Feminist Fallacy #3: “I use men for sex”

Girls (mostly feminists with a battle-axe to grind) who say they just use jerks for sex and don’t want them for long-term relationships are lying out of their asses. Nine times out of ten, it’s the jerk who doesn’t want to pursue a relationship with the smitten dear who then tells herself afterward she was just using him for sex to comfort her bruised ego.

Need proof? Normally, I’d say, just get out of your fetid basement hovel and join the real world for a week or two, but this time I feel the spirit of science move me, so here ya go:

The more recent research of McDaniel (2005) and Urbaniak and Kilman (2006) suggest that women find “nice guys” to be socially undesirable and sexually unattractive, contradicting the previous findings of Jensen-Campbell et al. The researchers also found that “bad boys” (operationalized as “fun/sexy guys” by McDaniel and “cute, macho guys” by Urbaniak and Kilman) were highly desired for both short-term and long-term committed relationships, whereas “nice guys” were not desired as sex partners within either relationship context, contradicting the previous findings of Herold and Milhausen. McDaniel writes:

First, being suitable for high commitment dating alone is not enough (by a long shot) to increase a nice guy’s likelihood to progress into or beyond the experimentation stage of relationship escalation. Second, young women who are interested in frequent casual dating are not going to select a nice guy as a dating partner because he cannot meet her recreational dating needs. And, because the fun/sexy guy seems to be more suitable for low commitment dating, he is going to be chosen more often for it, which provides him with an increased opportunity to progress well into and beyond the experimentation stage.

The jerks chicks dig for sex are also loved as relationship material. The bottleneck preventing women from fulfilling their desire for LTRs with assholes is not women’s long-term preference for niceguys, but the assholes’ preference for short term flings.

So the next time you hear a woman desperately assert that she “uses men for sex”, just remind yourself you are likely conversing with a broken slut who got her heart trampled by the jerks she loves so many times she’s beginning to believe her own bullshit.





Comments


  1. “Girls (mostly feminists with a battle-axe to grind) who say they just use jerks for sex and don’t want them for long-term relationships are lying out of their asses.”

    Although the above is true, keep in mind they are virtually always lying to themselves about this, too, not just everyone else. Women these days like to believe the Sex in the City myth.

    Liked by 1 person


    • I think a large part of this is that the establishment media has a very clear agenda- and it bombards women with the propaganda that casual sex is fun, consequence free, and liberating.

      Women, more than anything, like to fit in and belong, even if it means going against their biological interests. So they do what they think everyone else is doing…which everyone else is doing because of media propaganda. They’re not using anyone….but what would they tell themselves? “Yeah, I fuck around because it looked cool on Sex and the City, but now I’m bitter, lonely, and attached to a guy who thinks I’m a whore.”

      Like


      • You are very smart. Women respond to social pressure to a greater degree than men, so much so that many times, in a group argument on afactual issue (abortion is a fun one), a woman will actually say (and has said, to me): “You’re the only one who thinks that. Don’t you see that makes you wrong?”

        To which I astonish them by replying: “No. Even if the whole world agreed black were white, black still wouldn’t be white.”

        Women always get slack-jawed at this, because the desire for group conformity is so strong, they literally think it can bend reality.

        An analogy: men’s sex drive is like a women’s desire to fit in with a group: never-ending and never-satiated.

        Like


      • I was having a conversation with a chick (5’9″, leggy) that works for a university as a Community Development Counselor (whatever the fuck that is). We were at a formal dance event and I asked if she was there with anyone.
        She told me that she was here with her “partner” and she pointed to a balding, bearded, academic guy. I asked if he was her boyfriend or just a dance partner, and she said he was her boyfriend.
        I asked why she called him her “partner”. Her response that she wanted something that was “gender neutral” because that is what gays have to use. I asked if he was “gender neutral” and she went slacked-jawed and stammered out “umm, uh, uh, no!”
        I also pointed out that gays can still use “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” to refer to their gay lovers. Again, I was met with stammering and “Yeah, I guess so.”
        These ideas pissed her off a bit, but that didn’t stop her from dancing close with me a few times throughout the evening.

        Like


      • Yeah, but isn’t it almost weirder for her to refer to her balding, bearded, aged professor-type as her ‘boyfriend’? Just seems innately strange to refer to anyone over the age of 25 as ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ anything. And ‘significant other’ sounds pretentious and obtuse. And sigoth (okay for the internet) sounds like a bacterial infection when stated out loud.

        Like


      • Given that it was a formal dance event, calling him a partner could easily have meant that he was just her date/dance partner for the evening, not that they are specifically romantically involved.

        Like


      • Did you ask her if she only lets her boyfriend fuck her in the ass because that’s what gays have to do? Vagino-centric sex is not very gender neutral.

        Like


      • I should have…

        Like


      • “You’re the only one who thinks that. Don’t you see that makes you wrong?”

        Those are the kinds of arguments my father always used against my racial beliefs. How humiliating for me to know that his mind was feminine.

        Like


      • Men are generally the genetic trailblazers. Women are genetic wagon circlers. So your dad wasn’t feminine. He’s reserving his Nature/God given prerogative to shag who he pleases and who pleases him, without interference from women who presume to tell him he is obligated to take their crap.

        Like


      • After my very pretty mother used him for his money he remarried to a homely, fat, bossy, masculine woman who ‘wore the pants’ in the relationship, won’t cook, won’t clean, watches television all day, etc. He submits to her every wish, and is certainly too “moral” to try to get some on the side. For me as a young girl growing up, it was extremely demoralizing for me to see my creator being so weak.

        Like


      • WW, so your dad’s a sub. So are a lot of guys. How this works is that even though he knows he doesn’t have to submit, he chooses to because this gets him off. He learned that pursuing what others think is the best because this is how they’re socially programmed, is not what is actually best for him as an individual.

        Apparently, he’s still a man in the ways that count…moreso than when he was living a lie with your mother.

        I bet other guys were jealous of him back then. Comedy.

        So, in your eyes, staying with a heartless gold digger is more manly than getting with someone who may not be all that but at least isn’t a whore?

        If both are evil, I’d say the latter was the lesser.

        Like


      • “Try talking to a lesbian about a viewpoint opposing hers. It’s like entering the twilight zone.”

        So true. Try speaking to a feminist bitch about a viewpoint opposing hers. It’s the most exasperating thing. Even if you gave her irrefutable proof she won’t admit or agree. And if you are right, and she knows it, she still won’t support you in case she upsets the group and be outlasted. Same thing with most liberals. If I knew a fact to be true or false, wild horses couldn’t make me change my mind just to fit in. If most conservatives were like this, we’d be sitting in the white house now. Taking the word of women and liberals is like listening to a child try to convince you why he/she should have candy before dinner.

        Like


      • For women, group conformity IS reality. No amount of logic is going to break through the group consensus once it’s formed, and nothing’s going to change a woman’s opinion if she thinks the other women around her hold that opinion. Try talking to a lesbian about a viewpoint opposing hers. It’s like entering the twilight zone.

        Like


      • Yes, the female hive mind. Marketing professionals have been studying and exploiting it for decades.

        How often do you see men spreading trends? Doesn’t happen.

        Like


      • spreading trends or following? i see men following trends all the time. i will give a nod to men more often being the catalyst of new trends – to include many of the ones females eventually pick up and follow.

        Like


      • Yes, a hive mind, reinforced by fellow women. There’s a really interesting book out there called Odd Girl Out that documents this phenomenon in school-age girls. The author gets almost all her conclusions wrong, but the study itself is sound. We’re faced with the sheer brutality of our peers practically from day one.

        Like


      • Very true. My wife was extremely upset when I approached the pastor of the church we attend and asked if they had ever brought up gold investing as a wise protective measure in these times. She was upset despite the fact this had been brought up in her home church months previously. She regularly tells me “don’t be weird” by bringing up any real issues to discuss when out with others. Of course, I ignore her as we both know I have a higher IQ and more experience with life (her being 10 years younger).

        Like


      • So she doesn’t want to seem “weird” by association, then?

        Like


      • You are an idiot if you think this.

        Like


      • True. TV especially has long been used as propaganda for degeneracy. Popular music and culture in general also.

        Just look at the bizarre, sick behaviour modeled on popular TV shows. It gets continually worse over time, and public behaviour follows closely.

        Like


      • It’s okay to rail against TV programming… but don’t you dare say anything about its producers.

        Like


      • Women? As one of the producers (Criminal Minds IIRC) noted, nearly ALL of the network execs are women. TV is made for women. By women. And gays. Which accounts for its continual perversion. And ever greater each succeeding year. Women unchecked by any force naturally tend to perversion and fantasy role playing: Fifty Shades of Bondage. But when old-line Jews like Louis B. Mayer or Sam Goldwyn ran things, even the women’s pictures were free from hypergamy-driven perversions.

        Like


      • Right. Because TV is just a vehicle to sell you things, and who does the majority of the buying?

        Like


      • Wrong.

        #1 Most behind-the-scenes people are men. In 2007, men composed 85% of all directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers and editors working on the top 250 domestic grossing films.

        #2 Women made up 26 percent of the creators, executive producers, producers, writers, directors, editors and directors of photography during the 2007-08 television primetime season. (Most recent figures I could find.)

        #3 The women who DO succeed as film and television executives act more like men. They’re almost all high-T. I’ve known them and slept with them.

        #4 Mayer and Goldwyn operated within the old studio system, which conformed with the standards demanded at the time. For instance, there was no sex for either gender allowed under the Hays Code.

        #5 Networks are irrelevant.

        Like


      • Because society had a strictly enforced morality code.They couldnt have made modern trash w/o being put out of business. In any case many artists still created great movies in an attempt to get around moral constraints. Speaking of Jews tho,as America has become less white–and whites far.far less powerful and far more falling under the domination of the left,it seems the hatred of Jews for us is truly blooming.I call it the Benny-Maher effect: Jack Benny was the top jewish comic of my parents days;a seemingly wonderful man beloved by us mayonaise eating gentiles. Today Maher is the King of Jewish humor,a vicious.nasty,ugly,pig,shit-eating arrogant piece of,to quote Angus Jones,FILTH. The jewish Id has been,like female hypergamy,let loose. How far will it go?

        Like


      • @Darius Jackson

        Now, that’s an excellent observation. As Jews become less religious, or totally forgo Judaism (maybe embracing atheism), they are adopting all the aspects of the Left. But that’s not just characteristic of Jews. Many Whites also say they are liberals, atheists, or both. These developments are going on in the entire White community; in Europe too. Unfortunately, the Left has been successful in indoctrinating Generations X, Y, and now it’s working on Z. For Generation X it was feminism and racism, for Y it was feminism, racism, multiculturalism, and gay sex, and for Z it’s feminism, racism, multiculturalism, and gay sex, as well as the environment/global warming/animal rights, redistribution of wealth, health, and education. Meanwhile, militant Leftists usurp the power of the government with evil legislation and bogus scientific studies to prove their fallacies, while also making us feel guilty or racists or misogynists, or homophobes about not complying, speaking out, or complaining.

        “Today Maher is the King of Jewish humor”

        I wouldn’t say he is the example of Jewish humor. He is of Jewish descent, but he doesn’t even identify himself as Jewish. He is a flaming radical lefty is what he is.

        Like


      • You’re full of shit, NiteLily. Jews invented modern leftism.

        “He is of Jewish descent, but he doesn’t even identify himself as Jewish.”

        He identifies himself as Jewish every time he attacks White goys. He knows that he is not a goy.

        Like


      • @ Laconophile

        He’s of Jewish decent, but he’s not a practicing Jew, that’s the difference. He is an atheist secular creep. If he was attacking non-Jews in the name of his Judaism (like Eliot is doing in the name of Christianity), then you could say he is doing it because he hates Gentiles. Same thing applies to Hitler. Hitler wasn’t murdering Jews in the name of his Christianity. He was as secular as they come, an atheist who wanted to return to Germanic Paganism. He had an irrational hatred of the Jews, so to blame Christianity in Hitler’s case would be misleading. Same thing with Bill Maher; to blame his Judaism is misleading.

        You’re not big on logic are you? Anything to put your 2 c in, eh?

        Like


      • “He’s of Jewish decent, but he’s not a practicing Jew, that’s the difference.”

        Judaism is an ethnic religion. That’s why the phrase “Jewish atheist” isn’t an oxymoron. Maher is a Jewish atheist.

        “He had an irrational hatred of the Jews, so to blame Christianity in Hitler’s case would be misleading.”

        If Christianity was an ethnic religion you might have a point. But, as usual, you don’t.

        Like


      • er, I meant to quote this:

        “He had an irrational hatred of the Jews, so to blame Christianity in Hitler’s case would be misleading. Same thing with Bill Maher; to blame his Judaism is misleading.”

        Like


      • @ Laconophile

        No go.

        Ethnic religion? Honestly????? Try the mother religion before ours even existed. When ours began, Judaism was already 2,000 years old, ancient by all standards of human history. And to this day, they endure, much to your chagrin, I believe.

        It’s Christianity and Judaism. Not Christianity and an ethnic religion.

        I’ll give you an example of ethnic religion, it’s called paganism. What you subscribe to.

        But of course for someone calling themselves Laconophile, you’re deep steeped in paganism, so Hitler might be right up your alley. Now go practice your voodoo on someone else (as in ethnic religion).

        But let’s first review:

        Hitler was of a Christian background. BUT, he wasn’t practicing, he was an atheist, and he killed the Jews not in the name of his Christianity. That’s an important distinction to make, and I do when I hear lefties throwing his name around when they try to disparage Christians and Christianity.

        Likewise, Bill fucking Maher is of a Jewish background. He is a radical lefty who hates the right, But he isn’t a practicing Jew, and secular as they come – a self-declared atheist. In fact, he puts down Judaism constantly, as well as all other religions. The guy has an aversion to religion. He constantly takes cheap shots at the Bible (which isn’t just Christian as you know, it’s Jewish too). BUT, he doesn’t do any of this because of Judaism. So what you say about him, “He identifies himself as Jewish every time he attacks White goys, “ is false, not to mention your purposely trying to deceive. If your argument had any truth to it, you wouldn’t be throwing about misinformation with such liberties.

        Like


      • “It’s okay to rail against TV programming… but don’t you dare say anything about its producers.”

        Because not all the producers are Jewish. That’s why your argument is fallacious. But you can honestly say that 98% of Hollywood are Liberals – some Jewish and some non-Jewish – and that includes the producers, directors, actors, etc. Plenty of non-Jews in Hollywood too. That’s the point.

        To fight moral decay you have to speak against Liberalism, not Judaism. And if you are constantly substituting Jews for Liberals, as you’re continually trying to do, your argument lacks integrity and sincerity, as it all stems from your personal hostility to them, when you should be equally outraged by all Liberals, Jews and Gentiles alike. They are both cut from the same cloth, and both suck on the tit of Liberalism.

        Like


      • Even when the Chosen aren’t identified overtly, the alleged shiksa recognizes where the light shines… and rushes to their defense.

        Try this on for size, toots… from the horse’s mouth… and maybe you won’t sound like the other end so much.

        http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein19-2008dec19,0,4676183.column

        And then just study the credits after the movies and TV shows… especially the ones you find most odious and antiWest.

        Like


      • Two salient points from said article:

        The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.

        Now does my “don’t you dare” sound prophetic? Even the “high position” gentiles (whom one would think are well-ensconced) are in fear of bringing attention to the fact.

        “That’s a very dangerous phrase, ‘Jews control Hollywood.’ What is true is that there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood,” he said. Instead of “control,” Foxman would prefer people say that many executives in the industry “happen to be Jewish,” as in “all eight major film studios are run by men who happen to be Jewish.”

        Like


      • Here’s another gem:

        I appreciate Foxman’s concerns. And maybe my life spent in a New Jersey-New York/Bay Area-L.A. pro-Semitic cocoon has left me naive. But I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.

        Keep running them… cui bono? The host population?

        Like


      • An awful lot of words for not addressing any of the simple facts that original article I posted, in which, on this eve of total Babylon, even the Jews themselves now shameless boast of their control.

        And, like in the original article, every non-Jew you name with any sort of influence in Hollywood and TV certainly dances to the overbosses’ tune, if he knows what’s good for him.

        I could write reams debunking all of your examples, but just consider this one: you point to Tarantino as an example of a gentile? Touted far and wide in the MSM, but what does he put out? Inglorious Basterds (jewish revenge porn), Death Proof (antiwhite depraved male, mxied-race grrl power tripe), Pulp Fiction (replete with the prerequisite magic negro and depraved white stereotypes, not to mention the usual black-on-blonde miscegenation).

        You think this is his work alone? And then it would get beyond the local outhouse art house theatre without the kosher stamp of approval?

        What gets touted, widely advertised, and most important of all, properly DISTRIBUTED is virtually entirely in the hands of networks that are dominated by Jewish overlords… even if/when the occasional gentile does have a hand in the creative process of a product.

        I could go on, talking about Mel Gibson’s mea culpas and career nosedive after having to put his own money and distribution into that Christ movie of his… and Oliver Stone letting the cat out of the bag as well, etc., etc., etc.

        Like


      • First, these Jews don’t own these business, they are executives in the entertainment industry. These are multi-national corporations. Hollywood was always open to Jews because it’s the most liberal place in America (for better or worse), so they found a home there. I am not surprised there are many Jewish excutives. But it’s not just the Jews, what about CNN, it was started by a liberal Jew hater, now it’s owned by AOL. AOL was started by William F. von Meister, a German-American, whose great-grandfather Wilhelm Meister, founded the Teerfarbenfabrik Meister, Lucius & Co. in Germany, which later became Hoechst AG. Hoechst AG managers were defendants in the Nuremberg trial against the company for its role in the exploitation of enslaved laborers and for testing drugs on concentration camp prisoners. Nice ain’t it, Greg? They also own HBO, Cinemax, Comedy Central, The Atlanta Braves, The Atlanta Hawks, World Championship Wrestling, EMI records, Atlantic records, Sports Illustrated, People, In Style, Forune, and many more stations, record companies, and magazines. I am sure they have many Jewish executives at AOL, but it’s not a Jewish company per se. So the Germans and the Jews are in cahoots together, eh? Who would have thought?

        Walt Disney Co., which was alos named in your article was started by another anti-Semite, now it’s ironic that it has a Jewish CEO. NBC is owned by GE, also started by another Jew hater. CBS is owned by WESTINGHOUSE, not a Jewish company.

        Yet, the conservative FOX News was started and still owned by Rupert Murdoch, a Jew. He owns stations, newspapers, and magazines all over the world.

        Hollywood is a very liberal place, so many types of liberals flocked to it – Jewish liberals, Gentile liberals, feminists, gays, many performs from the UK and Canada, who aren’t usually Jewish – you name it, they all come to Hollywood to make their dreams come true.

        Furthermore, the entertainment industry all over the world is liberal. Look at the BBC in the UK and CBC in Canada, both are super liberal, more than their American counterparts, and not many Jews working there. The point is, the entertainment industry is a union of forces of many types of people from all walks of life, but indeed they are usually liberals, and if they weren’t when they first arrived, they became liberal after they spent some time in the industry. They all think the same, liberalism. Stop substituting Jews for Liberals. It’s a false argument.

        Like


      • +1

        Excellent analysis. Clear-headed. I hope Greg Eliot and other hateful types read your comment.

        Like


      • I’m not surprised that an emasculated leftist chump like Jason can appreciate NiteLily’s womanly rationalizations.

        Like


      • “Excellent analysis. Clear-headed. I hope Greg Eliot and other hateful types read your comment.”

        Jason,

        I doubt it. He has an irrational hatred of the Jews. He thinks the Jews are controlling Hollywood and all other aspects of society, yet he overlooks all the liberal Gentiles in the USA, as well as in his beloved Germany. There is no trustworthiness or integrity in anything he says, because it is coming out purely form the prism of racist jealousy. He refuses to acknowledge there are plenty of Gentile liberals and keeps calling them ‘a few poor souls being controlled by their Jewish masters.’ When someone lacks such objectivity and tries to minimize the truth, their words can’t be taken seriously. He keeps trying to substitute Jews for Liberals and dares to use the Bible as an instrument of his hate, thereby desecrating it. The Bible is not an instrument of hate; it’s an instrument of morality.

        It’s a shame, but I am happy most of us Whites are not hateful. It just seems that many white supremacist, neo-Nazis, and Aryan-nation types frequent the Chateau. I don’t want to indict most Americans of German Origins, but it does seem like many of those white supremacists are German in origin and they just can’t let go of their hateful notions. I am not a white supremacist. I’m a conservative. There is a BIG difference. Of course, many radical leftists play the same game Eliot plays. They like to substitute White Supremacists for conservatives, thereby making conservatives look evil and hateful. It’s propaganda 101.

        Like


      • “even the Jews themselves now shameless boast of their control.”

        That article you posted is by a Jewish writer who is either feeling misplaced Euphoria that his people are supposedly controlling Hollywood, or he is one of those lefties who feels social justice is in order because there aren’t enough gentiles in the industry, which is totally false. Otherwise, I still don’t know what the point of his article was??? Except, it gave an anti-Semite like you a tingle up his leg.

        Maybe you don’t understand anything about corporations but here goes. The entertainment companies are not privately-owned Jewish businesses. They are multi-national corporations with shareholders. The executives they put in leadership positions are there to make the shareholders money. The executive officers reflect the will of the shareholders of the company, plain and simple. These are liberal entertainment companies, so they are not going to put a Chassidic Jew, a Bible thumper Christians, or the church lady in charge. Get it? They put people with an “open” mind, and with an eye for “social justice” and “acceptance” crap. Many Jews work in the industry because historically it was always very open to Jews, as well as other types of people who wouldn’t otherwise be accepted, and also because the Jews have a good reputation when it comes to business acumen. That’s why many of these corporations choose Jews to head their various divisions. Maybe it’s hard for your infinitesimal brain to understand, but It’s not some conspiracy, it’s just business.

        Fortunately, you as the consumer can choose whom to support. You don’t have to buy the entertainment products they sell, or buy stock in any of these corporations if they don’t reflect your values. There are mutual funds that don’t have HBO or sports Illustrated or World Championship Wrestling or EMI records or NBC or CBS or any of that crap. I for example, refuse to see anything by Sean Penn, George Clooney, Michael Moore, Bill Maher and a few others. I don’t like Liberals so I don’t support them.

        “I could write reams debunking all of your examples”

        Fat chance. Let’s start with Tarantino. You write,

        “you point to Tarantino as an example of a gentile? Touted far and wide in the MSM, but what does he put out? Inglorious Basterds (jewish revenge porn), Death Proof (antiwhite depraved male, mxied-race grrl power tripe), Pulp Fiction (replete with the prerequisite magic negro and depraved white stereotypes, not to mention the usual black-on-blonde miscegenation).”

        But the point is he isn’t Jewish. He is putting out stuff you don’t like (and I don’t like either), but he isn’t Jewish. Therefore, your argument that all of Hollywood is Jewish is false. It’s only proving me right. Let’s not forget Tim Burton, the Batman movies. Also not Jewish.

        Many of these directors and producers aren’t Jewish. I didn’t even include many dead producers/directors that aren’t Jewish like John Huston, Alfred Hitchcock, and George Romero. They too were very prolific. Not all of Hollywood is Jewish.

        The point is Hollywood is a combination of forces. Jews and Gentiles, Americans and foreigners, all flocking there to make their dreams come true. It’s true there are a lot of Jews there, but that’s because it’s the most accepting welcoming place in America (for better or worse), if not the world. Not many haters like you walking round there, that’s for sure. It’s elementary. Not some devious Jewish conspiracy.

        You keep trying to justify substituting Jews for liberals, but you keep falling short. If we let people like you cloud our judgment we won’t be successful against the Left. Leftists ideology is deeply ingrained in the West. And leftists come from all backgrounds, not just Jewish. Speak against the Left’s ideology, not against the Jews. I can’t support that.

        Like


      • Also, don’t forget about the producers, directors, actors, singers, performers etc. Not all of them are Jewish, and most of them are liberals. In fact ,the most famous producer/directors are not Jewish, except Woody Allen and Steven Spielberg, who has his own entertainment company. Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, James Cameron, George Lucas, Ridley Scott, Mel Gibson, Francis Ford Coppola, Spike Jonze (makes all the music videos that play on MTV), and Ron Howard are all not Jewish, yet they are super successful and super liberal.

        You keep trying to substitute Jews for Liberals and that’s totally ridiculous. What about all the conservative talk shows run by Jews like Savage nation, Mark Levin, Michael Medved, surly you don’t think they are corrupting America. Or do you, by virtue of them being Jewish?

        The point is, America doesn’t have a Jewish problem, it has a liberal problem. As I said, “ If you are constantly substituting Jews for Liberals, as you’re continually trying to do, your argument lacks integrity and sincerity, as it all stems from your personal hostility to them, when you should be equally outraged by all Liberals, Jews and Gentiles alike. They are both cut from the same cloth, and both suck on the tit of Liberalism.”

        Look at your beloved Germany, currently it’s the most liberal place in Europe. And don’t forget it has the most virulent pornographic industry in the world. Not many Jews there corrupting anyone. The point is, we whites don’t need the Jews to corrupt us. We are already corrupted and corrupting.

        Like


      • The point is, we whites don’t need the Jews to corrupt us. We are already corrupted and corrupting.

        Actually, the point is, no folk needs an obviously disparate and competing folk pushing them further along the path of corruption, nor exploiting their weaknesses to a far greater extent than the former would be capable of.

        Additionally, when we see our own harming us, we can easily identify and correct them by whatever means necessary… but whoever tries to say or do anything about the Jewish miscreant, said miscreant is protected by his own and the wrath of the entire tribe falls upon the woeful soul who would identify the corrupter.

        It happened to Jesus and has continued to this day.

        Like


      • “It happened to Jesus and has continued to this day.”

        In other words, you have no argument if your only contention is “it happened to Jesus and it’s continuing till this day “ nonsense.

        And what about the Romans who threw Christians to the lions because they wanted to halt the advent of Christianity from the Roman Empire? How come you don’t hold them responsible for all the saints they have killed? Italy, Italians, and the Catholic church are their descendants, maybe we should boycott them?

        The point is that even if the Jews did kill Jesus, which I highly doubt since it was the Romans who were in charge of Judea at the time and no one was put to death unless they deemed it fit, isn’t time to move on?

        Hate begets hate. There is no end to hate. If you’re holding on to a 2,000 year-old hatred, you and your kind will never know peace. And I assure you, Hitler whom you admire so much, didn’t kill the Jews because of Jesus. He wasn’t a Christian. He was as secular as they come, an atheist who wanted to return to Germanic Paganism. Like you, he had an irrational hate of the Jews. That’s why when I hear some leftists Jews saying Christians hate Jews (if you criticize an evil Jewish lefty like George Soros) and they bring Hitler as an example, I set them straight and remind them that Hitler is an anomaly. He isn’t indicative of most Christians. Most Christians don’t hate Jews. On the contrary, most Christians respect Jews and call Judaism ‘our big bother.’ Not only that, but most Christians support Israel more than those evil leftist Jews. That ends their fallacious argument right away.

        Furthermore, having an irrational hatred of Jews and trying to justify it with a few New Testament verses is exactly tantamount to the Muslims holding on to their hatred of the infidel and bringing up the Crusades as the basis for it. All of these arguments are fraudulent excuse for destroying the other.

        Take a lesson from the Jews, while they don’t forget what the Germans have done to them, they do say they forgive and actually have a very friendly relationship with Germany, and we’re talking only 60 years after the fact, not 2,000 years later, which means that many of the victims are still alive. Now, their forgiveness is something unprecedented in human history. Show me any nation that has been sinned against so gravely that can forgive the transgressor and move on. No one. That’s the example of Christian charity, or should I say Jewish charity. And you talk about a 2,000- year old grudge for something that you are not even sure happened? Please you need to grow up. You sound like a spiteful angry youth who is just angry because he is.

        Like


      • “but whoever tries to say or do anything about the Jewish miscreant, said miscreant is protected by his own and the wrath of the entire tribe falls upon the woeful soul who would identify the corrupter.”

        I have to tell you that conservative Jews talk about the left and rag on liberal or lefty Jews day and night. They are not protecting their own at all, and don’t feel any loyalty to said lefty Jews. And kudos to them. Those lefty Jews go against the Bible and against the Constitution, so no conservative Jew that I know ever protected them.

        And as far as calling the Jews miscreant is another symptom of your blind hate. You act as if only the Jews are the villains and no one else. You’re blind to everyone else but the Jews. That makes you irrational and non-objective about the truth. One has to see the whole picture and not pick and choose based on his prejudices. Therefore, I say the problem is liberalism and leftism, not Judaism. And liberals and leftists come in all shapes and sizes. Many whites are liberal too. In fact there are more liberal whites than Jews since Jews are about 1% of the US population.

        Also, liberalism started with the progressive era in this country with no Jewish involvement, as they were relegated at the time. First it was Woodrow Wilson who was a total anti-Semite, bigot, racist, prejudiced hater, and then it continued with FDR, another not so Jewish friendly president. Those were the two pillars of the Left in this country, not the Jews. They invented all of the social programs that went against the Constitution. They weren’t invented by the Jews. Like I said, we Whites are already corrupted and corrupting.

        America is a welcoming generous place, and the Jews have found a haven here. A place where they can develop themselves and their creativity (for better or worse), but then all of us can do the same. No need to be jealous of their achievements.

        You keep saying that they haven’t invented or discovered much. Well, I beg to differ with you. Many scientists in America are Jews. And many discoveries and inventions come from Israel.

        When the Jews lived in Germany/Austria most of the German scientists were Jews. Not only scientists, but they were writers, authors, economists, researchers, physicists, mathematicians, statisticians, and thinkers of all types – Freud, Adler, Einstein, Ludwig von Mises,Franz Kafka, Heinrich Heine, Kurt Tucholsky , Hans Kronberger, Victor Frederick Weisskopf , Moses Mendelssohn, and many, many more.

        And let’s not forget the composers – Gustav Mahler, Felix Mendelssohn, Giacomo Meyerbeer, and many others, which brings us to another one of your bigoted heroes, Richard Wagner. He was nothing but another Jealous anti-Semite who was angry the Jews were entering “his” profession. That Jealousy rearing its ugly head again.

        In fact, if I were to include all the Jewish contributors from Germany, Austria, and Hungary, it would take a whole long thread of this blog, that’s how prolific these German Jews were. So when you say the Jews contributed nothing to western civilization , except the polio vaccine and a few Broadway musical, it makes you sound ignorant , resentful ,and jealous, if not totally lacking objectivity since you are trying to minimize their contributions and not willing to give credit where credit is due. Seriously, I think you need to wise up.

        They are a gifted people who not only came up with monotheism, the Bible, and gave us Jesus, but they excelled in every other area of western thought, development, and discovery. As a matter of fact, most of the West is based on their religion, their thought, and their scientific contributions. Unfortunately, that also includes Marxism, which isn’t such a good idea, but at the time when it was still a young philosophy it was thought as the best thing since sliced bread; hence it was adopted by every country in Europe, the very place they hated the Jews so much. How ironic.

        Like


      • Your arguments never even enter the realm of logical coherence, NiteLily. You’re in no position to dismiss Greg’s arguments with your irrational sputtering.

        Like


      • ^^^^^^^

        +1000

        Like


      • And what about the Romans who threw Christians to the lions because they wanted to halt the advent of Christianity from the Roman Empire? How come you don’t hold them responsible for all the saints they have killed? Italy, Italians, and the Catholic church are their descendants, maybe we should boycott them?

        I suppose if they were still doing it to this day, I would hold them responsible… you stupid little twit.

        And you talk about a 2,000- year old grudge for something that you are not even sure happened?

        Not sure that Christ was crucified? Are you kidding? Up to now you yourself were playing the Christian.

        There are no grudges over people who repent… show me the repentance and the honoring of Christ… that’s the way the Book says you can tell the true worthies from the false prophets and Satan’s tools.

        Last time, for your lack of comprehension: we’re talking about what is still being done today… the past is brought up as reference to a pattern of behavior that hasn’t changed.

        Woman, at first I took you on your word and thought that the stench around the chateau was merely that of shabbos goyism… now I’m sure it’s the storied foetor judaicus.

        Go collect your thirty shekels, fool… and don’t forget to high five that other useful idiot fellow traveler.

        Like


      • Greg, I lived in Italy for some time in my youth and can confirm that yes, Catholics there are still prejudiced against and persecuting other Christians to this very day.

        Like


      • Throwing them to the lions, are they? :rolleyes

        Like


      • So when you say the Jews contributed nothing to western civilization , except the polio vaccine and a few Broadway musicals….

        Aside from incomprehension of generalization, your lack of thought extends to debate irony and hyperbole.

        Woman, you are beyond tiresome.

        Like


      • “I suppose if they were still doing it to this day, I would hold them responsible… you stupid little twit.”

        So the Jews are crucifying Jesus till this day and that’s why you feel you need to hold them responsible? LOL! It’s all in your mentally-ill perceived imagination.

        Ha ha …..I see you’re unhinged. How dare I challenge you, right? I love seeing you squirming after I blow all your non-arguments to smithereens. Luv Luv Luv it.

        “Not sure that Christ was crucified? Are you kidding? Up to now you yourself were playing the Christian.”

        Wrong, that’s not what I said, and don’t twist my words you religious nut. Christ’s crucifixion is a historical fact. What I was saying is that “it’s not clear at all the Jews killed him since it was the Romans who were in charge of Judea at the time and no one was put to death unless they deemed it fit.” So it’s more than likely the Romans put him to death, as they did countless of other Jews and Gentiles whom they deemed dangerous to the Roman Empire and the civil order. It was a time of much unrest and the Jews were fighting hard to remove the yoke of the Roman Empire. Many Jews who spoke against the Romans and their decadent paganism were deemed trouble makers and were crucified. Crucifixion was the Romans form of death punishment. That’s what I meant when I said “a 2,000- year old grudge for something that you are not even sure happened.” No amount of twisting my words is going to help you prove your non-argument.

        “There are no grudges over people who repent… show me the repentance and the honoring of Christ… that’s the way the Book says you can tell the true worthies from the false prophets and Satan’s tools.”

        Sorry, while it’s true we Christians are waiting for the Jews to come around, in my church they don’t preach your type of hatred. In fact, there are some Christian scholars that say the Jews already got God’s promises and Jesus was for the Gentiles. And if you’re not sure God is fulfilling his promises to the Jews, then watch how they returned to their homeland as it states in the scriptures they one day will, while your beloved Hitler is considered nothing but an evil murdering unhinged mad man. Like I said, if God wanted Hitler to be victorious, he would have been. End of subject.

        It borders on the absurd – your people (the Germans) have transgressed against the Jews yet the Jews forgave them, but Germans like you still can’t forgive the Jews for the sins they (the Germans) committed against them. And you’re talking about repentance? Take a lesson from Christ. He never killed anyone in his life only preached love, forgiveness, and understanding. He’d be appalled at the hate you have in his name.

        “foetor judaicus” ???? Aren’t we regressing to that barbaric hatred of the middle ages, eh? Very sad that some of us are still holding on to a delusional ancient hatred to justify our jealousy and envy.

        Like


      • And I assure you, Hitler whom you admire so much, didn’t kill the Jews because of Jesus.

        You keep trying to play that OMG, NAH-ZEE!!! card, and I already asked you in another thread to link or quote the posts where I “admire” or “adulate” Hitler, as you claim.

        Correcting someone on the Big Lie misquote attributed against him is neither “admiration” or “adulation”.

        I’d say “put up or shut up”, but already know you’re capable of neither.

        So just keep up your she-babble so all the useful idiots can keep high-fiving you and all the men capable of reading comprehension can keep poking you with sticks.

        And do try to remember, it was a Jew himself (that Hitler admirer!) whose article I quoted in re dominant influence and control in Hollywood and government.

        Indeed, he even extended his boast to Wall Street… which I didn’t even bother addressing thus far, as being too obvious.

        Like


      • Wrong, that’s not what I said, and don’t twist my words you religious nut. Christ’s crucifixion is a historical fact. What I was saying is that “it’s not clear at all the Jews killed him since it was the Romans who were in charge of Judea at the time and no one was put to death unless they deemed it fit.” So it’s more than likely the Romans put him to death

        You disingenuous twerp, I’ve already quoted the Bible (Matthew 27) where it states it overtly.

        You try to make an apologist argument that the soldiers merely carrying out the execution are the guilty party, rather than the actual plotters, instigators and accusers, not to mention crowd, frenzied to near riot by them?

        That sort of hamstering is an insult to rodents.

        Like


      • So the Jews are crucifying Jesus till this day and that’s why you feel you need to hold them responsible? LOL! It’s all in your mentally-ill perceived imagination.

        Sigh… do you have some sort of attention deficit disorder, or are you just attempting master cognitive dissonance by not addressing what’s actually said, and then throwing out five new directions of disinformation and confusion?

        What’s “happening to this day” is the underhanded instigation and accusations and use of the system against those they hate or view as competition.

        You know, it’s becoming a full-time job attempting to counter your bullshit so that the naive or unschooled don’t fall into the same exaggerations and outright lies of the shabbos goyim and fellow travelers.

        The next sound you hear will be dust falling from sandals. Finis

        Like


      • “Sigh… do you have some sort of attention deficit disorder, or are you just attempting master cognitive dissonance by not addressing what’s actually said, and then throwing out five new directions of disinformation and confusion?”

        I am addressing every single one of your fallacious arguments, right on target, laser sharp, and then smashing it to smithereens. That’s why you are so fucking angry. Face facts. Finis indeed!

        Like


      • Sorry NiteLily, but Greg is whoopin’ your ass with laser precision. I might also add that he has the patience of a saint with you.

        Like


      • You must be delusional because so far he hasn’t said anything worthwhile, just repeats that “his” scriptures justify his hate. If you think that’s a winning argument, then you are as delusional and incoherent a nutjob as he is. I use facts which are irrefutable. He needs to refute my facts, or shut the fuck up. So far he hasn’t done that. I think your bias is clouding your judgment if you think he has done a good job in whoopin’ my ass.

        And as far as him having the patience of a saint, he doesn’t have to answer or reply, so neither you nor he have any rights to complain. If anything, I should be complaining about his inanity and I don’t. Remember, I have the facts behind me, you two have hate, lies and delusions, which is why you are getting weary.

        Now that’s really finis.

        Like


    • Of course, woman. That’s what he said. You are stating the obvious.

      Like


  2. This is why it’s important to lead with your assholishness hard at first, and then back off.

    A “nice guy” a girl is dating who lets rip an un-p.c. line will get daggers/sex denial/possible break up and public humiliation.

    An “asshole” a girl is “sleeping with” who lets rip an un-p.c. line gets, at worst, an eyeroll, followed by fellatio when he pushes her head down and tells her to shut up.

    Bottom line: women flee from weakness and submit to strength.

    [heartiste: this is correct. ALWAYS lead with your asshole, like a cat presenting for a back rub, then switch later to showing a more beta-ish side. this goes double if you are hitting on younger, hotter babes.]

    Like


    • [heartiste: this is correct. ALWAYS lead with your asshole, like a cat presenting for a back rub, then switch later to showing a more beta-ish side. this goes double if you are hitting on younger, hotter babes.]

      —This is what anti-lefties need to learn to win elections: instead of running and denying charges of racism/sexism/homo-hatism, fucking embrace them. Agree and amplify. Change the frame.

      One reason changing the frame works is because women, unlike men, are so down to conform to the group that they will bend over backwards to conform to any group dynamic. If you change the rules of her p.c. world—by saying, in effect, “Racism/sexism/homoism will be a part of any interaction with me” women will accept that, and merely try to conform to it.

      You will never get the womanish media to stop shit testing you with racist/sexist/homoist attacks. Merely change the frame and force them to make it part of the conversation.

      As much as we might admire Buckley’s rapping of lefty knuckles, he lost the game by bowing down to the civil righters of the 1960s and accepting their frames.

      New game now boys. New rules.

      Like


      • I totally agree. I can’t believe conservatives still don’t get this. Whenever you are called a racist, a hater, a misogynist, here’s the forever and always correct response Amen.

        Like


      • Would be ok if it weren’t a flaming faggot in the gif.

        Then again, flaming faggots attitudes towards women is ideal…for straight men…

        Like


      • Meh, I don’t mind the homos. I prefer the Mannerbund to the flamer though. Once again, it’s propaganda on how they should act. Doubtful Walt Whitman was a sashaying little princess.

        Jesus, they have a lot of sex though. It truly is a portal into the horny minds of the average male. Ya’ll crazy.

        Like


      • “Meh, I don’t mind the homos”

        It starts that way. But keep reading this blog’s comment section for a while.

        Like


      • @anon (sorry didn’t let me reply down thread)

        I’ve been reading the comments for a long time. I know plenty of new right gays that I admire and I won’t judge them bc a bunch if cultural Marxists are using them as another pawn for their ridiculous social revolution.

        Like


      • Conservative men can be very attractive to women.

        Like


    • [heartiste: this is correct. ALWAYS lead with your asshole, like a cat presenting for a back rub, then switch later to showing a more beta-ish side. this goes double if you are hitting on younger, hotter babes.]

      This is very similar to the right approach when assuming command of a military unit.  Establish a strong command presence first.  Set high standards for discipline, training, maintenance, & readiness right up front, because it’s always easy to dial it back to the right level if you find you’re being too harsh.  If you go soft from the start and don’t get it just right, it is impossible to dial it up to the right level without causing resentment and discipline problems.  You aren’t their buddy; you’re their CO.

      Human Nature 101, boys.

      Like


  3. “I use men for sex”

    That’s like a man saying he uses women for relationships.

    Like


    • Win.

      Like


    • Exactly, you can’t use a man for sex, the best you can hope for is to get over being pumped and dumped yourself, and even then you’ll still have hurt pride. Basically, he’s gotten the better of you, and there’s not much you can do about it.

      Like


      • on November 28, 2012 at 1:01 pm RappaccinisDaughter

        I don’t know. What about mutually-agreed-upon friends-with-benefits relationships? I had quite a nice one going on for a while. He was a boyfriend, originally, but we’d broken up (mutually) because we were going back to school and we’d always known it would just be a summer thing. But we liked each other and so, if we were both home from school or if one of us felt like making the drive, we’d get together. I never felt “pumped and dumped,” and I’m sure he didn’t either.

        Like


      • We have all discussed what an outlier you are as a woman. You yourself know this. Your FWB relationship is in that category, too. I had an outlier chick like you once, and once she realized she was an outlier, she came to the conclusion that women were just insane.

        Like


      • on November 28, 2012 at 2:04 pm RappaccinisDaughter

        Maybe. I never thought I was that weird, I never thought women were that insane, but maybe I’m just kind of in a self-reinforcing bubble because of who I hang out with.

        The last time I hung out with my four closest female friends, I posed a little experiment (based on this blog, btw). I asked everyone to hold out their hands. All of us had ring fingers considerably longer than our index fingers.

        So maybe some of my “b-b-b-b-but we’re not all like that” is based on the fact that I surround myself with LDR women and men.

        Like


      • Honey, here’s what we know of you:

        –Voluntarily do a paleo diet, thinks it’s awesome.
        —Compares something easy to “video game in God mode”
        —Agree and amplify on rape jokes
        —Have intense knowledge of guns
        —ex-bf as fuck buddy with NSA
        —long ring fingers
        —did I mention clown mask rape humor?

        Don’t you run triathlons too?

        Like


      • p.s. my four closest female friends

        —-aka “ex-muff diving partners”

        but more seriously: how many of you four ever seriously played sports in school?

        Like


      • on November 28, 2012 at 2:37 pm Hugh G. Rection

        Manjaw?

        Like


      • on November 28, 2012 at 2:43 pm RappaccinisDaughter

        Heh, “muff-diving partners.” More like “belching contest buddies.” Only one of us is actually gay, although I think most of us did some “experimenting” back in the day.

        I don’t do triathlons, I just like to run. It’s what I do instead of clown rape. To each his own…

        Like


      • More like “belching contest buddies.
        —See? even better. But you’re strating to become a fantasy dreamed up on collegehumor.

        Only one of us is actually gay, although I think most of us did some “experimenting” back in the day.
        —pics or GTFO.

        I just like to run. It’s what I do instead of clown rape.
        —Liar.

        Like


      • Have you ever described yourself as a tomboy…or you only wear makeup and a dress for special occasions. Does the though of hair past your shoulders make your stomach turn?

        Like


      • on November 28, 2012 at 3:02 pm RappaccinisDaughter

        @Taterearl, yes, I’m a tomboy in terms of my interests and so on. But I style myself like a regular woman. I wear my hair long, dresses and skirts, makeup (except to the gym, because that’s retarded), the whole nine yards.

        @Whorefinder: Only the clown and I know for sure. And he’s still curled up in the fetal position, quiet sobs punctuated only by the occasional honk.

        Like


      • And he’s still curled up in the fetal position, quiet sobs punctuated only by the occasional honk.

        —-Oh, throw him a bone. Give him a hamster and a toilet roll tube and let him smile a bit.

        Like


      • I think you are an outlier. Hell, I dated this one guy i hated and still cried when he broke up with me (b/c I wouldnt put out lol.)

        Like


      • How do you know Barry?

        But send them to me instead. Heywood and Barry couldn’t appreciate them as well as I can.

        Like


      • on November 28, 2012 at 6:48 pm RappaccinisDaughter

        Barry was the one who told me that Buster Highmann and Phil McCracken were fibbing to me about why they needed photos of me. Gosh a’mighty, I thought they really were online gynecologists. How embarrassing. But I really should have guessed when they told me the purple cactus was just as good as a speculum.

        Like


      • “What about mutually-agreed-upon friends-with-benefits relationships?”

        Why would a woman do friends with benefits (FWB) with a man? How is that advantageous to her? Just for the sex? Some of us don’t do casual sex.

        FWB never go anywhere. It always ends with the woman wanting more, but the man is never interested in giving more because once a woman agreed to sell herself short in the form of FWB, the man can never respect her enough to enter a LTR. He’ll always go after one that gives him more of a challenge, has standards, and doesn’t sleep around so freely.

        I think many women fall into the FWB situation with a guy they like hoping it will become a serious relationship, meanwhile wasting time and getting hurt. When it ends, they tell themselves it was mutely agreed upon FWB. I think it’s foolish.

        Like


      • ps. the very fact that you frequent this blog and agree with much of what heartiste says is proof enough you are an outlier of women.

        Like


      • Or a guy pretending to be a woman.

        Like


      • Fair enough.

        She needs to send some tit pics with a hand drawn sign that says “whorefinder is my daddy” to prove she’s real.

        Like


      • Mmmhmmm.

        Like


      • No, she’s a girl. There have been some telltale signs.

        Like


      • @Lara:

        Don’t fuck this up for us!

        Like


      • on November 28, 2012 at 5:52 pm RappaccinisDaughter

        Sending tit pix to a guy named “Heywood Jablome.” That sounds like an excellent idea. I’ll get right on that. Right after I get done sending DP photos to Barry McCackiner.

        Like


      • Do what you wish, sir.

        Like


      • Or a woman pretending to be a guy pretending to be a woman.

        Julie Andrews game.

        Like


      • on November 28, 2012 at 6:42 pm RappaccinisDaughter

        Julie Andrews Game. That’s awesome. I’ve always privately thought of the dresses and skirts I wear as my drag.
        Do you mind terribly if I use that phrase, Greg?

        Like


      • A good writer borrows, a great writer steals.

        Anything I say is up for grabs… hell, most of it is already cribbed.

        Like


      • Acc. to Steve Sailer,everyone on the internet is a white guy.

        Like


      • @Lara..

        It’s the clown rape isn’t it?

        Like


      • “Exactly, you can’t use a man for sex”

        Exactly, using a man for sex is an oxymoron. He’ll never hurt like a woman, and he’ll never feel used like a woman.

        He might feel used if she got him to spend money on her when she wasn’t serious about a relationship or marriage with him, but having sex without a serious commitment is never going to hurt a man like it does a woman. Who are those feminist bitches kidding? It would be comical, if it weren’t so sad. Even the most beta of men, laugh at them.

        Like


      • Yes, because women just hate sex and always get attached. This would be sad if it weren’t so funny. Carry on, pathetic American pussy-men.

        Like


      • “So the next time you hear a woman desperately assert that she “uses men for sex”, just remind yourself you are likely conversing with a broken slut who got her heart trampled by the jerks she loves so many times she’s beginning to believe her own bullshit.”

        Ain’t that the truth. Most women don’t go out with guys they don’t secretly hope is their “knight in shining armor.” And when it doesn’t work out but they gave too much, they tell themselves that they haven’t been used and that they were doing just as much using as the guy, but that never alleviates the pain. Women acting like men is why so many are unmarried in their 30s and 40s.

        Like


    • … and cuddles.

      Like


    • Awesome.

      Like


  4. Sorry to keep posting, but what strikes me from this response for women is the idea that women value sex very little—and that they don’t understand how highly men value sex.

    Women truly do not understand the male sex drive, and how infects everything we do.

    Some times you’ll see an article by feminazis about men who get upset about a woman’s sordid past and won’t date her/be in a LTR with her because of it. Sometimes the feminazis argue that these men don’t see the “real prize” is a relationship with her, and that just “thinking away” all her cock caroseling is all she needs to do.

    To which we who are not afraid of our cocks hoot and holler.

    Like


    • All men value sex highly…women value sex with highly valuable men.

      Like


    • This. I’d expand it out, though. Western women have no idea how the male mind works in general, probably because we’re all trying so hard to pretend there’s no difference between the sexes. An unfortunate side effect of that insane theory is the belief that men really want to be as sensitive and emotional as women but society won’t allow it. It results in society actively destroying ALL male impulses for “their own good”. It’s almost Orwellian; nobody who’s engaged in such squashing realizes they’re doing anything wrong.

      OT, but I think it applies. I have a friend who cries to us all on her FB every time her little boys turn their toy trucks into make-believe guns, and can’t understand why they want to be soldiers rather than ballerinas. And surprise, surprise, she’d married to a beta chump who isn’t doing a thing to save his children from their mother’s stupidity.

      Like


      • The best way to explain the male sex drive is this:

        Imagine that, no matter what you did, or how much you ate, you were hungry. You could have just eaten a 14 course thanksgiving meal, but all of sudden you spot a snickers bar at a gas station on the floor and think, “I could eat that.”

        It’s not usually overwhelming (although when you haven’t eaten, it is), but it’s always there, gnawing at you, begging you to just take a tiny peak, a tiny bite of a new pie, cake, hamburger, or casserole.

        And it’s. always. there.

        Like


      • You can’t even escape it in sleep. But at least the dreams are entertaining.

        Like


      • I completely get that. Older brothers, older brothers’ friends, military college, military service. It’s pretty hard for a woman not to see the reality of it when she’s surrounded with it 24/7. But I can’t say that we have anything like that on our side of things, which might be why it’s so hard for my gender to understand that.

        Like


      • It’s pretty hard for a woman not to see the reality of it when she’s surrounded with it 24/7.
        —-Ah, but the ability of women to deny reality is quite strong. We call it the hamster. Consider yourself blessed that yours is weak.

        Like


      • I see. And you probably think women don’t ever, ever think like this. Lmao. Holy crap, I think I just spit out my food. Yuck.

        Like


      • Then stop commenting here then Lisa. No one is forcing you to read this.

        Check the viewership and membership numbers at this site they. They have expanded tremendously in the past 2 years alone. Why is that? Please tell me. Could hundreds of thousands of American men really be stupid? You’re just upset because it’s upsetting the order of the way things are “supposed to be”

        American women made us adapt to this mindset. Go on and live your happy life with Hans, your metrosexual German husband but you’re really barking up the wrong tree trying to tell us that we’re wrong.

        “The closer you get to the truth, the louder they shriek.”

        Seems like you’re screaming at the top of your lungs here, honey.

        Like


      • @Lisa:

        I see.
        —Probably not.

        And you probably think women don’t ever, ever think like this.
        —-Think like this? Or feel like this? Yes women have sex drives and get horny…that’s what this blog is all about, babes. Getting you to that point. But comparing the average MALE sex drive to the average FEMALE sex drive is like comparing an the average temperature of Deluth, Minnesota with the average temperature OF THE SUN.

        Honestly, you women should get down on your knees in front of every man you meet and THANK HIM for not raping you on the spot, so strong is our sex drive and so noble is our restraint.

        also…Rape!

        Holy crap, I think I just spit out my food.
        —Pig. Go wipe your mouth.lol.

        Yuck.
        —Learn to swallow, honey.

        Like


  5. Want to know what’s even more entertaining? Listening to some beta chump tell you, “she just used me for sex” after a girl banged him, realized he wasn’t the Alpha she thought he was while drunk, got buyer’s remorse, blew him off and he saw her with the next contestant the following weekend.

    “She just used me for sex” is the indicator bleat of a beta chump.

    Like


  6. These guys literally mocked women openly about this.

    Straight Men Respond to: “Gay Men Will Marry Your Girlfriends”

    Hilarious if you haven’t already seen it. You don’t even need to see the original they are responding to.

    The Hamster Spinning in the comments is epic.

    Like


    • Except they still succombed to the faggy frame by saying that they “support” fag marriage.

      Almost a win.

      Like


      • Almost an apocalyptic win… but I don’t care what anyone says, I enjoy the opera, especially Wagner.

        And, yeah, okay, if you must have the truth… Broadway too.

        Whoever has a problem with that can see me outside.

        Like


      • We forget that fags took over Broadway in the late 1960s and made everything “camp” or a “metaphor for homosexuality” or infused theater with gay themes “subversively.”

        Before that, Broadway was entertainment for the masses. Dancing and singing were “manly” on Broadway. Think of the MGM musicals : Singin’ in the Rain, On the Town, Guys and Dolls, A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the Forum, Kiss Me-fucking-Kate—-these weren’t faggy at all.

        Occasionally you get a few unabashedly male characters (Billy Flynn in Chicago, Jean Valjean and Javert in Les Mis ), but by and large Broadway these days gives a big middle finger to middle America and white straight christian males.

        Even after the shows or during improv segments of certain shows, the cast feels the need to rip on the right. It discourage me from ever going back, and I like a good show (no homo).

        Like


      • People forget that Broadway music used to be popular Hit Parade charting music as well… there are still a few gems that come out of the theatre, but an awful lot of tripe that one has to sift through, including those interminable “hit collection” musicals and, ugh, the shows based upon popular movies and/or TV.

        Ah well… music, first and foremost.

        Like


      • But that’s the entertainment industry in general. Hating the right since the 1960s.

        Like


      • pretty much forever. The death of the Nazis allowed them to stop pretending to be all gung-ho america and start bashing us and extolling the Soviet Union—and when that was untenable, start claiming both societies were “equally” fucked up.

        Like


      • An excellent point… the hypocritical rah-rah patriotardism the MSM goes through the motions of acting out every Veteran’s Day, and rerunning all the “Dirty Dozen” style orchestrated WWII movies, makes me gag.

        Like


      • @Greg Eliot.

        Exactly. It’s sickening. Especially because they never fail to completely misunderstand patriotic films from that era. Look at Red Tails. Leftist director tried to do “propaganda” style film, and it was an utter mess because he didn’t understand what made the old movies good.

        Like


      • What’s succumbing about that? Well, I guess betaloid language aka “supporting.” Favoring it? All for it? More than willing to bust a nose over it?

        Maybe I’m just not right-wing enough on this one, but I ain’t with CS Lewis on this one. Gay marriage is zero threat to my studliness.

        Like


      • What’s succumbing about that?
        –Fags are fucked-up people. “pretending” they’re not and then allowing them to sully actual, real institutions—to pretend, by law, that their marriage and lifestyle is “for reals normal”—is contributing not only to thei r disease, but infecting society’s fabric with it.

        These guys in the video “support” gay marriage because they’re too much of pussies to stand up and tell off faggots for their degenerate lifestyles (of course, this video is staged, some of these guys probably are fags, but I’m talking about beta-fag supporting “straight” men in general).

        Gay marriage is zero threat to my studliness.
        —Fags pretending to be married, and demanding we call them married by law, demeans humanity.

        The center cannot hold.

        Like


      • What rough beast, its hour come at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

        Like


      • Yeah, because it’s based on a false premise. So far as governments are concerned, marriages are nothing but legal contracts. Ya wanna talk religious sacraments, etc etc, that’s a different issue.

        Are fucked-up people allowed to enter into legal contracts? If that demeans your humanity, buddy, you go run with that and knock yourself out. My humanity’s got a thicker skin than that.

        Like


      • lol. You really don’t get how societies are formed, do you? Knee-jerk libtardians like yourself never do.

        Like


      • 3/10

        Come on, buddy — you can troll better than THAT.

        Like


      • lol. Such denial of the truth by a libtardian. Truly, the hamsters are strong in these “men.”

        Like


      • “Fags pretending to be married, and demanding we call them married by law, demeans humanity.”

        This from a someone who calls himself “whorefinder”. And who advocates violence against anyone who’s not a straight white male.

        What a hypocrite.

        [Jaw-droppingly ignorant bomb of racial/sexual insults from hypocritefinder in 3… 2…. 1…..]

        Like


      • I thought he was trolling, but I clicked through to his blog. He’s apparently for real. Oh well: “if there were no laughter, there would be no Tao.”

        Like


      • Let ’em get married. I totally support their right to be as miserable as everyone else.

        Like


      • lol. Fag-marriage. For all your red-pill taking, you still don’t get how societies are formed or are cohesive, and you refuse to see past your propaganda to see how deranged homosexual behavior is.

        Suck on AIDS, SWPL whores!

        Like


    • Absolutely! Let the gays marry them and deal with presumptive paternity, divorce, alimony, and child support!

      On a more serious note, the one true positive for society that -could- come out of gay marriage is fair / gender blind divorce and custody laws.

      Like


      • Dream on. These are leftists we’re talking about. They’ll have no problem with the hypocrisy of gay men having gender-neutral divorces but straight men put permanently at a disadvantage.

        Lefties aren’t about rule-following and fairness. They are for their desired outcomes—BY. Any. Means. Necessary.

        Anyone else buying gold now?

        Like


  7. on November 28, 2012 at 12:11 pm The Man Who Was . . .

    The bottleneck preventing women from fulfilling their desire for LTRs with assholes is not women’s long-term preference for niceguys, but the assholes’ preference for short term flings.

    Also, that there aren’t enough jerks to go around.

    Like


  8. They are just assuaging their own ego.

    For my own research I read some ‘other’ sources counter to this type of blog, and man, their shit they are spewing over there is insanity:

    http://jezebel.com/5960099/why-the-end-of-white-men-is-actually-good-for-white-men?tag=genderal-interest

    There was another one on their suggesting ‘real men’ like eating a girl out over blowjob. Hahahah

    Like


  9. You should always leave a woman exhausted, stripped naked in every sense and with no expectations. When you’re done with her, she should feel used, because that excites her. It highlights her purpose in life as an instrument of pleasure and an object of desire. It puts her in her place, a place of belonging, and dispenses with society’s pleasant fictions. Once they think they’ve “got you,” they lose interest, and they absolutely should. Life is conquest. No woman worth having will pretend she’s your equal, and when she’s taken, it’s because she knows her Master when she sees him.

    Like


  10. I spent all of my teenage years chasing a jerk who was mean to me, thinking I could change him. I managed to snag him but he’s still mean to me and cheats on me. All throughout high school I secretly hated the guys who were nice and told me flattering things. For a long time I thought this phenomenon was exclusive to me and that there was something wrong with me. But now that I know it’s almost a universal condition of being female. I’m happy I got married and had children instead of going to college. I don’t like cats.

    Why are girls drawn to this website that’s supposed to be for men? I don’t know why I like reading it, and I hate a lot of the things I read. It isn’t just me but Liz, Night lily, and others.

    Like


    • Maybe you find honesty refreshing.

      Like


      • on November 28, 2012 at 3:04 pm RappaccinisDaughter

        Horrifying, fascinating, and yes, refreshing.

        Like


      • Agreed.

        Like


      • If we didn’t make you a little scared, you wouldn’t be turned on so.

        Like


      • No doubt, bad boy persona attracts women. Oh so scary and yet so delicious.

        Like


      • Why would you want some pale pantywaist who politely asks if he can kiss you, when he’s clearly inferior genetically and spiritually? A man who can get women isn’t necessarily bad, just direct and less hypocritical. And having more experience means he knows how to make a woman’s body respond the way he wants it to. I don’t blame women for wanting “bad boys.” Trouble is, they mistake useless dicks for real bad boys.

        Like


      • Mike, I think you understand the core of a woman on a very deep level.

        When you say

        “Why would you want some pale pantywaist who politely asks if he can kiss you, when he’s clearly inferior genetically and spiritually?”

        You appreciate that a woman submitting to a WORTHY man is a SPIRITUAL thing indeed. It’s directly connected to her core being. I wish men realize that a gratifying relationship for a woman is like the one you describe in another comment, “No woman worth having will pretend she’s your equal, and when she’s taken, it’s because she knows her Master when she sees him.”

        And women too, don’t completely understand what they need, which is why like you said “they mistake useless dicks for real bad boys. “

        Like


    • I only came here because of the chicks.

      Like


    • “Why are girls drawn to this website that’s supposed to be for men?”

      Trolling for imaginary cock?

      Like


    • Why are girls drawn to this website that’s supposed to be for men?

      Masochistic attention-whoring?

      Like


    • Well I’ve seen Jezebel and other banshee screaming websites. Unless you care lots about celebrities, shopping, and other inane topics…these places have more interesting things to talk about.

      Like


      • Yeah, and for some women it’s interesting to see the inner workings of mens’ minds when they’re not forced to be politically correct or pander to us. And yeah, Jezebel too.

        Like


      • There is nothing interesting going on in any of the women’s websites. Just stupid shit and liberal nonsense that isn’t true and never was. It’s exasperating. They waste half the time being nice to each other and treating each other with fake kid gloves, so if you have some harsh words for those bitches they get all indignant. I hate those fake liberal bitches. So I am not surprised that women with conservative leaning would be attracted to this blog. Look at “judgybitch” does she have patience for the Jezebel bitches? I doubt it.

        Like


      • Jezebel is the most retarded website ever.

        Like


      • I beg to differ. The Good Men Project and anything by Hugo Schweitzer (Sp?) give them a run for their money.

        Like


      • You, sir, are a verbal rapist!

        Like


    • Heh, I only discovered this place about four days ago. I’d call it macabre curiosity.

      Like


    • “Why are girls drawn to this website that’s supposed to be for men? I don’t know why I like reading it, and I hate a lot of the things I read. It isn’t just me but Liz, Night lily, and others.”

      A few weeks ago, I address this issue of why women are drawn to this website. I think it’s mostly because we want to know what men think about women. Men speak candidly here, they are raw, they are unashamed and unabashed. Where are you going to get such in-your-face honesty in RL? Nowhere. Some of the things said here would upset the sensibilities of most men, let alone women. But some of us, you and me and other girls, we like to hear the truth. We don’t want to cover it up with niceties that lack any basis in reality. We want the cold hard truth and here it’s like you’re in some men’s club eavesdropping. LOL!

      Unfortunately, there are many threads a weak, and I don’t have time to read all of them, but they are all good, and some of the comments spill into social and political issues and that’s interesting too. Some of the political and social things we say here, we wouldn’t express in RL either, since we wouldn’t want to be labeled haters, homophobes, sexists, racists, etc… You know how the Left operates. It might have a negative influence on our lives and jobs.

      Like


      • @ Nitelily — honestly, this site would be better if you didn’t feel compelled to opine on every single reader comment.

        Don’t mean to be rude, but you sorta drown out everyone else.

        Like


    • “I’m happy I got married and had children instead of going to college.”

      They’re not mutually exclusive, White Woman.

      The divorce stats bear this out. People who attend a four-year university are much more likely to STAY married than those who don’t.

      Like


      • My husband didn’t want me to go to college. Should he pay a stranger to raise his children for him while I’m off establishing a ‘career?’ And feed them canned fake milk?

        Like


  11. And here you indicate that even when you want to prove a claim by using science you aren’t very good at it. The study you linked in no way constitutes proof of what you said. In the first place, the very excerpt you quoted states that there is contradictory data out on the matter.

    [heartiste: you have to look at the sum total of collected data — experimental, observational, and anecdotal — if you want to make these kinds of counterfactuals that fly in the face of observed reality. the bulk of studies support the “chicks dig jerks” hypothesis and the common observations of most men who spend some time in the field, more than any of it supports the “chicks really dig niceguys” hypothesis.]

    There is no responsible reason to simply discard all the data that disagrees with your claim.

    [speak for yourself.]

    Secondly, this study has a pretty small sample size and that sample consists of college women.

    [my take has always been that older, necessarily less desirable women, will be less smitten by jerks than will be younger women in their fertile primes, so studies exmaining college chicks to the exclusion of cougars and aging lawyercunts and ghetto single moms doesn’t really chafe my hide like it does yours.]

    Both these facts mean that they may be unrepresentative of women’s dating behavior in general.

    [you have fun being a niceboi picking up all those wrinkly milf-wannabes at the anne taylor outlets.]

    For instance, prior to factor analysis, being nice/sweet was among the best predictors of whether or not a female would go on a second date. Moreover, while factor analysis revealed a dual placement of niceness (and intelligence) as both attractive and unattractive in scenario 1 it did the same things for confidence in scenario 2! That hardly supports the view that women want to date jerks. Fourthly, the methods of this study are highly questionable.

    [wait a sex… are the methods highly questionable, or does the study accurately support the opposite view? you’d better get your contradictions in order before coming on here to tussle with a pro.]

    All these decisions were hypothetical and so might reflect a person’s self image more than their actual behavior. And finally, this study says nothing about why relationships with “bad boys” end. It could be because the guy leaves.

    [that’s usually what happens.]

    It could also be because the women, even if she likes the idea of dating a bad boy, can’t handle that kind of a relationship for a prolonged period of time.

    [this possibility is not incompatible with my statement above.]

    The data you presented doesn’t suggest either of these, or any other, conclusions on the matter.

    [the data sure do suggest my interpretation. you just don’t like it. or, less charitably, you lack the comprehension to tell otherwise.]

    You are thus using science that i don’t like. And I normally don’t even attempt to hide that I don’t like it. And without a proper massaging of my feelings there is no good reason for me to believe them.

    [ftfy.]

    Like


    • on November 28, 2012 at 4:12 pm Hugh G. Rection

      If it works in the field, what does it really matter?

      Like


    • on November 28, 2012 at 5:01 pm Johnycomelately

      Take a seat, I think your having an attack of the vapors.

      Type game, PUA, MGTOW and manosphere in google, come back in a months time and then tell us what you think. By then you might have several million data points.

      Like


    • Tell me more about this anne taylor thing. 😉

      Like


  12. Here’s more proof on the insecurity of single, unmarried women… hardly looking at men for sex–desperation is all over this website. Pathetic.
    http://myfriendsaremarried.tumblr.com/

    Like


  13. If women used men for sex, there would be the male sexual equivalent of pejoratives like cumdumpster or cocksocket.

    The only one I can think of is dick in a box, but that’s for — surprise — betas in relationships.

    Like


    • “manwhore”, or things like “his sperm must be made of battery acid”… although in this case, the lothario I know who had this said about him routinely went dumpster diving with the nastiest females you could imagine.

      Like


  14. […] Girls (mostly feminists with a battle-axe to grind) who say they just use jerks for sex and don’t want them for long-term relationships are lying out of their asses. Nine times out of ten, it’s the jerk who doesn’t want to pursue a relationship with the smitten dear who then tells herself afterward she was just using him for sex to comfort her bruised ego. Need proof? Normally, I’d say, just get out of your fetid basement hovel and join the real world for a week or two, but this time I feel the spirit of science move me, so here ya go: The more recent research of McDaniel (2005) and Urbaniak and Kilman (2006) suggest that women find “nice guys” to be socially undesirable and sexually unattractive, contradicting the previous findings of Jensen-Campbell et al. The researchers also found that “bad boys” (operationalized as “fun/sexy guys” by McDaniel and “cute, macho guys” by Urbaniak and Kilman) were highly desired for both short-term and long-term committed relationships, whereas “nice guys” were not desired as sex partners within either relationship context, contradicting the previous findings of Herold and Milhausen. McDaniel writes: First, being suitable for high commitment dating alone is not enough (by a Source: Chateau Heartiste   […]

    Like


  15. Reminds me of Tucker Max when analyzed Karen Owens’ “Fuck List”.

    >What do you think that means when the lowest score goes to the guy who treats her like a hooker, and the highest goes to the one who treats her like a human? It means she wants affection and connection from her sex, except she doesn’t even realize it. The guys aren’t playing that game; they just want to fuck a bunch of girls. She thinks she’s a participant in this game, but she’s not–she’s the one getting exploited, but she doesn’t understand her own emotions enough to see it and change her behavior. That’s the opposite of being empowered.

    http://tuckermax.me/karens-owens-and-the-duke-fuck-list/

    Like


      • True story: I knew a solid 7 Brazilian girl who was studying in the U.S. Very sweet, married , rather shy, but we got to know each other, and she discovered a Tucker Max book. She would read that thing everywhere, cracked up every time, and told me that she loved Tucker so much, she would cheat on her husband with him.

        I took the hint. We were fucking in a week.

        Tucker gets laid by hot chicks. Leftard betas do not.

        Like


      • Isn’t Tucker a Lefty, though? He has to be to pull the shit he does.

        Like


      • If he is, it’s only b/c he’s the devious Bill Clinton/John Edwards type of lefty male (i.e. approx. 5-10%), who are alpha and only spit out leftard bullshit to provide them with cover for their affairs and find the easiest women. However, given how openly he degraded women in his work and how often he rips on feminazis and fought them, it’s doubtful.

        That being said, he’s probably whole hog into abortion, to prevent fatherhood, but, unless he’s pretending leftism, won’t lie to you about it; he’s only for abortion to prevent fatherhood for himself.

        Like


  16. For every woman that claims she just used him for sex, there is a man who smiles at his still wet dick when she leaves, and thinks, “Damn, that was easy”; a man who goes to his friends, “Dude, she fucked, she left, hahaha”; “Dude, no need to date her, she’s fast” etc… And every single time, the man will be the one who has gotten what has been gotten easier than he usually gets.

    Every time a woman cheers ” I just used him for sex” over a cosmopolitan table, there will be a beer table where the easy and free availability of her pussy will be discussed, not in detail, as in the cosmo table, but in the ease, and in the minimal cost associated with making the pussy owner leave.

    Every time a woman cheers “I just used him for sex”, the universe is given knowledge of yet another slut, and yet another stud being in existence.

    Like


  17. And then there is the variety,

    “I used men for sex…. in the past”,….. “now sex has meaning”….

    If you are a man who first got used for sex, but then upgraded himself to a meaningful relationship with said reborn-madonna (by his infinitely stupid judgement), and suddenly faced the loss of all the meaningless sex, and the meaningless sexy options that came with it, as they are now in the meaningful sex realm, and has to prove that sex is meaningful every single time, and something meaningful cannot be in the same time something abundant by some definition….

    I feel for you.

    Getting pumped and dumped…; just pumped not dumped….; not pumped but dumped…. by Satan, would be less painful and nauseating.

    “But this has meaning”….

    Yea. The shit of a Goldman Sachsiate also has meaning.

    Or?

    Like


  18. And here is their latest anthem called…… Slut Like You: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjU0xAZbZkA

    It’s catchy and fun song. I predict it’ll be a huge hit if it’s ever played on the radio and then girls and women all over the place will be singing along with enthusiasm about how about they’re sluts – just like men.

    Like


    • Yep

      “shes basically singing this to all the guys out there who think they can go around and have sex all they want. shes telling them “hey youre looking for a girl to just use and discard like trash? i’m looking for assholes like you to do the same to!” thats what guys get for thinking they can be all gross and disgusting well girls are fighting back. girls cant have sex whenever they want without being insulted but guys get props for it. yeah, no, not snymore, shit is about to change.

      DakotaVisilina 4 days ago in playlist More videos from PinkVEVO”

      Like


    • Another thread from the video comments…

      How far humanity has fallen.

      The brainwashing of your daughters will ruin their lives. Enjoy

      OzInfoWarrior 2 months ago

      it’s a way to take but the power moron. It’s not like us girls do every fucking thing we hear and see. It’s not like monkey see monkey do See, most men usually are the sluts, usually the one to do all that was stated in the video. This is takes back the power because it expresses that we use men and not the other way around. I am 13 and even I can see this. Moron -_-‘

      Felicia Ordway in reply to OzInfoWarrior 1 month ago

      It is monkey see monkey do. You emulate things. You mimic what you see, as Galton & Darwin said. You’re not taking back the power. Women have far more to lose than men when it comes to sex. Women suffer more severely when it comes to STI’s. We are seeing an epidemic of infection across the board now, and many young women are now infertile. They will NEVER have children. How is using a guy for sex “taking back the power” when it’s the woman who loses her ability to have children?

      Grow up.

      OzInfoWarrior in reply to Felicia Ordway 1 month ago

      Moron -_-‘. Like seriously facepalm. What a sexist and close minded way of thinking. It’s not like girls are going on to the streets a fucking everything in sight. The way you put it, women apparently cannot think for themselves, we do everything we see like some kind of mindless slaves. Well according to you. This song is about how men is the sluts and it’s okay but women cannot? It’s about equal respect for both women and man. I shall repeat: Fucking Moron -_-‘

      Felicia Ordway in reply to OzInfoWarrior 1 month ago

      I never said it was OK for a man to do likewise. You have been trained to behave according to your programming from TV, movies, education and peers. You don’t even realize your ideas were molded by social engineering.

      I’m sorry, but the truth is you are a slave of the mind and until you wake up you will never understand how the world works and why they’re corrupting the youth.

      I’m sorry. I wish I could wake you up but the social engineering is so engrained I can’t help you.

      OzInfoWarrior in reply to Felicia Ordway 1 month ago

      Excuse me? Just because I have a pussy it’s monkey see monkey do? Have you missed my entire point? It’s like what I have said means nothing and your just rambling on about your sexist on a loop. -_- Fucking moron.

      Felicia Ordway in reply to OzInfoWarrior 2 weeks ago

      They scientifically know how our brains work and they’re using this knowledge against us. Get it? Of course it’s monkey see monkey do. Darwin and Galton talked about this (you prob don’t even know who they are).

      It means nothing to you because you’re already too far gone. But it’s targeted at impressionable young girls younger than 14. You’re all being brainwashed to give the man the power and be a whore. You won’t ever be respected and you’ll never have lasting love.

      Enjoy your life.

      OzInfoWarrior in reply to Felicia Ordway 2 weeks ago

      Like


    • “Everybody. Calm yourselves.

      This is called feminism. Welcome to a new world.

      In this world, women want to be treated equally when it comes to being sluts.

      This song takes the power back for women, and in doing so, is pretty much a slap in the face to male players.

      So CALM DOWN.

      suneyes14523 1 month ago 23”

      Like


      • The last thing modern women wanted was equality. What they wanted was special treatment, plus whatever extra they could get by calling it “equality.” Talk about banning alimony or sending them inbto combat and you’ll see how equal they are. They want it both ways, all ways and every way. Fortunately, not all women are that modern. They find male feminists, metrosexuals and sensitive liberal pantywaists as disgusting as the rest of us. They’re not feminists in the sense the word has come to have.

        Like


      • “Fortunately, not all women are that modern. They find male feminists, metrosexuals and sensitive liberal pantywaists as disgusting as the rest of us. They’re not feminists in the sense the word has come to have.”

        Exactly! Check this out. You have it right on target.

        http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/
        The war on men

        “………………..In a nutshell, women are angry. They’re also defensive, though often unknowingly. That’s because they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.

        Now the men have nowhere to go.

        It is precisely this dynamic – women good/men bad – that has destroyed the relationship between the sexes. Yet somehow, men are still to blame when love goes awry. Heck, men have been to blame since feminists first took to the streets in the 1970s.

        But what if the dearth of good men, and ongoing battle of the sexes, is – hold on to your seats – women’s fault?

        You’ll never hear that in the media. All the articles and books (and television programs, for that matter) put women front and center, while men and children sit in the back seat. But after decades of browbeating the American male, men are tired. Tired of being told there’s something fundamentally wrong with them. Tired of being told that if women aren’t happy, it’s men’s fault.

        Contrary to what feminists like Hanna Rosin, author of The End of Men, say, the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off. It has also undermined their ability to become self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family. Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them.

        It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.

        It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life. The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek.

        So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation.

        Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.

        If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork.”

        Like


      • Oh, I weep for the pitiful American man. Prudish pussies.

        Like


    • ” Oh my god people. Shut up. just shut up. If you actually knew half as much as you think you do, you would realize that this song is about more than having sex for the fun of it. You know how there is always that guy who sleeps around? Pink is just saying how girls can be ‘that guy’ too. She is a die hard feminist and she even said that this song is her immature way of taking the power back. Also, the name of the song is ‘Slut like you’…what did you expect? If you dont like it, dont click it.

      monkeymch 1 month ago in playlist Top Tracks for P!nk 92

      You got that right!! Glad someone has sense beyond the ‘obvious’.

      Joy Andis in reply to monkeymch 1 month ago”

      Like


    • There’s something fascinating about watching Babylon falling apart.

      Like


  19. […] in game and tell guys to pick it up, i’m not Roosh. I’m not Rollo. I’m not Heartiste. I’m you. I’m still on my own journey and haven’t figured out yet what i’m […]

    Like


  20. There was once a talkshow here is Australia, similar to the View, but with a single male to boot. Viewers would write letters asking for their views and all the panel members would give advice. I remember the female panel members saying that they go through a ‘bad boy phase’ that they later ‘grow out of’. I think it is true insofar as they outgrew, in terms of age, their desirability in the eyes of the bad boys, not that they had decided they no longer wanted these men.

    Like


  21. When I read this article, my first thoughts turn to this video.

    Like


  22. […] Women don’t like nice guys for either sex or relationships. More Science: The dark triad gets girls. More Science: Which […]

    Like


  23. “So the next time you hear a woman desperately assert that she “uses men for sex”, just remind yourself you are likely conversing with a broken slut who got her heart trampled by the jerks she loves so many times she’s beginning to believe her own bullshit.”

    I laughed when I read this you are indeed correct. I feel sorry for women like that, yet they always seem to boast about such things in company of other women. It is so disgusting.

    Like


  24. Holy crap. Reading this makes me soooo damn glad I married a European guy. American men are so fucked in the head. Too much use of the word “slut” and so damn prudish, yet obsessed with sex. Carry on, though.

    Like


  25. Hamster wheel in action. Resurrecting the thread after a week, after an eternity of introspection.

    Like