why are you still single - and general discussion of the dating game

[YHWH's Strongest Soldier]

I'm not interested in sex just for the sake of sex. I mean, on some subconscious level I am, but the thought of having a physical relation with a woman whom you're together with for short term disgusts me too much to do so. I'd have to know a woman for at least a couple of months before considering this, and she would have to be down for a long term relation (1 year +). Otherwise it just seems pointless to me.

You're asking for someone to be patient in the 21st century. That's going to thin out an already thin crowd. Stick to your principles though.

 

[Vlad the Implier]

She had nothing on her profile about it, and politics came up (reluctantly on my part, I hate talking about it) near the end of the date, after she regaled me with all that wonderful info about her luxurious life.

She told you about all her travels in Europe and I believe you mentioned that she said she'd been single and basically dick surfing?

If I may ask, what was your angle in doing this? Had you pretty much decided she was no good by this point and just asked her politics as a sort've finisher?

 

[We Are The Witches]

By the way one thing I find very annoying, both my GP and my therapist have mentioned on some occasions that they do indeed have many female patients who are struggling to find a bf too. But if there are all these women struggling to find a bf, and all these men struggling to find a gf, how come none of them seem to find eachother?

Picture this: a Redditor girl that's always in toxic female subreddits putting down men & constant complaining, she doesn't get asked IRL because she probably doesn't take good care of herself nor cares, has autism or some other flavour of neurodivergence, and expects to be approached (she never approaches or initiates herself). When she does get approached online she doesn't even bother to communicate back because they must be trying to take advantage of her, or so she has been taught by retarded creeps/sex-pests, and other (also retarded) toxic radfems.

A killer formula.

 

[Nick Obre]

She told you about all her travels in Europe and I believe you mentioned that she said she'd been single and basically dick surfing?

If I may ask, what was your angle in doing this? Had you pretty much decided she was no good by this point and just asked her politics as a sort've finisher?

She brought it up actually. I avoid the subject if at all possible, because look, I'm a hardline atheist but also a right winger. No matter what sports team my interlocutors are cheering for, they're gonna want to fight me over some opinion or other.

Anyway, yeah, she was a no-go at that point. Shame, cos she was good about music and that's always one of my main autistic fixations priorities.

As for my angle, I found all of this during the date. Before that it was all surface-level talk and music stuff. Believe it or not, my angle with every woman I've gone on dates with since I got "back in the market" last year, has been a honest relationship that lasts as long as it naturally can. That may be a little while, which I've had a few of; or more ideally a long, stable time. Hasn't worked out that way so far so far but there's always hope.

Didn't seem possible with this one, and I'm not into this for one night stands or casual stuff.

 

[Lei Wulong's Left Leg]

A coworker of mine lamented how her 19 year-old daughter, who's never been on a date in her life, says she can't see herself ever dating and plans to live on the shit shack/guest house on the corner of their acreage.
I'd say it's mildly comforting knowing that it's not just a single generation's issue, but damned if it doesn't also feel kind of crushing that it seems to be happening to everyone.

 

[Agares]

Can only get fat girls on hinge to like me

At least your Hinge gets likes. Of all the apps I’ve ever used since 2020, I’ve consistently had the worst results with Hinge. Hell, I even almost got a date off of fucking Bumble in 2022 and the women on that app have a reputation of being the most stuck up.

That aside, Hinge in my area is a wasteland of crazy leftists, the septum piercing daddy issues crowd and girls with the personality of an iPhone box.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

Whenever I look for a relationship, it's always "ugh, you want to be able to support me as a housewife? I hate redpilled guys like you." Or some permutation of that.

An observation: unless you are in fact a redpilled guy, conversations at the level you're talking about are way too early for that. What it says (whether you mean it that way or not) is, "whatever cute little thing you think you're doing with your life right now, it's trivial, and I expect you to accede to that point of view before I bother wasting my time on some uppity "feminist" cunt." It suggests that your expectation is a condition, regardless of theirs. And if you put your ideas about what another person should be or do above what that individual actually values or wants to do, you've dismissed them and their perspective on their own life and future as inherently less important than those from you, a practical stranger.

If that's what you mean, agree better to get it clear up front - but then don't be bothered if she nopes. If it's not what you mean, then heed my words that it suggests not that you are chivalrous or romantic but rather that you are secretly dictatorial and hierarchical. Because there's no reason to say that otherwise it's already decided and/ or until you're actively planning a life together.

It really is untenable, and these foids should not be able to vote. People should have listened to Elliot before he took things into his own hands...

Oh, so they are reading you exactly right. Leave them alone. It's a you problem, not a them problem.

 

[The Last Stand]

I’m scared of commitment.

 

[DoomsdayElite]

Because women my age are all post-wall single moms who only want to rope in some poor sap to help raise her ugly ass half-nigger spawn.

 

[Alaska20k]

At least your Hinge gets likes. Of all the apps I’ve ever used since 2020, I’ve consistently had the worst results with Hinge. Hell, I even almost got a date off of fucking Bumble in 2022 and the women on that app have a reputation of being the most stuck up.

That aside, Hinge in my area is a wasteland of crazy leftists, the septum piercing daddy issues crowd and girls with the personality of an iPhone box.

I feel you, I see a lot of bisexual single moms and shit like that on mine - not great for the morale but it is free

 

[Nefarious Elliot]

An observation: unless you are in fact a redpilled guy, conversations at the level you're talking about are way too early for that. What it says (whether you mean it that way or not) is, "whatever cute little thing you think you're doing with your life right now, it's trivial, and I expect you to accede to that point of view before I bother wasting my time on some uppity "feminist" cunt." It suggests that your expectation is a condition, regardless of theirs. And if you put your ideas about what another person should be or do above what that individual actually values or wants to do, you've dismissed them and their perspective on their own life and future as inherently less important than those from you, a practical stranger.

So, you're saying that women divide these things up into "phases"? With male friendship, it's as simple as "You're pretty cool and like some of the stuff I do. I don't care that you called me a faggot and you suddenly dont care that I hit you, let's be best friends to the point of inconvenience forever now."

Do I really need to feed everything I say into AI to look for weird subtexts like that? I shouldn't take the conversation there? It seems interesting to me, because a career is usually something done out of necessity. Employed women are generally unhappy, and are significantly less happy when working more hours, including when income and other factors are controlled for.

All I mentioned was that I thought "career girls" were usually subject to more stress and often took their work life home with them, and based on what I knew, in some kind of long-term relationship, it'd probably be better to have/be a housewife than an employed wife.
Did I assert anything, demand anything, "reveal something about myself", or "set some kind of standard"? No. But I'm sure she was "looking for one" in my words.

And if you put your ideas about what another person should be or do above what that individual actually values or wants to do, you've dismissed them and their perspective on their own life

This is the shit I'm talking about, everything has to be convoluted while casual musing is picked apart for "conditions" and firmly held beliefs. So many of these hoes have been taught that "people dont change" or that someone can "show their true colors", that it's their basis for everything, despite being false, and in many cases I've seen the use of these ideas, non-sequitur.

It's impossible to have a candid conversation with these foids, because everything has to "mean something", and so any verbal misstep, or mentioning ideas that she may not agree with, results in an argument rather than a debate.

It seems like you are suggesting that women seriously, instinctively, universally, insist and believe that when a person presents an idea, they are not revealing a thought, but some immutable, core part of themselves.
As much as I'd hope to disagree, or find an exception to this rule, you may unfortunately be correct.

>It really is untenable, and these foids should not be able to vote. People should have listened to Elliot before he took things into his own hands...

Oh, so they are reading you exactly right. Leave them alone. It's a you problem, not a them problem.

To be candid, I wrote that while very drunk and MATI. I am, however, happily prepared to defend the "repeal the 19th!" angle, because I am not (unlike women and certain hormonally distupted males), wired to filter my thoughts through a "consensus filter" for safety.

And that's my point, so many modern issues exist because of how easy it apparently is to manipulate women using emotion, manufactured consent, and astroturfing.

The two sexes are so very different for obvious reasons. I do not like the idea of women voting, because if through some political mistake (possibly driven by "good intentions") a Major war were to occur, I would be drafted and they would not. They did not, have not, and will not have any "real" skin in the game of international geopolitics unless they desire to.

That being said, despite your likely assumption, this belief is a conclusion I came to while thinking, rather than some "core component" of me as a person, or something injected into my impressionable cranium by some grifter.

 

[YHWH's Strongest Soldier]

They did not, have not, and will not have any "real" skin in the game of international geopolitics unless they desire to.

Women have sons and don't want to see them die in a war. Your issue is that you can't view anything from a community or family-focused perspective because you've neither.

I don't care for anything else you've written.

 

[Nefarious Elliot]

Women have sons and don't want to see them die in a war.

Married women with sons? Yes.
Unmarried women who hate men? No.
Does this also mean that we may fail to effectively prosecute a justified war? Yes.

Does this affect the point about women being more manipulable (and this being a vital component of many/most of our modern social ills)? No.
See: Women empathize with bad-faith actors when they are punished justly
This mindset is not compatible with political mobility.

Your issue is that you can't view anything from a community or family-focused perspective because you've neither.

My issue is that I'm unwilling to reframe my ideas into the current postmodern liberal context, because it is responsible for the wholesale destruction of both those things.

 

[YHWH's Strongest Soldier]

Married women with sons? Yes.
Unmarried women who hate men? No.
Does this also mean that we may fail to effectively prosecute a justified war? Yes.

Does this affect the point about women being more manipulable (and this being a vital component of many/most of our modern social ills)? No.
See: Women empathize with bad-faith actors when they are punished justly
This mindset is not compatible with political mobility.



My issue is that I'm unwilling to reframe my ideas into the current postmodern liberal context, because it is responsible for the wholesale destruction of both those things.

Nah, your issue is that you subscribe to ideas that exist only among 3rd worlders or on the Internet (which is inhabited mainly by 3rd worlders). You just say shit that just repels pussy. Women are less manipulative as proven by all crime stats across virtually the entire world. If it makes you feel any better, unmarried women don't hate men. They just dislike autists that can't stfu. I share their sentiment.

Also, I warn against extrapolating the conclusion of a single 2006 study to make such broad claims that are not supported by the paper itself. If I were one of the authors, I'd shoot you.

Edit: Ironically, my response tracks with me being a man:

We conclude that in men (at least) empathic responses are shaped by valuation of other people's social behaviour, such that they empathize with fair opponents while favouring the physical punishment of unfair opponents

 

[Nefarious Elliot]

Nah, your issue is that you subscribe to ideas that exist only among 3rd worlders or on the Internet (which is inhabited mainly by 3rd worlders).

Your rebuttal is that I should consider third worlders and try to make sure I think the opposite of them? Quite a lot of the less successful civilizations/tribes are matriarchal, you know.
You're also lumping all of White classical thought, ancient thought, most things before about 1920, in with "Niggers".

Women are less manipulative as proven by all crime stats across virtually the entire world.

You're suggesting that crime rate is a good analogue of "manipulativeness" in a vaccum, rather than "shy timidness vs impulsive aggression", and that if women were as manipulative as people say they were, they would be, what, overpowering people on the street to take their belongings, ripping people out of their cars, breaking windows? Lol.

You just say shit that just repels pussy.

So you're saying that it's better to abandon rationality, and agree with whatever women think, to increase the probability of getting laid? So longhoused!

Also, I warn against extrapolating the conclusion of a single 2006 study to make such broad claims that are not supported by the paper itself. If I were one of the authors, I'd shoot you.

Edit: Ironically, my response tracks with me being a man:

> We conclude that in men (at least) empathic responses are shaped by valuation of other people's social behaviour, such that they empathize with fair opponents while favouring the physical punishment of unfair opponents

>Claiming that women empathize with a cheating opponent and that men enjoy seeing a bad-faith opponent be punished is not supported by conclusions which say that
Or is it that you don't like how I took existing evidence and used it to make inferences? Quite a few redditors take issue with this sort of thing, because evidence is a means to further a belief to them, rather than a tool to derive truth, so taking it in any way not intended by the author is verboten.

If it makes you feel any better, unmarried women don't hate men. They just dislike autists that can't stfu. I share their sentiment.

It really seems like, because I pose a rational argument and provide some evidence, in order to back up assertions that you really don't like, you're trying to "win" by talking down to me, without any concern about whether what I say is true, given you provide no substantive disproval or counter-argument.

I suspect that, as someone who is willing to sacrifice principles in an attempt to be more attractive, "You just say shit that just repels pussy" (Important to read statements like this with the relevant hip hop wigger dialect), you probably do not hold truth as a very high virtue.

It seems apparent to me like the conditions that compelled you to adopt that worldview are the same ones I am complaining about.

 

[Nick Obre]

An observation: unless you are in fact a redpilled guy, conversations at the level you're talking about are way too early for that. What it says (whether you mean it that way or not) is, "whatever cute little thing you think you're doing with your life right now, it's trivial, and I expect you to accede to that point of view before I bother wasting my time on some uppity "feminist" cunt." It suggests that your expectation is a condition, regardless of theirs. And if you put your ideas about what another person should be or do above what that individual actually values or wants to do, you've dismissed them and their perspective on their own life and future as inherently less important than those from you, a practical stranger.

If that's what you mean, agree better to get it clear up front - but then don't be bothered if she nopes. If it's not what you mean, then heed my words that it suggests not that you are chivalrous or romantic but rather that you are secretly dictatorial and hierarchical. Because there's no reason to say that otherwise it's already decided and/ or until you're actively planning a life together.

I don't know how redpilled or not this guy is, but even I, who has been congratulated around here for "always coming in hot with the misogyny", will say that trying to start a relationship on the basis of "hey you're acceptably attractive, wanna give up all your aspirations and become an accessory in my life, in exchange for food and shelter?" is not exactly an enticing proposition.

edit: ah, it's a gimmick elliot guy. Makes sense.

 

[YHWH's Strongest Soldier]

So you're saying that it's better to abandon rationality, and agree with whatever women think, to increase the probability of getting laid?

No, I'm saying that you talk like an incel which makes you (extra) unfuckable to the opposite sex. Just stfu for once in your life and don't sperg about women while failing to read a 5-page article. That's how they know you're a fuckup. You can be secretly stupid, but you cannot help and declare it to everyone that you meet.

 

[BONECRUSHER]

My life is too much of a shitstorm to roll the emotional and financial equivalent of the russian roulette

 

[Nefarious Elliot]

Trying to start a relationship on the basis of "hey you're acceptably attractive, wanna give up all your aspirations and become an accessory in my life, in exchange for food and shelter?"

My problem with this statement was that I did not, in fact, do that. When the topic of discussion turned to the future, I mentioned that I liked the idea of being able to support a housewife.
Whatshername had asserted that by simply mentioning that the idea seemed nice, I was communicating that it was some kind of core aspect of my personality and an immediate, conditional proposition. Which is insane to me!

No, I'm saying that you talk like an incel which makes you (extra) unfuckable to the opposite sex. Just stfu for once in your life and don't sperg about women while failing to read a 5-page article. That's how they know you're a fuckup. You can be secretly stupid, but you cannot help and declare it to everyone that you meet.

>You talk like an incel
>Dont sperg out about women bro
>(earlier unsubstantive assertion about article)
>They know you're a fuckup because I assume you probably have no seperation between anonymous online discourse and real life and do this shit openly, right?
Could you try to address anything I said? Or are you just baiting because you don't really care what I said, because your beliefs are dogmatic and based off social acceptability rather than any attempt to pursue the truth?

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

So, you're saying that women divide these things up into "phases"? With male friendship, it's as simple as "You're pretty cool and like some of the stuff I do. I don't care that you called me a faggot and you suddenly dont care that I hit you, let's be best friends to the point of inconvenience forever now."

Do I really need to feed everything I say into AI to look for weird subtexts like that? I shouldn't take the conversation there? It seems interesting to me, because a career is usually something done out of necessity. Employed women are generally unhappy, and are significantly less happy when working more hours, including when income and other factors are controlled for.

Dude, no, I'm saying that if you're telling a girl you'll be doing the earning and taking care of her before you're even really involved, it's weird and off-putting. And if it's not specific to her then yes, you're making a statement (whether you mean to be or not) about how it will be for whoever slots into your life, which is also weird and off-putting.

It's not a tricky subtext at all.

happily prepared to defend the "repeal the 19th!"

Good luck.

hile thinking, rather than some "core component" of me as a person, or something injected into my impressionable cranium by some grifter.

How meta, you ascribing thoughts to me completely imagined and manufactured by you. I said if x and if you meant it, it suggests [not "I think you are"; "suggests" as in "reasonably comes across to your addressee"]. I'm explaining to you why (again subject to the "if" (which seem borne out by your subsequent engagement on or around the topic) an inflexibility and perception of roles that is weird and off-putting to someone who considers that her own interests and preferences should be considered.

Whatshername had asserted that by simply mentioning that the idea seemed nice

Not what you said.

, I was communicating that it was some kind of core aspect of my personality and an immediate, conditional proposition. Which is insane to me!

Whatshername did not at all.