Record High Number Of People Are Not Having Sex, The Young Lead The Pack

[LeeRoyJenkins]

Yes indeed.

Who else needs studies, when some comments clearly show the cause of the problems related to the lack of sexual activity between women and men?!

Don't care for discussion? Appreciate the whining peanut gallery.

 

[mariantos]

Don't care for discussion? Appreciate the whining peanut gallery.

You, Don Juan, with over 100 women on your list, you look a lot sadder than the women you know are taking antidepressants I deduce from your comments, also it is clear that you are more against women, it doesn't take much school for someone to realize.
I'm intrigued that you feel hurt. You are also funny not just sad, a quality of yours that is to be appreciated, among the countless that you seem to have.


If the "guy with the rape" joked, then he knew how to play the card, if not, then he has serious mental problems and so do his direct or indirect supporters.

I was horrified to see some messages from here. And people wonder what is wrong, what does not work in the relationship between the sexes, when it is obvious.


Have you even thought and wondered why this unpleasant situation, if men contribute and in what way contributes to fueling the disaster you see today among many women?

Men are as guilty as women, but enough to blame one or the other, I've read enough about the problems, but almost nothing about suggestions for solving them.

 

[Dr. B]

You, Don Juan, with over 100 women on your list, you look a lot sadder than the women you know are taking antidepressants I deduce from your comments, also it is clear that you are more against women, it doesn't take much school for someone to realize.
I'm intrigued that you feel hurt. You are also funny not just sad, a quality of yours that is to be appreciated, among the countless that you seem to have.


If the "guy with the rape" joked, then he knew how to play the card, if not, then he has serious mental problems and so do his direct or indirect supporters.

I was horrified to see some messages from here. And people wonder what is wrong, what does not work in the relationship between the sexes, when it is obvious.


Have you even thought and wondered why this unpleasant situation, if men contribute and in what way contributes to fueling the disaster you see today among many women?

Men are as guilty as women, but enough to blame one or the other, I've read enough about the problems, but almost nothing about suggestions for solving them.

now i do think there is one thing, there shouldnt be any state involvement in marriage, divorce laws nor child support, nor restrictions on which people etc can marry or which genders. once you remove the state interference and incentives, there should be more genuine relationships occurring.

 

[stoic]

I was horrified to see some messages from here. And people wonder what is wrong, what does not work in the relationship between the sexes, when it is obvious.


Have you even thought and wondered why this unpleasant situation, if men contribute and in what way contributes to fueling the disaster you see today among many women?

Men are as guilty as women, but enough to blame one or the other, I've read enough about the problems, but almost nothing about suggestions for solving them.

You seem to have it all figured out.

Please do tell us:

– what does not work in the relationship between the sexes

– if men contribute and in what way contributes to fueling the disaster you see today among many women

- suggestions for solving them [the problems]

 

[LeeRoyJenkins]

You, Don Juan, with over 100 women on your list, you look a lot sadder than the women you know are taking antidepressants I deduce from your comments, also it is clear that you are more against women, it doesn't take much school for someone to realize.
I'm intrigued that you feel hurt. You are also funny not just sad, a quality of yours that is to be appreciated, among the countless that you seem to have.


If the "guy with the rape" joked, then he knew how to play the card, if not, then he has serious mental problems and so do his direct or indirect supporters.

I was horrified to see some messages from here. And people wonder what is wrong, what does not work in the relationship between the sexes, when it is obvious.


Have you even thought and wondered why this unpleasant situation, if men contribute and in what way contributes to fueling the disaster you see today among many women?

Men are as guilty as women, but enough to blame one or the other, I've read enough about the problems, but almost nothing about suggestions for solving them.

Hurt? I am sad at the sorry state of things and called you both out (you directly because of your tone) in a teasing way... but I'm certainly not "hurt". I am working on myself, in my community to make things better and have been thinking of ways to do more (get at the problem more directly).

What is horrifying? The other users message about rape? Are you really "horrified?" I think you need to really experience horrors to have a better baseline for what to be horrified at. The guys clearly frustrated by his state of health, but can recognize there is more than current social conventions that dictate our intersex relationships (evolutionary biology, history, etc.). I took it as pretty tongue and cheek.

The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. - Solzhenitsyn

I would hope the events of the last half decade would be proving this point to everyone overtly... everyone has the potential, deep within themselves to be the agressor and destroyer (and it's been documented through myth and history since time immemorial).

For you to directly attack me because we had two people make no meaningful contributions here other than to say this thread is "weird" and I used the word "peanut gallery" - is, in itself, a little weird. So many men and women are very touchy/angry about this subject. Why? Why are you horrified? I've not been mean to anyone, and acquiesced to Mephisto after (what at first seemed like) direct attacks. If I'm in the wrong, why I am I not upset at all during this discussion? Do you think new (to some), catalytic ideas are generally met with praise and acceptance immediately? For a board organized around an anti-authoritarian, and someone who praised Trump I find it ironic that many of the people I find in the Peat community are very authoritarian. Literally the 3 words/organizing principal behind his work is perceive think act. Observe, Process, Change.

I've done that throughout my life, and women/sexual relations have been one of the biggest areas I've needed to apply that (the chasm between fantasy and reality being very large and painful). As a man that has always wanted a family, and has many male and female friends, family, and acquaintances it pains me deeply. Conventional norms didn't work out or led to great injury (injuries which I've completely overcome and harbor no malice towards that person or the gender with which that person is a part). I have said multiple times here that men are at fault, and given personal examples of trying to right that ship... so I don't understand your assertions.

Have you even thought and wondered why this unpleasant situation, if men contribute and in what way contributes to fueling the disaster you see today among many women?

I am a man participating in this discussion aren't I? And I haven't blamed women at all - yet. Only pointed out how some of their pyschological tendancies, and proposals for their dating/mating strategies might be contributing to this issue. I even said older men nefariously use their status against young women... (they steel from them in ways they generaly don't understand even though they do it wittingly). So many people have a hard on for white-knighting it's strange to watch once you start to see outside of the paradigm/fem-centric ideology.

I really liked what Jordan Peterson had to say about the abortion debate... he said, it's nested within a larger context of human sexuality, of which it didn't appear we were ready (as a society) to have that discussion. I think we have to get there, and fast, or certain decisions are going to be made on our behalf to keep this ship merrily floating that we will not necessarily like.

Your question is the very basis for a book/paper I'm writing right now... the fact I'm working on this/thinking about it is the start of that proof (not to be pedantic but, I'm a man, taking responsibility, and outlining the problem and trying to come up with a proposed solution - I'm also trying to have/be a part of a discussion) - but I see you require a further step - that no matter what's going on, that men take responsibility (and it sounds like perhaps - more responsibility than women). And on that I do mostly agree - It's both parties that have to come to the table, and ultimately I do think men are actually responsible for things. Both overtly (the controllers are mostly men) and on the societal level - us as men have allowed this to happen to ourselves and to our women.

We did not take the long-view in assessing/integrating new cultural items. But we had a small picture. It was common knowledge for example that both Santa, and Television were thought of as "satanic..." when they were first introduced. Santa, has obviously made way to turning the Winter Solstice celebration into something very materialistic (consumerism) and TV has opened a whole can of worms (although they made sure to include extremely PC/family friendly content for a very long time, until a whole generation was grown on it). Then when lost to the sands of time, they, at an ever-quickening pace, revealed their trap.

Could men have seen the larger long term consequences of these actions and better integrated (or rejected) these things? Maybe... but I find even the most intelligent are often too lazy to care and it relies on harmonizing goals - one man's goals of ease of life, might not align with anothers goals of liberty, religious freedom, etc. and that's been totally blown apart by the insertion of thought forms into people's pysche's that would never have existed until the last 50+ years by external technology.

Backing things up completely, do we see men not having sex as a problem? Do we see sex a human right? The answer to the first questiiton iis yes - historically men that don't pair bond (as a group/society) become violent. Question 2 - I'm not sure, I don't think so. Who defines these things? But let's assume that the problem you're addressing is the larger problem (lopsided male/female dynamics, dwindling birth rates in the west, dwindling happiness among women/increase in SSRIs, with 80-90% of men not dating, while the rest clean up...)

Step 1... public works project to improve the food supply based on everything we've learned in RP (and others' work). We have the resources the world over to do this.

Step 2 - eradicate porn. It's predatory to women, damning to sexual dynamics, breeds ridiculous expectations and fantasies, messes up hormones, etc. etc. Just doing this isn't enough though - some kind of education on sexual control. Maybe female circumcision and the eunification of all males? JK... this is tricky as it removes the carrot but not the desire to chase after the carrot (so any future invading force or inner enemy could work towards bringing this out again) and this issue has been at the core of all major spiritual frameworks/religions since the beginning of time - how to handle, channel, transmute human sexual desire? For a short term solution banning porn might also lead to an uprise in negative consequences from those that were using it as an outlet (and heavily addicted to this).

Step 3... Should prostitutes be made legal, for tax reasons, health reasons, but this will have unintended consequences on the structure of society. It will lead to a continued outpouring of hypergamy (a concept I completely agree with from TRP community so far...) and polygamist communities? We've done this route before.

The MGTOW's approach is interesting, but I'm not sure enough high value men are going to follow it - as it's a more a rejection of women, than of the larger cultural elements that are leading to this mess. If enough high value men said collectively - no we're not going to accept the ghettofication of every aspect of our culture, particularly women - and will not be breeding, maybe that could make a difference. Again I agree with Rollo Tomassi here and his assertion that men have no sexual value floor - many men will lead with their libido and **** everything. If what he says is true about the female pysche (and it appears to be) that act cements in a woman the idea she can literally attain (long term) a man of that value/stature - even if it was just sex. This has large concequences. I know many women that have men on an equal equivalnce in terms of looks/status as men that are interested in them - that refuse to settle - as they once had a higher value guy. I also know very few women (one of which I consider my best friend) that was able to recognize that in herself and her past and make the conscious decision to choose a long term partner and not a man that just turned her on. But, I really think she's one in a thousand or million.

The problem here is multi-fold RIGHT NOW. Many women, and children are completely attached to the state in the form of welfare. Meaning men are less of a consequence/value from this perspective than ever before (as providers). Women can, instead of listening/cooperating/compromising with their men/husban, leave and have a gauranteed income and enforcer. This incentive is very dangerous. I'm sure most can see this when presented in this light. Similarly we KNOW as I've stated, that it's been U.S. policy at lest for the last 50+ years to give custody to women, use the legal system against men (financially), and we know child outcomes are terrible. Across every metric women led households are catastrophic to children's lives. Men led households (single) and Co-parented households (men and women) have generally equal outcomes with single father households being slightly below co-parented households. If you wanted your population poor and dumbed down - this is a sure fire way to gaurantee that - all under the guise of equal rights and female liberation. Regardless of what your opinion on that matter... the outcome is the same. Single mother led households are skyrocketing (blacks approaching 80% that's ******* INSANE!!!!!! if you think black lives matter - this is the thing you should be concentrating on - and we know, since the CIA and other institutions experimented with these policies on the black community - what the outcomes will mostly be like. As women lead households, culture, overall cooperation, intelligence, declines. Am I misogynist for saying this? Can you not see it outside your front door?

Anyway, back to the MGTOW approach - another item I see is the increasing use of technology to solve problems. I've thought for nearly a decade the abortion debate will finally be put to an end when we simply outlaw natural birth and make artificial womb rearing the norm. This is hardly a real solution, but would assuage most people's concerns around the debate. Please ignore that birth control has long term health implications and brain/behavior altering properties.... populace... go **** freely, and when you're ready to have a state sanctioned baby, Google Baby Pod will be ready. This also dovetails nicely into the state stepping into family matters through welfare/child support. If they're fitting the bill, they're GOING to push for rules and regulations.

You could solve some of this through tax policy and hand outs - Biden could make the new child benefit for example contingent upon having a 2 parent household, but then you start to step on these (totally brand new, but some how firmly cemented in the collective psyche already) idea that two men or two women or single mothers can lead households and raise children.

So what's the solution?

I don't quite know yet. I appreciate you reading though. And started listening to the book the stoic recommended, and it seems like a great start (and he's much more nuanced/not as cutting as I know I tend to be).

 

[Dr. B]

Hurt? I am sad at the sorry state of things and called you both out (you directly because of your tone) in a teasing way... but I'm certainly not "hurt". I am working on myself, in my community to make things better and have been thinking of ways to do more (get at the problem more directly).

What is horrifying? The other users message about rape? Are you really "horrified?" I think you need to really experience horrors to have a better baseline for what to be horrified at. The guys clearly frustrated by his state of health, but can recognize there is more than current social conventions that dictate our intersex relationships (evolutionary biology, history, etc.). I took it as pretty tongue and cheek.

The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. - Solzhenitsyn

I would hope the events of the last half decade would be proving this point to everyone overtly... everyone has the potential, deep within themselves to be the agressor and destroyer (and it's been documented through myth and history since time immemorial).

For you to directly attack me because we had two people make no meaningful contributions here other than to say this thread is "weird" and I used the word "peanut gallery" - is, in itself, a little weird. So many men and women are very touchy/angry about this subject. Why? Why are you horrified? I've not been mean to anyone, and acquiesced to Mephisto after (what at first seemed like) direct attacks. If I'm in the wrong, why I am I not upset at all during this discussion? Do you think new (to some), catalytic ideas are generally met with praise and acceptance immediately? For a board organized around an anti-authoritarian, and someone who praised Trump I find it ironic that many of the people I find in the Peat community are very authoritarian. Literally the 3 words/organizing principal behind his work is perceive think act. Observe, Process, Change.

I've done that throughout my life, and women/sexual relations have been one of the biggest areas I've needed to apply that (the chasm between fantasy and reality being very large and painful). As a man that has always wanted a family, and has many male and female friends, family, and acquaintances it pains me deeply. Conventional norms didn't work out or led to great injury (injuries which I've completely overcome and harbor no malice towards that person or the gender with which that person is a part). I have said multiple times here that men are at fault, and given personal examples of trying to right that ship... so I don't understand your assertions.

Have you even thought and wondered why this unpleasant situation, if men contribute and in what way contributes to fueling the disaster you see today among many women?

I am a man participating in this discussion aren't I? And I haven't blamed women at all - yet. Only pointed out how some of their pyschological tendancies, and proposals for their dating/mating strategies might be contributing to this issue. I even said older men nefariously use their status against young women... (they steel from them in ways they generaly don't understand even though they do it wittingly). So many people have a hard on for white-knighting it's strange to watch once you start to see outside of the paradigm/fem-centric ideology.

I really liked what Jordan Peterson had to say about the abortion debate... he said, it's nested within a larger context of human sexuality, of which it didn't appear we were ready (as a society) to have that discussion. I think we have to get there, and fast, or certain decisions are going to be made on our behalf to keep this ship merrily floating that we will not necessarily like.

Your question is the very basis for a book/paper I'm writing right now... the fact I'm working on this/thinking about it is the start of that proof (not to be pedantic but, I'm a man, taking responsibility, and outlining the problem and trying to come up with a proposed solution - I'm also trying to have/be a part of a discussion) - but I see you require a further step - that no matter what's going on, that men take responsibility (and it sounds like perhaps - more responsibility than women). And on that I do mostly agree - It's both parties that have to come to the table, and ultimately I do think men are actually responsible for things. Both overtly (the controllers are mostly men) and on the societal level - us as men have allowed this to happen to ourselves and to our women.

We did not take the long-view in assessing/integrating new cultural items. But we had a small picture. It was common knowledge for example that both Santa, and Television were thought of as "satanic..." when they were first introduced. Santa, has obviously made way to turning the Winter Solstice celebration into something very materialistic (consumerism) and TV has opened a whole can of worms (although they made sure to include extremely PC/family friendly content for a very long time, until a whole generation was grown on it). Then when lost to the sands of time, they, at an ever-quickening pace, revealed their trap.

Could men have seen the larger long term consequences of these actions and better integrated (or rejected) these things? Maybe... but I find even the most intelligent are often too lazy to care and it relies on harmonizing goals - one man's goals of ease of life, might not align with anothers goals of liberty, religious freedom, etc. and that's been totally blown apart by the insertion of thought forms into people's pysche's that would never have existed until the last 50+ years by external technology.

Backing things up completely, do we see men not having sex as a problem? Do we see sex a human right? The answer to the first questiiton iis yes - historically men that don't pair bond (as a group/society) become violent. Question 2 - I'm not sure, I don't think so. Who defines these things? But let's assume that the problem you're addressing is the larger problem (lopsided male/female dynamics, dwindling birth rates in the west, dwindling happiness among women/increase in SSRIs, with 80-90% of men not dating, while the rest clean up...)

Step 1... public works project to improve the food supply based on everything we've learned in RP (and others' work). We have the resources the world over to do this.

Step 2 - eradicate porn. It's predatory to women, damning to sexual dynamics, breeds ridiculous expectations and fantasies, messes up hormones, etc. etc. Just doing this isn't enough though - some kind of education on sexual control. Maybe female circumcision and the eunification of all males? JK... this is tricky as it removes the carrot but not the desire to chase after the carrot (so any future invading force or inner enemy could work towards bringing this out again) and this issue has been at the core of all major spiritual frameworks/religions since the beginning of time - how to handle, channel, transmute human sexual desire? For a short term solution banning porn might also lead to an uprise in negative consequences from those that were using it as an outlet (and heavily addicted to this).

Step 3... Should prostitutes be made legal, for tax reasons, health reasons, but this will have unintended consequences on the structure of society. It will lead to a continued outpouring of hypergamy (a concept I completely agree with from TRP community so far...) and polygamist communities? We've done this route before.

The MGTOW's approach is interesting, but I'm not sure enough high value men are going to follow it - as it's a more a rejection of women, than of the larger cultural elements that are leading to this mess. If enough high value men said collectively - no we're not going to accept the ghettofication of every aspect of our culture, particularly women - and will not be breeding, maybe that could make a difference. Again I agree with Rollo Tomassi here and his assertion that men have no sexual value floor - many men will lead with their libido and **** everything. If what he says is true about the female pysche (and it appears to be) that act cements in a woman the idea she can literally attain (long term) a man of that value/stature - even if it was just sex. This has large concequences. I know many women that have men on an equal equivalnce in terms of looks/status as men that are interested in them - that refuse to settle - as they once had a higher value guy. I also know very few women (one of which I consider my best friend) that was able to recognize that in herself and her past and make the conscious decision to choose a long term partner and not a man that just turned her on. But, I really think she's one in a thousand or million.

The problem here is multi-fold RIGHT NOW. Many women, and children are completely attached to the state in the form of welfare. Meaning men are less of a consequence/value from this perspective than ever before (as providers). Women can, instead of listening/cooperating/compromising with their men/husban, leave and have a gauranteed income and enforcer. This incentive is very dangerous. I'm sure most can see this when presented in this light. Similarly we KNOW as I've stated, that it's been U.S. policy at lest for the last 50+ years to give custody to women, use the legal system against men (financially), and we know child outcomes are terrible. Across every metric women led households are catastrophic to children's lives. Men led households (single) and Co-parented households (men and women) have generally equal outcomes with single father households being slightly below co-parented households. If you wanted your population poor and dumbed down - this is a sure fire way to gaurantee that - all under the guise of equal rights and female liberation. Regardless of what your opinion on that matter... the outcome is the same. Single mother led households are skyrocketing (blacks approaching 80% that's ******* INSANE!!!!!! if you think black lives matter - this is the thing you should be concentrating on - and we know, since the CIA and other institutions experimented with these policies on the black community - what the outcomes will mostly be like. As women lead households, culture, overall cooperation, intelligence, declines. Am I misogynist for saying this? Can you not see it outside your front door?

Anyway, back to the MGTOW approach - another item I see is the increasing use of technology to solve problems. I've thought for nearly a decade the abortion debate will finally be put to an end when we simply outlaw natural birth and make artificial womb rearing the norm. This is hardly a real solution, but would assuage most people's concerns around the debate. Please ignore that birth control has long term health implications and brain/behavior altering properties.... populace... go **** freely, and when you're ready to have a state sanctioned baby, Google Baby Pod will be ready. This also dovetails nicely into the state stepping into family matters through welfare/child support. If they're fitting the bill, they're GOING to push for rules and regulations.

You could solve some of this through tax policy and hand outs - Biden could make the new child benefit for example contingent upon having a 2 parent household, but then you start to step on these (totally brand new, but some how firmly cemented in the collective psyche already) idea that two men or two women or single mothers can lead households and raise children.

So what's the solution?

I don't quite know yet. I appreciate you reading though. And started listening to the book the stoic recommended, and it seems like a great start (and he's much more nuanced/not as cutting as I know I tend to be).

when did Ray praise trump, what did he say?
how do older men abuse their status or steal from younger women?
how would prostitutes being legalized cause increase in hypergamy? what would the issues be with legalizing prostitution?
why should porn, violent video games/tv, or anything else of the sort be banned? wouldnt this be the function of an objectively very authoritarian society? in a free society, everyone has full freedom and ownership of themselves, which would include the right to consume harmful things, harm themselves physically, mentally, use drugs, use porn, violent movies etc

 

[PurpleHeart]

some people dont eat pigs because of the similarity to dogs in their behavior. i think objectively once you start eating animals or insects you cant really nitpick and say its wrong to eat X animal but right to eat Y animal. at least not based on the animals behavior. like if its an animal thats constantly killing/eating humans or maybe even other animals or farm animals you can say its acceptable to kill/eat it, but when it comes to horses, dogs, cows, pigs im not sure you can say its more wrong to eat one than the other. pigs, chickens, cows are pretty non violent animals and we've used things like horses, camels, yaks, etc for personal usage and companionship for a long time but some cultures also eat those animals.

This flawed logic was exactly what I was talking about, abrahamic ethics have nothing to do with nature, nature doesn't care about ethics, it cares about successful symbiosis, dogs are symbiotes that help us with many things, eating them is not one of them, pigs are food, simple as that.

And I am talking about western civilization not about every tribe in the planet, other tribes/cultures have different symbiotes.

 

[Dr. B]

This flawed logic was exactly what I was talking about, abrahamic ethics have nothing to do with nature, nature doesn't care about ethics, it cares about successful symbiosis, dogs are symbiotes that help us with many things, eating them is not one of them, pigs are food, simple as that.

And I am talking about western civilization not about every tribe in the planet, other tribes/cultures have different symbiotes.

dogs provide companionship, primarily. they have some usage when it comes to shepherds. Realistically speaking most people get dogs due to companionship and having a friend. And a pig can provide the exact same function, in fact, pigs for some reason act a lot like dogs and some people who aren't religious, actually don't eat pigs due to the similarities with dogs. but I guess I can see the argument of following nature, but in that case you have to take into account the ecosystem. so it would mean never eating things like lions and bears even though they don't provide us personal benefit and help us. from an ecosystem perspective you should be eating the same types of animals the carnivorous mammals are eating. which would include primarily ruminants but also sometimes fish, pigs, even dogs and horses.
pigs are only food because we choose to use them for that purpose instead of other animals.

 

[mariantos]

You seem to have it all figured out.

Please do tell us:

– what does not work in the relationship between the sexes

– if men contribute and in what way contributes to fueling the disaster you see today among many women

- suggestions for solving them [the problems]

There are young men and even older unfortunately who give women too much information about their former sex life, by that I do not mean how many women they had or what positions they invented, I mean strictly the fact that they gives the person's name or the people with whom they did what they did, they often brag about what they didn't do and many other unsolicited explanations. Women are very curious, but no one in their right mind would want their name and the events associated with it to be made public in this way.

I. Therefore, the young man should avoid making such confessions and his chances will increase exponentially.

It may seem strange, but ironically another mistake that young men make is that they do not show a desire to have sex with the person of the opposite sex.
When talking to a girl who is sexually interested, it is very important to show her this. Of course, he doesn't have to tell her in words how much he wants her or wants to have sex with her or how much he would rape her. Compliments and flirting, in particular, are enough to show that he wants her, compliments can of course differ depending on how relaxed, uninhibited or shy the woman is.

II. So the woman needs to know that he wants her. If she does not see that he wants her, then she will consider the interaction with him as a friendly one and unfortunately he will become the perfect candidate for the friend zone.

It is also essential for the young man to learn to accept a refusal, it is quite difficult to do so, it hurts male pride, but it is much more masculine for the young man to receive the refusal and deal with it in an elegant manner. A young man has the right to insist and must do so if he wants something from a woman and if the woman seems willing to his insistence, but if he is flatly refused, then he must not treat that woman rudely or to aggressively try to please her, through countless messages, calls, etc. This behavior will make her believe that the young man is desperate, not socially adapted, some will be afraid and even feel harassed,or to treat her as a whore or even worse to call the woman in question a whore immediately after the "failure". Whether he does it directly or indirectly, he must avoid such behavior, which is increasingly common among young people. The reverse is also true, when the young man is refused without right of appeal, he must not pity himself, pray for that woman to accept him.

You know how embarrassing it was for me as a man to hear discussions of women like; "girl n ° 1 - what a desperate puppy, girl, this is banged on the head / girl n ° 2 - I feel sorry for him girl" and a lot of laughter on background?

If I had only witnessed such a discussion, it would have been okay, but I witnessed several directly and indirectly in different circumstances, different people, which made me suddenly realize the seriousness of the problem.

So young men, we are not milogs, brothers. We do not take pity on a woman to accept us, to go out with us, to have sex with us, not to leave us etc.
On the contrary, our role is to make a woman want to go out with us, to have sex with us, to stay with us etc.

III. So it is very important for the young man to know "what to do" with the refusal. If he is able to effectively manage the refusal, not only will his integrity not be affected, but there are chances that in the future he will interact with the same woman and the result will be exactly what he wanted.


The young man has to give up pornography and needs to understand that real-life women are not the same as actresses and transvestites in porn movies, magazines and that women have many other "uses." I say this because this type of "material" greatly affects the way a man is going to perceive a woman in society. The young man becomes shy, without self-confidence, fearful, afraid of failure, that is his permanent guide and not only, he becomes unable to read messages from the opposite sex, so his inability to interpret the signals appears, which it is crucial regarding the interaction between the sexes. Often body language and the effective interpretation of its signals can direct and determine in advance the final result of the contact between the sexes. Body language is not so taken into account, but it is extremely important, it can tell you if a person is engaged or not, if she wants a long-term relationship with you or just a one-night stand, if she feels or not attracted to you.

We are equipped with extraordinary senses and psychological traits, but the puppeteers are working hard to atrophy and respectively eradicate them. The woman interprets the signals more easily, we men find it harder because we are more rational but also because we are bombarded with pornography in different forms, everywhere. The woman expects the man to know what she wants, she starts from the premise that the man is able to read her verbal,vocal, body language, so that he knows her needs, but surprise, the man is insensitive. Poor communication, incompatibility and even infidelity can only occur due to the lack of ability to interpret signals.

IV. Therefore, the consumption of pornography and other materials of a similar nature must be avoided in order to have more chances of success and not to end up complaining lamentably that the woman is to blame. It's true that sometimes women are weird and you don't seem to know what they want, but we men also have our weirdest moments.

You don't have to blame the other person, because it's the easiest. The most barbaric thing is that those above who orchestrate this plan of moral and social degradation of man and woman, this is exactly what they want, to turn the man against the woman and vice versa and they seem to be successful. We are equally guilty, just as both sexes cheat equally, unless the woman cheats on the man with another woman and vice versa.

Young men should stop wearing women's clothes in the hope that they will be more pleasing, because they risk becoming attractive to other men. To learn to accept a refusal and to remove from them the attitude of snowflake. To not be discouraged because they do not have enough money to support a woman and if that is all that woman wants, then leave her immediately, because it is not to be kept. Thank God that there are real women who are interested in other qualities of the man, you just have to look in the right places. To be gentle with the woman, to protect her, to love her. They will lose nothing, but they will gain much and will therefore be irreplaceable. Also, the relationship between them and the woman must not be one of subordination, but of completion, a complementary relationship.

Young women, to respect the men next to them, not to look at them with superiority, not to consider themselves more intelligent. Stop behaving like men because it only causes repulsion for a whole-minded guy who prefers a feminine woman. To try not to walk naked through society, because they will never attract the perfect man, they will be seen as a commodity and they will have a price, when in fact their value should be invaluable.

Mothers and fathers, not to sell their daughters, not to put in their minds the idea of marrying a rich guy/girl, but to guide them to choose a protective and loving man/woman above all, to educate their sons to treat the woman with decency and not just as a sexual object, as countless cases.

There would be a lot to say, but I am afraid that I will be asked for studies to prove the veracity of my words and I will stop here. Please take with a gram of salt everything I wrote above, because I have not met with over 100 women to know how the system works and then, are the words of a man without a relationship at the moment. It is up to you to look at what is written.

 

[mariantos]

Hurt? I am sad at the sorry state of things and called you both out (you directly because of your tone) in a teasing way... but I'm certainly not "hurt". I am working on myself, in my community to make things better and have been thinking of ways to do more (get at the problem more directly).

What is horrifying? The other users message about rape? Are you really "horrified?" I think you need to really experience horrors to have a better baseline for what to be horrified at. The guys clearly frustrated by his state of health, but can recognize there is more than current social conventions that dictate our intersex relationships (evolutionary biology, history, etc.). I took it as pretty tongue and cheek.

The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. - Solzhenitsyn

I would hope the events of the last half decade would be proving this point to everyone overtly... everyone has the potential, deep within themselves to be the agressor and destroyer (and it's been documented through myth and history since time immemorial).

For you to directly attack me because we had two people make no meaningful contributions here other than to say this thread is "weird" and I used the word "peanut gallery" - is, in itself, a little weird. So many men and women are very touchy/angry about this subject. Why? Why are you horrified? I've not been mean to anyone, and acquiesced to Mephisto after (what at first seemed like) direct attacks. If I'm in the wrong, why I am I not upset at all during this discussion? Do you think new (to some), catalytic ideas are generally met with praise and acceptance immediately? For a board organized around an anti-authoritarian, and someone who praised Trump I find it ironic that many of the people I find in the Peat community are very authoritarian. Literally the 3 words/organizing principal behind his work is perceive think act. Observe, Process, Change.

I've done that throughout my life, and women/sexual relations have been one of the biggest areas I've needed to apply that (the chasm between fantasy and reality being very large and painful). As a man that has always wanted a family, and has many male and female friends, family, and acquaintances it pains me deeply. Conventional norms didn't work out or led to great injury (injuries which I've completely overcome and harbor no malice towards that person or the gender with which that person is a part). I have said multiple times here that men are at fault, and given personal examples of trying to right that ship... so I don't understand your assertions.

Have you even thought and wondered why this unpleasant situation, if men contribute and in what way contributes to fueling the disaster you see today among many women?

I am a man participating in this discussion aren't I? And I haven't blamed women at all - yet. Only pointed out how some of their pyschological tendancies, and proposals for their dating/mating strategies might be contributing to this issue. I even said older men nefariously use their status against young women... (they steel from them in ways they generaly don't understand even though they do it wittingly). So many people have a hard on for white-knighting it's strange to watch once you start to see outside of the paradigm/fem-centric ideology.

I really liked what Jordan Peterson had to say about the abortion debate... he said, it's nested within a larger context of human sexuality, of which it didn't appear we were ready (as a society) to have that discussion. I think we have to get there, and fast, or certain decisions are going to be made on our behalf to keep this ship merrily floating that we will not necessarily like.

Your question is the very basis for a book/paper I'm writing right now... the fact I'm working on this/thinking about it is the start of that proof (not to be pedantic but, I'm a man, taking responsibility, and outlining the problem and trying to come up with a proposed solution - I'm also trying to have/be a part of a discussion) - but I see you require a further step - that no matter what's going on, that men take responsibility (and it sounds like perhaps - more responsibility than women). And on that I do mostly agree - It's both parties that have to come to the table, and ultimately I do think men are actually responsible for things. Both overtly (the controllers are mostly men) and on the societal level - us as men have allowed this to happen to ourselves and to our women.

We did not take the long-view in assessing/integrating new cultural items. But we had a small picture. It was common knowledge for example that both Santa, and Television were thought of as "satanic..." when they were first introduced. Santa, has obviously made way to turning the Winter Solstice celebration into something very materialistic (consumerism) and TV has opened a whole can of worms (although they made sure to include extremely PC/family friendly content for a very long time, until a whole generation was grown on it). Then when lost to the sands of time, they, at an ever-quickening pace, revealed their trap.

Could men have seen the larger long term consequences of these actions and better integrated (or rejected) these things? Maybe... but I find even the most intelligent are often too lazy to care and it relies on harmonizing goals - one man's goals of ease of life, might not align with anothers goals of liberty, religious freedom, etc. and that's been totally blown apart by the insertion of thought forms into people's pysche's that would never have existed until the last 50+ years by external technology.

Backing things up completely, do we see men not having sex as a problem? Do we see sex a human right? The answer to the first questiiton iis yes - historically men that don't pair bond (as a group/society) become violent. Question 2 - I'm not sure, I don't think so. Who defines these things? But let's assume that the problem you're addressing is the larger problem (lopsided male/female dynamics, dwindling birth rates in the west, dwindling happiness among women/increase in SSRIs, with 80-90% of men not dating, while the rest clean up...)

Step 1... public works project to improve the food supply based on everything we've learned in RP (and others' work). We have the resources the world over to do this.

Step 2 - eradicate porn. It's predatory to women, damning to sexual dynamics, breeds ridiculous expectations and fantasies, messes up hormones, etc. etc. Just doing this isn't enough though - some kind of education on sexual control. Maybe female circumcision and the eunification of all males? JK... this is tricky as it removes the carrot but not the desire to chase after the carrot (so any future invading force or inner enemy could work towards bringing this out again) and this issue has been at the core of all major spiritual frameworks/religions since the beginning of time - how to handle, channel, transmute human sexual desire? For a short term solution banning porn might also lead to an uprise in negative consequences from those that were using it as an outlet (and heavily addicted to this).

Step 3... Should prostitutes be made legal, for tax reasons, health reasons, but this will have unintended consequences on the structure of society. It will lead to a continued outpouring of hypergamy (a concept I completely agree with from TRP community so far...) and polygamist communities? We've done this route before.

The MGTOW's approach is interesting, but I'm not sure enough high value men are going to follow it - as it's a more a rejection of women, than of the larger cultural elements that are leading to this mess. If enough high value men said collectively - no we're not going to accept the ghettofication of every aspect of our culture, particularly women - and will not be breeding, maybe that could make a difference. Again I agree with Rollo Tomassi here and his assertion that men have no sexual value floor - many men will lead with their libido and **** everything. If what he says is true about the female pysche (and it appears to be) that act cements in a woman the idea she can literally attain (long term) a man of that value/stature - even if it was just sex. This has large concequences. I know many women that have men on an equal equivalnce in terms of looks/status as men that are interested in them - that refuse to settle - as they once had a higher value guy. I also know very few women (one of which I consider my best friend) that was able to recognize that in herself and her past and make the conscious decision to choose a long term partner and not a man that just turned her on. But, I really think she's one in a thousand or million.

The problem here is multi-fold RIGHT NOW. Many women, and children are completely attached to the state in the form of welfare. Meaning men are less of a consequence/value from this perspective than ever before (as providers). Women can, instead of listening/cooperating/compromising with their men/husban, leave and have a gauranteed income and enforcer. This incentive is very dangerous. I'm sure most can see this when presented in this light. Similarly we KNOW as I've stated, that it's been U.S. policy at lest for the last 50+ years to give custody to women, use the legal system against men (financially), and we know child outcomes are terrible. Across every metric women led households are catastrophic to children's lives. Men led households (single) and Co-parented households (men and women) have generally equal outcomes with single father households being slightly below co-parented households. If you wanted your population poor and dumbed down - this is a sure fire way to gaurantee that - all under the guise of equal rights and female liberation. Regardless of what your opinion on that matter... the outcome is the same. Single mother led households are skyrocketing (blacks approaching 80% that's ******* INSANE!!!!!! if you think black lives matter - this is the thing you should be concentrating on - and we know, since the CIA and other institutions experimented with these policies on the black community - what the outcomes will mostly be like. As women lead households, culture, overall cooperation, intelligence, declines. Am I misogynist for saying this? Can you not see it outside your front door?

Anyway, back to the MGTOW approach - another item I see is the increasing use of technology to solve problems. I've thought for nearly a decade the abortion debate will finally be put to an end when we simply outlaw natural birth and make artificial womb rearing the norm. This is hardly a real solution, but would assuage most people's concerns around the debate. Please ignore that birth control has long term health implications and brain/behavior altering properties.... populace... go **** freely, and when you're ready to have a state sanctioned baby, Google Baby Pod will be ready. This also dovetails nicely into the state stepping into family matters through welfare/child support. If they're fitting the bill, they're GOING to push for rules and regulations.

You could solve some of this through tax policy and hand outs - Biden could make the new child benefit for example contingent upon having a 2 parent household, but then you start to step on these (totally brand new, but some how firmly cemented in the collective psyche already) idea that two men or two women or single mothers can lead households and raise children.

So what's the solution?

I don't quite know yet. I appreciate you reading though. And started listening to the book the stoic recommended, and it seems like a great start (and he's much more nuanced/not as cutting as I know I tend to be).

A longer message, but also with quality content this time. I now understand the exact cause of your worries and I will try to be brief. Yes, suffering shapes us and ultimately determines the path we choose to take. There are problems that you have highlighted, which apparently exceed our power of action, but there are many others that have a solution. It depends on us, both men and women, how much we want to treat this cancer and how we act for it.

I am speaking from my perspective, of a person who has been enormously wrong about the opposite sex, unjustified. I can choose to continue doing it and I can look but also find well-founded reasons to support a bad way of acting. I also have the opportunity to choose change, to do the exact opposite, and I am firmly convinced that this is the choice that will truly generate joy and guarantee me long-term peace.

About rape, let's get this straight. I was obviously amazed, because it is not the solution to the problems that trouble us. It is true that some ladies dress or undress better said, as if in order to obtain a rape. Even so, if some women don't have a mind, this shouldn't make others, men, lose theirs.

At the end of the day it depends on our heart and how aware we are of those around us, so that we can have the ability to make the right moral choice in the first place. Strict apologies for the acid remarks.

 

[LeeRoyJenkins]

when did Ray praise trump, what did he say?
how do older men abuse their status or steal from younger women?
how would prostitutes being legalized cause increase in hypergamy? what would the issues be with legalizing prostitution?
why should porn, violent video games/tv, or anything else of the sort be banned? wouldnt this be the function of an objectively very authoritarian society? in a free society, everyone has full freedom and ownership of themselves, which would include the right to consume harmful things, harm themselves physically, mentally, use drugs, use porn, violent movies etc

It was back in 2016 during the election - I believe it started on an East West Healing podcast (or maybe it was Danny Roddy's). He said he thought he would win (when he first entered), and would be better than any other candidate/Hilary (IIRC). He wasn't flat out endorsing him, but the tone was lesser of two evils. Somehow he knows things like this. I don't know how he called Biden, because Trump clearly won, but that's another topic.

Abuse Status - This is nuanced. I actually see scenarios like Harvey Weinstein's accusations and Bill Cosby's as ridiculous (and fake). Literally these are staged theater to move public opinion. I have resources on WHY this is the case (evidence it's staged). But that kind of quid pro quo, is not a problem - but young women thinking it is is ridiculous. Not one woman that was "harassed" by weinstein gave up a role, rescinded their money, apologized for the behavior, etc. Sucking **** for something is as old as time.

The place I see where men are being nefarious is that wealthier guys are cleaning up with women right now, particularly "sugar daddies" - because they know women haven't quite yet figured out they're being played. In a nutshell... Wealthier guys could buy a fancy dinner for a girl (low cost relative my total wealth), or a random trip and get laid, and she doesn't realize her body count is far more valueable than she realizes, and in fact, pursuing a normal guy, might provider far more value - long term - as he's more likely to commit, provide a steady income together, growth, etc. than someone showing off with a fancy car, dinner, etc.

Yes, money, trips, etc. is great for right now, but it's my calculus that if a woman spent the same time looking for a long-term quality mate the return on investment would be far FAR greater. So ***** has become cheaper than ever basically and there are huge prices to be paid for that.

The major price is the collapse of the family unit and pair-bonding between men and women.

The price - this is certainly my opinion, but it is based on studies that indicate this, as well as personal experience - a woman's value goes down with EVERY man she's with (and in particular ever penis that enters her). Studies are clear that there is a correlation between the number of sexual partners a woman has and the outcomes of relationships/marriages. This goes deep and Rollo does a great job explaining a lot of the things I've seen - Alpha Widow, Trust/Loyalty issues that arise from multiple partners, etc. I have witnessed all of this first hand, and raising a daughter (during the course of one of my longer-term relationships) I now understand this more fully. I've also seen it clearly that as a woman has more partners there is a distancing of genuine connection, love, that occurs.

I also have seen a study show micro-chimerism for a child having portions of DNA/genes for every partner their mother was involved with EVER. Knowing these two things I think leads us to some of the conscious reasons virgins have been prized throughout human history and how adding to their body count, does them AND society a disservice (although all too many girls are willing to do it and in the last couple years it's actually being celebrated).

I know men, physically, are able to handle sex differently than women. We do NOT have to be as emotionally attached to it. So for a 50 year old guy to pipe a 24 year old - it literally means nothing to him, but that additional lay is stealing greatly from her future worth (with another man, as a partner, etc.). I like how the Fresh & Fit guys word this... Men have to build their value (grow over time, grow wealth, become better, etc.). Women are born with their value (looks, fertility, innocence, compassion, etc.). So men have to become to grow in value (sexual marketplace), whereas women have to protect their value. Currently they're giving it away for free (or virtually free) ... instagram, facebook, snap, onlyfans. No decent man, if he has self-esteem, and is honest with himself - is okay with his girl showing off her **** on these sites, and getting likes all day. And the reason it continues (from the female perspective) is the addictive attention it provides, but also, it's a window into, and out of, the dating world of available men. If she's on social media, she's more easily hit up - for future options. Men have to allow it because they're ******** and are afraid of losing their girl, getting called "low self-esteem" or coming off as misogynistic. When in reality having it's abolishment as part of a relationship would be very caring and thoughtful for the relationship.

(ever girl I've ever dated, long term or otherwise, ALWAYS had multiple guys hitting them, DM'ing them to get their number on Social Media pretty consistently)

I've told many young women I've dated about these lies, and they listen, and agree, (they generally won't even listen if they're over 30 lol)... but they're having too much fun and the program's too hard wired NOT to worry about any of that (settling down, concentrating on finding a real, good, long-term/marriageable man, etc.) they want to be "free" to **** multiple guys, to work at misc. jobs or pursue an education/career, etc.. or they're much older, bitter, condescending, carrying tons of baggage, with pair bonding issues - clearly miserable and won't hear a single word of any of this.

how would prostitutes being legalized cause increase in hypergamy? what would the issues be with legalizing prostitution?

I think I misworded this part. I don't know if you can "increase" hypergamy. It as a concept appears to be constant - like the speed of light lol. It has only been unleashed through social engineering (normalizing certain behavior) and the internet (it - hypergamy - having access to new mates).

Anyway, I'm not sure on this theory completely but - Anything that provides cheap access to sex will increase the negative consequences of hypergamy and female nature and decrease positive aspects of males. Because it removes the incentives for males to get better in order to attract the attention of women and get sex - so the many women left with shitty male options - will flock to the few at the top - leading to polygamy.

One thing I think women don't consciously realize - men ******* ADORE (and adore is the right mf'ing word...) women, especially when men are younger - and for the rest of our lives so much of our work is to get money to attract women, things to attract women, etc. it's quite hilarious when you stop and think about it. Sex is a HUGE part of what drives men. There's a great quote from an episode of Game of Thrones between Ser Bronn and Jamie:

Ser Bronn - "you wouldn't find me fighting in an army if I had no ****"... and basically he explains how it's all about women/sex - we fight to get gold, to buy women.

@5:51


View: https://youtu.be/1JeoxlYGuOw?t=351


Thank GOD I didn't have video porn in my younger days. My friends and I were quite crazy, and had a playboy we found in elementary school (and I kept that thing for all of middle and high school) lol. I do remember the first rush I experienced with porn in my teen years... I'm very thankful I didn't experience that before puberty.

I'm not clear on the banning myself. And I also don't know how you'd practically do it anyway without shutting down the internet as it exists today.

I will say, it's clear freedom has been weaponized. Jay Dyer talks about this a lot. Can children consent? They can not authorize a vaccine for which we know is virtually untested, includes problematic adjuvants and has no known long-term effect studies. How old were you when you understood what a ******* adjuvant was? Most of this board seems to think COVID was overblown, acknowledges the FDA, CDCs, and WHO's checkered past, and it's pretty clear the event was planned... is a child supposed to know that - integrate that data - and then make a solid decision on injecting what (the MSM insists is not), but the FDA & SECs own records clearly show is - "experimental gene therapy"... are we free to do OTHER things with children? Because that's definitely coming - if the people that always seem to get their way, get their way.

There's a reason open drug communities do poorly with drug abuse - actual social stigma (shame!) and actual criminal penalties are in fact powerful tools in societies toolbox against decay. Sure, it goes underground, but it doesn't spread and become overt. If a person from the 19th century popped onto a computer today they would be horrified with porn. Like literally we have become hell itself. Here I think it is completely acceptable for parents to have an iron fist about this stuff (but also integrate with the insanity going on, and actually talk with their kids about this - hey it'll **** your brain up - stay away until you're older, then you make the decision, but here's everything your pappy learned about living in hades). Having that kind of relationship will also help prevent them from having addiction problems anyway. You could implement a porn company tax to fund movements like NoFap, or develop a "Great Men" ad campaign. Seriously... WHY IS PORN FREE!!!!???? There's a reason. I wish I could find a quote from this old emperor/king - it's been known for thousands of years this kind of moral decay destroys societies and is a weapon.

Let me give you a weird perspective... I actually think there should be a citizen led political initiative to massively expand the access we have to weaponry (nukes for example) and rights the citizenry has to wield that access. Why? Because it's crystal clear the intent of the 2a wasn't for hunting, but for opposition to tyrannical government. Secondly, it's clear political/social engineering operations are continually run in one direction - to limit that access. Time has also proven that, for all of our problems in the U.S. the constitution, the way the republic was setup, and the 2A in particular have helped slow down the progression of insane tyranny we've been seeing for sometime now across the globe (Ireland, England, Australia, China). And it's an old trope, but if you're against the second amendment, it really is true that you're simply for giving the government/the police the guns to take them away from you and others.

Something like this would force a conversation in the other direction (which would at least counter the ever steepening slope of removing weapons) and would possibly reaffirm the original intent of the clause, and literally provide more of a balance against the tyranny we're currently seeing. However! I do see the problems in this. I was arguing this with an acquaintance and her and her associates (who are working hard to do exactly as I explained - remove certain rights, increase "freedom" implement tyranny and see the 2a as a hindrance) think the idea of putting nukes into the hands of people is insane. And rightly so. One wrong person and bam, huge problems. So I don't know where that line lies quite yet, but there seems to be a balance and there's a larger game being played at the individual level all the way up through the collective society.

Do you believe your last line about freedom? Are you an advocate for libertarianism/the Non-Aggression Principal (I think that's what it's called)? Do we want the freedom to turn ourselves into Chimeras? To **** animals?

Do you think we're entering into a timeline that allows that kind of thinking?

It seems pretty clear from COVID that it's the collective vs. the individual - and the collective is winning, bigly. The masks had many purposes, but one was to get the masses comfortable with taking steps that infringed on others that "helped the collective." For, unlike abortion, guns, etc. - a mask protects OTHERS... so NOT wearing one, is an affront against the collective. Removing sugar is a great example of something the collective would very much like to do, but is anathema to the Peat community.

 

[stoic]

Thank you @mariantos for your explanations.

I agree with most of your points.

The problem is, nobody is teaching these things.

Our societies are actively trying to suppress masculinity.

A man shouldn't have to study how to act around women; in a healthy society, he would learn by observing other men.

The solution, I believe, is for masculine qualities to return to the forefront of public consciousness.

Young men can only improve if they have enough role models – both in the media and in the home.

 

[Dr. B]

It was back in 2016 during the election - I believe it started on an East West Healing podcast (or maybe it was Danny Roddy's). He said he thought he would win (when he first entered), and would be better than any other candidate/Hilary (IIRC). He wasn't flat out endorsing him, but the tone was lesser of two evils. Somehow he knows things like this. I don't know how he called Biden, because Trump clearly won, but that's another topic.

Abuse Status - This is nuanced. I actually see scenarios like Harvey Weinstein's accusations and Bill Cosby's as ridiculous (and fake). Literally these are staged theater to move public opinion. I have resources on WHY this is the case (evidence it's staged). But that kind of quid pro quo, is not a problem - but young women thinking it is is ridiculous. Not one woman that was "harassed" by weinstein gave up a role, rescinded their money, apologized for the behavior, etc. Sucking **** for something is as old as time.

The place I see where men are being nefarious is that wealthier guys are cleaning up with women right now, particularly "sugar daddies" - because they know women haven't quite yet figured out they're being played. In a nutshell... Wealthier guys could buy a fancy dinner for a girl (low cost relative my total wealth), or a random trip and get laid, and she doesn't realize her body count is far more valueable than she realizes, and in fact, pursuing a normal guy, might provider far more value - long term - as he's more likely to commit, provide a steady income together, growth, etc. than someone showing off with a fancy car, dinner, etc.

Yes, money, trips, etc. is great for right now, but it's my calculus that if a woman spent the same time looking for a long-term quality mate the return on investment would be far FAR greater. So ***** has become cheaper than ever basically and there are huge prices to be paid for that.

The major price is the collapse of the family unit and pair-bonding between men and women.

The price - this is certainly my opinion, but it is based on studies that indicate this, as well as personal experience - a woman's value goes down with EVERY man she's with (and in particular ever penis that enters her). Studies are clear that there is a correlation between the number of sexual partners a woman has and the outcomes of relationships/marriages. This goes deep and Rollo does a great job explaining a lot of the things I've seen - Alpha Widow, Trust/Loyalty issues that arise from multiple partners, etc. I have witnessed all of this first hand, and raising a daughter (during the course of one of my longer-term relationships) I now understand this more fully. I've also seen it clearly that as a woman has more partners there is a distancing of genuine connection, love, that occurs.

I also have seen a study show micro-chimerism for a child having portions of DNA/genes for every partner their mother was involved with EVER. Knowing these two things I think leads us to some of the conscious reasons virgins have been prized throughout human history and how adding to their body count, does them AND society a disservice (although all too many girls are willing to do it and in the last couple years it's actually being celebrated).

I know men, physically, are able to handle sex differently than women. We do NOT have to be as emotionally attached to it. So for a 50 year old guy to pipe a 24 year old - it literally means nothing to him, but that additional lay is stealing greatly from her future worth (with another man, as a partner, etc.). I like how the Fresh & Fit guys word this... Men have to build their value (grow over time, grow wealth, become better, etc.). Women are born with their value (looks, fertility, innocence, compassion, etc.). So men have to become to grow in value (sexual marketplace), whereas women have to protect their value. Currently they're giving it away for free (or virtually free) ... instagram, facebook, snap, onlyfans. No decent man, if he has self-esteem, and is honest with himself - is okay with his girl showing off her **** on these sites, and getting likes all day. And the reason it continues (from the female perspective) is the addictive attention it provides, but also, it's a window into, and out of, the dating world of available men. If she's on social media, she's more easily hit up - for future options. Men have to allow it because they're ******** and are afraid of losing their girl, getting called "low self-esteem" or coming off as misogynistic. When in reality having it's abolishment as part of a relationship would be very caring and thoughtful for the relationship.

(ever girl I've ever dated, long term or otherwise, ALWAYS had multiple guys hitting them, DM'ing them to get their number on Social Media pretty consistently)

I've told many young women I've dated about these lies, and they listen, and agree, (they generally won't even listen if they're over 30 lol)... but they're having too much fun and the program's too hard wired NOT to worry about any of that (settling down, concentrating on finding a real, good, long-term/marriageable man, etc.) they want to be "free" to **** multiple guys, to work at misc. jobs or pursue an education/career, etc.. or they're much older, bitter, condescending, carrying tons of baggage, with pair bonding issues - clearly miserable and won't hear a single word of any of this.

how would prostitutes being legalized cause increase in hypergamy? what would the issues be with legalizing prostitution?

I think I misworded this part. I don't know if you can "increase" hypergamy. It as a concept appears to be constant - like the speed of light lol. It has only been unleashed through social engineering (normalizing certain behavior) and the internet (it - hypergamy - having access to new mates).

Anyway, I'm not sure on this theory completely but - Anything that provides cheap access to sex will increase the negative consequences of hypergamy and female nature and decrease positive aspects of males. Because it removes the incentives for males to get better in order to attract the attention of women and get sex - so the many women left with shitty male options - will flock to the few at the top - leading to polygamy.

One thing I think women don't consciously realize - men ******* ADORE (and adore is the right mf'ing word...) women, especially when men are younger - and for the rest of our lives so much of our work is to get money to attract women, things to attract women, etc. it's quite hilarious when you stop and think about it. Sex is a HUGE part of what drives men. There's a great quote from an episode of Game of Thrones between Ser Bronn and Jamie:

Ser Bronn - "you wouldn't find me fighting in an army if I had no ****"... and basically he explains how it's all about women/sex - we fight to get gold, to buy women.

@5:51


View: https://youtu.be/1JeoxlYGuOw?t=351


Thank GOD I didn't have video porn in my younger days. My friends and I were quite crazy, and had a playboy we found in elementary school (and I kept that thing for all of middle and high school) lol. I do remember the first rush I experienced with porn in my teen years... I'm very thankful I didn't experience that before puberty.

I'm not clear on the banning myself. And I also don't know how you'd practically do it anyway without shutting down the internet as it exists today.

I will say, it's clear freedom has been weaponized. Jay Dyer talks about this a lot. Can children consent? They can not authorize a vaccine for which we know is virtually untested, includes problematic adjuvants and has no known long-term effect studies. How old were you when you understood what a ******* adjuvant was? Most of this board seems to think COVID was overblown, acknowledges the FDA, CDCs, and WHO's checkered past, and it's pretty clear the event was planned... is a child supposed to know that - integrate that data - and then make a solid decision on injecting what (the MSM insists is not), but the FDA & SECs own records clearly show is - "experimental gene therapy"... are we free to do OTHER things with children? Because that's definitely coming - if the people that always seem to get their way, get their way.

There's a reason open drug communities do poorly with drug abuse - actual social stigma (shame!) and actual criminal penalties are in fact powerful tools in societies toolbox against decay. Sure, it goes underground, but it doesn't spread and become overt. If a person from the 19th century popped onto a computer today they would be horrified with porn. Like literally we have become hell itself. Here I think it is completely acceptable for parents to have an iron fist about this stuff (but also integrate with the insanity going on, and actually talk with their kids about this - hey it'll **** your brain up - stay away until you're older, then you make the decision, but here's everything your pappy learned about living in hades). Having that kind of relationship will also help prevent them from having addiction problems anyway. You could implement a porn company tax to fund movements like NoFap, or develop a "Great Men" ad campaign. Seriously... WHY IS PORN FREE!!!!???? There's a reason. I wish I could find a quote from this old emperor/king - it's been known for thousands of years this kind of moral decay destroys societies and is a weapon.

Let me give you a weird perspective... I actually think there should be a citizen led political initiative to massively expand the access we have to weaponry (nukes for example) and rights the citizenry has to wield that access. Why? Because it's crystal clear the intent of the 2a wasn't for hunting, but for opposition to tyrannical government. Secondly, it's clear political/social engineering operations are continually run in one direction - to limit that access. Time has also proven that, for all of our problems in the U.S. the constitution, the way the republic was setup, and the 2A in particular have helped slow down the progression of insane tyranny we've been seeing for sometime now across the globe (Ireland, England, Australia, China). And it's an old trope, but if you're against the second amendment, it really is true that you're simply for giving the government/the police the guns to take them away from you and others.

Something like this would force a conversation in the other direction (which would at least counter the ever steepening slope of removing weapons) and would possibly reaffirm the original intent of the clause, and literally provide more of a balance against the tyranny we're currently seeing. However! I do see the problems in this. I was arguing this with an acquaintance and her and her associates (who are working hard to do exactly as I explained - remove certain rights, increase "freedom" implement tyranny and see the 2a as a hindrance) think the idea of putting nukes into the hands of people is insane. And rightly so. One wrong person and bam, huge problems. So I don't know where that line lies quite yet, but there seems to be a balance and there's a larger game being played at the individual level all the way up through the collective society.

Do you believe your last line about freedom? Are you an advocate for libertarianism/the Non-Aggression Principal (I think that's what it's called)? Do we want the freedom to turn ourselves into Chimeras? To **** animals?

Do you think we're entering into a timeline that allows that kind of thinking?

It seems pretty clear from COVID that it's the collective vs. the individual - and the collective is winning, bigly. The masks had many purposes, but one was to get the masses comfortable with taking steps that infringed on others that "helped the collective." For, unlike abortion, guns, etc. - a mask protects OTHERS... so NOT wearing one, is an affront against the collective. Removing sugar is a great example of something the collective would very much like to do, but is anathema to the Peat community.

Ray predicted Biden would win, or he was saying he wanted him to win? How do you know trump won? i mean we don't really know these things, people are debating whether bidens actually even in the white house. all we can do is watch the media sources which are unreliable and fake.

i agree as far as weinstein. if you are an owner of a company you have the right to ask people for any kinds of favors and they have the right to refuse/accept. this includes blood donations, sexual favors, or whatever else. the problem really only is when youre say a hiring manager or lower level person abusing that position. for instance, its against mcdonalds company policy for managers to be asking favors for people they hire. they dont want the publicity with it and want a fair hiring process. so a manager doing it is an issue. now if the owner of mcdonalds decides he wants to ask for favors from people he hires, he has that right. now this is obviously not really doable with mcdonalds anymore since its publicly owned, doesnt have a singular owner who sets policies etc. i havent looked into cosbys case but it seems like most of weinsteins incidents were cases where he asked women for favors and in return helped them get ahead in their careers?

true but i think sugar daddies may have to invest more. perhaps they can dangle the idea of a relationship while not wanting one, and abuse that potential.

the pair bonding concept may be something modern, in past times especially before religions or without religions there were many cases where men had multiple women and vice versa.

for this "Anyway, I'm not sure on this theory completely but - Anything that provides cheap access to sex will increase the negative consequences of hypergamy and female nature and decrease positive aspects of males. Because it removes the incentives for males to get better in order to attract the attention of women and get sex - so the many women left with shitty male options - will flock to the few at the top - leading to polygamy."

isnt this what many people had issue with and claimed is already occurring? i think it goes both ways, in the modern society, you have porn, only fans, escorts etc providing the demotivating factors, but the thing is due to the internet, even without these incentives available, women would still be going for the best. actually some men also only go for the best as well. even in modern times with the easy access, if you're looking for a relationship based on attraction you still have to do better. it seems its in the past, before porn and modern things that men actually could just get into an arranged marriage and not put as much effort into a relationship since societies were much smaller, and women were more dependent on men. even according to TRP, it's the modern day society that leads to the top tier men getting most of the women, whereas in the past you could be a subpar man and still have a stable relationship.

i dont think its a good mindset to have to be pursuing money or power or anything in order to "get" or buy women or seek approval from anyone else. those things have value in their own right, whether you have women or not.
porn should be free, for the same reasons youtube and many other things are free. they're actually not totally free it's just the advertisers are paying for the consumers. video games, movies, music tracks can be easily saved, recorded, transferred, uploaded as we have the technology to do so. Perhaps in the future we would also be able to create cars and clone them as easily as we can with videos today. porn etc is free because we have the technology to make it free.

nukes, weapons etc should only be available to people who can actually afford them. i don't think any random person off the street could afford them, youd probably need to be a billionaire and at that level you may simply be rich enough to where even if you cant directly buy it, you can just influence people who do have the power to use them/have access to them.
yup, we have the freedom to turn ourselves into chimeras if you want. with regards to animals, that varies. animals could be given rights similar to humans but on a case by case basis. if it's an animal you can legally kill, consume, and eat then its hard to justify and legally restrict what people can do with that animal. i personally like some animals and think they should be given rights, but this may be complex to implement. generally private property is protected much better than public property. the issues with animals etc are due to their presence on public property.

yup, regarding the masks stuff im not sure what the policy should be as far as dress code. should the government be able to restrict what you can and can't wear? probably not. that's something businesses should be able to dictate, but not governments. you can't touch people if they don't want to, but i'm not sure there should be any sort of minimal or maximal dress codes. the mask stuff is kind of an extension of the businesses or establishments saying things like "no shoes, no shirt, no service". a private business should definitely have the right, a public business, im not sure how that would work.

 

[PolishSun]

I think in the past people were more stable in relationships, because already the 1st one was a good match. They looked different.

 

[mariantos]

Thank you @mariantos for your explanations.

I agree with most of your points.

The problem is, nobody is teaching these things.

Our societies are actively trying to suppress masculinity.

A man shouldn't have to study how to act around women; in a healthy society, he would learn by observing other men.

The solution, I believe, is for masculine qualities to return to the forefront of public consciousness.

Young men can only improve if they have enough role models – both in the media and in the home.

Of course, there are well-directed attacks on masculinity and, implicitly, on femininity.

Total justice about society, but whether we want to or not, we must accept that we do not live in a healthy society. Cancer is metastatic, we must "fight" to defeat the disease.

The solution you offered is extremely useful and efficient, we just have to put it into practice, apply it. The last statement you made is equally valid for women as well. Both young men and young women need decent role models, even if some men and some women have the ability to educate themselves, others are unable to do so because their consciences are dormant.

However, I'm worried about the birth of healthy babies and not about sex issues, I think it's too much sex anyway. Even the most timid boy / man now has easy access to prostitutes, escorts, "luxury" ladies or whatever they are called. What was once seen as shameful is now admired and praised by some. Babies worry me so much, the generations to come, the future in essence. Because I don't want them to be replaced by the artificial procreation process at all. I don't even want to think about what kind of creations could be conceived in the future through the barbaric technologies in which colossal sums are invested, in order to completely reshape the humanity we all know,but you know stoic, I know and I'm confident that there are men and women who really value and defend human, family values etc. I strongly believe that these values will be perpetuated, so no matter how dark things are and will be, I know that in the end the result will be a good one.

 

[David90]

@haidut

Does not wonder me in the Slightest. Because (like the Previous Speaker(s) mentioned) Porn Use is surely one cause of it. Also the Current Covid/Lockdown Times, are making Dating and One Night Stands MUCH harder due to Closing of Clubs, Bars, Gym's and so forth. Also The Girl Cousin of my Girlfriend (she is Single and Unvaccinated) also mentioned, that even on Dating Platforms, the Guys are Writing ''Vaccinated'' in their Profile, like some sort of Achivement or Trophy.

I would like to comment this too, as a 22 years old boy. I see it that there are more factors. Today, girls want a boy with nice hair, alot of money, good car and to be a submissive to her. Unreal. Not to mention the fact that about 60% of girls here (EU) are unnatractive, overweight and emotionally unstable. When you add the fact that boys are hypothyroid thus have low amounts of androgens, its good recipe for disaster. My solution ? I am having sex once per month with a girl that is not attractive to me and watching porn once per week to satiety my appetite.

It is not everytime the case but yes. The Demands for the Guys has surely risen in the Last Couple of Years. I noticed this in my Dating/ONS Time (2018-2020) also. The Girls/Women have sometines Demands that are hard to accomplish, even if you are someone that Works very hard. Also agreeing on the ''Emotinaly Unstable'' and ''Overweight'' Part. Sometimes i noticed also Tablets or massive Amount's of Supplements. The Sheer Amounts are insane.
Also nowadays you see these Two Extremes, with Girls/Women that are WAY too Thin or too Obese.

Also i don't know why every Women/Girl has lots of tattos all over their Bodies. Or these Strange Bullring Piercings on the Nose. I Personally don't find that very Appealing. The Thing that Surprised me the Most was a ONS of mine Two Years ago. She was around my Age and had Breast Implants, because she was finding her Breasts too sparse.

Mostly in my Country you have good Chances if you are at least 1,80m of Height with Straight and Full Hair(-Line), Good Amount of Money and a Good Car (BMW, Mercedes, Audi). Being Athletic/Muscular (but not too much) can also come in Handy. Also having a own Appartment would be VERY good but that also gets Increasingly harder due to raising Rents over here. The Prices are sometimes 780-900€ for a 1 Room-Apartment (EVEN on the Countrysides) which i think is WAY to much. Because even the Companies try to Wage you as low as Possible over here.

 

[rei]

Here is a psychology and economics professor (one of the few ones that really understands psychology instead of only regurgitate what is written in the textbooks they happen to read during school) who describes himself as "shaken to the core" after he recently did a literature review of psychology studies on young people. He says "either everything we have known about psychology is wrong, or we have a new subspecies of humans". He references studies that show that anxiety and depression among young women have increased 5x in a decade (and mentions studies finding the pandemic increased it 3 times from that, so in 12-13 years it would mean 15x increase). He talks about how women have become masculine, narcissistic. While men have become feminine, and both sexes psychopathic, lacking a true self. He links women's astronomical increase in anxiety to narcissism, arguing the traits go hand in hand. He says young people don't have real emotions, even if many of them think they do, but they instead simulate emotions (psychopathic trait). Hookup culture and casual sex is a direct result of this shift. They use other people as dildos, they don't make love and are incompatible with longterm relationship. He analyzed a database of anonymized chat logs from dating sites, and concluded that the ability to communicate has vanished, there is nothing of substance exchanged in the discussions. "dystopia is here, it is not science fiction any more"

I picked out the most relevant points considering the topic at hand, but the whole video is certainly recommended.

So pretty much in line with some of the more realistic posters in this thread, and not surprisingly those receive the most pushback from people that are in denial, or ignorant of the significant change in society over past 10-15 years.

One of the more interesting speculations he has made is that this is partially a result of the loss of privacy. Without privacy you cannot have intimacy. Without privacy you cannot have real emotions, as you spend your formative years behind a mask, making you emotionally scarred for life, psychopathic.

 

[LeeRoyJenkins]

Here is a psychology and economics professor (one of the few ones that really understands psychology instead of only regurgitate what is written in the textbooks they happen to read during school) who describes himself as "shaken to the core" after he recently did a literature review of psychology studies on young people. He says "either everything we have known about psychology is wrong, or we have a new subspecies of humans". He references studies that show that anxiety and depression among young women have increased 5x in a decade (and mentions studies finding the pandemic increased it 3 times from that, so in 12-13 years it would mean 15x increase). He talks about how women have become masculine, narcissistic. While men have become feminine, and both sexes psychopathic, lacking a true self. He links women's astronomical increase in anxiety to narcissism, arguing the traits go hand in hand. He says young people don't have real emotions, even if many of them think they do, but they instead simulate emotions (psychopathic trait). Hookup culture and casual sex is a direct result of this shift. They use other people as dildos, they don't make love and are incompatible with longterm relationship. He analyzed a database of anonymized chat logs from dating sites, and concluded that the ability to communicate has vanished, there is nothing of substance exchanged in the discussions. "dystopia is here, it is not science fiction any more"

I picked out the most relevant points considering the topic at hand, but the whole video is certainly recommended.

So pretty much in line with some of the more realistic posters in this thread, and not surprisingly those receive the most pushback from people that are in denial, or ignorant of the significant change in society over past 10-15 years.

One of the more interesting speculations he has made is that this is partially a result of the loss of privacy. Without privacy you cannot have intimacy. Without privacy you cannot have real emotions, as you spend your formative years behind a mask, making you emotionally scarred for life, psychopathic.

Really good find, I'm watching now, thank you. It's been what I've seen as well - I was in a long term relationship for about 5 years (and didn't date for a while after that) and have been shocked at how different things are.

 

[Bootselectric]

@rei thanks for posting. It's always good to have highly subjective opinions (mine is too) backed up by professionals or studies. Although they can be manipulated as well...

Besides the change male/female relationships through feminism, I think the loss of privacy and always keeping up a mask is one of the biggest problems. Most men and women keep up a facade, and it gets worse and worse. Women 'should' behave like men to be successful and men to be ultra-dominant alphas. So when they finally fall in love, they love a facade and not the real person.

I see countless robots every day. Without showing any emotion at all or (particularly some young girls) with fake emotions like they are guests in a TV show.

The ultimate 'alphaness' – at least for me – is to be the real you. The way is likely to be very honest, vulnerable and to be grounded in your experience and not the version of yourself you want to display. Just like Brad Blanton, for instance, has been recommending for decades. I still have to adopt more of his mindset, "**** them if they can't take a joke", though. : )

Vulnerability can be dangerous, always has been. But being honest and open has a very nice benefit: you learn so much about body language, tone of voice, eye contact etc. and therefore detect dishonesty and bad intentions pretty accurately.

 

[Roni123@]

I think everything is intertwined with the metabolic function.