Looks mean nothing!

[Johnny1975]

True.

[HouseMD]

But if the female is fugly, that would mean that she would be likely to produce fugly and unhealthy children. In a functional society it is in fact the female's personality that wouldn't matter much, since aberrant behavior could be corrected by beating. Anyway, since Western females are essentially all giant vermin now, in their case their looks, before they binge eat, drink and f**k them away, is all they could possibly have to offer.

In a functional relationship no beating is necessary, ever. What situation aside from cheating would merit such violent behavior is beyond me.

I feel like there are two types of men on this site, those that have been burned by women and are full of rage and anger toward western society, and those that simply feel western society and women are simply not ideal for them and thus desire dating elsewhere. The latter of us will likely never be able to relate to the former.

[Falcon]

Gold post OTB! This should be made a sticky on the forum. Love this:

She's a mind. A soul with thoughts, feelings, and desires. That body is just a covering.

This expands very well on Voice of Reason's thread "I'm tired of all this superficiality based on looks".
viewtopic.php?t=13598

Keep up the great posts showcasing your outside-the-box thinking!

Great avatar too, that looks like one of the big Ottoman mosques (masjids) in Istanbul, Turkey.

[djfourmoney]

I am after everything. Very attractive, nice personality, virtuous, virgin, and young (15-19) so she will be the closest thing to a true princess.

And you'll get nothing because you don't take my advice seriously.

[Rocky Top]

As long as she can cook? That's kinda my only criteria really. Sounds dumb, but in America a girl who can cook usually is fairly healthy (as you can't eat prepackaged food here and stay healthy/fit looking very long) and has wide and varied tastes, and likely has taught herself because her mother's generation probably didn't cook, or she comes from a fairly traditional values type of family and her mother taught her and that's great, too.

It might be a silly joke, but I'm serious about the cooking thing. If you find a girl unwilling to learn to cook things or eat reasonably (ie, not from a TV dinner box) you should run run run. To me also lack of cooking shows lack of self help skills. It's seriously just a basic life skill. Why would you want a girl who cannot handle basic tasks like that?

Keep in mind, this is coming from someone who can cook for himself, and does. So it's not like I "need" her to cook for me or anything, hell I'd probably even do most of the cooking, but I actually do not want a useless girl with zero skills who needs to rely on me for everything. That's way too much work. I want an actual strong independent woman, but not a feminist who proclaims strength and independence but can't even boil a potato or check her car's oil.

Cooking and being able to maintain a home are very important. I am the same way in hat I am able to cook and clean for myself and have been doing so since I've been on my own for almost 20 years.

1. Physical attraction (lets be honest, that is usually the first thing we notice, but she doesn't have to be a super model)
2. Co-operative nature
3. Domestic skills

[OTB]

Falcon, I'm glad you liked the post. I remember that thread by Voice of Reason. And I made a comment about the topic as well.

This is definitely an extension of that.

And yes, in my avatar, I'm standing in the Blue Mosque.

[HouseMD]

I am after everything. Very attractive, nice personality, virtuous, virgin, and young (15-19) so she will be the closest thing to a true princess.

You should really up the age rage to 16-19 if you wish to avoid prosecution, what with the PROTECT Act and all. Even if it is legal overseas, your 15 year old princess that doesn't exist will land you an extradition and 15 years of being your cellmate's princess in a federal pen if you were ever "fortunate" enough to meet her and have some sex.

[Cornfed]

But if the female is fugly, that would mean that she would be likely to produce fugly and unhealthy children. In a functional society it is in fact the female's personality that wouldn't matter much, since aberrant behavior could be corrected by beating. Anyway, since Western females are essentially all giant vermin now, in their case their looks, before they binge eat, drink and f**k them away, is all they could possibly have to offer.

In a functional relationship no beating is necessary, ever.

What gave you that idea? Not only do females need discipline, but they need to be physically dominated to bond properly with men. My point was that in a sane society where the pigs wouldn't be sicked on husbands disciplining their wives, lousy personalities in females would be less of a problem since they could be corrected.

[Rich]

Cross cultural studies show that the physical appearance of women is the most important thing to men, especially an appealing hip to waist ratio. It's pretty much the only thing that matters to us. Let's face it, It's almost impossible to resist a beautiful woman, even if in your heart of hearts you know she's poison.

Anyway, the same studies suggest women want to mate with someone:

1) who can offer them financial security
2) who is intelligent (this links to the money side of things, the more intelligence the more likelihood of the guy making money)
3) who is older (age may also relate to the likelihood of more resources).

They don't really care what we look like.

[Jester]

depends for what you need the chick. i mean people have women for different reasons. like in art things have their place. some like to see a pretty face in bed when the wake up in the morning. some want a loyal parner. there are many different reasons for everybody.

i am somekind of artist. aesthetics play a big role for me. don´t know if it´s good or bad or if i could change that or if it would make to change that.

the thing is i don´t feel that i need a female partner so what it´s left: probably looks. i don´t want to make business with her so all other parts of her life ist good and so on. immanuel kant wrote like: marriage is a contrast to youse each others private parts. who i am to say kant was wrong though he didn´t mention looks.

Billy, Billy, Billy.




You are indeed an artist, yes, and even a bit of a philosopher.




Yes.




But the real metaphysical question here is:








WHAT ABOUT THE KIRGHIZ GIRL IN PINK YOGA PANTS????????

DID YOU EVER TAKE HER OUT TO DINNER????

[Jester]

I feel like there are two types of men on this site, those that have been burned by women and are full of rage and anger toward western society, and those that simply feel western society and women are simply not ideal for them and thus desire dating elsewhere. The latter of us will likely never be able to relate to the former.

Did you ever lose a family, Dr. House?

[Jester]

I am after everything. Very attractive, nice personality, virtuous, virgin, and young (15-19) so she will be the closest thing to a true princess.

And you'll get her -- because you know what you want, you stay focused, you pray, and you take action.

Build it, and she will come.

[Jester]

1. Physical attraction (lets be honest, that is usually the first thing we notice, but she doesn't have to be a super model)
2. Co-operative nature
3. Domestic skills

All well-stated.

#2 rarely gets mentioned.

[Jester]

I am after everything. Very attractive, nice personality, virtuous, virgin, and young (15-19) so she will be the closest thing to a true princess.

You should really up the age rage to 16-19 if you wish to avoid prosecution, what with the PROTECT Act and all. Even if it is legal overseas, your 15 year old princess that doesn't exist will land you an extradition and 15 years of being your cellmate's princess in a federal pen if you were ever "fortunate" enough to meet her and have some sex.

Dr. House is trying to help here, wisely, but let's be clear, there is no law against a young guy like Tsar chatting with a high school girl.

And lots of teen girls get married, but almost never without parents' permission.

And such is easily given if a young man seems sincere, has an income, and the girl is amenable. Piece of cake, actually. Ask ANY parent of a daughter anywhere (outside the Anglosphere and Northern Europe).

The 16 year old limit I believe is kind of a trafficking thing - don't fly the girl somewhere for a nefarious purpose if she is under 16.

In my experience, most girls from age 13 on are thinking of boys (or thinking of their own attributes) most of the time. Thus beginning a romance with a girl aged from 15 to 19 is normal, particularly for a young guy like Tsar.

There was a time we used to hold hands first, you know.

[Jester]

In a functional relationship no beating is necessary, ever.

What gave you that idea? Not only do females need discipline, but they need to be physically dominated to bond properly with men. My point was that in a sane society where the pigs wouldn't be sicked on husbands disciplining their wives, lousy personalities in females would be less of a problem since they could be corrected.

So true.

Lots of aging women would still have husbands, and lots of children would grow up in intact homes, if this were the case.