MGTOW Chronicles:Men Going Their Own Way

1212224262732

Comments

  • crotchpunchacrotchpuncha Joined: Posts: 22,078
    It's only nihilism of relationships, it's silly to think these men aren't finding value in other parts of their lives. Thats narrow minded and short sighted.
    It's not the end of the world, but you can see it from here.
  • pedoviejopedoviejo Thuggin in da Kitchen Joined: Posts: 13,848
    It's only nihilism of relationships, it's silly to think these men aren't finding value in other parts of their lives. Thats narrow minded and short sighted.

    Read what he said, its not just relationships, its society and its function with reapect to your role in society. Hes embraced nihilism past relationships if hes already said fuck society (and for whatever reason thats fine, thats on him). Peterson's argument is based of nirtzche, in that, that with the unraveling of all of our social norms society will break down because nihilism will take over. All the things that keep people on the line between order and chaos are dsmantled and you get far extremes. On one side you have people who say burn it all i dont give a shit because it doesnt matter, and then on the other you have extreme hedonism because none of it matters anyway.

    Nihilism on the individual level isnt bad (because thats something you can and should sort out), and that doeant preoccupy peterson regarding men opting out. What does preoccupy is the incidence and rate at which people collectively embrace nihilism and the effects it has on society, and hence why this isnt necceseraly a good thing.

    And mind you, hes made the case that women need to sort their shit out and understand that all the things these groups have promised them are lies.
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Complete my life Capcom, and make a Megaman Legends 3 exclusive for PS4. Do it, do it for the glory that should be and would be.
  • crotchpunchacrotchpuncha Joined: Posts: 22,078
    Yea and he's one guy. He doesn't speak for everyone and it'sdumb as fuck to think he does. Plent of MGTOW still contribute to socioty, they just don't engage in relationships. They are going their own way, Doran have to be Starhammmers way, that's the point.
    It's not the end of the world, but you can see it from here.
  • pedoviejopedoviejo Thuggin in da Kitchen Joined: Posts: 13,848
    ???

    Whose saying starhammer speaks for everybody? Had you watched petersons videos, ypud know that opting out of relationships amd refusing to have children is now an observable and quantifiable trend thats going to have a big impact. This is what were talking about, we are also talking about the underlying nihilism associated with going as far as to refuse your most basic and overriddding biological imperative. We arent talking about starhammer here, whle are atalking about the bigger implications and social impact from not sorting youraelf out by choosing nihilism.
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Complete my life Capcom, and make a Megaman Legends 3 exclusive for PS4. Do it, do it for the glory that should be and would be.
  • tatakitataki misplaced Joined: Posts: 7,703
    edited May 11
    double
    Post edited by tataki on
    Fighting game tutorials, matches, and funny stuff:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/novriltataki
    Former account:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/playtowin
  • DimeDime Wasting time Joined: Posts: 11,080
    tataki wrote: »
    Dime_x wrote: »
    Weren't you a feminist just a little while ago?
    I believe in everyone having equal rights and equal responsibilites under the law. Slap whatever label you want on it for all I care.
    Dime_x wrote: »
    I thought you and he were like eye to eye on that shit... what happened?

    Can you link me to posts where I expressed similar opinions? .

    It was way back in the day years ago, in some feminist thread of some sort where matriarch amongst many other people including specs were posting.

    I "thought" I saw you on the side of feminism, but can't remember for sure, hence the reason for the question. I'm not trying to call you out or anything, was mostly wondering if you had had some life changing occurrence or some such.

    No big deal and I'm not pressing for information either way, it was asked in a conversatorial tone, not an accusing one. People are free to think what they want.
    Gettin' my derp on.
  • tatakitataki misplaced Joined: Posts: 7,703
    edited May 11
    Dime_x wrote: »
    Weren't you a feminist just a little while ago?
    I believe in everyone getting equal rights and equal responsibilites under the law. Slap whatever label you want on it for all I care.
    Dime_x wrote: »
    I thought you and he were like eye to eye on that shit... what happened?

    Can you link me to posts where I expressed similar opinions? I tend to avoid expressing my personal political views on the internet, and limit myself to explaining others' misunderstood positions, regardless of my own opinions about these positions. Even in this thread most of my posts are mostly about showing how the shitty laws are responsible for the plummeting marriage rates among men.
    Dime_x wrote: »
    He wants the young men to galvanize themselves and assert dominance over the womanhood via their superior intellect and logic skills and bring women back in line with what will more make them happy.

    How exactly are you going to "assert dominance" and "bring women back in line" with your superior intellect? lol...
    pedoviejo wrote: »
    If you watch some of his other videos, he essentially advocates that the more intelligent partner has to train the other like a dog to respond to stimuli.
    Daily psychological warfare doesn't sound very appealing to say the least... Pair bonding is supposed to be about intimacy and receprocal emotional support.
    pedoviejo wrote: »
    Refusing to do something or at the very least attempting to walk the fine line, becoming the ubermensch, goes against his core thesis regarding society and where we are now. Refusal to do anything just leads to nihilism, and nihilism is what will destroy the west and ourselves as a people, nihilism is the greatest evil in todays societies. Its why he doesn't like marxists, communists, or people who ridicule religion and falsely believe taht abondaning religion will somehow advance the layman into some sort of enlightenment (pro tip, it wont)

    and I have to agree with him. To opt out is to not fight. Perhaps the men of today don't have to storm the beaches of fucking normandy, but the fight is more abstract against an abstact enemy that wants society to fail. If men in the past went to war and lived through that, then what excuse do men today have to not fight for their society back? I'm getting to the point where I refuse to be ruled by nihilism

    It's not nihilism at all because they do work to improve their own lives, but do it for themselves and not to be better as "human-doings" for others. Voting with your feet is not only the safest solution but also the most effective one. Begging to change the terrible laws doesn't work. Sacrificing yourself to change the terrible laws doesn't work. There was this guy who set himself on fire in front of the courts after getting destroyed by the legal system. What did his death achieve? Nothing. No one cared and nothing changed. The only practical solution is to save your own ass and not get into bad situations in the first place.

    http://www.ibtimes.com/american-father-self-immolates-protest-against-family-courts-291497
    Fighting game tutorials, matches, and funny stuff:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/novriltataki
    Former account:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/playtowin
  • crotchpunchacrotchpuncha Joined: Posts: 22,078
    pedoviejo wrote: »
    ???

    Whose saying starhammer speaks for everybody? Had you watched petersons videos, ypud know that opting out of relationships amd refusing to have children is now an observable and quantifiable trend thats going to have a big impact. This is what were talking about, we are also talking about the underlying nihilism associated with going as far as to refuse your most basic and overriddding biological imperative. We arent talking about starhammer here, whle are atalking about the bigger implications and social impact from not sorting youraelf out by choosing nihilism.
    Its not Nihilism tho, they dont say nothing matters, they say relationships don't matter to them.

    I disagree with Peterson. Mad respect for the guy but I don't agree with him on this one.
    It's not the end of the world, but you can see it from here.
  • DimeDime Wasting time Joined: Posts: 11,080
    tataki wrote: »
    Dime_x wrote: »
    Weren't you a feminist just a little while ago?
    I believe in everyone getting equal rights and equal responsibilites under the law. Slap whatever label you want on it for all I care.
    Dime_x wrote: »
    I thought you and he were like eye to eye on that shit... what happened?

    Can you link me to posts where I expressed similar opinions? I tend to avoid expressing my personal political views on the internet, and limit myself to explaining others' misunderstood positions, regardless of my own opinions about these positions. Even in this thread most of my posts are mostly about showing how the shitty laws are responsible for the plummeting marriage rates among men.
    Dime_x wrote: »
    He wants the young men to galvanize themselves and assert dominance over the womanhood via their superior intellect and logic skills and bring women back in line with what will more make them happy.

    How exactly are you going to "assert dominance" and "bring women back in line" with your superior intellect? lol...
    pedoviejo wrote: »
    If you watch some of his other videos, he essentially advocates that the more intelligent partner has to train the other like a dog to respond to stimuli.
    Daily psychological warfare doesn't sound very appealing to say the least... Pair bonding is supposed to be about intimacy and receprocal emotional support.
    pedoviejo wrote: »
    Refusing to do something or at the very least attempting to walk the fine line, becoming the ubermensch, goes against his core thesis regarding society and where we are now. Refusal to do anything just leads to nihilism, and nihilism is what will destroy the west and ourselves as a people, nihilism is the greatest evil in todays societies. Its why he doesn't like marxists, communists, or people who ridicule religion and falsely believe taht abondaning religion will somehow advance the layman into some sort of enlightenment (pro tip, it wont)

    and I have to agree with him. To opt out is to not fight. Perhaps the men of today don't have to storm the beaches of fucking normandy, but the fight is more abstract against an abstact enemy that wants society to fail. If men in the past went to war and lived through that, then what excuse do men today have to not fight for their society back? I'm getting to the point where I refuse to be ruled by nihilism

    It's not nihilism at all because they do work to improve their own lives, but do it for themselves and not to be better as "human-doings" for others. Voting with your feet is not only the safest solution but also the most effective one. Begging to change the terrible laws doesn't work. Sacrificing yourself to change the terrible laws doesn't work. There was this guy who set himself on fire in front of the courts after getting destroyed by the legal system. What did his death achieve? Nothing. No one cared and nothing changed. The only practical solution is to save your own ass and not get into bad situations in the first place.

    http://www.ibtimes.com/american-father-self-immolates-protest-against-family-courts-291497
    tataki wrote: »
    Dime_x wrote: »
    Weren't you a feminist just a little while ago?
    I believe in everyone getting equal rights and equal responsibilites under the law. Slap whatever label you want on it for all I care.
    Dime_x wrote: »
    I thought you and he were like eye to eye on that shit... what happened?

    Can you link me to posts where I expressed similar opinions? I tend to avoid expressing my personal political views on the internet, and limit myself to explaining others' misunderstood positions, regardless of my own opinions about these positions. Even in this thread most of my posts are mostly about showing how the shitty laws are responsible for the plummeting marriage rates among men.
    Dime_x wrote: »
    He wants the young men to galvanize themselves and assert dominance over the womanhood via their superior intellect and logic skills and bring women back in line with what will more make them happy.

    How exactly are you going to "assert dominance" and "bring women back in line" with your superior intellect? lol...

    ...

    It can't actually be that hard to figure this out can it?

    1. Find a woman that you are smarter than either in form or function.
    2. Find a woman that will allow you to dominate her.
    3. If at all possible, find both 1 and 2, profit.
    4. Make babies and stuff.
    5. Leave the smart chicks for the smart guys, or allow the smart chicks to think their way out of the gene pool since most dudes don't want smart chicks.. we want intellectual equals on some levels, but not on others.


    Me and my wife were perfectly happy as she allowed me to dominate her in most ways. We only really started having problems once she wanted independence... which she started wanting by talking to friends and family. She was perfectly happy being dominated on the sly by yours truly.


    But domination sounds like a harsh word. A better word might be "lead"

    It's not hard to find a woman that will allow herself to be lead, it's the quality of the woman that gets hard to get.
    Gettin' my derp on.
  • CrownySuccubusqueenCrownySuccubusqueen Joined: Posts: 29
    The problem with the whole idea of seeking out women who will "let you dominate them" is the very loose definition of "dominate" and the wide variety of shady things that can be done in the name of it.

    For instance, Dime_x said that his wife was happy letting him dominate her until she started speaking to friends and family. Some other guy can take this to mean "don't let your wife have friends and get her away from family". Isolating people from friends and family is what cults and abusers in general do, so such a path is already on a rocky start. I mean, sure, you can go with the softer words "lead" if you like, but it seems like a euphemism.

    Also, my experience in meeting MGTOWs is that so many of them exchange bitterness towards women who AREN'T the docile, virginous innocents who will allow themselves to be dominated. It's one thing to "prefer" that type of woman. It's another to whine and bemoan about modern women being "whores" and "sluts".
  • DimeDime Wasting time Joined: Posts: 11,080
    The problem with the whole idea of seeking out women who will "let you dominate them" is the very loose definition of "dominate" and the wide variety of shady things that can be done in the name of it.

    For instance, Dime_x said that his wife was happy letting him dominate her until she started speaking to friends and family. Some other guy can take this to mean "don't let your wife have friends and get her away from family". Isolating people from friends and family is what cults and abusers in general do, so such a path is already on a rocky start. I mean, sure, you can go with the softer words "lead" if you like, but it seems like a euphemism.

    Also, my experience in meeting MGTOWs is that so many of them exchange bitterness towards women who AREN'T the docile, virginous innocents who will allow themselves to be dominated. It's one thing to "prefer" that type of woman. It's another to whine and bemoan about modern women being "whores" and "sluts".

    I don't really care what anyone would think was shady, domination or leading. I've never found myself to have a successful relationship where I'm the one being lead (and in my 39 years of age I've only been single for around 18 or so of those years) Female mumbo jumbo doesn't work in the real world because women want strong men. They WANT men that can dominate or lead them, you just have to be smart enough and have enough personal power as a man. Now that isn't ALL women of course. There are those women that either want weak men they can keep under their heel, or women that simply don't like men much at all and prefer their cats... I stay away from both those sets of women, there are plenty more out there, don't have to force something on them they don't want... hell why would I want that?

    But back when I was still dating if I came across a highly opinionated woman that wanted to argue about everything, if I liked them I'd turn them into a pivot if possible, and if not, I'd just ignore and walk on.

    Even though I got turned down by a fair amount of chicks, I didn't compromise my own personal standards just to get some play.


    Also, I don't judge women based on how many people they've slept with unless I think it's way more than myself. I prefer the women I meet to have some experience. I would never call a woman a whore, as an example. I prefer sluts... cause I like sluts... super fun and most are decent in the sack.

    My wife and my notch count were relatively the same, as an example of wanting to date someone around my level.
    Gettin' my derp on.
  • CrownySuccubusqueenCrownySuccubusqueen Joined: Posts: 29
    Dime_x wrote: »
    The problem with the whole idea of seeking out women who will "let you dominate them" is the very loose definition of "dominate" and the wide variety of shady things that can be done in the name of it.

    For instance, Dime_x said that his wife was happy letting him dominate her until she started speaking to friends and family. Some other guy can take this to mean "don't let your wife have friends and get her away from family". Isolating people from friends and family is what cults and abusers in general do, so such a path is already on a rocky start. I mean, sure, you can go with the softer words "lead" if you like, but it seems like a euphemism.

    Also, my experience in meeting MGTOWs is that so many of them exchange bitterness towards women who AREN'T the docile, virginous innocents who will allow themselves to be dominated. It's one thing to "prefer" that type of woman. It's another to whine and bemoan about modern women being "whores" and "sluts".

    I don't really care what anyone would think was shady, domination or leading. I've never found myself to have a successful relationship where I'm the one being lead (and in my 39 years of age I've only been single for around 18 or so of those years) Female mumbo jumbo doesn't work in the real world because women want strong men. They WANT men that can dominate or lead them, you just have to be smart enough and have enough personal power as a man. Now that isn't ALL women of course. There are those women that either want weak men they can keep under their heel, or women that simply don't like men much at all and prefer their cats... I stay away from both those sets of women, there are plenty more out there, don't have to force something on them they don't want... hell why would I want that?

    Even with the addition of a "not all" near the end there, that's still a massive overgeneralization. Besides that, as I said, different men have different ideas of what "lead" and "dominate" means. I'm happy for you if what you do seems to work for you and you feel really confident in your "notch count" or whatever, but the idea that women as a monolithic entity prefer strong men is, if not wrong, in need of a lot of specificity.

    As I said, some men think isolating women from friends and family is being dominant. Some men see nothing wrong with hitting a woman if she misbehaves. Some men want extremely young girls (like 20 or younger). Some men want virgins. Some men don't like it when women actively want sex (even from them). Some men want to own women as property.

    My issue is not decrying "domination" as being bad. My issue is that it's a word that only has whatever meaning a person gives it.

  • tatakitataki misplaced Joined: Posts: 7,703
    edited May 11
    Dime_x wrote: »
    Me and my wife were perfectly happy as she allowed me to dominate her in most ways. We only really started having problems once she wanted independence... which she started wanting by talking to friends and family. She was perfectly happy being dominated on the sly by yours truly.

    Or maybe your wife is an adult with agency and the dynamics simply changed because of the marriage and/or children.

    Johnnie Taylor warned you in 1973



    If you're tied up, you'd better stay tied up
    Cause it's cheaper to keep her
    This is from T, who says

    It's cheaper to keep her
    It's cheaper to keep her

    When your little girl make you mad
    And you get an attitude and pack your bags
    Five little children that you're leaving behind
    Son, you're gonna pay some alimony or do some time

    That's why it's cheaper to keep her
    Help me say it, y'all
    It's cheaper to keep her (it's cheaper to keep her)
    See, when you get through staring that judge in the face
    You're gonna wanna cuss the whole human race
    That's why it's cheaper to keep her (it's cheaper to keep her)

    Fighting game tutorials, matches, and funny stuff:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/novriltataki
    Former account:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/playtowin
  • pedoviejopedoviejo Thuggin in da Kitchen Joined: Posts: 13,848
    tataki wrote: »

    [quote
    Daily psychological warfare doesn't sound very appealing to say the least... Pair bonding is supposed to be about intimacy and receprocal emotional support.

    supposed to, but that's not the case. Pair bonding is the result of that psychological manipulation in the first place, and once that happens, you only get reciprocal emotioanl support provided there are ground rules and a respect for the roles a man and a woman play in relationships. Hency why, relationships are work and constant work. Its constant shit testing, its constant struggle, its constantly keeping an eye on the signs she gives you and you can show some level of reciprocation. The difference between today and yesterday was that there where societal pressures to keep marriages going and there was no safety net that allowed women to just up and leave because "reasons". Lazy men (majority of men tbh) where allowed to be fucking lazy with relationships because they didn't have to work at it all. TYou picked a hole you liked the most and that was it. The dynamic defintely is different and its massively shifted way to far in favor of women, and the hedonism that's built into women by shit dads and even more shit values thanks to feminism and society allows women to simply leave becasue her "needs" aren't being met at a 110% level even if you are trying (and this is the biggest cancer to tbh). THe built in nihilism in living hedonistic lifestyle is a cancer to the continued existence of society and the values which we should aspire for.
    It's not nihilism at all because they do work to improve their own lives, but do it for themselves and not to be better as "human-doings" for others. Voting with your feet is not only the safest solution but also the most effective one. Begging to change the terrible laws doesn't work. Sacrificing yourself to change the terrible laws doesn't work. There was this guy who set himself on fire in front of the courts after getting destroyed by the legal system. What did his death achieve? Nothing. No one cared and nothing changed. The only practical solution is to save your own ass and not get into bad situations in the first place.

    but it is nihilism becaseu you've still embraced that this fundemental part of life isn't worth fighting for and if society fails so what I have mine. It's another form of hedonism. Me, Me, ME, ME

    and I get it. As somebody that's motivated purely by money, resources, and securing a comfortable life for me, my parents, and being able to support my brothers and sister in the event of shit going bad, I get it. However, I acknowledge that opting out to focus on "me" only is letting nihilism win. It's doubly important when you realize that by opting out, you choose to have no kids that can carry your ideas and values forward. That leaves single mothers to raise cucked boys that wholly believe in the welfare state, and it spurs and gives politicians reasons to import trash from the third world and completly change the demographics and underlying values of society. Understand that if we let society burn as starhammer and so many others put it, there will never be another society in which you have the level of freedom we enjoy here. And since I value the fundemental principles of the soceity I live in, hence why I made the allegory to normandy. If you value and love something, fight for it and don't let some defeatist attitude win.

    [/quote]

    yes its fucking terrible, and rather than just mope about it, fight the fight. this doesn't mean to be like those morons that just marry 4 differnt bitches because reasons. Peterson phrased it well in another video regarding how to combat the cancer that his nihilism. You know at least 10 people, these people know another 10 people, and so on. In just a few paces, you in theory have access to hundreds of millions of people. This is how things can go viral in today's society, take advantage of it and keep at it.




    pedoviejo wrote: »
    ???

    Whose saying starhammer speaks for everybody? Had you watched petersons videos, ypud know that opting out of relationships amd refusing to have children is now an observable and quantifiable trend thats going to have a big impact. This is what were talking about, we are also talking about the underlying nihilism associated with going as far as to refuse your most basic and overriddding biological imperative. We arent talking about starhammer here, whle are atalking about the bigger implications and social impact from not sorting youraelf out by choosing nihilism.
    Its not Nihilism tho, they dont say nothing matters, they say relationships don't matter to them.

    I disagree with Peterson. Mad respect for the guy but I don't agree with him on this one.

    but it extends past relationships that's the crux of the argument. And I understand if you don't agree with it, how does one sort one self in this fucking clusterfuck where ultimately one mistake will ruin it all. It's really compl.icated
    The problem with the whole idea of seeking out women who will "let you dominate them" is the very loose definition of "dominate" and the wide variety of shady things that can be done in the name of it.

    For instance, Dime_x said that his wife was happy letting him dominate her until she started speaking to friends and family. Some other guy can take this to mean "don't let your wife have friends and get her away from family". Isolating people from friends and family is what cults and abusers in general do, so such a path is already on a rocky start. I mean, sure, you can go with the softer words "lead" if you like, but it seems like a euphemism.

    Also, my experience in meeting MGTOWs is that so many of them exchange bitterness towards women who AREN'T the docile, virginous innocents who will allow themselves to be dominated. It's one thing to "prefer" that type of woman. It's another to whine and bemoan about modern women being "whores" and "sluts".

    the word dime was looking for was being the leader. And that's some loser level rationalition regarding how some outside observer would view tthe word dominate. Also, women being whores is a net negative.
    tataki wrote: »
    Dime_x wrote: »
    Me and my wife were perfectly happy as she allowed me to dominate her in most ways. We only really started having problems once she wanted independence... which she started wanting by talking to friends and family. She was perfectly happy being dominated on the sly by yours truly.

    Or maybe your wife is an adult with agency and the dynamics simply changed because of the marriage and/or children.

    you are assuming two things

    the wife is a rational individual who thinks she knows what she wants

    she can be rational, but rarely do the know what they really want. My mom wanted my dad to be a "mandilon", my dad said no and asked her if she would still respect him on some level. She said no. Women dont' know what they want and don't understand the consequences of those wants until after. that being said, my dad was one of those lazy as shit men too, so its not like he was a model husband.
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Complete my life Capcom, and make a Megaman Legends 3 exclusive for PS4. Do it, do it for the glory that should be and would be.
  • CrownySuccubusqueenCrownySuccubusqueen Joined: Posts: 29
    The dynamic defintely is different and its massively shifted way to far in favor of women, and the hedonism that's built into women by shit dads and even more shit values thanks to feminism and society allows women to simply leave becasue her "needs" aren't being met at a 110% level even if you are trying (and this is the biggest cancer to tbh). THe built in nihilism in living hedonistic lifestyle is a cancer to the continued existence of society and the values which we should aspire for.

    I don't understand this mentality that someone shouldn't be able to leave a marriage simply because they are unhappy. Unhappiness in relationships happens. Sure, it's nice if both parties can work through them, but that doesn't always happen. One party can always try to "do better" for a few weeks then screw up again, then promise not to mess up anymore, then mess up again a few weeks later.

    I don't get this belief that either partner, male or female, should need a different reason to quit a marriage other than "this shit isn't working".
    the word dime was looking for was being the leader. And that's some loser level rationalition regarding how some outside observer would view tthe word dominate. Also, women being whores is a net negative.

    Doesn't matter what word you call it. It's still a word with absolutely no value than what the person in question calls it. Does it mean the man earns all the money? That he doesn't even know HOW to cook or clean for himself? Does it mean he should be allowed to sleep around if he wants, without telling her? What?
  • DimeDime Wasting time Joined: Posts: 11,080
    Dime_x wrote: »
    The problem with the whole idea of seeking out women who will "let you dominate them" is the very loose definition of "dominate" and the wide variety of shady things that can be done in the name of it.

    For instance, Dime_x said that his wife was happy letting him dominate her until she started speaking to friends and family. Some other guy can take this to mean "don't let your wife have friends and get her away from family". Isolating people from friends and family is what cults and abusers in general do, so such a path is already on a rocky start. I mean, sure, you can go with the softer words "lead" if you like, but it seems like a euphemism.

    Also, my experience in meeting MGTOWs is that so many of them exchange bitterness towards women who AREN'T the docile, virginous innocents who will allow themselves to be dominated. It's one thing to "prefer" that type of woman. It's another to whine and bemoan about modern women being "whores" and "sluts".

    I don't really care what anyone would think was shady, domination or leading. I've never found myself to have a successful relationship where I'm the one being lead (and in my 39 years of age I've only been single for around 18 or so of those years) Female mumbo jumbo doesn't work in the real world because women want strong men. They WANT men that can dominate or lead them, you just have to be smart enough and have enough personal power as a man. Now that isn't ALL women of course. There are those women that either want weak men they can keep under their heel, or women that simply don't like men much at all and prefer their cats... I stay away from both those sets of women, there are plenty more out there, don't have to force something on them they don't want... hell why would I want that?

    Even with the addition of a "not all" near the end there, that's still a massive overgeneralization. Besides that, as I said, different men have different ideas of what "lead" and "dominate" means. I'm happy for you if what you do seems to work for you and you feel really confident in your "notch count" or whatever, but the idea that women as a monolithic entity prefer strong men is, if not wrong, in need of a lot of specificity.

    As I said, some men think isolating women from friends and family is being dominant. Some men see nothing wrong with hitting a woman if she misbehaves. Some men want extremely young girls (like 20 or younger). Some men want virgins. Some men don't like it when women actively want sex (even from them). Some men want to own women as property.

    My issue is not decrying "domination" as being bad. My issue is that it's a word that only has whatever meaning a person gives it.

    Take whatever word or phrase you like. It can be dominate or lead or having more personal power than the partner etc.

    There is no connotation towards beating women the way I used the term. I mean I could say "let's go get something to eat" and if I a cannibal overheard me they might think I meant people.

    I'm not going to sit here and worry about irrational assumptions any more than I'm going to worry about getting hit by a bus while walking to work. That's no way to live ones life.

    As far as it being an over generalization, I really don't know of many people in the states around the time I grew up, or in my age range where the woman wants a weak man with no ability to influence her. I personally would have been happy in my younger years letting a woman lead. But they never wanted to. Sure they SAID they did through their actions and attitude, but the second I let it look like I was letting them lead the interactions and exhibit more power than myself... they lose interest and go get with some dude that won't allow that shit.

    I have seen it the opposite, but it's pretty rare. And anyways like I said, those women can just be ignored.

    Also, I didn't put a number to my "notch count" so there is no bragging there. It could be 2 women or it could be 200.

    The number means nothing outside my relationship with my spouse.

    Something I learned once I had game for getting your average club girl/single party chick... don't listen to female dating advice. Not once did I ever get laid or have a nice relationship using girl dating advice.

    The only advice I've ever gotten that has worked has come from men. And I've never met a man that I know can actually get women, say to me that it's ok to be the weak one in the relationship.

    Shit I WISH i could be the weak one and sit around and let my wife make all the decisions... but she gets pissed if she has to make the decisions.

    She wants me to make decisions so she can sit there and say no to all of my suggestions. Then when I get fed up and say "we are going here then" she smiles and is happy, knowing she can now complain about the food or service or whatever and it will be my fault since I made the decision.

    And you know what happens when she makes a decision on where to go and it sucks?

    Then it's my fault FOR LETTING HER MAKE THE DECISION. If only I had a dollar for everytime I've heard "well we probably should have just gone to that place you suggested, but you didn't make a decision so now we have eat here"

    LOL

    That's why I make the decisions.

    (Most of the time unless I'm in the doghouse for something I didn't do)
    Gettin' my derp on.
  • StarhammerStarhammer The Laughing Man of SRK. Joined: Posts: 20,756 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG


    What the fuck? :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl:

    -Starhammer-
    Always think it's strange when black dudes accuse other black dudes of not being hood enough. Like isn't that a good thing?

    AV by Rick Ross.
  • pedoviejopedoviejo Thuggin in da Kitchen Joined: Posts: 13,848
    edited May 11
    The dynamic defintely is different and its massively shifted way to far in favor of women, and the hedonism that's built into women by shit dads and even more shit values thanks to feminism and society allows women to simply leave becasue her "needs" aren't being met at a 110% level even if you are trying (and this is the biggest cancer to tbh). THe built in nihilism in living hedonistic lifestyle is a cancer to the continued existence of society and the values which we should aspire for.

    I don't understand this mentality that someone shouldn't be able to leave a marriage simply because they are unhappy. Unhappiness in relationships happens. Sure, it's nice if both parties can work through them, but that doesn't always happen. One party can always try to "do better" for a few weeks then screw up again, then promise not to mess up anymore, then mess up again a few weeks later.

    I don't get this belief that either partner, male or female, should need a different reason to quit a marriage other than "this shit isn't working".
    the word dime was looking for was being the leader. And that's some loser level rationalition regarding how some outside observer would view tthe word dominate. Also, women being whores is a net negative.

    Doesn't matter what word you call it. It's still a word with absolutely no value than what the person in question calls it. Does it mean the man earns all the money? That he doesn't even know HOW to cook or clean for himself? Does it mean he should be allowed to sleep around if he wants, without telling her? What?

    Because being a man that leads the relationship, automatically implies she your doorstop.

    Your confusing dominance with abuse. Just like females confice assertiveness and confidence with arrogance and douchebag bad boy behavior. Try again.

    Ill reapond to tbe more important part when i get out of work.
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Complete my life Capcom, and make a Megaman Legends 3 exclusive for PS4. Do it, do it for the glory that should be and would be.
  • CrownySuccubusqueenCrownySuccubusqueen Joined: Posts: 29
    Dime_x wrote: »
    Dime_x wrote: »
    The problem with the whole idea of seeking out women who will "let you dominate them" is the very loose definition of "dominate" and the wide variety of shady things that can be done in the name of it.

    For instance, Dime_x said that his wife was happy letting him dominate her until she started speaking to friends and family. Some other guy can take this to mean "don't let your wife have friends and get her away from family". Isolating people from friends and family is what cults and abusers in general do, so such a path is already on a rocky start. I mean, sure, you can go with the softer words "lead" if you like, but it seems like a euphemism.

    Also, my experience in meeting MGTOWs is that so many of them exchange bitterness towards women who AREN'T the docile, virginous innocents who will allow themselves to be dominated. It's one thing to "prefer" that type of woman. It's another to whine and bemoan about modern women being "whores" and "sluts".

    I don't really care what anyone would think was shady, domination or leading. I've never found myself to have a successful relationship where I'm the one being lead (and in my 39 years of age I've only been single for around 18 or so of those years) Female mumbo jumbo doesn't work in the real world because women want strong men. They WANT men that can dominate or lead them, you just have to be smart enough and have enough personal power as a man. Now that isn't ALL women of course. There are those women that either want weak men they can keep under their heel, or women that simply don't like men much at all and prefer their cats... I stay away from both those sets of women, there are plenty more out there, don't have to force something on them they don't want... hell why would I want that?

    Even with the addition of a "not all" near the end there, that's still a massive overgeneralization. Besides that, as I said, different men have different ideas of what "lead" and "dominate" means. I'm happy for you if what you do seems to work for you and you feel really confident in your "notch count" or whatever, but the idea that women as a monolithic entity prefer strong men is, if not wrong, in need of a lot of specificity.

    As I said, some men think isolating women from friends and family is being dominant. Some men see nothing wrong with hitting a woman if she misbehaves. Some men want extremely young girls (like 20 or younger). Some men want virgins. Some men don't like it when women actively want sex (even from them). Some men want to own women as property.

    My issue is not decrying "domination" as being bad. My issue is that it's a word that only has whatever meaning a person gives it.

    Take whatever word or phrase you like. It can be dominate or lead or having more personal power than the partner etc.

    There is no connotation towards beating women the way I used the term. I mean I could say "let's go get something to eat" and if I a cannibal overheard me they might think I meant people.

    I'm not going to sit here and worry about irrational assumptions any more than I'm going to worry about getting hit by a bus while walking to work. That's no way to live ones life.

    Again, how you live your life is your own business. But, we're talking about life philosophies in general, spread amongst a number of people. It doesn't matter how you define "dominate" or "lead". It matters how the term is meant in general discussion.

    Making the general value judgment that women want to be, or should be "dominated", affects more than your corner of life.
    As far as it being an over generalization, I really don't know of many people in the states around the time I grew up, or in my age range where the woman wants a weak man with no ability to influence her. I personally would have been happy in my younger years letting a woman lead. But they never wanted to. Sure they SAID they did through their actions and attitude, but the second I let it look like I was letting them lead the interactions and exhibit more power than myself... they lose interest and go get with some dude that won't allow that shit.

    I have seen it the opposite, but it's pretty rare. And anyways like I said, those women can just be ignored.

    Well, I personally won't be basing gender dynamics off of your personal, anecdotal, references. Again, whatever works for you is cool, but not only does it not match up with any of my experiences (or those of people I have dealt with in my experience in relationship/sexual therapy), but it also doesn't seem very healthy from the outside looking in.

    Because being a man that leads the relationship, automatically implies she your doorstop.

    Your confusing dominance with abuse. Just like females confice assertiveness and confidence with arrogance and douchebag bad boy behavior. Try again.

    No, you're missing the point. I am very familiar with the differences between dominance and abuse.

    The problem, though, is that if a man tells me he wants or expects to be "dominant" in our relationship, my life depends on figuring out what he means because (as I keep saying) the word means nothing on its own. Does he expect me not to work? Does he expect me to not go out with friends? Does he expect me to ask him for permission on what to wear? Does he expect me to cook and clean? Do I get a say in how many kids we get? Does he expect me to not question his decisions AT ALL?

    Prescribing the value that men are and/or should be dominant over women in a relationship requires greater specificity on what "dominant" means in that specific relationship. Especially since even your most hardcore advocate for mens' rights will flat out say women need to be responsible and selective about what men they allow into their lives.
  • DimeDime Wasting time Joined: Posts: 11,080
    edited May 11
    I've met a decent amount of women that don't want to be lead/don't listen to reason/are super argumentative.

    Like when I meet men who are like that, I tend to just ignore those people.

    I'm not teaching gender studies and anyone who says anything about "gender studies" as if woke or educated because of this curriculum tends to get ignored because most gender studies that I know of have a feminist background. I'm an antifeminist.

    I've never met a feminist I've gotten along with.

    I just laugh and let them have fun with their cats and/ or downtrodden men.

    I don't kick it with my wife's friends downtrodden husbands and when my wife comes to me telling me about what those guys do for their wives my answer is "good for them, that's not what I'm going to do though"

    But these kinds of men I've only really been meeting for the last 5-6 years or so.

    I feel sorry for them tbh.

    So yes, it might not be your personal philosophy. Why does that matter to you? I've already said what my answer to that is.

    You seem to be getting hung up on a definition.


    Also, I have no idea why any dude would be like "I wanna dominate you" LOL.

    It's easy, just look for an agreeable woman. There is no verbal contract, that's just weird.

    And the last thing I'd do when seeking to lead a woman, would be saying something like "I want to dominate you". My wife and I have never had that conversation.

    The way I started to lead her goes thus:

    After we slept together and went out a few times, one day she was getting all uppity and told me what I needed to do or something like that.

    I responded that no I would not be doing that and if she had a problem with it then she or I could leave.

    She responded by no longer being uppity and being all smiley and affectionate again. THATS when I made the choice that she was probably a keeper. No conversation, just real world human interaction.

    No woman likes to be told they will be dominated.

    It's the old stick versus carrot.

    Lead a horse to water by dangling a carrot in front of him. If you try and use a stick or pull on a leash you are liable to get kicked or at least a lot of resistance.

    It's the same way gold diggers don't come out and say "I'm a gold digger, buy me shit please" (at least not the ones that are any good at it without being hot) most gold diggers that are smart just look for a guy that is willing to buy them shit or take care of them. They look for guys that OFFER these things.
    I look for women that offer to let me lead/dominate through their habits and actions and conversational give and take.

    My advice for men that are mgtow or downtrodden themselves, is to never be with a woman that won't allow them to lead.

    That's the call to arms that I prescribe for men. Stop being desperate and taking the first woman that is semi nice to you and decently pretty at the expense of your manhood. Make the woman work for your respect and time because it is valuable. Don't go your own way and leave society to collapse, just change your way of dating and change what you look for in a partner.

    And that's all that have to say on the subject. This is pretty off topic as it is.
    Post edited by Dime on
    Gettin' my derp on.
  • CrownySuccubusqueenCrownySuccubusqueen Joined: Posts: 29
    Dime_x wrote: »
    So yes, it might not be your personal philosophy. Why does that matter to you? I've already said what my answer to that is.

    You seem to be getting hung up on a definition.

    Because your philosophy basically involves an assessment of all women unless you've determined they can be ignored. Your philosophy is also, apparently, your world view which you shared in this topic.

    Since it indirectly assesses me (I'm either in one camp of woman or the other), I have some disagreements with it. Just as you don't care that I disagree with you, I don't care if you disagree with me. It's just a conversation.

    Also, I have no idea why any dude would be like "I wanna dominate you" LOL.

    Did I say they use those exact words?

    Eventually, like you, they make it clear that they expect to be "in charge", or "in control", or "the alpha" or whatever they want to call it.
    It's easy, just look for an agreeable woman. There is no verbal contract, that's just weird.

    The lack of a verbal contract is exactly my problem, though. For my own safety, I want to know what type of "dominance", "leadership" and "control" a man is talking about before we even date, let alone even entertain the idea of sex.

    And if he breaks his word, I will hold him accountable.

    And, since I'm bisexual, the same actually goes for a woman.

  • DimeDime Wasting time Joined: Posts: 11,080
    Starhammer wrote: »


    What the fuck? :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl:

    -Starhammer-

    This chick is on some whole nother level.

    RUN and don't look back.
    Gettin' my derp on.
  • CrownySuccubusqueenCrownySuccubusqueen Joined: Posts: 29
    edited May 11
    "I responded that no I would not be doing that and if she had a problem with it then she or I could leave."

    Well, that just seems like having standards. It seems weird to ascribe dominance/submission to what's essentially a verbal contract.

    If a girl tells a guy "No, we will not be having sex on at least the first three dates. If that's a problem, we can date elsewhere", is that being dominant?

    P.S.: Since dime says he's done, I don't expect him to answer. Again, I'm just making conversation.
  • tatakitataki misplaced Joined: Posts: 7,703
    Dime_x wrote: »
    The way I started to lead her goes thus:

    After we slept together and went out a few times, one day she was getting all uppity and told me what I needed to do or something like that.

    I responded that no I would not be doing that and if she had a problem with it then she or I could leave.

    She responded by no longer being uppity and being all smiley and affectionate again. THATS when I made the choice that she was probably a keeper.

    This role play thing that your wife likes is just that- Role play for her own enjoyment. In which restaurant you are going to eat is a non-issue. Can you actually "lead her" into committing to big, hard sacrifices like losing weight which you said is important for you, or finding a more demanding but higher paying job "for the sake of the family" like how you worked jobs that permanently damaged your health "for the sake of the family"? Have you tried voicing a big demand like this before?
    Fighting game tutorials, matches, and funny stuff:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/novriltataki
    Former account:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/playtowin
  • MillionMillion King of Creeps Joined: Posts: 10,850 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    Another example of some pitiful, depressing shit

    It seems like that sap is still inclined to be tolerant of this bitch... unbelievable that any man puts up with that. Notice right from the start he mentions "ran into my car again..."... this is apparently an ordinary, expected thing for her. Why should anyone, male or female tolerate repeated destruction of your personal property, and abuse.. it's stupid.

    Some men stay away because of shit like this that proves these creatures to be little more than a dangerous toxin that ruins everything in life.
  • DimeDime Wasting time Joined: Posts: 11,080
    Meh, I have no sympathy for men like that. Raise your voice, move, go get a new girl, call the cops, put out a restraining order etc. He sounds like like a woman.

    The closest I've been to this is when some random (but hot) blond girl on drugs knocked on my door and invited herself into my house. I thought she knew my wife who was on the phone at the time in the other room, but my wife came out and was like... who's this?

    Then I realized what was up and I tried to tell homegirl to kick rocks but she wouldn't leave. So I tried to physically push her out of the house but I wasn't using man strength on some random girl... don't want to go to jail... so I was bitchy with my aggro and very non man like. As soon as I touched her home chick exploded and was don't touch me, I know you want me, don't touch me perv... my wife's jaw on the floor and my wife looking like she about to get aggressive, so I told homegirl firmly that if she didn't leave I was going to call the cops.

    Bla bla, it took about 5 minutes to get the crazy bitch out my house.

    Only time I've ever really felt helpless.

    But still, this guy is with this woman, knows what she's like and she's not at all afraid of physically attacking him.

    I've never touched or raised a mean hand to my wife, but she knows getting violently physical with me would be a mistake.

    That shit isn't tolerated.

    This guy needs to grow a pair, he's half the reason society is so fucked today. These women shouldn't be able to find men willing to put up with their stupidity.
    Gettin' my derp on.
  • BBQBBQ ピンクゾーン Joined: Posts: 3,696
    After watching this


    I would question the circumstances involved regarding to why shit happens.
  • StarhammerStarhammer The Laughing Man of SRK. Joined: Posts: 20,756 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    Snatched up from the General discussion thread:
    Slurmz wrote: »
    That divorce settlement
    Ex-wife gets £453 million divorce payment

    A Russian billionaire has been ordered to pay his estranged wife £453m in a divorce settlement at a British court. The payment from the 61-year-old, a former oil and gas trader, to his ex-wife, 41, has been described as one of the biggest awards made by a UK court. During a High Court hearing, a judge said the couple met and married in Moscow before moving to Surrey. Mr Justice Haddon-Cave said he had awarded the woman 41.5% of the "total marital assets". The judge made a ruling preventing the man, from the Caucasus, and the woman, who was born in Eastern Europe, from being identified. Both were given indefinite leave to remain in the UK, where they have lived for a number of years.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/39884315

    So let me sum this up:

    Hot guys ain't getting away.
    Rich guys ain't getting away.
    Good guys ain't getting away.
    Smart guys ain't getting away.

    The only way you can avoid the car wreck is by not taking the ride.

    -Starhammer-
    Always think it's strange when black dudes accuse other black dudes of not being hood enough. Like isn't that a good thing?

    AV by Rick Ross.
  • MillionMillion King of Creeps Joined: Posts: 10,850 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    edited May 12
    Funny thing is that most of them would probably take offense if you were to suggest that the vast majority aren't really that different from prostitutes.... actual prostitutes are just "official" whores.

    I'll bet that guy wishes he had just bought a regular whore now... even a high priced one wouldn't cost him as much as that wife did. :lol:

    I think men should really think about the numbers there for a few minutes...think of whatever that number is that's sitting in your accounts right now---and imagine if suddenly a large percentage of that...maybe even half.... has to go to the ex wife....and perhaps she's entitled to a percentage of future earnings....forever. I don't think anyone can honestly say they would not be pissed about that. Oh yeah let's visualize some real numbers there...what if across all accounts you have 60 grand in there... well now that's 30 because she, the judge and the lawyers say so....or let's say you have 20 grand and now that's cut to 10....or perhaps she gets something like 400 per month out of you from here going forward. It amazes me that anyone could possibly be ok with that horseshit.
  • StarhammerStarhammer The Laughing Man of SRK. Joined: Posts: 20,756 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    The problem with the whole idea of seeking out women who will "let you dominate them" is the very loose definition of "dominate" and the wide variety of shady things that can be done in the name of it.

    For instance, Dime_x said that his wife was happy letting him dominate her until she started speaking to friends and family. Some other guy can take this to mean "don't let your wife have friends and get her away from family". Isolating people from friends and family is what cults and abusers in general do, so such a path is already on a rocky start. I mean, sure, you can go with the softer words "lead" if you like, but it seems like a euphemism.

    Also, my experience in meeting MGTOWs is that so many of them exchange bitterness towards women who AREN'T the docile, virginous innocents who will allow themselves to be dominated. It's one thing to "prefer" that type of woman. It's another to whine and bemoan about modern women being "whores" and "sluts".

    "Meeting MGTOWs"?

    Charlton%20Heston%20Laugh_zpseqhtrpn1.gif

    Nice try.

    -Starhammer-
    Always think it's strange when black dudes accuse other black dudes of not being hood enough. Like isn't that a good thing?

    AV by Rick Ross.
  • AlexTheKingAlexTheKing Joined: Posts: 1,143
    I don't know if it's a trend, we don't know how big MGTOW is but i'm guessing it's a very small minority of men.
  • xEGAxBeastkingxxEGAxBeastkingx Sorry about yo damn luck Joined: Posts: 2,641
    The last time I checked the stats they said that a little under 1 percent of men in the US officially live the MGTOW lifestyle. That's a million men more or less and that's only in the U.S. That's not even counting the ones who follow the movement in other countries. It may not be a mainstream thing but it's gaining some steam.
    Gamertag - GDxKingofBeasts
    SFV - Balrog
    Saints | Cardinals | Suns fan
  • DimeDime Wasting time Joined: Posts: 11,080
    1% of 300 million is 3 million... just saying :)
    Gettin' my derp on.
  • angelpalmangelpalm Stop enjoying things Joined: Posts: 24,457 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    Is this required reading to join the movement guys?


    Menww.jpg

    Mains:
    Blazpoo -Continual Shit: Tiddy Witch
    Crapcom Big foot Sex simulator V - Pc muscle mod edition: That dude that slaps his ass.
    Aggressors of Koliseum Kombat: Kisarah
    Rapelay: Kimura
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/19/opinion/alt-right-white-supremacy-undercover.html?smid=tw-share
    http://helloracist.com/
  • xEGAxBeastkingxxEGAxBeastkingx Sorry about yo damn luck Joined: Posts: 2,641
    Dime_x wrote: »
    1% of 300 million is 3 million... just saying :)

    Only about 100 of those 300 million are men though.
    Gamertag - GDxKingofBeasts
    SFV - Balrog
    Saints | Cardinals | Suns fan
  • tatakitataki misplaced Joined: Posts: 7,703
  • CrownySuccubusqueenCrownySuccubusqueen Joined: Posts: 29
    Starhammer wrote: »
    The problem with the whole idea of seeking out women who will "let you dominate them" is the very loose definition of "dominate" and the wide variety of shady things that can be done in the name of it.

    For instance, Dime_x said that his wife was happy letting him dominate her until she started speaking to friends and family. Some other guy can take this to mean "don't let your wife have friends and get her away from family". Isolating people from friends and family is what cults and abusers in general do, so such a path is already on a rocky start. I mean, sure, you can go with the softer words "lead" if you like, but it seems like a euphemism.

    Also, my experience in meeting MGTOWs is that so many of them exchange bitterness towards women who AREN'T the docile, virginous innocents who will allow themselves to be dominated. It's one thing to "prefer" that type of woman. It's another to whine and bemoan about modern women being "whores" and "sluts".

    "Meeting MGTOWs"?

    Charlton%20Heston%20Laugh_zpseqhtrpn1.gif

    Nice try.

    -Starhammer-

    I'm sure you thought this was clever, but...

    Yes. I've met guys who have identified as a "Man Going His Own Way", complete with linking me to MGTOW-centered websites.

    So what's your point?
  • StarhammerStarhammer The Laughing Man of SRK. Joined: Posts: 20,756 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    Starhammer wrote: »
    The problem with the whole idea of seeking out women who will "let you dominate them" is the very loose definition of "dominate" and the wide variety of shady things that can be done in the name of it.

    For instance, Dime_x said that his wife was happy letting him dominate her until she started speaking to friends and family. Some other guy can take this to mean "don't let your wife have friends and get her away from family". Isolating people from friends and family is what cults and abusers in general do, so such a path is already on a rocky start. I mean, sure, you can go with the softer words "lead" if you like, but it seems like a euphemism.

    Also, my experience in meeting MGTOWs is that so many of them exchange bitterness towards women who AREN'T the docile, virginous innocents who will allow themselves to be dominated. It's one thing to "prefer" that type of woman. It's another to whine and bemoan about modern women being "whores" and "sluts".

    "Meeting MGTOWs"?

    Charlton%20Heston%20Laugh_zpseqhtrpn1.gif

    Nice try.

    -Starhammer-

    I'm sure you thought this was clever, but...

    Yes. I've met guys who have identified as a "Man Going His Own Way", complete with linking me to MGTOW-centered websites.

    So what's your point?

    hmmmm. My point(s)...............................

    Men who are going their own way, speaking to a woman about going their own way..................some woman just walks up to them and goes,"So hey. what about dat mgtow eh?", and they just get to yaking...........when one of the MAIN things that a MGTOW won't do is identify as such in public.........................ESPECIALLY TO A WOMAN..........................................................

    Charlton%20Heston%20Laugh_zpseqhtrpn1.gif

    ............And "so many of the exchange bitterness towards women who AREN'T the docile, virginous innocents who will allow themselves to be dominated."


    .........................................................................


    Charlton%20Heston%20Laugh_zpseqhtrpn1.gif

    I've got three running theories here. Either one, you got conned by wanna-bes and fakes, or two: These,"MGTOW" you've been talking to sound more like guys who went looking for the BDSM chicks, but walked into the wrong places and naturally got undesireable results. Third theory is that these were more than likely men's rights activists. They are a bit more open about speaking in public. MGTOW are more like ghosts. The few that are public are usually at such a financial status that they can't be harmed by the courts nor society.

    However, all is not lost. www.mgtow.com Just read. Do not make a login as you're a woman, but please do go read. It's a men's only site, but nobody minds you looking. It's not that your story can't be right, but I wouldn't put a dime on it.

    -Starhammer-
    Always think it's strange when black dudes accuse other black dudes of not being hood enough. Like isn't that a good thing?

    AV by Rick Ross.
  • CrownySuccubusqueenCrownySuccubusqueen Joined: Posts: 29
    edited May 13
    Starhammer wrote: »
    Starhammer wrote: »
    The problem with the whole idea of seeking out women who will "let you dominate them" is the very loose definition of "dominate" and the wide variety of shady things that can be done in the name of it.

    For instance, Dime_x said that his wife was happy letting him dominate her until she started speaking to friends and family. Some other guy can take this to mean "don't let your wife have friends and get her away from family". Isolating people from friends and family is what cults and abusers in general do, so such a path is already on a rocky start. I mean, sure, you can go with the softer words "lead" if you like, but it seems like a euphemism.

    Also, my experience in meeting MGTOWs is that so many of them exchange bitterness towards women who AREN'T the docile, virginous innocents who will allow themselves to be dominated. It's one thing to "prefer" that type of woman. It's another to whine and bemoan about modern women being "whores" and "sluts".

    "Meeting MGTOWs"?

    Charlton%20Heston%20Laugh_zpseqhtrpn1.gif

    Nice try.

    -Starhammer-

    I'm sure you thought this was clever, but...

    Yes. I've met guys who have identified as a "Man Going His Own Way", complete with linking me to MGTOW-centered websites.

    So what's your point?

    hmmmm. My point(s)...............................

    Men who are going their own way, speaking to a woman about going their own way..................some woman just walks up to them and goes,"So hey. what about dat mgtow eh?", and they just get to yaking...........when one of the MAIN things that a MGTOW won't do is identify as such in public.........................ESPECIALLY TO A WOMAN..........................................................

    Charlton%20Heston%20Laugh_zpseqhtrpn1.gif

    I did mention my job involves therapy and various forms of counseling, right? So, first, it wasn't "in public".

    Here's another thing: people in general like believing their beliefs or actions are justified. Some men are very willing to talk to a woman about uncomfortable subjects including women as long as they feel like someone's hearing their point of view. This is ESPECIALLY when it's something they're "not supposed to identify as in public", because that inherently breeds frustration.

    ............And "so many of the exchange bitterness towards women who AREN'T

    I've got three running theories here. Either one, you got conned by wanna-bes and fakes, or two: These,"MGTOW" you've been talking to sound more like guys who went looking for the BDSM chicks, but walked into the wrong places and naturally got undesireable results. Third theory is that these were more than likely men's rights activists. They are a bit more open about speaking in public. MGTOW are more like ghosts. The few that are public are usually at such a financial status that they can't be harmed by the courts nor society.

    However, all is not lost. www.mgtow.com Just read. Do not make a login as you're a woman, but please do go read. It's a men's only site, but nobody minds you looking. It's not that your story can't be right, but I wouldn't put a dime on it.

    -Starhammer-

    I've actually been there, already. As well as r/MGTOW, goingyourownway.com, and a few other locations. My point, however, stands. A not-insignificant number of MGTOW men are people who aren't really doing a good job of going their own way and are more preoccupied with women who don't fit their perfect vision of innocence, docility, or wholesomeness.

    I won't say "most" because I don't have enough data to make that kind of assessment. But, it's common enough to be a curiosity for me.

  • PristineButtonsPristineButtons Joined: Posts: 256
    Now we have this succubusqueef person adding absolutely nothing constructive to the conversation.
    Told Dime he was wrong or something and sarcastically said Starhammer was clever. Can't really tell what he/she is talking about at all actually lol.
This discussion has been closed.