Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Thurs nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts with FREE Prizes!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE Live AFA Seminar! See locations and details.


Scam free! Check out Christian Filipina - Meet Asian women with Christian values! Members screened.
Exclusive book offer! 75% off! How to Meet, Date and Marry Your Filipina Wife



View Active Topics       Latest 100 Topics       View Your Posts       FAQ Topics       Switch to Mobile


No game = no woman?

Discuss and talk about any general topic.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

Re: No game = no woman?

Postby Dragon » Thu Mar 10, 2016 11:05 pm

Ghost wrote:
travelsouth wrote:Competition has always existed in this world, and there have always been some men crying about it. This would have been true even before feminism corrupted the west.


Women are not meant to be competed over. That never turns out well. The of history's successful and prosperous societies saw moral men banding together to co-dominate women. Men competing for women is a stupid idea and a massive waste of resources and creative effort.

Speaking of competition, you're well on your way to seeing just how well you'll compete with the daddygov. Though I do not wish learning that the hard way on any man.


I see this view a lot in certain "enlightened" alt-right spheres on the internet and it's more of a romanticized delusion than actual reality. I'm not sure which Golden Ages you are referring to, but if you are referring to Greek and Roman golden ages for example, they had a lot of iffy things. Greeks and Romans were pretty much par on course for pederasty (little boy boinking) and slavery. Not to mention all the other terrible things they did to other to advance their civilization. By all modern definitions, that's not moral at all. Just because some civilization gets smart and builds shiny architecture, produces great art, and makes breakthroughs in science doesn't mean they are moral in any sense. I don't want to invoke Godwin's Law, but the Nazis were making incredible breakthroughs in technology and building things that would "last for a thousand years" while killing gays and midgets in camps (not to mention that jew thing). Not very nice thing to do. The truth is that civilization has always been dirty and as you will see, extremely competitive.

Men never banded together to "co-dominate" women. Research has shown that about 80% of women that ever lived had reproduced, as opposed to 40% of men. The vast majority of women were able to pass down their line while the majority of men (60%) never did. Other, more recent research has suggested that humans evolved in a polygynous system were "where a few men have access to most of the women" so this lopsided ratio makes sense.

In fact, you could argue that it's because of this asymmetric system that motivates young men to succeed and create "golden ages." Men compete because they want access to women. Women never want any guy, they want high value men. As a man, you have to gain value and make something of yourself. The greatest weapon a woman has is her beauty (albeit a very fragile weapon). The greatest weapon we men have is our hard work and accomplishments. That's why an 18-year-old girl is wayyyy more valuable than some 18-year-old guy, while a 40-year-old established gentleman is way more valuable than some used up hag of the same age. You have to make something of yourself as a male in order to get quality poon. There's no other way around it. This is the dilemma men all men in all periods of time have faced. This is the everyone on this board has faced and many are still facing.

There's good news though. Statistically and historically, most of you guys should never succeed and get any women at all, but we live in an age with access to literally all of human knowledge on our phones and the ability to buy plane tickets. Could you imagine being a single male during the Middle Ages? Don't even think about flying to another country to travel and meet women. There was no such thing. Don't think about learning new skills or starting an e-commerce business...or any business. You had nothing, You knew nothing. No one showed you any better way. You were going to end up dying on a battlefield sexless just like all those other idiots at the behest of some rich castle-owning douchebag and his 20 mistresses.

However, we also live in a world with incredible distractions (video games and cat videos), obesity, media propaganda, and atomization of the individual so it isn't easy to pull off. Everyone is depressed. Everyone is hazy about life. Everyone is putting on a fake front or just apathetic. And the old ways of gaining value like college + job no longer work so well. Thus, you have to work incredibly hard and incredibly smart, most likely for many years to make something of yourself in this time and age. But it's up to particular guy to do it.
I am a terrible person.
Dragon
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:31 am







Re: No game = no woman?

Postby Ghost » Fri Mar 11, 2016 2:32 am

Dragon wrote:I see this view a lot in certain "enlightened" alt-right spheres on the internet and it's more of a romanticized delusion than actual reality. I'm not sure which Golden Ages you are referring to, but if you are referring to Greek and Roman golden ages for example, they had a lot of iffy things. Greeks and Romans were pretty much par on course for pederasty (little boy boinking) and slavery. Not to mention all the other terrible things they did to other to advance their civilization. By all modern definitions, that's not moral at all.


Don't be so sure. Modern people are quite big on homosexuality and other deleterious practices, for example. Modern people would disagree on some details, but neither ancient nor modern decadents had/have a problem with f***ing over everyone with perverse practices. All of the "Golden Ages" of the major prosperous societies were like this - it isn't possible to rise so high without virtuous practices. They of course failed to hold to their virtues - as Western civilization is repeating at present - and thus gradually splintered. Treating others morally has always been reserved for members of the tribe. (I don't agree with this - but this has been the case.) Again, there is a parallel with the present. American political commentators for example will say that Americans should have due process and their Constitutional Rights respected, but they don't give a f**k about anyone else. If the daddygov kills a bunch of Yemini nationals, no one in the U.S. cares. It's tribal. As for pederasty in Greece, check first and see if that practice was from Greece's decline period. Even if it isn't from during Greece's decline, it may just be a complicated matter - a pretty standard view. A disagreement between modern and ancient.

Men never banded together to "co-dominate" women. Research has shown that about 80% of women that ever lived had reproduced, as opposed to 40% of men. The vast majority of women were able to pass down their line while the majority of men (60%) never did. Other, more recent research has suggested that humans evolved in a polygynous system were "where a few men have access to most of the women" so this lopsided ratio makes sense.


This was before civilization began. Yes, in the prehistoric world, more women than men reproduced. Post-civilization (of which monogamy was vital to forming) it evened out greatly. In order for civilization to form in the first place, men co-dominating women was essential. Read Unwin's Sex and Culture, a book which positively correlated female premarital chastity with the rise of a prosperous civilizations. (By the way, Unwin was what we would call a "liberal" in modern day America, so there was a bias AGAINST her coming up with the conclusion that she did in her book - yet she discovered it anyway.) The short of it is this: men think and create, but have no incentive to do this for the benefit of society unless they are given a stake in it (a faithful wife and children.) When given that stake in society, their creativity and labor are harnessed and everyone benefits. Hence civilization and its fruits emerge.

In fact, you could argue that it's because of this asymmetric system that motivates young men to succeed and create "golden ages." Men compete because they want access to women. Women never want any guy, they want high value men. As a man, you have to gain value and make something of yourself. The greatest weapon a woman has is her beauty (albeit a very fragile weapon). The greatest weapon we men have is our hard work and accomplishments. That's why an 18-year-old girl is wayyyy more valuable than some 18-year-old guy, while a 40-year-old established gentleman is way more valuable than some used up hag of the same age. You have to make something of yourself as a male in order to get quality poon. There's no other way around it. This is the dilemma men all men in all periods of time have faced. This is the everyone on this board has faced and many are still facing.


The solution to hypergamy is mandatory female pre-marital chastity and post-marital faithfulness. (There was a damn good reason adultery was considered a crime punishable by death in sane societies.) Men competing for women wastes resources - no civilization has ever emerged from a system of men competing for women. You will never find an example to the contrary.

There's good news though. Statistically and historically, most of you guys should never succeed and get any women at all, but we live in an age with access to literally all of human knowledge on our phones and the ability to buy plane tickets. Could you imagine being a single male during the Middle Ages? Don't even think about flying to another country to travel and meet women. There was no such thing. Don't think about learning new skills or starting an e-commerce business...or any business. You had nothing, You knew nothing. No one showed you any better way. You were going to end up dying on a battlefield sexless just like all those other idiots at the behest of some rich castle-owning douchebag and his 20 mistresses.


Our fates in the distant past would've depended on where and when we were born. It would've been possible to be born in a better place and time than the present. It could've been worse as well, depending.

However, we also live in a world with incredible distractions (video games and cat videos), obesity, media propaganda, and atomization of the individual so it isn't easy to pull off. Everyone is depressed. Everyone is hazy about life. Everyone is putting on a fake front or just apathetic. And the old ways of gaining value like college + job no longer work so well. Thus, you have to work incredibly hard and incredibly smart, most likely for many years to make something of yourself in this time and age. But it's up to particular guy to do it.


Speaking of which, most ways to make money in the modern world involve ripping off idiots (junk food, tech junk) , making puerile distractions (TV, cat videos), or producing intellectually sterile and morally repulsive content (all of pop culture.) To rise to a better position in such a world is only to tighten one's noose. This is where I find myself. The vast majority of anything worth doing doesn't pay. The modern world regards horrible things as accomplishments - stay confined to a box for years and learn how to be obedient to the state? They call that education. Piss away the hours of your life on some make-work bullshit? They call that 'making a living.' Chain yourself to a female that will use you, abuse you, and take everything dear to you? They call that marriage.

Tons of intelligent, creative, and moral people are being ground into powder because this modern world has no place for them. It's entirely antithetical to civilization - to all the noblest traits of man. A system of men competing for women is a part of that - a symptom.
Ghost
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 5749
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:23 am

Re: No game = no woman?

Postby travelsouth » Fri Mar 11, 2016 10:14 pm

You guys are hilarious. Do you want to know a great thing about living right now? These "liberated" women are open to doing things with other women. In the past I've "dated" a pretty average-ish women just because she had a thing for other women. Granted as women grow older they tend to grow out of it. But getting a thing going with a "bi" woman can be a lot of fun for a guy just having a good time before heading overseas for a wife.
travelsouth
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:20 pm

Re: No game = no woman?

Postby Ghost » Fri Mar 11, 2016 10:35 pm

Sigh. Oh yes, having women open to perversion is such a marvelous thing. :roll:
Ghost
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 5749
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:23 am

Re: No game = no woman?

Postby travelsouth » Fri Mar 11, 2016 10:40 pm

Ghost wrote:Sigh. Oh yes, having women open to perversion is such a marvelous thing. :roll:


It's fantastic. I got a guy that works for me. Chubby average looking dude. Played some football in high school, but not an athlete anymore. Likes to go out for a beer, have a good time. Pretty decent sales guy to at work. He's pulled some crazy hot tail. That's just one of many reasons I'm not a fan of the pitty party.

Granted I've out grown the whole get 2 chicks together thing, but I'd encourage others to give it a whirl. Sure beats whining on the internet.
travelsouth
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:20 pm

Re: No game = no woman?

Postby zippy0001 » Sun Mar 13, 2016 6:11 am

You need game if...

A)Your not actor/model/pornstar level in looks. Face and body.
B)You have no status.(not famous,in a trendy band,a tough guy that everyone fears/respects,apart of a criminal organization)
C)Short
D)Overweight
E)Not a rich($10m+).

If you are tall,slim and in shape,have status,have money,and have a "cute face" then you don't need game.Just smile,be somewhat funny and play stupid. Average to mildly attractive people(me and most other people on this board) need good game to have a small chance with other mildly attractive and plain looking women. Ugly people need other things(plastic surgery,makeup,gym conditioning+roids and GH,hair implants,dental implants,contacts) AND game.

Women in north america are conditioned to into thinking they are the best women in the world. So you have pretty high SMV or status to warrant them giving a damn about you. Totally spoiled. I get 9's and 10's thinking like that but 4's, 5's and 6's?
LOL!
zippy0001
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 4:19 am

Re: No game = no woman?

Postby Yohan » Sun Mar 13, 2016 7:47 am

travelsouth wrote:Competition has always existed in this world, and there have always been some men crying about it. This would have been true even before feminism corrupted the west.


It's not about competition, it's more about the criteria Western women are choosing their boyfriends and husbands.

In Western countries, if you are an honest man, working full time, ordinary wage earner, not drinking alcohol and without a criminal record, you are bad off - you cannot offer to women, what they are looking for - a life style which has to be exciting, or at least with a lot of money, and no alcohol is a clear 'F-word' etc.

This is indeed different in Asia - most Asian women appreciate men who are working regularly and consider to create a family, no alcohol and drug free is seen as an advantage and not a sign of weakness.

Western women have to learn to select men more carefully, to check them out not only on the surface. However this is only my hypothetical dream as Western women are morally rotten - most of them have multiple boyfriends anyway, who can be replaced with any other man anytime. Men do not have much value for Western women.
User avatar
Yohan
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2212
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:05 am
Location: Tokyo, JAPAN

Re: No game = no woman?

Postby travelsouth » Tue Mar 15, 2016 7:05 pm

Yohan wrote:
travelsouth wrote:Competition has always existed in this world, and there have always been some men crying about it. This would have been true even before feminism corrupted the west.


It's not about competition, it's more about the criteria Western women are choosing their boyfriends and husbands.

In Western countries, if you are an honest man, working full time, ordinary wage earner, not drinking alcohol and without a criminal record, you are bad off - you cannot offer to women, what they are looking for - a life style which has to be exciting, or at least with a lot of money, and no alcohol is a clear 'F-word' etc.

This is indeed different in Asia - most Asian women appreciate men who are working regularly and consider to create a family, no alcohol and drug free is seen as an advantage and not a sign of weakness.

Western women have to learn to select men more carefully, to check them out not only on the surface. However this is only my hypothetical dream as Western women are morally rotten - most of them have multiple boyfriends anyway, who can be replaced with any other man anytime. Men do not have much value for Western women.


Alcohol can be a problem for the women outside of the west too. I'm not a male model or a gang banger, and I've found a way to make things work. I recognize feminism. I see the same problems as everyone else. But then I move on with my day.

Actually what bothers me are the double standards out there that impact women, yet men are always the guys getting the bad rap and screwed over. For instance a 5'2 woman can demand only guys 6 foot and over. Even though I'm not height challenged I do see the irony there. Yet when my over 6ft self expects big breasts or a skinny woman (one thing a woman is in total control over, and another that a woman could elect to control) I'm sexist.

So that insanity which women get away with annoys me. Women getting to decide who they date and f**k bothers me very little at all. The fact of the matter is there are only so many model hot women on this planet, and every guy on earth can't get a model hot women.
travelsouth
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:20 pm

Re: No game = no woman?

Postby w.p.o. » Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:23 am

travelsouth wrote:
Yohan wrote:
travelsouth wrote:Competition has always existed in this world, and there have always been some men crying about it. This would have been true even before feminism corrupted the west.


It's not about competition, it's more about the criteria Western women are choosing their boyfriends and husbands.

In Western countries, if you are an honest man, working full time, ordinary wage earner, not drinking alcohol and without a criminal record, you are bad off - you cannot offer to women, what they are looking for - a life style which has to be exciting, or at least with a lot of money, and no alcohol is a clear 'F-word' etc.

This is indeed different in Asia - most Asian women appreciate men who are working regularly and consider to create a family, no alcohol and drug free is seen as an advantage and not a sign of weakness.

Western women have to learn to select men more carefully, to check them out not only on the surface. However this is only my hypothetical dream as Western women are morally rotten - most of them have multiple boyfriends anyway, who can be replaced with any other man anytime. Men do not have much value for Western women.


Alcohol can be a problem for the women outside of the west too. I'm not a male model or a gang banger, and I've found a way to make things work. I recognize feminism. I see the same problems as everyone else. But then I move on with my day.

Actually what bothers me are the double standards out there that impact women, yet men are always the guys getting the bad rap and screwed over. For instance a 5'2 woman can demand only guys 6 foot and over. Even though I'm not height challenged I do see the irony there. Yet when my over 6ft self expects big breasts or a skinny woman (one thing a woman is in total control over, and another that a woman could elect to control) I'm sexist.

So that insanity which women get away with annoys me. Women getting to decide who they date and f**k bothers me very little at all. The fact of the matter is there are only so many model hot women on this planet, and every guy on earth can't get a model hot women.


take your ass to eastern europe (latvia, lithiuania, slovenia {trumps wife is slovenian}, romania, moldavia, estonia, slovakia, poland... you'll be kickin yourself in the ass in no time! Someone such as yourself won't believe it til you see it. Once you've test driven a lamborghini (non-western) you'll forget all about that camaro (westerner).
w.p.o.
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: No game = no woman?

Postby w.p.o. » Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:26 am

speaking in general
w.p.o.
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: No game = no woman?

Postby Eric » Mon Mar 21, 2016 11:15 pm

/edit
Last edited by Eric on Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-"Virescit vulnere virtus"
User avatar
Eric
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 636
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:07 am

Re: No game = no woman?

Postby Adama » Tue Mar 22, 2016 4:20 am

travelsouth wrote:
Yohan wrote:
travelsouth wrote:Competition has always existed in this world, and there have always been some men crying about it. This would have been true even before feminism corrupted the west.


It's not about competition, it's more about the criteria Western women are choosing their boyfriends and husbands.

In Western countries, if you are an honest man, working full time, ordinary wage earner, not drinking alcohol and without a criminal record, you are bad off - you cannot offer to women, what they are looking for - a life style which has to be exciting, or at least with a lot of money, and no alcohol is a clear 'F-word' etc.

This is indeed different in Asia - most Asian women appreciate men who are working regularly and consider to create a family, no alcohol and drug free is seen as an advantage and not a sign of weakness.

Western women have to learn to select men more carefully, to check them out not only on the surface. However this is only my hypothetical dream as Western women are morally rotten - most of them have multiple boyfriends anyway, who can be replaced with any other man anytime. Men do not have much value for Western women.


Alcohol can be a problem for the women outside of the west too. I'm not a male model or a gang banger, and I've found a way to make things work. I recognize feminism. I see the same problems as everyone else. But then I move on with my day.

Actually what bothers me are the double standards out there that impact women, yet men are always the guys getting the bad rap and screwed over. For instance a 5'2 woman can demand only guys 6 foot and over. Even though I'm not height challenged I do see the irony there. Yet when my over 6ft self expects big breasts or a skinny woman (one thing a woman is in total control over, and another that a woman could elect to control) I'm sexist.

So that insanity which women get away with annoys me. Women getting to decide who they date and f**k bothers me very little at all. The fact of the matter is there are only so many model hot women on this planet, and every guy on earth can't get a model hot women.



It's just a wish list. If she finds a guy she's attracted to, it will be perfectly okay if he is average height. I also used to get upset when women would use that double standard of attractiveness. The thing is though, attractive women will not care about what you are attracted to, unless they are attracted to you. That is a good thing. So if you say you aren't attracted to her type when she likes you, then that upsets the women a little bit.

Women are supposed to look attractive for men. It is just that if a woman finds out (or figures out or guesses) that she is automatically cut out of consideration for not being attractive enough, it really burns them, because that is part of their inherent programming (to be sexually attractive enough to obtain the man of their choice).

Don't believe me? Who is it whose feelings are more hurt, and who is more offended when they are called FAT? Is it men or women? Women are much more offended by being called names which mean they are unattractive. That's because they are supposed to be attractive for men.

That also may be why the first insults they go to are: little penis and can't get a woman. That might just be projection, because their fear is that men won't find them attractive enough to want them (because biologically they WANT to be attractive but in reality they are too lazy and modern men cater to them). That's why they want to say a man either can't get a woman or can't satisfy one sexually. Women are biologically programmed to obtain and satisfy the right man. Hearing that that man wouldn't ever want them because their breasts are too small or whatever basically destroys (emotionally) her core functioning, blocking her ability to do what she is programmed to do (obtain and satisfy a man). If he's not interested, she can't obtain and satisfy him, therefore she blows her lid.

Most of you will think I am nuts, but one or two of you may get it, sooner or later.
Look for women who automatically want to please you because it pleases them. Any woman who seeks to please her man is a treasure. Even better if you don't have to ask but rather suggest.
User avatar
Adama
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 3949
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 9:37 pm

Re: No game = no woman?

Postby Eric » Wed Mar 23, 2016 12:36 am

I get you.
-"Virescit vulnere virtus"
User avatar
Eric
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 636
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:07 am

Previous

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: drronnie, Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot], yick and 3 guests