Are Prostitutes Better Than Normal Women?

[Cornfed]

CE is right, at least for black males. Obviously it is insane for any male to get married to a Western female in the West. There is no reason for black males to get married at all where marriage entails any great obligation on them, as doing so is completely alien to their r-selected species.

[MrMan]

Back up a minute there and re-think the conversation. You started with the 'cuck' name-calling, so you must have lost the debate from the get-go. Name-calling is a substitute for reasoned argument for those incapable of it, or those with few reasoned points. I have found the MGTOW's I've interacted with to rely quite heavily on name-calling and to be really light on reasoned argument.

If English is not your first language, my apologies in advance. But you seem to have a fundamental lack of knowledge of basic terminology. Socrates quote, "When the debate is lost, slander is the tool of the loser," hinges upon the term slander which means an untrue smear. If it is true, it cannot be slander. So when people on this site brand you a Cuck, and you retort with the same, you've lost the debate in trying to slander those who are not Cucks. This is the point you are missing. You would be better off finding some other term to sling to avoid being the loser of the debate according to Socrates.

I'm not a cuckold, so you calling me a 'cuck' is slander. You could redefine 'cuck' to mean something that has nothing to do with what the word really means, and say you aren't slandering me. So I could redefine 'Cucktrarian Expat' to refer to the poster who uses the word 'cuck' to mean something other than what it really means.

It does seem to be a common tactic for those who don't have a solid, reasonable, logical arguments to resort to name-calling. It also seems to be the culture of MGTOWs to try to shame their opponents into agreeing with them by calling them names. I wonder why that is?

Do you realize that the MGTOW arguments do not even make much sense in societies where the laws are not biased against men and the divorce rates are relatively low? They don't usually face the same social problems as the US either.

Ah yes, the old ignore the refutation and restate the refuted argument tactic. This is a common tactic that married men borrow from their wives. I have addressed that weak point in my previous post. Covering your ears and jumping up and down, and repeating your previously defeated point does not revive its debate value. Please go back and read how I smacked down that argument previously.

Closing your ears and jumping up and down? That sounds like your attitude toward venereal diseases. Insisting that you have little risk doesn't make it so.

As far as your 'refutation', I found a little one or two line comment of yours that wasn't much of a refutation. You can assert that men in other countries lose wealth, etc. over marriage. In some cultures, getting a wife adds to your wealth (the wife as an asset, seen as property, a productive asset if she produces children.) Be that as it may, claiming you refuted an argument doesn't mean you have.

Also, you asked who wanted to have sex with the same woman? What is the real advantage of different women? I suppose you might feel some excitement due to variety. But I'd also imagine if you tried to get with a different woman every night, you'd strike out or just not have any fish bite a lot of nights and go home for a lot of sexless nights, and be less likely to have sex than a man in a sexually active marriage. I'd imagine the typical MGTOW sex life is basically celibacy or a sex life of masturbation and the sad practice of going to prostitutes to pay them to pretend to like him. As far as physical sensations go, sex with the same woman without a condom has to beat having sex with a variety of different women using a condom. And that's just the hedonistic, sensation aspect of it without the relationship aspects.

I wonder if you really understand the 'sunk cost' concept. When you consider sunk costs in business, you are supposed to consider, from this point going forward, what is the most profitable decision you can make. Like finance calculations in finance, the sunk cost philosophy can fall short on legal and ethical considerations. Profit is not the only consideration. Ethics, what the owner wants the business to be about, etc. are important considerations. If businesses made decisions based solely on what is profitable, they might all go into business selling illegal drugs.

And from an economics perspective, people seek to gain 'utility.' You fail to consider that what you get 'utility' from may not be the same as what other people get. You may think that being married and having kids is a bad thing from your perspective. For me, I certainly would not get utility from abandoning my wife and kids. I suppose having an affair would be physically enjoyable on one level just because sex feels good, but it would also be awful, like abandoning my wife and kids, because these things violate my sense of morals and ethics. A serial killer might gain 'utility' in terms of enjoyment from killing someone for sport. I wouldn't gain 'utility' from that.

That's a problem with your MGTOW arguments. You assume that other people gain utility from the same things you do. You even argue that a man may be happy in marriage, which you called servitude to wife, but you are still against it. That doesn't make sense if your religion is called 'Men Going Their Own Way'. If it is about each man being happy, and you admit that marriage makes some men happy, then you don't have much of an argument against all marriage. It makes sense for me to argue for certain principles of marriage for everyone. But your position doesn't make much sense. "Marriage is just bad' isn't a very compelling or sensible argument. It is not bad for society, especially what marriages where both husband and wife hold to more traditional views of marriage. And many individuals do find happiness in marriage.

As far as my own enjoyment goes, a 'sunk cost' analysis would lead me to stay in my own marriage and not have an affair. Having an affair would hurt my conscience and I'd enjoy life a lot less. Leaving my wife would probably result in a lot less sex. If I were to go to bars to pick up women, I probably wouldn't pull one as often as I'd have sex with my wife as a married man. I probably couldn't get some chick from a bar to come over and cook me a gourmet meal and do my laundry. Also, sluts from bars or even prostitutes haven't been trained for years through interaction with me in what I like. As far as going to bars go, I'd probably be able to get some interest from girls in parts of Asia without paying. But I'm not as young and good-looking as I used to be, and in 20 years, I'll probably look like some old geezer. My wife still looks a lot younger than her age, both face and body. I'd imagine if I went into bars looking for women, very few would be as attractive as she is physically, and then the odds that one I picked would be interested in me back, and that I'd have success in persuading her would be slim. I'd be facing a lot of sexless nights, combined with guilt over my wicked choices.

You assume married men are unhappy and in 'defense mode' based on denial, instead of actually considering the evidence careful. In this case, the testimony of witnesses is evidence. I am sure there are plenty of married men who have chosen abominably bad women to marry who aren't willing to admit their suffering. Again, I could say the same sort of thing about single MGTOWs, that they are lonely miserable wretches, who create or find a philosophy to make them feel better about not being able to form a meaningful relationship with a woman. That would apply to men like yourself and also men who can't get a date with a woman who are in the MGTOW camp.

Oh, yes. The Straw Man fallacy! I knew to expect this eventually from you. I have never said married men are unhappy, in fact, most married men are blissfully content in their servitude to wife, especially in the early stages of the marriage.

If that's what you mean, then you don't really have much of an argument against marriage, especially in the early stages of marriage. As to whether marriage resembles 'servitude to wife', that depends on how the man handles himself in the marriage. You probably apply all kinds of 'game' tactics to put yourself in a more dominant position. Married men have to know how to handle their wives in order to have a peaceful relationship where she respects him. He's got to pick a woman he knows he can handle before marrying.

As Esther Vilar wrote, the intelligent wives relate to their husbands in ways that make him happy to be a slave. Only the foolish wife drives away her slave. What you were likely referring to is my assertion that most marriages are unsuccessful in that they result in either divorce or people staying together while miserable due to finances, children, obligation to religion, etc. My position is that only 10% to 30% of marriages remain happy for the duration.

MGTOWs are like radical feminists except they are men and reverse the genders. Radical feminists back in the 1960's were teaching women that marriage was like slavery and prostitution, souring impressionable women toward men. MGTOWs do something similar, souring some gullible young men toward marriage. Feminists teaching this stuff is partly what lead to the raw deal for men in US culture we see today.

If you think up to 30% of marriages remain happy for the duration, you shouldn't be against all marriage. You shouldn't have MGTOW as your religion.

I doubt you'd find 1% of men or women who are happy for the entire duration of their marriage. People get unhappy at times. Single people get unhappy at times. Marriage doesn't guarantee happiness, certainly not consistent happiness 100% of the time. If you spend enough time around someone else, that person is going to get on your nerves at least at some point. But people who are alone can be unhappy and feel lonely at times, too.

I'd estimate close to 100% of single people are unhappy at some point in time at something that relates to their singleness.

A man going his own way is not following a philosophy. He is living his life, on his terms, with his enhanced wealth, in the freest manner of self-interest. Your charaterization of MGTOW is an example of Aesop's fox who could not reach the juicy, refreshing grapes so he walked away bitter telling himself that those luscious, refreshing grapes were likely just sour anyhow! Ok, if that makes you feel better, MGTOW like myself are bitter and lonely and miserable and poor and we don't travel have no variety of new women in our lives and we are simply sour anyhow!

I said I could do like you do, and argue that you are just lying about how you feel. That's no way to persuade people. You might be able to persuade some gullible, impressionable person he is not happy with some of his life decisions, even if he was before you talked to him. But that's not going to persuade me.

You also operate from a different world view. I do not think a man's value consist of how many possessions he has. A man can be happy with relatively few possessions. I don't consider emotional happiness to be the purpose of a man's life. (Aristotle's 'happiness' as the goal of life isn't about emotional happiness as we normally use the term.)

You really do like the Straw Man tactic I see. I am a minimalist who gave away thousands of dollars of belongings. I have two suitcases, a laptop bag, and a car in long term storage while I travel the world. I am in Japan now and I move to another country about every month or so. So I have less possessions than most, but I have more WEALTH than most which grants me freedom to travel and meet new young, nubile women regularly.

If you mean wealth as in cash or assets, then those are still possessions.

Consider this: Any village idiot can marry, have kids and live his pathetic life out living the traditional cuck life. But scant few have the intelligence, freedom, and means to live the lifestyle of a wealthy, international, bon vivant. MGTOW are most able to do that however! If I had the chance to snap my finger and magically choose again, I would again reject the lifestyle of the married, traditional cuck in favor of the HNWI MGTOW without a second thought. What would most men who have been married more than 10 years choose? Most would look over at the fat, nagging wife and strongly consider MGTOW!

I'm married and I've been to several different countries. I'd venture to guess most guys talking about MGTOW aren't high net worth individuals. (It's hard to communicate if you use abbreviations people need to look up.) I wouldn't call myself 'HNWI' but I do all right. But if I lost my savings tomorrow, I wouldn't be devastated or think my life was worthless. When I had no income I was just as a valuable as I am now.

Please tell me you did not use that bitter shaming tactic about having meaningless and unfulfilling sexual relationships! Your wife has literally invaded your brain.

You really have a strange prejudice toward married men. I don't think I've every heard my wife use that kind of terminology 'meaningless and unfulfilling sexual relationships!' Those are my words. Not every man thinks like you do.

I am 50 years old, but most people assume I am in my 30s. I am physically fit because I have time for ample sleep and regular workouts. I therefore only date women half of my age and below. I have a 19 year old who loves me very much and I have a bevy of lesser important twentysomethings who find it fun to hang out and enjoy my company. I can assure you these personal relationships are extremely fulfilling!

If you are that old, it's likely that it will start to show soon. Do you think you can keep the new girls interested if you look like an old man?

You basically have a very selfish world-view. You also forget that we are actually social beings. There is enjoyment in relationships, having a wife, children, etc. that is more than just entertainment. There are also good things to do that are good whether I receive temporary pleasure or not. You should consider what society would be like if everyone did what you described. Either it would be full of bastards or there would be no kids and society would die out. If women were as selfish as you want men to be.. well that's the problem you are reacting against. if all of them were that way, society would be worse. All women would use men and discard them. It's a huge problem already.

Now you are basically lashing out with cognitive dissonance and reaching for some altruistic argument which would serve to justify your decision to cuck yourself into marital servitude.

Maybe you are the selfish one because you certainly did not marry to save the world and society. You married out of self-interest and a desire to lockdown your wife so you could have her for yourself.

Talk about a straw man. I did not say married people are more moral. I was responding to your comments about life decisions which seem to come from a very selfish philosophy, and particularly raising children. But maybe I shouldn't jump to conclusions. If you got a woman pregnant, would you be comfortable having nothing to do with your own son or daughter?

There were a number of factors involved in deciding to marry my wife. A lot of it had to do with following God's will for my life. This was something I prayed about and had gotten some direction on before I took action. But I did want to marry, and I wanted her to be my wife.

Newsflash: Most married women eventually have an extra marital affair as respite from their slave who no longer can please her as well as before.

I don't know if it is true that 'most' women do that. I give my wife what she needs, physically, and then some, anyway. But my wife also has good morals in this area.

How are your personal morals? If you see a friend left his wallet in his car when he got out. You figure you could take $100 out without him knowing it was you, would you do it? If you really didn't like someone, and you just knew you could kill him without anyone knowing, would you do it? Does what's good for other people enter into your decision-making at some point?

So married people are more "moral" than unmarried people? Does this apply to unmarried priests, nuns, and other clergy too?

No, and that is a good example of a straw man argument. it's not about married people having better morals. I am commenting on the way you have portrayed your own moral philosophy. You ask why a man should raise children? Were you asking why a man should raise his own children if they exist? If a man has children out there, and he refuses to raise or support them, that's something I would consider very selfish and immoral.

Let me burst your moralistic bubble here. In any case of murder or homicide of a married person, the presumptive, prime suspect is the living spouse absent evidence to the contrary. How is that for married people being more "moral?"

Again, you are arguing against a straw man. But since a very tiny percent of married people murder their spouses, it's not really that strong an argument for your case.

I'm very glad your wife let's you have those things because she does not have to you know!

If you use another shaming tactic like calling MGTOW sociopathic, I am going to think you are a female posing as a male on this forum. If you are not female, you give huge indications of just how affected your thinking is by your wife.

Look in the mirror, man. You are the one using the shaming tactics. My wife doesn't control whether I have a TV. The sociopath comment was triggered by your asking why men should raise children and the very selfish philosophy you presented in the last post about making life choices, as if it is right for man only to care about himself and his own pleasure, and not other people.

Other people can be important to a man. It is as if you do not want men to care about other people, particularly a woman, not enough to marry her.

Be a man, not a slave.

I am a man. I am not going to become a slave to these name-calling, insulting, shaming tactics, and become a MGTOW. Is that how you were persuaded to become one? Through the insults?

[Contrarian Expatriate]

I'm not a cuckold, so you calling me a 'cuck' is slander. You could redefine 'cuck' to mean something that has nothing to do with what the word really means, and say you aren't slandering me. So I could redefine 'Cucktrarian Expat' to refer to the poster who uses the word 'cuck' to mean something other than what it really means.

Hate to break it to you, but according to this definition, you are indeed a "Cuck."

Instead of rejecting the characterization, you should own it because you are 100% behind men sacrificing themselves as disposable utilities for women who decline in value over time. Cucks militate against anything that empowers men as men instead of men as utilities. Don't be ashamed of the term, you should be ashamed of your characteristics that render the term applicable to you.

If you read the definition of a cuck, you might feel less attacked and more comfortable with that label.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckservative

[Contrarian Expatriate]

I have no issue with any married man who does so as a Red Pill Aware man.

However, this thread has revealed some of the most irredeemably anti-male reprobates that societies will ever know, the married, traditionalist cucks. How do you identify them? You only need to listen to their internalized use of FEMALE shaming tactics such as:

-You're just selfish!

-You must have been hurt!

-You must be gay!

-You just hate women!

-You just haven't found the right woman yet!

-Et cetera....

The MGTOW named Liberation Y has expanded on this topic, and brilliantly so.

As you watch the video, see if you can recall other men using these female tactics on you so you can better identify those men who are against you and your best interests.

More importantly, see if the behavior discussed APPLIES to you. If it does (I'm not saying any names), then you have been already defeated by gynocentrism and you have a long way to go out of that abyss. If it hits close to home and you become depressed and perhaps suicidal, please seek professional help as you transition into a free, self-actualized, masculine man.

[MrMan]

I'm not a cuckold, so you calling me a 'cuck' is slander. You could redefine 'cuck' to mean something that has nothing to do with what the word really means, and say you aren't slandering me. So I could redefine 'Cucktrarian Expat' to refer to the poster who uses the word 'cuck' to mean something other than what it really means.

Hate to break it to you, but according to this definition, you are indeed a "Cuck."

Instead of rejecting the characterization, you should own it because you are 100% behind men sacrificing themselves as disposable utilities for women who decline in value over time. Cucks militate against anything that empowers men as men instead of men as utilities. Don't be ashamed of the term, you should be ashamed of your characteristics that render the term applicable to you.

If you read the definition of a cuck, you might feel less attacked and more comfortable with that label.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckservative

You apparently don't understand the definition of your own word,

One definition of "cuckservative" is a conservative who sells out,[11] having bought into all of the key premises of the left,[12] and sympathizes with liberal values

That doesn't apply to me at all. I believe wives should submit to their husbands. The husband father is the leader and father of the home. These are old conservative values, not a sell-out to the left. I don't think women necessarily need the 'right to vote', but I do not campaign for it either way. I think society would be a bit better if women could not vote, but I do not think it is realistic at this point to campaign against it. So my values aren't 'leftist' on our political spectrum, certain in regard to gender issues.

Using women as sexual playthings is more of a leftist 'value' than a right wing value. Your attitudes toward sexuality are more 'left' in that regard. Sexual libertinism is left wing, not right wing.

[MrMan]

I'm not a cuckold, so you calling me a 'cuck' is slander. You could redefine 'cuck' to mean something that has nothing to do with what the word really means, and say you aren't slandering me. So I could redefine 'Cucktrarian Expat' to refer to the poster who uses the word 'cuck' to mean something other than what it really means.

Hate to break it to you, but according to this definition, you are indeed a "Cuck."

Instead of rejecting the characterization, you should own it because you are 100% behind men sacrificing themselves as disposable utilities for women who decline in value over time. Cucks militate against anything that empowers men as men instead of men as utilities. Don't be ashamed of the term, you should be ashamed of your characteristics that render the term applicable to you.

If you read the definition of a cuck, you might feel less attacked and more comfortable with that label.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckservative

You apparently don't understand the definition of your own word,

One definition of "cuckservative" is a conservative who sells out,[11] having bought into all of the key premises of the left,[12] and sympathizes with liberal values

That doesn't apply to me at all. I believe wives should submit to their husbands. The husband father is the leader and father of the home. These are old conservative values, not a sell-out to the left. I don't think women necessarily need the 'right to vote', but I do not campaign for it either way. I think society would be a bit better if women could not vote, but I do not think it is realistic at this point to campaign against it. So my values aren't 'leftist' on our political spectrum, certain in regard to gender issues.

Using women as sexual playthings is more of a leftist 'value' than a right wing value. Your attitudes toward sexuality are more 'left' in that regard. Sexual libertinism is left wing, not right wing.

[MrMan]

I have no issue with any married man who does so as a Red Pill Aware man.

However, this thread has revealed some of the most irredeemably anti-male reprobates that societies will ever know, the married, traditionalist cucks. How do you identify them? You only need to listen to their internalized use of FEMALE shaming tactics such as:

You have a twisted view of what a reprobate is, thinking its okay to bed all those young girls, and then calling non-cheating married men 'reprobates'?

-You're just selfish!

I called your philosophy selfish based on the specifics of what you are saying. I had details to back that up. So my description was fact based not a 'female shaming tactic'. You calling me a cuckservative is more along the lines of leftist feminist and LGBT activist tactics. You come up with some term designed to insult other people which you aim at decent people for holding to their decent views. Feminists call men who believe men should be in charge male chauvinist pigs, and LGBT activists call those with decent sexual morals homophobes. Your a fornicator who calls married conservatives cuckservatives.

I suspect you resort to name-calling because you can't really defend your case without it. MGTOWs have a culture of name-calling. It's a lot like feminists from what I've seen, except a bit more harsh and more male of course.

-You must have been hurt!

-You must be gay!

I don't know if a girl hurt you are not. Most people have been hurt. That's part of living life. That doesn't mean that is why you went MGTOW. Going to bars and picking up women isn't a characteristic of homosexuals.

-You just hate women!

You haven't shown love for women. But you may be apathetically using them without caring about them.

-You just haven't found the right woman yet!

That does sound like something a women like to say, but some MGTOWs deconvert if they find a girl who pays them attention. I'd imagine those who become MGTOW to make themselves feel better when they can't get a date would be more likely to fall into this category.

As far as being in favor of what's best for men is concerned, you seem pretty concerned with what you want to do without caring much about other people around you, from your past posts. Why care about men? Why care about some men who is not you if you don't care about women who are not you? I want to live in a well-ordered society that is just for both men and women with men and women in their proper roles. I don't think I have to be against women to be in favor of men. Women taking care of their husbands and children is a good thing for them, most of them, in line with their design.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

I'm not a cuckold, so you calling me a 'cuck' is slander. You could redefine 'cuck' to mean something that has nothing to do with what the word really means, and say you aren't slandering me. So I could redefine 'Cucktrarian Expat' to refer to the poster who uses the word 'cuck' to mean something other than what it really means.

Hate to break it to you, but according to this definition, you are indeed a "Cuck."

Instead of rejecting the characterization, you should own it because you are 100% behind men sacrificing themselves as disposable utilities for women who decline in value over time. Cucks militate against anything that empowers men as men instead of men as utilities. Don't be ashamed of the term, you should be ashamed of your characteristics that render the term applicable to you.

If you read the definition of a cuck, you might feel less attacked and more comfortable with that label.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckservative

You apparently don't understand the definition of your own word,

One definition of "cuckservative" is a conservative who sells out,[11] having bought into all of the key premises of the left,[12] and sympathizes with liberal values

That doesn't apply to me at all. I believe wives should submit to their husbands. The husband father is the leader and father of the home. These are old conservative values, not a sell-out to the left. I don't think women necessarily need the 'right to vote', but I do not campaign for it either way. I think society would be a bit better if women could not vote, but I do not think it is realistic at this point to campaign against it. So my values aren't 'leftist' on our political spectrum, certain in regard to gender issues.

Using women as sexual playthings is more of a leftist 'value' than a right wing value. Your attitudes toward sexuality are more 'left' in that regard. Sexual libertinism is left wing, not right wing.

I completely get why you'd like to shift this discussion into a semantic one. But I am not so inclined to let you off the hook.

You are a CUCK, as in a cuckservative in that you advocate the continued disposablily of men under the guise of marriage. Sure, you can squawk about being dominant over your wife, but the fact of the marriage is that your wife passively rules over you and gets you to like it.

Traditionalist men like yourself that encourage men to marry do themselves a disservice. But I don't care about you and other married CUCKS. I care about warning unmarried men about the snares and traps that you paint as positive when they are as inimical to men as can be. Damn you for trying to bamboozle other men into the same servitude that you toil under!

[MrMan]

Contrarian Expat,

A curse undeserved does not come to rest.

If you discover a nice uncrowded beach that is just close enough to shopping, are you going to post online about what a great tourist location it is? You might, but then if enough people read it, you'd have another crowded beach.

Given what you value, it is irrational for you to promote MGTOW. Let's say you were successful and multitudes of married men at all ages, including men in their 40's, like myself, decided to go MGTOW. What would that mean for them?

First of all, they might leave their wives who would probably get the children. If you have looked around some of the more useful, educated portions of the manosphere, you may have encountered statistics that show that children raised with fathers in the home tend to be better behaved, less likely to be envolved in crime, etc. If your message really had an impact and 10, 20, or 30% of men went MGTOW, after several years, the number of poorly behaved youths would likely increase. The number of young thugs likely to rob you on the side of the street as you get more and more feeble and less able to defend yourself would increase, as you get into your 60's and 70's.

They would leave their wives, but still have biological and emotional urges for sex. Who would your message appeal to the most? Men with fat, domineering wives with irritating personalities. So who would flood the night clubs? You'd have a lot of competition, not just from 50-year-old men like yourself who can't pull off looking 30, but also men in their 30's and 40's competing for these hot young women. You might see more expat tours to Russia and other places you like to frequent. Maybe you could still pull the ladies, but you'd be competing for the creme of the crop, and your looks may begin to show as the young men you influenced flooded the bars.

But there would be more women, too. Mainly those fat, old-looking, domineering wives of the men most succeptible to your MGTOW message, the type of women you might not want to put up with to be around long enough to seduce, and the type of women you wouldn't want to if you could stand their personalities. If you are trying to seduce 20 year olds up into your '80's, they'd be more likely to be poorly behaved and not well trained to submit to men if they are raised without fathers in the home, because their dad's went MGTOW.

I don't see why you have any incentive to spread the MGTOW message. Influencing men to join MGTOW isn't going to help you enjoy the type of temporal pleasures you are looking for. It's like inviting the crowds to the nice secluded beach or the quiet spot in the woods you like to enjoy. Other men marrying off and raising kids is actually what enables you to get many of these things you want as a MGTOW.

It's also arrogant and narrow-minded of you to impose your MGTOW player non-values on married men. One of the things men's rights activists point to is how the system leads to male suicide. How many of those suicides do you think happen after a man looses his wife and kids? He cares about his kids? Trying to convince married men with kids who are happy with their wives to go MGTOW isn't promoting a pro-man objective. Your telling men to mess their own lives up. That kind of message might appeal to a divorce man whose wife left him. MGTOW might appeal to some young, single men, unfortunately, which isn't good for the next generation of men because the MGTOW who go the player route may leave boys raised without fathers. Your promoting MGTOW isn't going to help boys grow into well-balanced men. It doesn't help keep what is left of the system together that enables you to enjoy your life.

The way you promote MGTOW, with name calling and insults, what kind of gullible ignoramuses would fall for that? Who is going to give up their wife and kids because they get called names? That's probably why a lot of the MGTOWs I've interacted in online do not seem to be very bright. The movement seems to appeal to angry men who are incapable or unwilling of relying on reason and instead rely on insults.

It's a masculinized version of the garbage the feminists were feeding women in the '60's where wives and mothers were painted as slaves and prostitutes. MGTOW does it with married men. Feminists were taught to be anti-man. A lot of MGTOWs have an anti-woman attitude. It's a garbage philosophy that promotes anger and division, and isn't good for society for the whole, and certainly not worthy of your religious devotion to it.

[MrMan]

You are a CUCK, as in a cuckservative in that you advocate the continued disposablily of men under the guise of marriage. Sure, you can squawk about being dominant over your wife, but the fact of the marriage is that your wife passively rules over you and gets you to like it.

It's pretty clear that you've lost the debate already if you have to resort to using insults, your own definition of a recently made-up word at that, in order to argue your point.

How stupid does someone have to agree with you about something like this just so he is not insulted? It's a very childish recruitment methodology.

[Zambales]

If you want to spend the rest of your life single and free that's your prerogative and perfectly fine too, but will you still feel the same way in ten or twenty years time?

I am 50 years old and as time goes on, I am more convinced that I have made the best lifestyle choice as a free and fulfilled MGTOW. I wish you were courageous enough to experience the same.

Whether you remain single or eventually get married it doesn't matter, the goal is to be happy for the rest of your life, but remaining bitter isn't freedom or contentment, it's imprisonment. The woman or women that have orchestrated your mental state may have won the battle but if you can't move on and forget the past, they've also won the war.

You're now engaging in projection. Perhaps it is women who have affected your own mental state to the point where you are defeated? If you are married or plan to do so in the future, your defeat as a fully-actualized man is but assured no matter how much you protest to the contrary.

Also, MGTOW is not about the women, it is about the system that makes men slaves to women, regardless of country. The fact that you all are focused on the pathology of the women should be a clue to you that something is wrong however.

Marriage tips the balance of power away from the man. If you think can be "happy" for the rest of your life under those conditions, you are truly very brainwashed by gynocentrism.

But please, do indeed partake in marriage so one day you and the other slaves will know I am correct

Since when did anyone say that marriage was a 24/7 utopia? There's no guarantee of prolonged happiness whether a man gets married, or stays single for the remainder of his days. None!

Having spent over a decade in a relationship and also experiencing life as a singleton for a number of years at one stage, I can safely say that both have their pros and cons. At this particular juncture in my life the door still remains open if you catch my drift, and despite the inane nonsense you've been churning out for the past few days, this isn't going to change anytime soon.

So no, I won't be signing up to your negative, bitter, blind-leading-the-blind cult.



Do accept my sincerest apologies but I'm old enough and wise enough to make my own decisions on whether I marry or not. And I certainly don't need to be manipulated by an individual whose arguments contain more holes than a Syrian golf course.

Anyway, enjoy your life as a 50 year old "rock star" in Eastern Europe. I'm sure all the hot young desirable chicks will be bursting a blood vessel to sample a piece of your loving.

Meanwhile.

Back to reality and the more probable outcome.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

You can tell just how miserable certain married people are by the way in which they try to deflect attention away from the argument of just how brutal an institution marriage is, especially for men.

But don't take my word for it, read the accounts from some of those rare honest married people themselves.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... posts.html

It is well known that most married people LIE about their marital bliss just to justify their huge mistake. It takes more courage than the average person can muster to admit that marriage was a life-ruining experience.

And I like the humorous image of the crying man. I thought about returning the favor but reasoned that there would be nothing funny about examples of married men so utterly destroyed by wife and state that they became suicidal.

[droid]

...

Damn, CE I don't necessarily agree with everything but you 're making too many great points. When cornfed's not around you make fantastic posts lol. You've made me sign in again to post.

Sometimes I ponder about making serious proposals to some girls but all it takes to make me back up is a post of a girl with her mom.
Like they say, "look at the mom". I seriously can't fathom waking up to a monster-looking lady one day, which is what all women start turning into after 35 or or even earlier. There are nice aspects as there really are good women out there that are team players and actually bring something to the table, and children I guess, because I do get along well with kids, but also the huge expense makes me refrain. To think that, like you and Winston say, losing all my freedom and money getting spent at three times the rate, crap!

Unfortunately the decision is pretty much a binary one, you either get married or you don't. Although I've seen some that are married to loving women who turn a blind eye and understand their 'needs' to go and do the occasional p4p. I guess those guys have their cake and eat it too.

Regarding the MGTOW thing, I think the term does not apply if you have any interaction with women at all, like dating, p4p etc. So strictly speaking neither you or Yohan etc are really MGTOW. The guy in one of the videos you linked stresses this point.

I think the whole concept is too extreme, those guys pretending they don't need women at all and even some trying to suppress porn and masturbation, completely unnatural. But I understand it as a consequence of some of the things going on in society. Especially sad is that clip with the cat playing piano while supposedly 'not caring' about women's bodies in the background etc

[droid]

All you guys promoting marriage are failing to see the point. If you want lifelong companionship and children, then YES, marriage is right for you.
But if you want tons of sex with tons of different women, then nothing beats the prostitution lifestyle.
I am not going to judge either group. It's each man's choice to live how he sees fit. But the men in the prostitution lifestyle category are indeed much more free and are probably f***ing more women in one year than a married guy has f***ed in his whole life.

+1 fantastic points
All these judgmental guys are truly talking out of their back ends when they say the p4p women are "acting" and there is no "passion", and they're married to 9+ women. So many bullshitters. P4P is one thing people really can not talk about if they haven't done it, end of story.
Fortunately like starchild has suggested in the past we are 'multidimensional' so to speak, and it's not a one-of-the-other thing, we are not forced to stick forever to just one 'paradigm' lol.
It's definitely better to do p4p that going lying to nice girls and wasting energy just to get some action, it does serve a purpose.

[MrMan]

Droid,

I remember in my teens and 20's looking at middle aged, sagging women with make-up, trying to look pretty, and old women, and wondering how their husbands had sex with them. My theory is that it is like a frog in water raised slowly to a boil as opposed to dropping a frog in boiling water. if you drop a frog in boiling water, he'll jump around to avoid it. But slowly raise the temperature, and they say he'll just sit there and boil. The boiling water is sex with an old droopy skinned woman. Offer than to a horny teenager with no sexual ethics, and he still may turn it down.

The problem with my analogy is that sex with unattractive women, either when they are young or just unattractive because of age, isn't lethal like dropping a frog into a pot of boiling water. And plenty of young men have sex with fat, unattractive women from the get-go, and they still survive.

Just on a physical level, my wife would still be appealing to myself at 19. But I've been with her when she was pregnant, something that wouldn't have appealed to me at 19-year-old, and it was not a bit obstacle to overcome. Familiarity and slow change makes it not too big a deal. No shock, at least.

I still have to wrap my head around 60 year old men who get divorced or widowed who want women around 60. I can understand 40 or so if she's in good condition. But I guess they get used to being with an older woman, so the frog in the water may not just be a phenomenon related to one specific woman, but to women in general.

Something to keep in mind is that, while men's faces may stay a bit tighter longer, and younger women going for older men (If they are rich, accomplished, powerful, influential, especially) is a lot more common than young men going for older women, we are all deteriorating and getting older. So when that pretty young woman you like is an old sagging woman, you probably won't look so hot yourself.

Character is more important than looks, but if you are into looks, you can choose a woman that doesn't have a tendency to blimp up, whose never been fat so far and has some 'thin genes' in her family, who has tight facial skin and young looking older relatives, and who takes good care of herself. You could also marry a woman a several years younger if you choose that route if her looking young when you are older is an issue. At least she'll be behind you in age and hopefully looks.