Contrarian Expatriate wrote: ↑January 1st, 2020, 11:38 am
Wow, I must have really hurt your feelings badly for you to be spewing such vitriol on a holiday no less. Shouldn’t you be enjoying New Year’s Day instead of resentfully combing thru my posts and being angry that I burst your dreams of blissful married life? If you’re smart, one day you’ll thank me. Many men do you know
I am a new poster and didn't know much about you. You should be grateful I took the time to read some of your old posts, to get some context. What I read wasn't really worth wasting my time on, but at least I now understand more about what you're preaching and why.
Contrarian Expatriate wrote: ↑January 1st, 2020, 11:38 am
Everyone, yourself included, will one day be decrepit if we are lucky enough to last that long. The difference is the life I have enjoyed and continue to enjoy will have been remarkable and I would not change a thing about it. Envious haters like yourself usually suffer from the very fate they predict about others because it is in their energy, and your energy is truly pathetic, almost feminine.
Also, I never had to "purchase sex" ever in my life and I suspect that I never will, that's simply the loser's way of describing providing for a girl in a way they could never afford. But sex for money is for guys on your level, not mine. Also, the very fact that you are using terms like "a price you can afford," means that you are not even able to comprehend that price of something is NEVER an issue for some of us.
The more you keep banging on this drum, the less believable you are. You are deluding yourself that, by giving women a certain amount every month, you are not paying for their sexual services, you're not buying sex. You can put lipstick on a pig with a fancy name but - to me and most others around - it's still plain old sugar daddying.
Of course you could say that a man has to pay to take care of a fiancee or wife anyway, but at least it's not a transaction, it's something open-ended that is meant to cover living and family-related expenses. It's something else, it's taking care of someone.
There's nothing remarkable about what you're doing, nothing worth anybody's envy, at least in my book. You're enjoying a lonely, cynical and loveless life thinking it's the ultimate goal of a man. I might be younger than you but I have no choice than pity you, if you have reached your age and haven't understood what a dead end avenue this is.
Still, I am not bashing you for this - it is your life and your money, after all - it's that you are arrogant enough to generalise and sell your way of life as the only approach to a happy sex/"love" life and even mock other members (myself and Mr Man, probably others as well) if they rightly have a different perspective.
Your inability to comprehend that most men are not as cynical as you are and have considered (or would consider, as in my case) taking care of a wife and a family, even at the risk of things going sour at some point in time, matches your inability to love. You seem to equate a happy life to one that is low-risk, entirely centered on yourself and your ego. I read some stuff on the red pill/MGTOW philosophy and you seem to have picked some of the most shallow elements of it.
Whatever rocks your boat, man, but don't think this is something that will apply to everyone, everywhere.
Contrarian Expatriate wrote: ↑January 1st, 2020, 11:38 am
Did you actually write the word "savings?" That is typical broke-speak. Affluent people don't have "savings" apart from a working account from which to pay bills. Affluence means your money does all the working for you while you sleep and enjoy a leisurely existence. Squandering savings is not a part of my world young man.
As for the future lack of people caring about me, the world is REPLETE with examples of men whose wives couldn't care less about them and you are well along the path of joining that sad lot. You STILL equate marriage with Disney notions of love and romance and it will be your downfall. However, something tells me you already know this so you are emoting in the most effeminate of ways due to cognitive dissonance. Happens all the time with below average types and you are no different other than being a bit more envy-driven and resentful about it.
Have a happy new year by the way......
OK, we got it, you have multiple passive incomes due to investment. Does it change the substance?
That is your main fallacy,
@Contrarian Expatriate: because there are lots of examples of wives who don't care about their husbands, it
must mean that none of them cares, or you shouldn't care. This is intellectual laziness or malice, or both. I can bring you countless examples of women who do love their husbands and stick to them through thick & thin. Sure, these women are more and more rare to find, but to be completely honest, so is to find a man who is family oriented and not driven by his ego and the short-term goals of sexual satisfaction.
Once again, I am not talking about marriage. I am talking about the notion of loving a woman and offering her some form of commitment. Yes many many marriages turn sour but that does not mean that, in some cases, it might not be worth the risk. I also understand that it's getting harder to find a good woman, but that doesn't make the challenge of finding her in the haystack any less important, and even exciting.
I hope this will close this diatribe. Stop and think for a minute: not all men reason like you, not all men are cynical and jaded, not all men have written off their biological vocation, which is to take care of a family nest at some point in time.