – or just admit that people are indeed primates & as a species they are natural polygamists.
      Don’t blame a dog for barking, a fish for swimming, or human for wandering around.
      But a married man is off limits to women – they should know not to cross another woman.
      Maybe find an honest church group or outdoors club & find a more dependable woman ? If you take the high road and treat people well they should resonate that feeling & be good to you too…

  8. Woman are completely incapable of assessing a man. Billy you describe yourself as a great catch. I also present a favourable CV. The trouble is, women are immune to this stuff. You could be the best looking man on the planet but this would not be enough to get many women to stop and talk to you on the street. If a dime stopped me on the way to work then I would be late to work. A handsome man stops a woman on the way to work she frets that she will be late. Nuts! You can be late one day to work if it means you meet your “soul-mate” but women’s priorities are placed in no logical order. Not only that, having a great job, good family and pleasant personality is not on its own good enough for some women. This is because you are battling the perfect man that only exists in her head.

    1. Yep..plus don’t forget that “list” that every woman will carry in her pocket at all times.
      She’ll refer to it at some point and then she’ll mark you as a ‘no’ because you do not meet one of those check marks on the list.

      1. And then we should thank her for doing our work for us, helping us avoid a time-wasting drama-set that never ends well.
        We need to stop gazing at the superficial, stop allowing the implanted programming to activate every time we see some walking female black-hole (the astronomical analogy).
        Please note, I don’t mean beauty, grace, poise, attractiveness, even sexiness by “superficial”.
        [A repulsive, physically off-putting skag is not that way because of her “gorgeous personality”]
        I mean the superficial image of a desirable woman foisted cynically upon us by the media (as part of a larger society-destructive agenda).

    2. “I also present a favourable CV. The trouble is, women are immune to this stuff.”
      At the same time, we men should be impressed and even aroused with their credentials, careers, and “accomplishments”. Guess what girls, we don’t give a shit about any of that.

  9. The idea of having a soulmate is a fabrication largely used by women to empower them to create a laundry list of attributes in a partner. Of course if desirable men do the same it is perceived as sexist.

    1. To be entirely frank, I’m not exactly certain what precisely a “soul mate” is supposed to mean. On an emotional level of course we’re supposed to understand it as….perfectly connected perhaps…but even that doesn’t make sense and raises more questions than it solves. But soul-mate? Souls (if you believe in such) are individual possessions unattached to worldly possessions, which communes or has the ability to eventually commune with the supernatural. What the fuck does that have to do with worldly love or even other human beings?
      Meh, nothing but emotionalist claptrap, as you say, a fabrication to empower women which, when taken at the source, is shown to be nonsense.

      1. I’m certain it also contributes to the high divorce rates in western countries. Women realize marriage requires a modicum of compromise and decide to divorce instead of make it work. Since, you know, they must be soul mates otherwise she is settling for something beneath her. And soul mates shouldn’t need to compromise in a relationship.

        1. Absolutely agree with that, there is no compromise any longer for women, there is only “my way, or the highway!” Because, you know, they’re empowered and independent and shit. That will serve them well in picking out their collection of cats in the future. To be fair most Millenial guys I meet are also pretty guilty of giving up the moment something becomes even slightly challenging.

        2. What you’ll hear from dating a feminist nowadays is “Compromise is stupid, couples should focus on collaboration”.
          Every time I don’t fuck your horny best friend… that is compromise.

        3. Agree..and they all listen to their other miserable female friends. They were miserable in their marriages to men so you should be miserable too and get divorced (and don’t settle…lol).
          That in itself is the most hilarious part of the whole thing. Women convincing other women (who are probably pretty happy with their marriage) to join them and get divorced. And the cycle continues…
          A little critical thinking goes a long ways.

  10. Women are pathetic hypergamous creatures who will always try to maximize their mating potential. While there is nothing wrong with that, it just gets crazy when they believe the feminist lies of “being able to have it all” and to hold out for the Christian Grey up until the Wall and beyond. In the end they remain regretful Alpha Widows who are either unsatisfied with their inferior Beta husbands, because they have been able to fuck a more Alpha man in their prime. Or they become avid cat-collectors and pill-poppers crying themselves to sleep without children and grand-children.

    1. Good points. And…once these women hit the wall many are “invisible” to men (except for maybe the lonely beta males).
      Any man with any amount of respect for himself does not want these “used cars” after they’ve hit the wall.

    2. I’ll bet a lot of women will have the audacity to claim the guy in the picture isn’t muscular enough for them, while doing exactly nothing of exercise themselves.

      1. When women say a man isn’t muscular enough its really another way of saying they feel self conscious about being overweight. The average american woman now weighs 160 lbs, compared to 125 lbs a generation ago. If women had to honestly report their weight on an online dating profile, half of them would never get asked out.

        1. “If women had to honestly report their weight on an online dating profile, half of them would never get asked out.”
          I’m not sure about that. Thirst and low standards seem to be endemic among millennial guys.

        2. Right. and there should be an option on those online dating profiles to say “bigger than you remember”…instead of an actual weight.
          Many try to use their “old weight”.

        3. I actually think a peer review system, like on Amazon, would be a fantastic addition to dating profiles. heh
          “Bad product do not date. Fifty pounds over profile statement, excessive tats, sat on her iZombie all night. Avoid at all costs!”

        4. “had to return mine – the funky odour emanating from it was insufferable – a combination of limburger and dick cheese…”

        5. The size of American women is completely ridiculous.
          Having lived in eastern europe for a while, I traveled to Spain; the girls in public transport were a bad joke in comparison. The most attractive girls there weren’t even ‘below average’ by eastern european standards; it was a whole different category: ‘almost human but makes herself look like a goblin with piercings and strange hair, aggressive demeanor.’

        6. American women are so fat that any male who is not minimum 185 looks skinny and frail.
          A normal man should be in the 150-180 range, but now its like every motherfucker weighs over 200 pounds and a man with a lean, normal physique is ‘skinny’

        7. Heh, but the problem is that I think women would avoid it like the plague. No woman likes the truth when it is not flattering to her self image.

      2. take a walk to the fridge, take the food out and then eat it already constitute as exercise to many women.

    3. Most tellingly, “they” have picked a blatantly homosexual-looking bottom girlymangina for such a twisted BDSM “stud” such as the fictional Grey.
      How obvious.

  11. Part of the reason that many wives treat their husbands so bad is because they initially believed in the happily ever after myth. They bring in drama because in a weird way, they get off on it.
    Marriage is not that complicated really. It is basically a promise to only have sex with your spouse until one of you dies. This soulmate business just complicates something that was so simple and beautiful.

    1. IMO it’s the fault of Disney’s shit and other fairy tales who propagate the myth of “every girl is a little princess” and “happily ever after marriage”. Discovering this fact is like hitting a wall just as hitting 30s is a wall too.

      1. Right……between the Disney shit and the propaganda taught about how everyone is a winner (everyone is special, a special snowflake, gets a trophy, etc….).
        Now, you see adults walking around in college or on the job thinking about how fucking special they are…with the women being the worst ones (combination of both – Disney princess and special).

        1. Pains to see my eight-year old niece, growing up and carrying that into adulthood. Nice job, Frozen.

    2. “Part of the reason that many wives treat their husbands so bad is
      because they initially believed in the happily ever after myth. They
      bring in drama because in a weird way, they get off on it.”
      i agree. the fairy tale is killing all of us.

  12. Women are thw orst multitaskers in the world. They have three base functions to society: keeping men building civilization by offering sex and lunch, having and rearing children and keeping civil between themselves. Men have four base functions: controlling and feeding the women, educating the youth, building civilization and protecting civilization. On top of this men can have an eduction, career, own business, numerous hobbies…….. Women, howver, struggle to add more than two things to their jobs. Of the five things they do, they can only really do 3 weel and 2 passably. What the woman’s frinds prioritize is what she becomes better at and what she neglects falls out of the loop. Therefore, a traditional woman is good at sex and housewifery, rearing children and being civilized in a feminine manner, with maybe a passable interest in philosopgy and a reasonable amount of artsy skills. A very hot woman will be skilled at using makeup, sex and social interactions, moderately good at her job and perhaps housewife skills. A skilled business woman is good at her work, social interactions and competiion and maybe reasonable at logical thought and feminine civility. A typical feminist is skilled at rationalization, regurgitating information and artsy skills, but only slightly capable in her job as a barista and her abilities to socialize.
    Women are shoddy multitaskers. If you find a woman who’s really into your hobby, got a good degree and also hot enough that she’s prioritized her makeup and clothes, then you mst ask yourself what her 2 secondary skills are and what she is sacrificing in order to be a hot, educated gamer.

    1. I think you neglect the role women used to play in greasing the social ladder
      to help advance the husband’s, and thus the family’s, status. Many a deal would be struck over dinners with the boss orchestrated by wives, or through social gatherings that wives would organize, or urge their husbands to attend. Wives also used to spread pillow talk they heard from other wives to their husbands when it was to his advantage to know such things.
      Besides that I agree with your observations.

      1. The problem is that social media, combined ith women’s gossiping and dissatsfactory nature, has made that role obsolete. But it was important in the good ole days, i agree.

      2. I think this is another problem with the soulmate thing.
        Being good or intelligent as a friend doesn’t mean that one is a good wife qua helpmeet, in terms of advancing the husband’s status.
        A lot of people who are gamers are not good at relating to other people. A lot of them are not good parents.
        Social ineptness is a stereotype of gamers. If she is too much like you, will she be able to complement you and your kids in your future career?
        What is she sacrificing to be a hot, educated gamer? Flip the script, if you meet a male gym rat who games, can he cook and is he a social butterfly?

      3. Good observation. I think that many women really didn’t understand the value of their role in the deal.
        I see many women in professional roles, today, stressing out about having to be the breadwinner in the family. They wanted to have a career, be equal to men, have the job, the pay, etc….well, now you have the same stress that a man has (or had) in that same position. Drinks, anyone?
        Women really did play a valuable role in being the mother of children, running the home and being a valuable asset (behind the scenes) to a husband’s career. It was such a terrible life (I know, lol)…that they had to get out.
        Now, they had their chance to “play” the man and women are finding out it’s not all that fun. Plus, they’re no happier and without a family (no husband, kids, etc….).
        Thanks, feminism?

  13. My wife and I were just talking about this. We tried to imagine what dating would be like for us if we got divorced, we both shuddered. Our standards would be way too high and they are SIMPLE. Don’t be overweight, be a nonsmoker and be financially stable. Just from those requirements alone, we have probably eliminated over 80% of the single population. Naturally, she would be better off than I. I would be completely fucked.

    1. Yep, it’s pretty sad when you have a few simple rules and still many today could not meet them.
      Those requirements are not bad at all…but I still see employees at work (many) who just can’t make it to work on time (or at all).
      Fuck. It’s pretty bad when the bar is so low yet many still can’t meet it.

  14. Wait a minute. Women have souls? I thought they sought men’s souls because they lack their own.

  15. I saw that video, Danger & Play shared it, as he said these videos are advancing his business and income, yet she gets out of her way to annoy him when he works. It’s sad to witness such impressive men settle with unsupportive chubby women.

    1. Agree. That’s always been my rule one. I workout and take care of myself. If she doesn’t seem to do the same, then she’s out (no big women allowed here).
      I have told many friends, family members, etc…that I will not date someone who is out of shape. Why would I invest so much of my time to eat right, workout and take care of myself while she gets to sit on the couch, eat chips or find excuses not to stay in shape.
      No, thanks. The bus stops and I gladly let them off.

      1. I feel really lame about this ex-fat chick I’ve gotten to know.
        She is very sweet, shy, understanding, fun girl. She used to be very overweight but in her 20s decided it was time to turn her life around… She worked out like a beast.. runs marathons, squats over a plate, toned upper and lower body.
        I was considering her as a possible potential but when we banged I saw all the stretch marks and the saggy boobs. And the psychological body issues she’s carrying around…
        I just can’t do it. Its shitty kuz she really seems like a nice girl… but I just can’t… It aint fair but thats how it is.

        1. And the moment you put a ring on that the fat will come back so fast you’d think you pulled the rip cord on an emergency life raft. I know of lot of women who were fat, leaned out, got married, got fat again.
          Since we are somewhat involved with nerd stuff in this thread, let me just say “It’s a trap!”

        2. Yeah, that’s the sad part. You have to let women know where you stand (always) and never be afraid to remind her of the standard.
          They have so many standards for men so I don’t mind “reminding” them that they could be on the chopping block as well.

  16. There is no such thing as a “soul mate”. I’m a little surprised to see this term thrown around on ROK. It’s a myth and needs to go away. There will be many “ones” in our lives. People find new partners after breakups, divorce and death. getting caught up on “the one” can be damaging. People have killed themselves and others in the most extreme cases of the Oneitis. I’d direct everyone to Rollo Tomassi’s articles on the subject.

    1. In this case I think he’s saying a soulmate is one that you share geeky/niche interests with.

      1. “In this case I think he’s saying a soulmate is one that you share geeky/niche interests with.”
        This, except they don’t have to be geeky/niche interests. When I say soulmate, I mean a woman with whom I inherently have a lot in common with.
        If I truly believed in the ‘There’s only one person for me’ idea of a soulmate, I’d still be a virgin, since having sex with anyone besides my soulmate would be a betrayal to them wouldn’t it?

  17. “Dating” originated in relatively recent times, after fathers lost the ability to act as gatekeepers for their daughters and exert some control over the young men who had access to them. (The automobile and the movie theater accelerated this process by giving men the ability to take girls away from home and fool around with them in the dark.) When you consider the really stupid choices in men today’s young women tend to make when you leave them to their own devices, you have to wonder why we don’t just go back to the old system.

    1. Dating is an extension of courting. Courting existed when fathers guided the daughters to the appropriate boys. Generally the father had to meet and approve of the lad before they could proceed, and there was a host of protocols before the lad was even allowed to be introduced to him. But after all of the official channels had been navigated then there was dating, as far as I’m aware.

      1. Yeah, courting reminds me a lot of what I know about the matchmaking traditions of South Asia.

  18. Brilliant on the smart phone observations. Somebody should make an indie film about it. Try to take control on the first date by immediately taking out your own phone and setting it on the table out in the open for her to see and make a display right in front of her by saying that you are switching off your phone for the date. She should immediately do the same or she is displaying cuntishness. You can’t expect socially polite common sense from a 19 y/o american female. They just don’t have it. You have to lead. She should immediately take your lead and do the same with her phone. If she doesn’t its a negative indicator, just like showing up way late, or not making an effort to dress up. It gets better with older women who have been in the work force. People can actually get fired from their job for checking their smart phone in the middle of an office meeting. A strong boss won’t hesitate to use that as a reason to fire on the spot a marginally productive (replaceable) employee. It sends a powerful message to all the other employees to see someone fired and humiliated that way.

  19. If a woman is into the same shit I’m into, then IMO she has more red flags than a May Day Parade.
    You see I’ve been hornswaggled before.
    I used to do shooting competition and I ended up wifing up a woman who would shoot with me.
    And after that, she stopped.
    And after that, she told me if guns were outlawed, she’d turn me in.
    I refer to her in the past tense now.
    Women do not have enough agency to seriously “be into” anything as far as I am concerned. They are bred against that. So when a woman crosses the line into the realm of “things”, I am suspicious. “Why isn’t she just worried about her looks all of the time like the rest?” I wonder. “Why isn’t she watching reality TV and gossiping all day?” I wonder. Yeah I bet there are women genuinely into “things” but the mindset of women are so collectivized now, even their pastimes and hobbies are not of their own. In my environment, every “outdoors woman” drives a Subaru, wears ugly sandals, wears ugly manly shorts, and has a yellow Labrador.
    “Fitness girls” – same shit – it’s all yoga and this shit called Zumba which last I checked was re branding of aerobics.
    Seriously, is there a fucking magazine they all read? They are pretty much the perfect consumer.

    1. Women’s Health is where Zumba and yoga are advertised, like Men’s Health advertises the paleo diets and Crossfit type trends.

  20. Stephen’s wife Tabitha actually pulled his rough draft of “Carrie” out of the trash can after he threw it in there after being told y publishers that it was too long. She encouraged him to follow through and trim it down before resubmitting it. The rest is history.
    Tabitha and my mom are part of what I call “The Last Generation.”

  21. I’d expand the “female lust phase” beyond 18-28. More like 15-30. If a girl is reasonably good looking she’s already sucking cock in junior high in america and openly fawning over any male considered popular by other girls. Also in american culture now women continue to act like teenagers well into their early 30s, dressing like it and partying like it.

    1. Hell, I’ve seen a couple of 40 and 50 yr olds dressing like their 21 again (with new boob job included).
      It’s pretty sad…I guess their trying to get back to those good old days.

  22. I am going to put out the idea that “shared interests” does not a soul mate make. While shared interests are nice and give people in relationships things to talk about that they can both relate to, it’s a far cry from a slippery notion such as a soul mate.
    I would argue the closest you are going to get to a “soul mate” and I do use the term loosely, is a person with whom you share VALUES. To me soul mate is a red herring of the greatest order anyhow. But lets go with the idea that it’s someone you can really be happy with for a long time.
    Now around these here parts we all tale delight in demonstrating what vapid and shallow creatures the she-things can be, but some of them actually do have dyed in the wool VALUES, things that guide how they act and what they do on a slightly deeper level than Cosmo might offer on any given Tuesday. Values comes closer to describing how we feel about really fundamental questions of right and wrong. Now maybe those concepts are beyond some young ladies and I would suggest that this disqualifies said ladies from consideration for long term mating right away. On the other hand, if you are so lucky as to stumble across a young lady who can identify with your values, you may just possible have the foundation for something of more enduring value.
    I say this because if you do hitch up for a very long time, interests of either party inevitably wander over time. It’s entirely reasonable to expect that yours and her “interests” may well both be completely different in 40 years. Values on the other hand tend to be more of a meta-level thing that endure and change very slowly. They tend to be the foundation of a lot of behaviour and choices that people make, and if your values are in synch up front, chances are you’ll be largely more in synch over the long run even when short term interests change.
    disclaimer: she’s still a chick, so all evo-bio rules still apply, she will still reserve the right to change her mind at will and summarily attempt to renegotiate the terms of any long term relationship just because, well you know, she’s a woman. That having been said however, I think when you find you have very similar VALUES you have the basis for something more than just a few quick shags in the bathroom at the bar.

    1. lol…good points. But, there lies the problem…she’s a chick and her values are probably as consistent as the next episode of “pick a reality TV show”.

      1. Ah yes, but let’s identify the correction for this effect we see so much of.
        One should seek girls who don’t absorb much, if any, programming from the idiot box, in a perfect world, one who loathes that caustic pablum.
        Add that to values and attention span, honesty, dedication and persistence and she will be a keeper and a strength.

    2. Yes sir, spot on.
      If you add to that clear gender-role identity and inherent honesty, one can not lose.
      Do not compromise on this!

  23. A woman’s definition of a ‘soulmate’ changes to ‘fuckbuddy’, ‘ONS’, ‘casual fling’, ‘STF’ or a misdirected ‘LTR’ on her whims. I’ve known plenty of women with over 50+ notches who fucked every dude on the pretext that each of these guys were their ‘soulmates’, or they were on the hunt for their ‘soulmates’. LOL, looks like her soul was dissected into several fragments which were dispersed into the bodies of men she’d fuck in her life, not to mention the dissected soul fragments of other women who’d also find hosts in the same bodies of these men that all these women collectively fucked or would fuck. Two women claiming to fuck their soulmates of men who incidentally have fucked over 100 women. LMAO! Later on, these cocks represent to these women as ‘mistakes’, or the terms I mentioned above. The female hamster is so good at devising irrational hypotheses to mask the need to jump on the cock carousel – ‘soulmates’ just being one term. Basically, a woman who talks about ‘soulmates’ is more likely to be a relationship whore – Trouble Maker described it vividly in an earlier article.
    The concept of soulmates is a bullshit propaganda having its origins in witchcraft, and all the New Age BS that you see western women today getting themselves into. I might be wrong, but I guess this has to do with the increasing female popularity of all the femcentric pagan religions which talk about the concept of a God and a Goddess, who supposedly represent the ‘duality of the Divine’. Screw that shit. Since paganism is increasingly getting popular with young western women (Gothic punk sluts, women getting into Ouija Boards, astrology, Tarot and all divination shit) – a lot of them believe in this shit of soulmates. Go to any tarot, astrology or divination site, and you see the word ‘soulmate’ thrown around a lot by pseudo-psychics brainwashing women into believing that they’d soon find the one, in their quest by jumping on the cock carousel. I’ve even had quite a few chicks who considered me to be their ‘soulmate’ when there were actually nothing but FWBs and casual bangs. Sometimes chicks throw this word to trick men by emotional manipulation into committing to them.
    I wonder if every person had a soulmate, then why do people fuck around so much? Ideally, they should only be getting hard-ons and gina tingles for their soulmates alone, right? Soulmates is the same BS as the concept of ‘love at first sight’ – which is actually in reality ‘lust at first sight’.
    I always use the line ‘let’s find out and merge our souls in bed’ with a sarcastic grin to a chick who talks about ‘soulmates’ during dates. It puts across your intentions directly, and neither does it waste your time. Chicks today are already deep in this romantic deluded shit. In the end, the reality is that humanity is polygamous, and women are hypergamous. All ‘soulmates’ are dispensable and replaceable.
    Men today must never settle for something less, and definitely not when it comes to women. Frankly speaking, women today don’t have ‘staying’ power in relationships. Neither are they ‘consistent’. Amoral, whimsical creatures that they are – women’s interests can change whimsically, and irrationally with time. Even if you’d feel she’s actually resonating with you on the same wavelength at the beginning. You’d see 40+ happily married women suddenly ditch stable marriages with devoted husbands and kids, to transform into cougars and go to sexcapades to the Carribean seeking humongous cocks, out of ‘sheer boredom’. The world in the west today is a woman’s entitled oyster, so women actually expect men to change and dance according to their whims later on within relationships, even though women might display similarities in taste in the beginning.

  24. Three things are at work here: feminism, hook-up culture, and modern society’s obsession with “happiness.”
    Feminists encourage women to pursue their own happiness. A woman looking for her “soul-mate” is looking for someone to give her a fairy tale life, to make her happy. But nobody lives a fairly tale life, and happiness is always contingent, fleeting.
    In contrast, both of my grandmothers did not marry to make themselves “happy.” They were dedicated to their families, and so they married men who would make good husbands and fathers. Both of my grandfathers were good providers, but also were loyal, strong, mature, disciplined, skilled, and similarly dedicated to raising a family. My grandmothers worked hard. They took care of their children and did women’s chores (cooking, cleaning, etc), while my grandfathers had jobs and did men’s chores (yard work, home and auto maintenance, etc). Feminists would cringe at the lives my grandmothers lived, and yet my grandmothers had loving, life-long, happy marriages.
    There’s also a lesson here for the fellas. Sure it’s fun to bang, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to just marry the pussy that makes you the happiest ’cause she likes the same stuff you. My grandfathers got married when they were ready and wanted to start families. They made sure to marry women who would make good wives and mothers. Instead of marrying family-oriented women, too many men settle and try to make families with immature whores. If you’re an alpha and you want to pass on your genes, then do yourself and the rest of us a favor and marry a woman who’s not gonna fuck up your kids.
    Make sure that your actions, decisions, and judgments are in-line with your goals and values. If your priority at this time of your life is to have fun, then look for the emotionally insecure chick with daddy issues who will suck you off after the first date. If your priority is to have a family, then look for a woman who will make a good wife and mother.

    1. Yes, very good points here.
      Women, today, are looking for an easy life (a happy fairy tale life). So, when that life doesn’t appear (like in the movies) she tries to move on to someone else….it’s an endless cycle. Life is what it is….boring sometimes…exciting other times.
      I’m not here to entertain women (fuck that). Plus, anyone not willing to go through the rough times (like the old grandmothers) aren’t worth a damn anyways.
      Many women will be left, alone, with cats (or dogs)….and no men.

  25. I’m really not sure what I should do to find the type of woman I want. They’re like cassette tapes, they just don’t make those here anymore. As out of place as it may seem here, I’m looking for a wife. As much as I hate to finally admit it to myself, I’m gonna have to go overseas to find one. I can’t go to ukraine, of course, since they’re in the middle of a small war. But I’ve planned a trip through Eastern Europe in about 4 months. I understand there is no guarantee of success, but I’d rather have a chance at something good, rather than have a guarantee of shit.

  26. Manny Coto’s run on Enterprise happened! Season 4 episodes 3 through 21 were awesome.
    Also, its been a decade since a trek show was on TV. WTB a new Trek show based in the original universe post Romulus explosion.

  27. On principe, Gina seemed like a completely average Millenial, fuckable and somewhat dateable, but not serious relationship material.
    Wel I got news for you all: most women under 30 are not and will never be serious relationship material. Get the idea of finding a western Millenial girl who is relationship material out out of your brain and erradicate it, for life.
    So date the Ginas of the world, try to fuck them and try to enjoy them for around: 4 fucks, 4 dates or 4 weeks, whichever comes first. Oh and both of you will be dating (several) people on the side.
    Such is the bitter red-pill reality of the Millennial dating scene.

  28. Roosh had an article about the death of male authenticity. This article falls right into that category. It’s just how the game is set up. Women are on top of the hill defending and we are on the bottom always fighting an uphill battle. If you act thirsty you will be punished. If you entertain and demonstrate creativity, strength and social intelligence you are rewarded. Never drop your act in front of a woman…always maintain the mask and keep up the con…never stop gaming.

  29. The idea of “companionate marriage” – i.e., that men are going to find a wife who can be their true companion and intimate friend – is a ridiculous idea introduced late in history. It was part of the first wave of liberal, counter-cultural revolution in the West, namely, the Protestant Reformation. I know that there are many good men who value masculinity who are Protestant, but I would encourage modern Protestants to observe the history of the “Reformation” from its inception to now, and see if they don’t conclude that Protestantism is but the first wave of liberal social revolution now reaching its bitter, logical conclusion. Like all radical, anti-civilizational movements in the modern West, the first Protestants realized that flattering women and pretending to take them seriously was a great way to get a feckless horde of broads on your side in the war upon the foundations of society. Furthermore, they realized that the traditional, Catholic culture was knit together very tightly by bonds of friendship and partnership between men. In the first place, all of the positions of intellectual and spiritual power were reserved to men – and, moreover, to men who had no attachment to women. Beyond this, even the married men were bound in fraternal orders, guilds, feudal relationships, warrior bands, etc. Women had a very definite place in the traditional culture: bear my children, gladden my home, receive my love and adulation as the prettiest thing in my house, offer your gentle support, but otherwise do not intrude upon the male sphere or presume to tell me my business.
    Over and against this, the Protestants encouraged apostatizing clergy and monastics to marry, and encouraged “companionate marriage” for everyone – a view of marriage which encouraged the man to look to his wife as his essential equal (even if in a role of token submission for unity’s sake), his dearest friend and soul mate, and to bond primarily or exclusively with her in friendship. Some modern Protestants still write of this change approvingly, as though it were a “step in the right direction” to modern equality, and the more “Biblical” view. Really, this was the beginning of the end, because it hugely increased the influence of women in society – first by giving her opinions more weight by making her an “equal companion,” and second, by replacing the man’s expectations and loyalties as to friendship, weakening a man’s homosocial bonds of friendship, camaraderie and partnership as the expectation grew that his wife had primary claims on his friendship and down time.
    Men manifest a certain level of personal disinterest in their pursuits. A man may engage in things with an eye to self-improvement, but in the end a solid man prioritizes the good in itself, and not himself. A man wants to lift weights, not because “I am such a special dude for lifting weights,” but because “a man should be strong and good, and I am a man, and therefore I have an interest and a duty in being strong and good.” A man takes up an hobby because he finds the thing interesting or valuable in itself, and loses himself in it. A man is sure in himself, and so he relates to other things, outside himself, in objective ways, forgetful of himself. With women, it is the other way ’round: a woman is always unsure of herself, concerned with appearances and happy thoughts about herself, and so she engages in everything as it relates to herself, subjectively. She engages in self improvement because “I’m such a good person; look at me having a job and being a single mom; I can truly do it all.” If she even bothers to have any interests or hobbies beyond gossip and television, she takes them up because they make her feel interesting. There is a good chance that they will involve politics or activism, since these maximize self-validation. This is a big reason why men have always banished women from public life.
    Now, friendship is often found in the shared enjoyment of an interest, hobby or pursuit, and as we’ve seen, only men tend to really enjoy the hobby for its own sake. For friendship to deepen, there must be an interest in the other person simply for his own sake, with this same kind of healthy, personal disinterest. This personal disinterest does not preclude having very strong feelings of affection, brotherly love, etc., for a friend; it just means that we love the friend because he is loveable, and not because loving him reflects upon ourselves in any way. Since the feminine outlook tends to be the inverse, I think it is simply futile to look for friendship with the vast majority of women. There are rare exceptions, but in general I think they are at a disadvantage in this regard, and that most of them never overcome it. No man should ever expect that he is going to get selfless love or devotion from a woman, let alone that he will get real friendship with integrity from a supposed “soul mate” in female form. Most “game” techniques (formerly known simply as how a man must handle his woman) are designed merely to manage a woman’s sense of personal, emotional validation from the relationship. Man has always known that a woman will not love him with objectivity and integrity, even if she’s a good gal, for the most part; the best that can be hoped for, is to make her feel good about herself for flattering herself that she loves you.
    Women can idolize their men as “soul mates” because a) we are greater than them and b) the idea of a “soul mate” actually makes them feel good about *themselves,* more than about you. In other words, they have a selfish need for the concept because it “completes” them, whereas a man is looking to find a connection with someone whose depth and honesty of interest can match his own. We men cannot find this with a woman; we can only find this level of emotional bond with another man whom we can love like a brother. The ancients never flattered people with the romantic ideal of a “soul mate.” The highest bond of love and friendship they knew was between two men, who could each call the other “alter ego” (“my other self”). Even amongst men, it is rare to find this friend; and in modern times, where men are not really sure how to handle intimacy outside the context of sex, and where a very loud and obnoxious gay movement lends a certain edge of tension to intimacy and love between men (even when purely platonic), the hurdles are quite large. Still, best of luck to all the men out there. If you are wanting to spend the rest of your life with someone whom you truly love, and whose sincerity and fidelity in truly loving you is beyond question, my advice is to find a best friend whom you can love as a brother. If you marry, make sure you find a woman who knows the score and is content to be wife, mother and beloved… and nothing more.

    1. fascinating post, even if from a protestant perspective I dislike the indictment. I think you’re right about the reformation to some extent because, amongst other things it represented by necessity a revolt against authority (except with respect to the principle of cuius regio, eius religio), and a democratic element which gave the believer access to divine authority, including to displace erstwhile divine right as seen in the english revolution (which saw some real radical thinking) and the french wars of religion etc. It might not be wrong to trace the idea of progress back to such roots, but then its not as though catholicism didn’t ask for trouble.
      Prior to the reformation as far as I understand the church was not always consistent in its evaluation of celibacy versus marriage, at times scorning even chastity within marriage. . I think in the relatively early stage after it had settled a bit following the many heresies of the first few centuries it advanced a notion that only celibacy was godly / righteous, whereby only the celibate could something akin to the ‘heroic virtue’ the pinnacle of which was saintly martyrdom, as celebrated in the hagiography of the time. In later centuries the church changed its thinking I think to admit the potential virtue of chastity in married life, but at times even adopted something like a points system to measure relative virtue. In other words it wasn’t always very balanced, and in the implied distaste for all things sexual/mundane/ earthly probably reflected the kind of manichean dualism that would later produce its own great heresy in catharism.
      Moreover I’m slightly uncomfortable with this idealisation of brotherly love as something equivalent to ‘alter ego’. The notion of the other half does seem to come from the Symposium, I think, which as I remember puts forward the idea that we are all cut in two (two identical halves) something which is very close to the idea of the soul mate since the the two halves spend their time yearning for re-unification. I don’t recall if the notion of platonic love is advanced in the symposium itself – feel free to advise on the matter if you know – but I didn’t get the impression that the idea was particularly platonic, and from the time of the greeks there has always been a degree of ambiguity about such love. Is it pure, is it sexual?
      Personally I think the simple idea of fraternity or brotherhood is a sufficient basis for such relationships. Maybe we should just abandon the idea of soul-mates once and for all, and leave them to women. I just don’t see any other male being my ‘alter ego’ even if they may be far better suited to genuine friendship than women.

      1. Thanks for the substantive reply, Michael. I’ll apologize for the length of my reply, but you raise interesting topics. I won’t be offended if you don’t have the time to read it.
        To respond first and most briefly to the point about the Symposium: the “alter ego” doesn’t mean the “other half,” but “the other self.” The friend was not viewed as the other half of the soul, but as simply the same self living in another man. Whereas marriage was two becoming one flesh, the friend was like one soul with his companion, living in two separate bodies. The Symposium is definitely a comedic work by Plato. I do think that it makes a serious point, but its serious point is that there can be little philosophy about love and erotic desire; they are often irrational and comic topics, and that is the most honest way to discuss them. It does not represent a serious proposal by Plato at all, as to the metaphysical origins of love and desire. Plato discusses homosexuality and effeminacy more seriously in the Gorgias, and his sharp disapproval of them form the death blow to Callicles’ argument Any understanding of the Symposium that doesn’t take this into account, is missing Plato’s real views.
        Platonic love is not treated in the Symposium, as I recall. I think the ambiguity about platonic love between men has always existed because it can be erotic, but is not sexual. Nowadays, people think “erotic” and “sexual” are practically synonyms, but the ancients never had an hard time thinking of ardent affection between male friends, or even the soul’s yearning for God, as an erotic love. Erotic love is fixed upon a desired object. It is obvious that sex would be an erotic desire, but there can be kinds of erotic desire which are not sexual. Generally men, in times of sexual self-confidence, have had fun with the topic and have not shied away from presenting male friendship in homoerotic terms, whether seriously or in jest. There is no doubt that there is an erotic element to the love between Gilgamesh and Enkidu, Achilles and Patroclus, Amis and Amiloun, Eger and Grime, Orestes and Pylades, Ss. Sergius and Bacchus, Ss. Polyeuktos and Nearchos, etc. These stories are even told in ways that self-consciously play on homoerotic themes, either seriously or in jest. Even modern “guy movies,” good and bad alike, often draw attention to male bonds in homoerotic ways, seriously or in jest. Homosexuals and other deviants in modernity like to think that this is because there really is a latent “gay” tension or desire between these ostensibly straight men. They see athletes smacking each other on the butt as proof that they really wish they could get down to some depraved, hardcore action. But healthy men are rightly bored and repulsed by this prurient posturing of the deviant, and understand how there is a certain kind of admiration, camaraderie and affection implied in a butt-slap, in the right circumstances, which is not remotely sexual. But homosexuals have sexualized their unmet need for male bonding, and that is why they find all male bonding to be sexual. The homoeroticism that can accompany male cultural institutions is titillating for a gay man, but is humorous and even comforting to a straight man, because: 1) the superficial similarity of this erotic admiration and love between men to sexual eros is kind of hilarious and disarming, if you are secure in your own sexuality; 2) the language of desire and love is often the best suited to describe the bonds of a particularly profound, platonic friendship, but precisely because this manly, platonic love is so far removed from the unmanly perversion of homosexual desire, men want to use the language of love and desire to describe it while simultaneously making their rejection of sexual desire explicit. It should be obvious why, in a culture where the gay agenda has caused every male bond to be suspect, things that were clear, and rather funny and light-hearted to men in the past, suddenly become sexually ambiguous and tense for men in the present.
        Now, to the theological/historical stuff:
        I’m an ex-Protestant myself (ex-atheist before that), and was very anti-Catholic as a Protestant. I would never say that the Catholic Church was without problems, especially on the eve of the Reformation; but the Church is the Church and we can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater when attempting a reformation. I do have to say that after a lot of study, including reading the very earliest Christian authors outside of the Bible, I had to conclude that everyone reads the Bible through a certain hermeneutic, and that the best hermeneutic was the one that saw Christianity more as a Church instituted by Christ and governed by those He appointed (and their appointed successors, in turn), kept united in Sacramental bonds and grace; the reduction of the faith to a series of intellectual propositions about how to be saved, subjugated entirely to the individual’s actions and understanding, is an idea that could only have made sense to an era of exploding humanism. When I set down my Protestant hermeneutic, I was amazed at how much more natural the Catholic heremeneutic was, when reading the Bible. The Bible doesn’t speak of “accepting the Lord Jesus as your personal Saviour,” and it doesn’t speak of “personal assurance of salvation.” It does speak of being baptized into Christ; it does speak of the Church (not the “Bible”) as “the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth.” Jesus did tell Peter He would build His Church permanently upon him and his confession, did give him the keys, did give him (and the other Apostles) the power to forgive sins, did tell them that an erring brother should be “brought to the Church; and if he will not hear the Church, let him be to you as the heathen and tax collector.” St. Paul did say to keep the traditions, whether by word or epistle, and he did say that the faithful should obey their prelates set over them by God. I was surprised at just how much the Scriptures burst with Eucharistic imagery (the disciples en route to Emmaus “knew Christ in the breaking of the bread;” “I am the vine, you are the branches;” “I am the Bread of heaven;” etc.). In short, I came to understand the Church-Sacrament-Hierarchy model as being both the only historically attested form of Christianity, and the one most naturally found in the Scriptures if one dropped the humanistic hermeneutic of the Reformation, that made everything personal, subjective, solipsistic and devoid of authority… just like everything else in modernity.
        Since it is better to obey God than men, and we must render to Caesar only what is Caesar’s, I would say that the principle of “cuius regio, eius religio” is itself an embodiment of the spirit of humanist rebellion in that age. It is obvious that it assumes that the faith is entirely subjugated, rightly, to the decrees of the State. Anathema sit! The proper principle is vera religio sit regi negotio: “let the true Religion be pressing business for the king.”
        As to celibacy: in the early Church there were movements that regarded even proper sexual relations in marriage as sinful or wicked, and from time to time such groups have popped up, as with Cathars, Shakers, etc. But the Church has always consistently condemned that attitude, beginning with the Synod of Gangra way back in 340. From the very earliest days of the Church (even in the Bible, in the life of Christ and the Virgin, Christ’s own teaching on marriage and St. Paul’s teaching found in 1 Corinthians), the Church has regarded celibacy as better than marriage, with marriage still remaining good. Already in the epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch, we find him mentioning the regular practice of certain men vowing celibacy. The reasons for this were manifold, but the most important, as you rightly observed, had to do with the connection between celibacy and martyrdom. The early Christians expected an imminent Parousia and Final Judgment, and for this reason marriage seemed imprudent. But beyond this practical consideration, there was a strong sense amongst the early Christians that imitation of Christ was the ideal form of life. They did not simply imitate Him in His celibacy, but had a strong sense that conforming one’s self to Christ in His voluntary sufferings, passion and privations, in order to also be joined to Him in His Resurrection, was the definitive form of Christian life (cf. Phillipians 3:7-20).
        Past this, because the early Christians conceived of the Christian life not as believing certain propositions about Jesus in exchange for simple forgiveness, but rather, as being joined to Christ in a Sacramental, true and literal sense through Baptism, the Eucharist, etc., the Christians believed that the Kingdom of God already existed in each and every member of Christ, that each member of Christ lived the life of Christ in union with Christ, and that those who have already been seated with Christ in the heavens should begin to lead an angelic and heavenly way of life. They also believed that, in Baptism, they had already been raised with Christ. Now, Christ Himself affirmed that marriage did not exist in the Kingdom of God – “for in the Resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven.” Thus, the Church confessed that the proper state of a Christian – already risen with Christ, already living as a member of Christ, already being seated in the heavens and thus called to lead the life of heaven and of Christ – was and always will be celibacy. In the Resurrection of the flesh we will all be this way; Christians already have the seed of this reality through baptism, and thus do well to live this life in the here and now, if they can. Still, because we have one foot in these realities and one foot out, the Church was not about to cancel the blessing upon marriage. Thus, marriage remained good, but the teaching that a Christian more properly should be celibate, if he could manage it, was acknowledged by the Church to be an inescapable and inevitable element of the Apostolic preaching. The concept of martyrdom was certainly not unrelated to this, for the Church also understands that the martyr is the natural model of the Christian: following Christ in his rejection by the world; those who are not called upon to shed blood, may nevertheless voluntarily put themselves to death. As St. Paul said: “I buffet my body and make it my slave, lest after preaching to others I should be disqualified.”
        So, for all those reasons – basic ascetic discipline, detachment from the world, single-minded devotion to God, the desire to embrace voluntary privations for the sake of Christ and conformity to His life and passion, and the desire to live an heavenly manner of life, given the fact that the Christian was already raised from the dead and seated with Christ – celibacy already had its privileged place in Scripture, and the subsequent experience of the Church. It remains true that only those who embrace continence – even the married – cannot be considered Saints. This is not because sex is evil. Rather, it is because we only venerate martyrs as Saints – and martyrs are those who give their all for Christ, to the point of shedding blood or, failing that, practicing an heroic level of virtue and self-mortification that aims at dying to the world and living the heavenly life. Sex is not considered evil, but it is numbered amongst the things that befell human nature as a result of the fall. After the fall, man’s mortality introduced a need to eat, sleep, procreate, that was not present before. These things (eating and procreating, at least) may have occurred before the Fall, but in a different manner and without the pressing urgency of mortality being involved. Sexual procreation is no more evil than eating or sleeping, but it was introduced primarily to preserve the race until Christ should come (which has happened), and it is not necessary for personal survival (unlike eating and sleeping). Now, the Saints are expected to have mortified themselves even in relation to food, drink and sleep as part of their martyrdom, returning to the state of paradise or even living a supernatural and heavenly form of life through their union with Christ. In this situation, then, sex is obviously a pleasure to be cut off entirely, since it serves primarily worldly purposes and is not related to the quest for complete self-abnegation and imitation of Christ. Most importantly, the effects of original sin and concupiscence had so ravaged human nature, that a man cannot attain orgasm without the pleasure overwhelming his mind for a moment. The Church has always taught that the presence of concupiscence (a desire that exceeds the bounds of mere reason) is present in sex, even if not in a necessarily blameworthy way (i.e., a man experiences the ravages of sin, but in not willing them in and of themselves, does not become complicit in the sinfulness). Because this experience is unnatural and is oppressed by the corruption of sin, even though a man does not sin merely in experiencing sexual pleasure, it has always been considered something that a person seeking to live in the natural and blessed state would avoid.
        The Church’s first converts would obviously be from worldly cultures that viewed marriage as the highest good, and so many of the first clergy would be married men; in fact the Scriptures declared that men who had remarried or who did not govern their families well, should not be ordained. But this should not be misconstrued, as it often is, as saying that celibate men were disqualified from ordination: celibate clergy were present already from the beginning – St. Paul was, as were John, Timothy and Titus. The other Apostles ceased sleeping with their wives, and the ideal very soon emerged that, if a man aspired to serve God, he should be the kind of man who had embraced this kind of total commitment to personal martyrdom for Christ’s sake. Even the married clergy were required (and are still, in Eastern Christianity where the priests may be married) to abstain from their wives’ beds for a time before and after celebrating the Sacraments. Having been in Protestant and Orthodox Churches with married clergy, I can say that a celibate clergy strikes me as far superior. Though, now that we have clergy for whom celibacy has become detached from all the ideals mentioned above, even their celibacy seems to be of little use to them. Many priests seem to think that their celibacy is simply a pragmatic matter of giving all their time to God; they have forgotten how it involves a radical union with Christ, and the blessed privilege of living the heavenly and angelic life already in the Church, the Kingdom of God on earth. I pity priests who have forgotten the glory of their heritage.

        1. Thank you for taking the time to explain your ideas and your faith, which you have done in a compelling way. You have explained a number of things, particularly about the early church, that were unclear to me.
          I was brought up within the protestant tradition, lutheranism to be precise, and although I have not kept up the practice of my father’s faith it remains important to me. I am not overly familiar with catholicism but admire its traditions, legacy and perhaps also its somewhat unbending nature. Perhaps there remains some potential for greater ecumenicism that would go some way towards bridging the schism, but obviously and sadly wars have been fought on that issue. For myself there are many points I agree upon and some I am less sure of. A writer I have found compelling within the lutheran tradition is Bohhoeffer, who famously tried to kill hitler, and whose theology speculates upon what religion should be in a ‘world come of age’, although I fully understand how one might question that conclusion, given the childishness of so much of our culture and politics.
          The question of the proper attitude towards sex though is I think a hugely important one, and despite the difference between the catholic and protestant takes on this issue I think it may be worth focussing on commonalities. Indeed the issue of celibacy, versus chastity / continence versus ROK style game even, is a strange one, since these broad themes appear again and again on these pages, and although sometimes they jar, sometimes also they seem strangely connected.
          While it might be mistaken to equate religious arguments for sexual continence with the arguments about sexual economics (typically evolutionary) we often discuss here, I would note the similarities between the idea of concupiscence and ‘thirst’. From a secular point of view both concepts imply inordinate slavish desire and loss of control over if you like the objects of attention, and perhaps to approach it in that way would be to find a degree of commonality: if sexual desire, or any other desire or addictive force, be it slothfulness, gluttony, greed etc overcomes you then you are oriented to that thing and not to the free and chosen objects of your attention / consciousness. If you are religious perhaps the proper object of your attention in this regard should be your devotion to God, but whether that is or is not the case – and for many on ROK it will clearly not be the case – then it is still true that inordinate desire (concupiscence but extended if that is legitimate to any strong desire one loses control over) will orient one away from the proper (freely chosen and valorised) object of one’s attention.
          This seems to me one of the great and perennials issues in religion and philosophy, particularly in an age beyond Freud, where repression of sexual desire may typically be seen as pathological rather than a healthy and natural thing. In this sense, and outside of the catholic / protestant debate we began with, then the first order of the day perhaps should be a simple striving towards continence, defined as self-control or self-mastery (rather specifically in religious terms). To define this broadly, rather than only with regard to sex, would perhaps dovetail with the idea you describe of the fallen-ness of all such bodily hungers. To illustrate recently I was diagnosed with diabetes, something which while it obviously has its drawbacks, has insofar as I have had to respond to it constructively, enabled me to rein in certain physical appetites e.g. for sugar, fatty unhealthy foods for instance, while still allowing me to consume more or less what I wish in a controlled way. I have found that as a result I feel much healthier, but wish I could I could have shown such control, such enkrasia, without the issue being so forced. Arguably sex is just one such appetite, although with an unusually high sugar content perhaps.
          Not all men (or women) can be celibate, or will conclude that that is the necessarily superior state of being but it seems to me that in this age when we are so enslaved by desire, and indeed increasingly by the desire to be desired, then perhaps the first thing to do is to work to promote the kind of self-discipline that grounds continence of any kind, that is the disciplines of self-control / self-mastery, that are the minimum conditions of any real kind of freedom.
          Thanks again for your thought-provoking post

        2. Thanks in turn for your substantive reply.
          I also am fascinated by Bonhoeffer; I read some of his works back in my Protestant days and admired him. Yes, the idea that the world had “come of age” was very much current at that time, with the explosion of science, travel, the atomic age, etc. It was a major element of the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II” (the insane liberalism that dissidents fomented throughout the Catholic Church during and after the 2nd Vatican Council). I have always found it ironic, because the people at the council failed to do their duty as grown men, while prattling on in puerile fashion about the Church “growing up.” All the manly forms of reverence and piety, facing hard truths and rejoicing in the celestial hierarchy and splendour in liturgy and prayer were banished as “childish forms of servitude,” and were replaced with the most banal, infantile hymns about nothing but feelings and wishes and dreams. The Church began to resemble a Kindergarten, in its cloying ditties and felt banners and faggot priests in rainbow robes. Truly, the “abomination of desolation” had made its appearance. And the world was busy congratulating itself on its new-found wisdom and maturity!
          I think that “thirst” and concupiscence do have a lot of overlap, as you point out. In the past, long before Christianity, men had already worked out the implications of what we’re talking about. What does it mean to have self control? Self mastery? Is pleasure good? Bad? Neither? Both? If pleasure is good, why limit it? If it is bad, why make use of it at all? The conclusion arrived at by Western Civilization, even before Christianity, and which to me seems eminently reasonable, is that pleasure is inherently good in and of itself, but the complexities surrounding pleasure are a moral hazard that lead men, often, to enjoy pleasure in damaged and damaging ways. They observed that pleasure can entice men towards natural goods, and can often be used to accentuate the enjoyment of goods more perfectly. When used in this way, they regarded pleasure as good. When pleasure was separated from its natural good, or was pursued as an end in itself (which it is ipso facto, when separated from the good of its natural ends, even if one tries to make it an accessory to other goods), they regarded pleasure as evil. They realized that the enjoyment of pleasure had to be pursued with great reason and discipline, if a man wanted to live a life worthy of a man. In the Church, the theology of it was worked out even more profoundly.
          The Fathers taught that God, in the beginning, created man with a rational capacity to enjoy God both in and of Himself, as well as amongst the delights which He had placed in creatures. But our first parents directed this capacity for delight and enjoyment to self-serving ends; implicit in this (and even explicitly, per the history in Genesis) is the desire to see one’s self usurp the place of God, joining the will to a principle that has no existence apart from God and, in attempting to enjoy it without reference to God, necessarily joining one’s self to a principle of non-existence or even anti-existence. From this, the breach and void in existence known as sin, and its existence-corroding side-effects known as concupiscence and corruption (mortality being part of the latter) entered the cosmos… or, rather, became vacuums within the cosmos. Hell also became inevitable: the state of a being willing non-being. The Fathers teach that God introduced pain and suffering as a curse upon man for his heinous crime. But, since God is good and always works to heal mankind, this curse was itself designed to be the means of the cure. The curse was pain, suffering, death. St. Maximos the Confessor and other Fathers, teach that this principle of pain and suffering was set against human nature, as a check upon its evil. In this way, pain and suffering is the consequence of all pleasure pursued in a manner contrary to right reason. It seems all bad, but it is not; pain and suffering, and death, give man the material with which to repent, to be brought to his senses, and ultimately to reject the treachery of pleasure contrary to reason. Just as the pain of a burn tells our nerves to pull back from the fire, the pain and suffering we experience amidst the pursuit of vain pleasures gives us pause. The Fathers also observed, as I stated above, that the nature of man after the fall is such that it is easily perturbed and overthrown by sensual pleasure, no longer having the solidity and strength of its pristine splendour. Every man is conceived in a pleasure so powerful that it overthrows at least the father’s reason in a manner contrary to nature’s perfect state. Thus, every man’s existence is predicated upon this pleasure, spends its life in this subjection to pleasure, and ends in the pain and suffering consequent thereto.
          But God was not wholly unjust; the problem of pain may seem difficult at times, but one has to say at least this in God’s defense: He Himself came and shared in our pain, suffering and death just like us. When we also consider what an unfathomable condescension this is, for one such as He, it is hard to find fault with the God Who chose to suffer His sentence upon mankind in person. But because His birth was in an altogether new manner, of a pure virgin and without the irrational pleasure that predicates every other man’s existence, the sentence of pain, suffering and death became unjust in His case. He was in every respect a natural man; but His birth was without predication upon the unnatural. In regards to Christ, then, pain, suffering and death are themselves condemned for having dared to lay claim upon Him, for they had no claim. In Baptism, every Christian is incorporated into Christ’s very Body, and shares with Him in His new birth… and, consequently, shares with Him in the right to become detached from irrational pleasure, and to turn suffering into something voluntarily embraced as a condemnation *upon* sin, rather than something suffered involuntarily *because of* sin. This is why those in Christ are no longer subject to the Law and are entirely blameless and forgiven. They share in His innocence, His immunity to sin and irrational pleasure and thus, when they embrace sufferings and mortification – perhaps even martyrdom – like Him, they are seen to be little Christs, perfect images of their Head, who are not condemned by sin so much as they stand forth as living condemnations of the principle of sin itself. “If by the Spirit you put carnal deeds to death, you shall live.”
          In either case, the pagan or the Christian, the stress is placed upon using pleasure only in ways that correspond to its natural ends and goods. In Christianity, there is a striving even to transcend natural goods in favour of supernatural perfection, which leads to celibacy, martyrdom, voluntary mortifications , and the things we’ve already spoken of. I sometimes wish there were more attempts to call men to the beauty of rational pleasure, whether that of natural, pagan discipline or supernatural, Christian asceticism, without coming off as a scold, chiding them for “breaking the rules.” The “rules” always point to deeper realities. I hope I can sometimes succeed in pointing to those deeper realities so that, as you mentioned, men can see the ideals of continence, discipline, natural reason, etc., as the positive reasons that always exist in and of themselves for self-discipline and abstinence from pleasures that exceed the bonds of reason.

        3. “What does it mean to have self control? Self mastery? Is pleasure good? Bad? Neither? Both? If pleasure is good, why limit it? If it is bad, why make use of it at all”
          Thank you for your post. The above have always been difficult questions, but in some ages they come to have a special urgency. I think this is one such age. I have long been concerned with the trend towards separating, and
          compartmentalising the business of sex and reproduction for instance. With respect to gastronomy for example one can still focus upon healthy eating as part of healthy living, where the enjoyment of the food is not entirely separate from the health of the food – there is little in the way of pure hedonism here. In or our own time our culture indulges in unhealthy living perhaps e.g. through junk food / fat acceptance for example, but ideologically speaking there does not appear to be a separation between the principles of eating and healthy living – it is only the practice that is so often divergent. With sex and reproduction however those things are now ideologically separated to the point where they could almost be envisioned as processes that one day might be wholly separated. Homosexuality, seems to be an example of this, however sex as recreation rather than for the purpose of reproduction is a culture we are all part of, unless of course we are chaste in marriage / celibate. The puritans of old were often tyrannical fanatics, but today’s fanatics seem rather to be hedonists (at least strategically), who define themselves and others according to their desires, and where it is the desires rather than the people who hold them, which ‘go forth and multiply’.
          I understand the argument that says sex, its existence and enjoyment is an earthly matter, less than ideal, less than heavenly, falling short of the heroic virtue that is the imitation of christ, of heaven. It still seems to me somewhat dualistic though, or less abstractly, to set the bar very high. One of the main complaints we have against progressivism for instance is that it seeks to mould society in ways that simply disregard biology, nature, human weakness etc. In a sense it’s not the even the (tendency towards) dualism I have difficulty with, but simply the idea that our virtue should be ‘heroic’. Not all men are made for marriage (or game) and by implication not all men are made for celibacy. Sometimes we just have to lower our expectations in order to avoid making ourselves and each other thoroughly miserable.
          One caveat to my own caveat though: there is a tradition I think in christian (and jewish) mysticisim that sees God’s purpose as a kind of narcissism if you like – here used not in the pathological sense employed when we typically use the term, but rather to describe the desire of the Godhead, the divine to be seen/ understood. In much mystical thought and perhaps also in mainstream christianity there is I think this sense that God wants us to see Him, hence the emphasis on revelation for example. In the Christian tradition, at least in the fringe catholic mysticism of Simone Weil for instance, it is precisely we, ourselves, who prevent this, for we are literally ‘in the way’, the part that impedes perspective on the whole. Our personality (for Weil, a negative thing) our wilful resistance to be de-created in the face of the kind of suffering or sacrifice you refer to (as in the book of Job perhaps) ensures that we see only ourselves, and in that way we are blinded to god and eternity.
          This is one sense in which the self arguably can usurp the place of God. Likewise when the child becomes an adult it may choose to honour its parents, or alternatively rebel and usurp their place and function, forgetting their roots, origin, paternity. Perhaps there is always a bit of both but
          clearly this age favours rebellion / usurpation. In using the metaphor of child / parent I am returning here to Bonhoeffer’s notion of the world come of age once more, because the underlying metaphor is clearly of humanity as a child that is coming of age. Clearly Bonhoeffer was not in favour of usurping the place of God, yet I think he spoke of the possibility of (the christian) living without the ‘working hypothesis of god’. A provocative idea no doubt, and
          one that might on the surface seem aligned with the virtual atheism of some
          modern churches. I would consider however that it is perhaps part of an ambivalent tradition here in which man serves as both vehicle for this perception of the eternal (in a rather Hegelian way) but where the (apparent) ‘progress’ of humanity that accompanies God’s (apparent) recession from the world offers the alternative of either hubris and pride (what we see all around us perhaps) or the possibility – much harder to do – of assuming those responsibilities that come with burgeoning adulthood. This does not mean that we cease to be children, any more than a son who honours his father ceases to be his father’s son, but that our relation to the eternal may evolve even if the eternal does not.
          Evolution here, a word with many negative connotations for the religious minded, should not need means a further downwards spiral (although equally it could do). It could quite easily mean progress towards understanding of those “deeper realities” you mention, those “ideals of continence, discipline, natural reason, etc.”. People will always differ over the forms of philosophy and theology etc, sometimes even while agreeing on the essential content.

        4. Michael, sorry for the delay in responding to this; I’ve been a busy man for a bit. Your points on the general concern with health and natural wholesomeness, and the strange disconnect on sexual issues, is well taken, and one that I’ve remarked on for a long while. I recently had lunch with a childhood friend, who sadly has become a commie pinko feminist in adulthood. I’ve known her since we were eight, her father was my principal, her mother was the director of the “Gifted Education” program I was in… in other words, I care about these people and have known them since childhood, but their politics are just toxic.
          Anyway, she’s started pulling this crap that a lot of the sjw types seem to do, nowadays, wherein she pretends to have all kinds of illnesses and physical ailments – I imagine for sympathy, and to rejoice in yet further victim status. She has celiac’s disease; she has sickle-cell anemia; she has a allergies to “everything artificial” and won’t let polyester, latex, or clothes dried with fabric softener touch her skin; she has problems with hormonal sensitivity and eccentric circadian rhythms; she is photosensitive and can’t do anything outside because she gets migraines from sunlight. She is vegan; there are a million products she won’t use because they are not completely natural.
          She quit fishing for sympathy a couple years ago, when she realized I wasn’t impressed; but I finally got a bit aggressive about it, as she was telling me that she had broken up with her most recent boyfriend. She decided that he had no ambition, since he was content to work as a cashier at a local market. He had become disillusioned with school, he said, and she couldn’t be with a man who didn’t have “at least enough passion to get a degree.” Plus, he didn’t like that she insisted on him wearing a condom even though they’d been together for almost two years. But she felt she needed to protect herself and not simply trust that a man was being faithful.
          I asked her how it was that she was so sensitive to so many things in every other area of her life, but when it came to sex she was able to flush her body with the chemical and hormonal cocktail of the pill, and also tolerate not just contact with latex, but, err, *vigorous* contact. We’ve known each other long enough for her not to give me the fake outrage, “How dare you question me” look; instead, she just gave me this look that was worth a million words: it betrayed her hurt, her insecurity, her embarrassment at knowing that I perfectly saw her bs for what it was, and the awkwardness of knowing that I didn’t require an apology or explanation for her bs, because I regarded her as a child capable of nothing better.
          But yes, how interesting it is that all leftists will be healthful vegans, avoiding ritual impurity through contact with any remotely artificial contrivance of man in their clothing or diet or hygiene, but as soon as it comes to their naughty bits, you can’t slather enough hormones, chemicals, spermicides and latex barriers on the problem.
          As to men being made for marriage or celibacy, the Church Fathers would teach that absolutely no man is made for celibacy. It is not natural. Unlike contraception or sodomy or promiscuity, however, which are against nature, celibacy is above nature. The Fathers teach that, in Christ, every man is given a supernatural life that makes the celibate life possible, and even more appropriate to his state as an adopted and glorified son of God. But they understand that requiring every Christian to immediately go full steam ahead, may be placing too heavy a burden upon them. If a Christian man can use the goods of the world with detachment, “for the goods of this world are passing away,” that is enough. The natural goodness of marriage, and its natural virtue, are very commendable things. It is just that the supernatural virtue of celibacy is the only thing that is compatible with being recognized as a Saint, because the Saints are those that do go “full steam ahead” and live that supernatural life as completely as possible while still in the flesh.
          As to God and narcissism, I understand the difficulty. The Church teaches that God is entirely selfless, entirely forgetful of Himself, in loving the creation. I believe that this must be the case. But when I pray, I sometimes confide to Him that my human limitations make it difficult for me to understand the concept. I know that He loves me and desires union between us; but it is difficult for me to understand love and desire without some relation to the personal delight involved. I.e., if I fail to attain the loved object, I am sad; this is a loss; I want to avoid it. But God loves us in a way where He thinks nothing of Himself. I admit that it must be true love, but for a long time I could not understand how, if God suffered nothing if I failed to pursue union with Him, His love could be real. I know it is because He is complete in Himself, whereas we are designed to need communion with our Source. But it sometimes defies the understanding in the moment.
          I understand what you are saying about our relationship to the eternal changing, even if the eternal itself does not. It’s true so far as the theory goes. For my part, though, I believe that in Christ man’s relationship with the eternal was brought to its highest and permanent pitch. There are no further changes to be made, that have not already been made at least in potential.

        5. Thank you for reply. You have an anecdotal style which I think many of the best preachers have – the ability to ground ideas in everyday experience so that people can relate to them. Your friend’s weaknesses are weaknesses many of us will recognise in those with a certain political leaning. Obviously I don’t know your friend so I shouldn’t make comment but from what you describe she seems like one of so many who choose to see risk, danger, harm, and abuse in every aspect of the world about her, even as they speak of love and an open heart. It is an impoverished worldview, and one that sensitises the person more and more, until living in a bubble breathing purified air might seem like the only solution.
          You’ve identified a few areas where we probably differ but by and large I agree with most of what you have written (even if I am sure doctrinally I would no doubt fall irredeemably foul of a strict jesuit)
          On the practical points you raise I am more than happy with the idea that “requiring every Christian to immediately go full steam ahead, may be placing too heavy a burden upon them. If a Christian man can use the goods of the world with detachment, “for the goods of this world are passing away,” that is enough.”……… It is just that the supernatural virtue of celibacy is the only thing that is compatible with being recognized as a Saint”
          Despite being a protestant in my upbringing I held to pretty much the same values you describe above for much of my youth, although without any obvious natural talent, and perhaps looking back with less conviction and more force of circumstance than I would have liked to admit. However, I remember one day becoming quite disillusioned with the whole notion of (carnal) virtue after reading a book on the matter by a learned monsignor on the issue of saints and
          celibacy. I don’t remember the book or the details of the argument he made exactly, but broadly speaking he considered any breach in a life of sexual abstinence, any shortcoming in the matter of continence, such as might cause an angry old testament God to strike down a
          disobedient Onan for instance was pretty much equivalent to committing the worst kind of fornication or adultery. I
          imagine now it was more his hell-fire sermon style than his theology speaking that alienated me, but I’m not sure.
          Suffice to say, it left me thinking there was not much worth in seeking any kind of virtue short of the truly heroic variety that makes a martyr of a man or woman to the flesh, and I think in that he did his church no favours.
          I think what I objected to was less the theology behind it and more the draconian and unforgiving style in which the argument came across. I rejected the focus on (threat of)
          punishment for what I thought should be a free choice (it probably wasn’t at the time, but I was perfectly sincere then
          in rejecting fornication as something that I believed at the time was simply wrong). From your post I would say you
          (more or less) agree in terms of approach (leaving aside possible / likely points of theological contention). In terms of
          the church as unchanging again I’m not sure there is quite the difference of opinion that seems to be the case on the surface – at least if one were to play down rather than play up (always a strategic matter I guess) then I would say a
          sea change in say the ‘approach’ to something like cardinal / venal sins etc., may be as much a revolution (or an evolution) as some more obviously doctrinal revolution in
          orthodoxy (which I wouldn’t expect to happen). I see the issue as relating rather to whether one ‘sees’ (focuses upon)
          the doctrinal fault-lines, or whether one sees the greater task as building bridges (with all the dangers of perhaps appearing less doctrinally firm say).
          I think there is a need at hand that we (all?) agree upon, and that perhaps should mean focussing on the task at hand, which is to build the ‘virtue’ and self-discipline that has been eroded and lost. The basis upon which it is built is in a sense for pragmatic reasons almost a secondary issue, if that doesn’t seem too strange. I like your vision of God, but perhaps not all will. But those people might still benefit from if you like from learning the transferable skills of a Saint
          Anthony for instance. Likewise perhaps on other issues, such as’ adulthood’ etc …the implications are perhaps secondary, the discipline of taking responsibility for oneself for instance, or thinking for oneself, holding oneself accountable, these are all largely everyday common-sense virtues, that I think any christian or red-piller could hold to, without it necessarily clashing with the fundamentals of a particular orthodoxy. I am just throwing these ideas around, I appreciate those ideas may or may not be sympathetic.

  30. “Then, at the other end of the spectrum, in his autobiography “On Writing,” Stephen King freely admits that if his wife had told him that his writing (before he made it big) was a waste of time, he would have lost heart and quite likely quit, probably winding up a drunken old teacher as opposed to a billionaire best-seller. Instead his wife, also a writer, encouraged him because she shared in his interests. That’s how extreme a difference the love of a woman who shares a man’s passion can influence his life”
    For guys who are creative types, be it music, or visual arts, etc finding a chick to encourage you is impossible today. King was lucky but bear in mind he found his supportive female back in the day when women were not the total parasites they are today.

    1. I have a home studio that is completely inaudible from the bedroom. My last serious girlfriend would come into the studio at 2:00 am whenever I got on a roll working late on music–even though she’d been comfortably asleep for hours–whining about when I was going to come to bed. Even though it had NO DAMN EFFECT WHATSOEVER on her sleep or really any aspect of her life other than her female need to squelch my creative endeavors. This is probably the single biggest reason I no longer believe in having a girlfriend. Come over, have some dinner, have some sex, but then kindly GTFO so I can do what I am passionate about.

      1. Brother, this is what I call the painful jealousy of a self-centered sociopath sporting a vagina and breasts – you had a passion for something in addition to, or other than HER.
        She had to “kill the enemy”, tried, and lost, much to your credit.

        1. I lived through the same scenario with my clarinet. I didn’t budge an inch, bought the thing, I practice for hours for sheer pleasure.
          Most of us understand that giving in would be the same as failing a shit test. No woman wants a man she can control.

        2. Oh I understand it’s a shit test. I have no problem with having to crush a few shit tests in order to get some strange every now and again. It’s part of the fun of meeting someone new. It’s the having to deal with the same bs over and over again in an ltr that seems to me to have have ever diminishing returns. Not to mention it’s soul destroying.

      2. That’s exactly what you do when she starts to act up.
        Stop the bus and let her ass off. Once you do it (the first, second and third time….some women are hard headed) then she will get the picture.
        If not, then tell her the bus doesn’t run her route any longer (in other words, like you said…GTFO).

  31. I went on a date last night, with a shy nerdy sort of girl who had just found enough confidence to start an attempt on dating (Despite being something like a 22/30 on the O’Neil scale and thus blowing out 95% of nerdy girls). I know plenty who are completely unreceptive to standard game so I assumed it would take longer for the bang given her shyness and lack of experience, but I managed to smash her after ~2 1/2 hours of conversation over coffee because we both had similar interests and I demonstrated high value.
    At best, we can exploit this “soulmate” feeling in girls who share your interests because if you hit the right buttons they become so easy I can’t believe it.

  32. Star Trek:Enterprise season 4 was pretty good. They hired a new Showrunner, Manny Coto, who got the show back on track. If Enterprise season 4 had initially been the first season of the program. It would’ve done a ton better.
    Technically. Spock was captain of the Enterprise for a few years before the events of “Wraith of Khan”. So a girl knowing that little fact would’ve been quite impressive.

    1. “Red Pill” must first consider why one wants to attract “the women” (as opposed to some other, more beneficial type), is that optimum, and if not to alter one’s desire based on realistic, internal need rather than the vacuous pablum one has programmed into one externally by others with certain society-destructive agendas.

      1. Yes. What I was getting at was what he critiqued of her, which he had.
        1) University Degree
        2) Debt free
        3) Car
        4) Makes 6 figures
        5) No tats
        6) Physically fit
        What if women like that are not attracted to Red Pill men?

        1. then i’d pity those shallow fools because they can’t handle strong agile dexterous nimble intelligent confident red pill men!

  33. Wow, I have a lot of questions about your experiences. Here’s one: how does it feel to be a garbage can with arms?

  34. Here’s a question for all of you: if women are such scum, then why do you bother? No one I’ve seen on this comment thread has done anything to disguise their utter hatred for womankind. My solution for you is to jerk off until you’re impotent.

    1. I think you have it wrong. We love women, we just hate women who are illogical, overweight (unless you have some sort of legit medical reasoning), overly dramatic, gold digging, entitled, and hypocritical. Women who demand something that they, themselves, do not provide. It’s just that the majority of women fit this mold.

        1. you said the truth but it seems those playboy playmates had been so wrongly conditioned by the culture & media and thus make shitty choice of only wanting to fuck a tiny subset of men.

      1. Agree….good points. Women have more shit, today, versus any other time in history (and they are still unhappy).
        One of the latest arguments by feminists (if not all women) is the subject of unequal pay.
        Well, it’s not men or corporations who are fucking it up…it’s other women lining up to take the job…for less pay.
        I don’t blame men because I did a shitty job negotiating my salary or because a man (or woman) will take the job for less pay.
        Let’s start recognizing and addressing the nonsense here. Personal responsibility is an adult thing (that includes women).

        1. Not only that, but how are they collecting this data? Are they factoring in education, experience, etc? Or are they pooling together wages, and that’s it?

    2. i’ve been jerking off since my salad days as a teen-age ninja turtle. sure i’d love to substitute wanking with fucking playboy playmates but in order to accomplish that i’d eventually be compelled to resort to rape.

  35. Billy, you want to understand your friends better. Read this and think about it.
    Problem #1)
    “gets an absolute prize of man?”
    -> How many young men you know COULD say this?
    (write this number down)
    -> How many young men you know have the guts to SAY this with words or body language?
    (write this number also down, it is ok if you do a guess – but make it a good one)
    -> How many HOT women do you know?
    (Hot as in 7+ ) -> again write this number down
    -> How many of these women say they are hot with their body, with their cloth, with their shoes, with their make-up?
    Doing a guess now on my own the final number of is vastly higher than the hot guys number who show it. Many more women know what they are worth and will not settle for less. Boys on the other hand (note i didnt write men) often see themselfs as low value and will take whatever they can get.
    Problem #2
    “he truly believes she is his soul mate.”
    -> False. He WANTS to believe she is his soul mate.
    The girl in your example may be in because she knows her SMV relative to his. So she is beeing nice to him, until she got her ring.
    He does not know his value and the fact this value is going to go UP in his 20s and 30s (his greater beta value that is, aka money, prestige, providerdom) while at the same time her value (her looks) is going down.
    Good deal for her, terrible deal for him. But he WANTS it that way, because of problem #1.
    Alphas never think like that – not alpha women and certainly not alpha men.
    We think different. We may marry and have kids (like I did) but we could still leave any day and be equal or better off than had we not married or had kids.
    If you cant beat rules, laws, regulations and modify the conditions to your advantage you are no true alpha – greater beta it is, dont fool yourself otherwise.

  36. I’m glad to see someone that agrees with me about the way women mutilate their bodies with tattoos and piercings. I go to a university, and it is the most disgusting bizarre thing I’ve ever seen.
    But all my friends are cool with it. Like “who are you to judge her”. These other guys bad taste and willingness to accept and tolerate BS is driving down the quality of women in the dating pool.

    1. Not wrong there – the other problem is they enable her behaviour which not only makes it harder if you WERE to take a pot shot but the trend of tattoos and piercings just goes further and further.

    2. Yeah, and it’s “cool” until they have to go look for employment (then, reality sets in).
      Plus, let’s see how cool everyone looks as they age with these tattoos. The “canvas” does change with time so that tattoo on a firm arm or leg with muscle will look ridiculous after a couple of decades.
      The trap stamps will (hopefully) mark a time in history when people were a little stupid (oops…I mean when women had their freedom).

    3. I don’t judge anyone. But my dick does, and tattoos are a severe boner killer.
      J/k, I judge everyone.

  37. Now I am a beginner at Game so not a prize myself, and maybe I’m just a sexist (huehue) but I can’t stand girls with masculine interests. More than simply being less attracted to them they have the wrong personality for me. They take themselves too seriously and lack proper feminine expression. As such I can’t have a good time teasing them and watching the emotions play out.
    Give me a girly one who likes clothes any day.

    1. Agreed, its not sexist. I cant stand it nor can I stand it when they say “you cant handle a strong woman” my response is “no I just don’t like dating women that try to act like guys otherwise id be gay” nothing more off-putting than dating a woman who tries to out-macho you, usually they fail and look like pigs in the process (cue drunk sports fanatic tomboy woman or female bodybuilder).

      1. But Chubbs has a point regarding S. King. You do need distance though. Something for your girl to do, and something for you to do.

        1. no doubt, I don’t date a woman to share her interest in shopping, or her friends, or whatever she is interested in. I will say that having some things in common is good ground but it should not be touted as the defining link in a relationship as Chubbs was saying so I agree totally with him on that one.

        2. Speaking of clothes, I don’t mind if girls like clothes. It’s the shopaholic lifestyle that’s the issue. I would respect the hell out a girl who can make her own clothes. Like a real deal fashionista.

        3. Moderation is the best way, and although its not ideal picking the lesser of two evils goes hand-in-hand.

        4. You would consider an interest in clothes and fashion a bad sign? Having never dated a girl like that (aside from a few shopaholics) I can’t say I have much experience.

        5. exactly – a woman who loves clothes might be great; until she blows ALL of her money on clothes and shoes and winds up leeching off you. the other extreme is she wears only practical attire and doesn’t look attractive at all (to give you an idea as to possible outcomes).

      2. Agree. Who wants to date a woman trying to be a man or “out manning” a man? Then, yes, why not date men…lol.
        It’s fucked up and when you call women on it they don’t have a response (because it doesn’t make any sense…that’s why).
        Could you imagine a deodorant out there for men called “Men’s Secret”? – strong enough for a woman but made for a man.
        That shit would get so much attention from feminists: a parade, a march on the corporation, outrage, blogs, etc…..lol.

        1. actually they do have a response – “whatever…ill do what I want” that particular line or variations of it has become the relative norm alongside emotional/irrational justification for just about anything so far in the last 3 months.
          Sooo you’re 23 and don’t have a job? “im just trying to find myself you know?”
          Soooo you’re 21 with no car, license and you turn your nose up at my Triumph 675R?? “I just love to party party party”
          believe it or not that is just two ACTUAL phrases uttered by two separate women that I have hooked up with in the last few weeks. I could go on but @Driver “when you call women on it they don’t have a response” – sums it up nicely

  38. Does anyone really believe that women are great romantics? Come on! They are rather practical creatures when it comes to relationships with the opposite sex. You need not introduce some abstract idea, such as “soul mate,” to explain why women become so dissatisfied with marriage. It is much simpler than that.
    They pretty much don’t like the quality of their husbands and, what’s more interesting, they may be right to feel that way. The existence of the sexual market where women rule basically guarantees that they will get a lower value mate on the marriage market. Most men will sleep with a woman, whose value is lower than theirs. Essentially, entering the sexual market is the easiest way for a woman to copulate with a higher value mate. So it’s hardly surprising that many a woman will take advantage of this opportunity. But once she enters the marriage market she’s in for some big dissapointment.Getting a higher value mate here is mathematical impossibility. Even getting an equal value mate is very improbable. One of the reasons that most men will get married eventually is that they can marry a higher value mate.
    Sexual freedom doesn’t seem to benefit women. They are extremely miserable nowadays.
    The biggest problem now is a set of laws designed to protect women’s interests in marriage. They serve to encourage women to enter the marriage market. But at the same time they discourage men from doing the same thing. The more anti-male these laws become the more women will find it difficult to find a good mate. And the laws then have to become even more anti-male to do their job of encouraging women to get married.

    1. Yeah, but the higher value of women is a feature of marriage, not a bug–one which is eventually offset by the fact that our market value increases over time while theirs decreases. The painful truth is that women can’t really ever “trade up” for spouses because their value is usually a fraction of what it was ten years prior. There would be a lot more happy marriages if both sexes understood the fact of shifting market values.

      1. Understanding this fact isn’t enough. As long as the sexual market exists on a global scale, there will be a lot of opportunists trying to maximize their gain there. The system will be abused anyway.

        1. Ironically, the sexual market on a global scale actually helps to relieve the problems of the artificial women’s equality and dominance in the Western welfare states.
          Feminists shriek over the idea that men can go outside of the country and find a wife who will respect him as a human being. They regard men who are happy as “abusive” by definition. In the feminist world, men should work as slaves and live to please women while women do as they please. This is their definition of “equality” and the ideal human society. Instead, they wind up creating inner city gang banger guettos produced by the single mother matriarchy.

    2. I don’t think they are romantics in the sense most men use the label: Don’t wonderful things for your mate. They are romantics in the sense they want “serendipity”. There’s even an awful film by that name that came out a few years ago based upon the concept:
      A woman should get the perfect soulmate much like sleeping beauty: Sit in a castle and wait for a white knight to slay the dragon to rescue her. There should be the bones of 10 other white knights lying around to prove just how important she is.
      The problem is that a lot of women in this society don’t understand the concept of “finding” a mate. When men say “find a mate”, they mean actually “look” at different women around them, seek venues of available women, and deal with a lot of rejection. Many women in this post-chivalrous/feminist era view “finding” a man as waiting for the perfect man to ask her out.
      What this means is that women live in a world of lottery versus men who are ordinary schlubs who often find love (or at least happiness). They are different universes with their own baggage and benefits. If all women in their 20’s used their brains to “find” a decent man, this discussion would be irrelevant.

      1. Count me among those that want serendipity. I just don’t find that relying solely on serendipity is the best(or even good) way to make it in this world. Everybody wants the best mate they can possibly get. We just have different strategies. Don’t blame women too much for theirs.

        1. Using that logic, why blame anyone for anything? We all want nice things (most of us at least) and most of us want to be lazy and sit around and wait for it to fall into our lap.
          In other words, it’s the notion that the world owes us a living.
          And people like that are dangerous because even when they appear to be getting what they want and happy, for the time being, they’re sure to find something wrong in their lives later and they surely won’t accept personal responsibility for the situation.
          Then look out.

        2. You have to be realistic about our biology. Approaching men is not how human females look for mates. For most young women most men simply don’t exist as sexual objects. They’re highly selective. Men, on the other hand, desire sexually most young females. If a man approaches a woman, and she shows that she’s interested, the man knows that it is very likely that she is really interested. But if a woman approaches man, there’s no way for her to know that he’s really interested in her. It is very likely that he’s just interested in fucking her. The mechanism of approaching the opposite sex isn’t very developed in women due to the fact that it doesn’t lead anywhere useful.
          Most men don’t believe in soul mates, because there is no one perfect woman for them. They desire many women, and if they were able they would go through as many women as they could and fuck themselves into oblivion.
          Changing human nature isn’t an option, well, at least for now. The system in which we operate needs to change.

        3. I’ve thought this through and see if this makes sense: I agree with you that women are more selective, at least sexually, than men. The way I look at it is to imagine if 99% of women looked like Ellen Degeneres. She’s not ugly but if she was straight and my girlfriend, I could find her attractive. But walking down the street or on TV, I have zero sexual attraction for her. That’s the way most women view most men. For a man to really be hot for a woman, he has to be at least 6’3″, work out, and have a handsome face. I know guys like this and they tell me stories and it’s hilarious how women are like men towards them. The women give them gifts and make clumsy comeons. Even with the playing field leveled, the men tell me, the women are different than men in that the men are more realistic about the sexual experience. Men hitting on beautiful women don’t expect the women to both have sex with them AND be totally in love with them and provide the whole princess experience of supporting him. But these guys tell me that oftentimes, the women expect him to fall in love with her and marry her. So “getting away” becomes a challenge.
          About approach: Nearly all women are aware that most men approaching them want to have sex with them first and foremost. It’s paradoxical that modern women demand that men pretend to ‘love her for her mind’ and then use sex as a tool to extract that demand “If he says he wants me only for sex, he won’t get sex with me!” It’s funny, but I have literally heard this.
          It’s useful to keep in mind that only in the extremely distant past, and in the welfare society present, did women get to choose men based upon looks or have children out of wedlock. In the ancient past when humans lived in the jungle, a breadwinner wasn’t needed. And in the welfare culture, women can afford to be picky. But between then and now, the nuclear family largely ruled and the notion of women “picking” men was laughable. So I find socio-biological thinking based upon modern American culture to be wonderful examples of American insularism. Have you traveled internationally and spent much time in foreign cultures?
          We have changed “the system” somewhat but it’s unstable. In a few decades at most, European and American culture will collapse into third world feudalism or hopefully something else will happen. But women’s equality is doomed either way.

        4. I have traveled internationally. Never spent much time in any particular place and never been to the far east. I lived in Russia for many years, though. Still visit it on a biennial basis. And things are very different there. Why? I think the absence of the welfare state has something to do with that. The income tax is fixed at 13%. It’s hard to create a lot of social programs on that money. Whatever handouts exist are crumbs in comparison to what the US offers. Very difficult to raise a child without the help of a man. The welfare state is ultimately unfair to men. They are the main contibutors but are not compensated adequately for their efforts.
          I once had a long discussion with a woman who was a fan of evolutionary biology and popular writers on the subject such as Dawkins, Pinker et al. She was writing a book of her own at the time and came to the conclusion the

        5. Hmm, that counts (living in Russia) so you have gotten out there. It’s ironic that the welfare state in Russia, like Sweden, was considered the ideal for feminists: Free healthcare, daycare, 2 years paid maternity leave. And in it’s own way, it was as destructive as the welfare state in the west driving many men to alcoholism at the USSR’s prime.
          The welfare state in the USA is highly imperfect though as many women here can attest. Even as they have “independence”, most middle class and even upper middle class women struggle financially. The media portrays “normal” life to consist of shopping sprees for $5000 handbags and $30,000 cars that need to be replaced every 5 years at a minimum. But the culture continues to tell women this is normal and they buy into it. I’m almost GLAD the media doesn’t bother trying to sell me crap. When commercials come on, I zone out.
          I don’t think men and women need be miserable. Well, men at least. Nature has evolved women to be dependent upon men much like, well, society has evolved man to be dependent upon government: An imperfect provider and usually delivers more beatings than protection. Women exist to continually complain and gripe to men and simultaneously seek independence from them.

  39. Frankly a woman does not even have to share the interests of a man – she only has to be supportive of him as he would support her hobbies (if there are any positive ones aside from TV, Cosmo, Iphone and food & wine).
    Most men should be rather looking for a woman who supports him in all endeavors instead of one who shares a few masculine interests.

  40. Most women’s idea of ‘supporting’ a man is to resist the urge to openly mock him,
    oppose him and put him down for what he does all the time, and merely
    tolerate him at least some of the time. That’s how self serving they
    are, and how rare true active support from a woman is.
    Most men do not achieve anything because of a woman’s support, but in spite of it. If a woman actually helps a man actively, it’s only for her personal gain, rest assured.

  41. “So long as she doesn’t foul it up by completely screwing away her twenties, most women have the option to find a man who will truly love her, share her interests and sacrifice everything he could and ever will be to give her a comfortable life because he truly believes she is his soul mate”
    True. However, most women will be incapable of really loving him, of giving herself over to him completely. He becomes like a new toy to a child – fun for awhile, but then quickly discarded to the closet, along with the other used toys.

  42. Had the same dilemma when I’ve dated some very sexy chick (8-9/10) but who appeared to be mega-hyper-slut! OK, we know about stuff like: the fact she has sucked n dicks (n>0) and possibly was cummed inside all of her holes, HIV, high probability of cuckolding, etc.
    But the most crucial thought was: this slut doesn’t deserve a man like me. A man who is addicted to books and sports (masculine activities such as: powerlifting, mma, boxing), is going to get his university degree in engineering, has sense of humor. Yeah I still believe in a classical love based relationship leading to marriage. But the more I live, the more I realize there’re no relationship material girls left.
    Furthermore, I believe in justice. Sluts should be used only for one purpose: sex training machines for other guys. If you have fucked with a bunch of guys in your 20s, please don’t expect the prince to appear.
    The opposite also works the same way. Sometimes you see very hot and decent girls with jerks. Educated girls with some assholes. Sometimes even marring them. The sad thing is that after they jump off their dicks they start searching for stable / serious guys like myself. I don’t like leftovers or used stuff. Nor I’m a doctor to cure them from their mental illness resulted from previous relationships (that’s why virgin girl is the best option as a wife). And then they cry there’re no men left and nobody wants to commit. Hypocrisy.
    Have a nice day.

  43. Interestingly enough, I find the opposite to be true. I see more women settling for the sake of being married, to whomever asks. I see men, who know this, using the leverage to drag their feet and “have fun” knowing that when they are tired of the single life, some woman would love to have them. And even then they’ll have their pick of the litter…women who are waiting around, competing, hoping that they are the lucky one chosen to live “happily ever after.” Women accept this because after all: boys will be boys.

    1. “I see more women settling for the sake of being married, to whomever asks.”
      omg how awful is that? those women could have married the likes of henry cavill or ryan gosling but they chose to settle with whomever asks??? my heart goes out to those poor women…..what is wrong with the world, is nothing sacred???

      1. I agree with you, but have seen many women lower their standards, and sete for the sake of being able to say that they are someone’s wife.

        1. then it means that we are still a universe away from breaking from the oppressive patriarchy!!! what strong agile confident independent woman in her right mind would want to settle for anything less than a henry cavill with the wealth of a bill gates??? for fuck sake, why would a strong agile confident independent woman even need a husband?

        2. Maybe some of them aren’t so strong or independent. Some of them are traditional and believe in marriage and find joy in comfort in the union. I think most women would prefer the gorgeous guy with the heavy bank account, but that doesn’t come knocking at everyone’s door every day.

        3. “I think most women would prefer the gorgeous guy with the heavy bank account, but that doesn’t come knocking at everyone’s door every day.”
          holy crap! if those gorgeous guys don’t come knocking at your door then how about you knock on those guys’ doors for a change?
          a strong agile confident intelligent woman sure as hell can accomplish the followings, piece of cake :
          1) Be strong-willed to move her lazy fat ass and get off her high-horse pedestal.
          2) Be agile enough not to twist her kankles on her way down getting off from her high-horse pedestal.
          3) Be confident enough to go knocking on the doors of gorgeous and fabulously rich guys.
          4) Be intelligent enough to ensnare and/or browbeat those guys into marriage.
          there are enough gorgeous and fabulously rich guys out there for every woman so don’t you dare settle, girl !!! death before dishonor !!!

        4. I’m not speaking of myself. I’m talking about the world. Even on television programs now, the competition is fierce…bunches of beautiful woman vying for the attention of one man.

        5. You are entirely correct. The phenomenon you describe is known as “apex fallacy.” You might want to look it up – I suggest starting with rollo’s site The Rational Male.

  44. It sounds like you’ve had bad experience with women, have mommy issues, or in general have not been very successful with women.
    I find it interesting that you say you want to show young readers pitfalls to avoid entering into a relationship scene, yet you yourself have only been in one serious relationship, and are only 23. That does not make for sound advice.
    I have many friends who are both men and women, and do not feel that either sex is more important, but that each is important to the other.
    You want a woman who is beautiful, or a 10, yet you dis women who are attached to their mirrors.
    From the attitude displayed here, you don’t sound like much of a catch yourself. It’s no wonder you haven’t had much success with women, and yet you want to give advice to others on how to do it?
    Quite the amusing read, from someone who obviously has little respect for women.

  45. It sounds like you’ve had bad experience with women, have mommy issues, or in general have not been very successful with women. I find it interesting that you say do you want to show young readers pitfalls to avoid entering into a relationship seen, yet you yourself have only been in one serious relationship, and are only 23. That does not make for sound advice.
    I have many friends who are both men and women, and do not feel that either sex is more important, but that each is important to the other.
    You want a woman who is beautiful, or a 10, yet you dis women who are attached to their mirrors.
    From the attitude displayed here, you don’t sound like much of a catch yourself. It’s no wonder you haven’t had much success with women, and yet you want to give advice to others on how to do it?
    Quite the amusing read, from someone who obviously has little respect for women.

  46. It sounds like you’ve had bad experience with women, have mommy issues, or in general have not been very successful with women. I find it interesting that you say do you want to show young readers pitfalls to avoid entering into a relationship seen, yet you yourself have only been in one serious relationship, and are only 23. That does not make for sound advice.
    I have many friends who are both men and women, and do not feel that either sex is more important, but that each is important to the other.
    You want a woman who is beautiful, or a 10, yet you dis women who are attached to their mirrors.
    From the attitude displayed here, you don’t sound like much of a catch yourself. It’s no wonder you haven’t had much success with women, and yet you want to give advice to others on how to do it?
    Quite the amusing read, from someone who obviously has little respect for women.

  47. It sounds like you’ve had bad experience with women, have mommy issues, or in general have not been very successful with women. I find it interesting that you say do you want to show young readers pitfalls to avoid entering into a relationship seen, yet you yourself have only been in one serious relationship, and are only 23. That does not make for sound advice.
    I have many friends who are both men and women, and do not feel that either sex is more important, but that each is important to the other.
    You want a woman who is beautiful, or a 10, yet you dis women who are attached to their mirrors.
    From the attitude displayed here, you don’t sound like much of a catch yourself. It’s no wonder you haven’t had much success with women, and yet you want to give advice to others on how to do it?
    Quite the amusing read, from someone who obviously has little respect for women.

  48. – It sounds like you’ve had bad experience with women, have mommy issues, or in general have not been very successful with women. I find it interesting that you say do you want to show young readers pitfalls to avoid entering into a relationship seen, yet you yourself have only been in one serious relationship, and are only 23. That does not make for sound advice.
    I have many friends who are both men and women, and do not feel that either sex is more important, but that each is important to the other.
    You want a woman who is beautiful, or a 10, yet you dis women who are attached to their mirrors.
    From the attitude displayed here, you don’t sound like much of a catch yourself. It’s no wonder you haven’t had much success with women, and yet you want to give advice to others on how to do it?
    Quite the amusing read, from someone who obviously has little respect for women.

  49. * It sounds like you’ve had bad experience with women, have mommy issues, or in general have not been very successful with women. I find it interesting that you say do you want to show young readers pitfalls to avoid entering into a relationship seen, yet you yourself have only been in one serious relationship, and are only 23. That does not make for sound advice.
    I have many friends who are both men and women, and do not feel that either sex is more important, but that each is important to the other.
    You want a woman who is beautiful, or a 10, yet you dis women who are attached to their mirrors.
    From the attitude displayed here, you don’t sound like much of a catch yourself. It’s no wonder you haven’t had much success with women, and yet you want to give advice to others on how to do it?
    Quite the amusing read, from someone who obviously has little respect for women.

  50. It sounds like you’ve had bad experience with women, have mommy issues, or in general have not been very successful with women. I find it interesting that you say do you want to show young readers pitfalls to avoid entering into a relationship seen, yet you yourself have only been in one serious relationship, and are only 23. That does not make for sound advice.
    I have many friends who are both men and women, and do not feel that either sex is more important, but that each is important to the other.
    You want a woman who is beautiful, or a 10, yet you dis women who are attached to their mirrors.
    From the attitude displayed here, you don’t sound like much of a catch yourself. It’s no wonder you haven’t had much success with women, and yet you want to give advice to others on how to do it?
    Quite the amusing read, from someone who obviously has little respect for women.

  51. # It sounds like you’ve had bad experience with women, have mommy issues, or in general have not been very successful with women. I find it interesting that you say do you want to show young readers pitfalls to avoid entering into a relationship seen, yet you yourself have only been in one serious relationship, and are only 23. That does not make for sound advice.
    I have many friends who are both men and women, and do not feel that either sex is more important, but that each is important to the other.
    You want a woman who is beautiful, or a 10, yet you dis women who are attached to their mirrors.
    From the attitude displayed here, you don’t sound like much of a catch yourself. It’s no wonder you haven’t had much success with women, and yet you want to give advice to others on how to do it?
    Quite the amusing read, from someone who obviously has little respect for women.

  52. It sounds like you’ve had bad experience with women, have mommy issues, or in general have not been very successful with women. I find it interesting that you say do you want to show young readers pitfalls to avoid entering into a relationship seen, yet you yourself have only been in one serious relationship, and are only 23. That does not make for sound advice.
    I have many friends who are both men and women, and do not feel that either sex is more important, but that each is important to the other.
    You want a woman who is beautiful, or a 10, yet you dis women who are attached to their mirrors.
    From the attitude displayed here, you don’t sound like much of a catch yourself. It’s no wonder you haven’t had much success with women, and yet you want to give advice to others on how to do it?
    Quite the amusing read, from someone who obviously has little respect for women.

  53. Stop kissing your own ass and judging women solely or even mostly on their bodies. And if you need to lower your standard for women, you have three options: recognise that your standard is unrealistic, like many peoples are (women go through this too, you’re not alone), look harder through interest groups instead of online or become gay. You said it yourself, there are many great guys out there. Go and choose one. None of those options include “make a jealous fool of yourself online”

  54. Yeah, remember YOU had sex with her within 72 hours as well. Contrary to what you like to believe, that speaks just as poorly of your character as it does of hers.

  55. Date up idiot not down (horrible attempt at a Simpsons reference). I only get into serious relationships with women that have achieved more or have the potential to achieve more than I. As in better grades, knowledge, travel experience, carriers, yada yada.
    Why? Because I want to be pushed up in life, not dragged down. There is no reason we can’t be critical about the person we want to date.

  56. Face it – breeding & business partners is abput above average relationships now-a-days.
    Probably should keep your pants on and options open for a more godly relationship, instead of the overwhelmingly worldly view of “locking down” a woman.
    The best advice I can give is to focus on your own real goals & perhaps meet people directly along that life path – not through a phone app.
    Marry a real friend you are happy with & would love to raise kids with… most of that will be home bound time, until all the kids are old enough to enjoy traveling & the outdoors – so basically all over the age of 10.
    Seeing that takes over ten years – that’s at least a 15 year plan right there… so spec out the next 20 to 30 years & you’ll want to be focused on your own life goals at & marry a good friend by the time you’re 30, 34 at the latest.
    So you’ll enjoy quality family time for the next 30 years – that drops you off in your mid 60s, by that time your investments, business, inventions, tenure, or retirement system should be fully matured & your kids starting their own careers…
    Good Luck & try not to get down on yourself or be so cynical… start focusing on the fun & happiness of someone compatible – and above all loyal & trustworthy… You’ll get what you give – so do your best to be kind honest trustworthy gentle really fun & dependable.
    If you can be greatful for everyone you meet & generous toward all people – you can enjoy a really fulfilling family & personal life.

Comments are closed.