Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are correct. No one owes anyone else anything, however, we agree to give things to others in return for things being given to us. For example, I agree not to kill you in return for you agreeing not to kill me. We both get something. Every relationship is a trade off. We give to get. The problem with people like the killer in California is that they want to get without giving. Somehow they think they are owed something without giving something. If they were giving something of substance, they wouldn't have any problem getting something of substance. When you talk about women as if they're a commodity, they're going to walk away unless they're selling it.
Men have a lot of control here as they are judged on things they control like success in addition to looks. Women look for more than just a good looking man. We want men who will care for us, care about us and take care of our children. Women respect men who provide those things. While looks do come into play because women are programmed to seek mates who have characteristics they want to pass on to their children, if you happen to be too ugly to play the game, the game isn't lost. You still have women who are too ugly to play the game to choose from and the way our society emphasizes how women look, there are a lot more women who don't make the cut than men who don't make the cut. A man can make himself more attractive by being a good provider and showing positive attention to women. Women can only see the plastic surgeon or cake on make up.
You are generalizing and objectifying men with that kind of statement. I don't look for men to provide me with things, or be my caretaker. Not all women are like that.
Another interesting note: It never occurred to Elliott that working at a lowly retail job might have actually resulted in him meeting the blond girl of his dreams. Where do most of us meet people and begin dating? Through work, of course, because it's where we spend most of our waking hours. He was never going to find someone when he was so isolated. He was isolated because he couldn't stand seeing couples being happy together, but he was never going to be part of a couple if he didn't somehow get out into the world (in a way other than driving around town or wandering around aimlessly, waiting for women to approach him).
After reading pages and pages of this thread, I just have a few comments:
- Yes, the '70s were much more sexual than today, particularly for young people. There was no HIV and few people had ever even heard of herpes. Current society is much more sexually repressed, but our consumer society is drenched in light porn.
How is it repressed? Porn is pretty much accepted and women dress in revealing clothing, even in professional capacities. Sex education is pretty much standard where is barely existed in the seventies. It's not like kids aren't doing it, that seems to be the problem here, pressure for kids to have sex. HIV doesn't seem to be the big issue it was in the 80s or 90s. People without formal sex education knew to use condoms, somehow. If you got an STD it was your own fault, you were not a victim.
A lot of kids are raised to be mean, spoiled, crude, entitled and childish now, so they can't handle sex or relationships.
The more I see of the Virgin Killer's family as this story gets analyzed in the media, it's a familiar story of dysfunction, instability and entitled delusion. The father claims to be in significant debt and the mother makes little income. Yet, they live this high lifestyle.
I said no adult owes another adult a social relationship.
Not really true. And even if true, that doesn't speak as to why that should be the case when any number of other relationships are owed to one degree or another. This has nothing to do with nobody owing anyone things, and everything to do with WHO owes WHOM. That is ALL that is in play here. Betas are dirt in this system, so, "they're owed nothing." If they weren't dirt, they'd be owed all sorts of prizes. And nobody of good cheer would question this.
By the way, do be sure to remind women of that when they're over the hill and demanding that men "man up" and marry them. I'm sure they'll be ever bit as measured and reasonable as me.
Quote:
(Protip: It totally is with you).
Yes, of course. 100% of the problem is ALWAYS with low status males. The winners, women and society are completely blameless. Immaculate. I know. What a convenient ideology, one that compels the losers to kick themselves when they're down so the winners don't have to be bothered.
Not really true. And even if true, that doesn't speak as to why that should be the case when any number of other relationships are owed to one degree or another. This has nothing to do with nobody owing anyone things, and everything to do with WHO owes WHOM. That is ALL that is in play here. Betas are dirt in this system, so, "they're owed nothing." If they weren't dirt, they'd be owed all sorts of prizes. And nobody of good cheer would question this.
By the way, do be sure to remind women of that when they're over the hill and demanding that men "man up" and marry them. I'm sure they'll be ever bit as measured and reasonable as me.
Yes, of course. 100% of the problem is ALWAYS with low status males. The winners, women and society are completely blameless. Immaculate. I know. What a convenient ideology, one that compels the losers to kick themselves when they're down so the winners don't have to be bothered.
Why would you purposely allow others to have power over your life? Because that's what you're doing. Nobody's stopping you from being a winner except for yourself.
Why would you purposely allow others to have power over your life? Because that's what you're doing. Nobody's stopping you from being a winner except for yourself.
What's stopping a limbless beggar in Lagos from being a winner? Is he in full control of his life, held back only by a toxic outlook? Of course, I'm not nearly so bad off as that, but it's a difference in degree rather than in kind. Winning is zero sum. Of course somebody (or something outside of the inner self) is stopping me. That's the whole point.
Not really true. And even if true, that doesn't speak as to why that should be the case when any number of other relationships are owed to one degree or another. This has nothing to do with nobody owing anyone things, and everything to do with WHO owes WHOM. That is ALL that is in play here. Betas are dirt in this system, so, "they're owed nothing." If they weren't dirt, they'd be owed all sorts of prizes. And nobody of good cheer would question this.
By the way, do be sure to remind women of that when they're over the hill and demanding that men "man up" and marry them. I'm sure they'll be ever bit as measured and reasonable as me.
Yes, of course. 100% of the problem is ALWAYS with low status males. The winners, women and society are completely blameless. Immaculate. I know. What a convenient ideology, one that compels the losers to kick themselves when they're down so the winners don't have to be bothered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tairos
What's stopping a limbless beggar in Lagos from being a winner? Is he in full control of his life, held back only by a toxic outlook? Of course, I'm not nearly so bad off as that, but it's a difference in degree rather than in kind. Winning is zero sum. Of course somebody (or something outside of the inner self) is stopping me. That's the whole point.
Putting aside for a moment that you may be clinically depressed, your biggest obstacle to happiness, or a fulfilling relationship, is that you are 100% self-centered. You don't appear to see other people, male or female, as individuals. At best they are stereotypes and at worst they are beings who either do, or do not, contribute to your personal happiness.
Based on your posts, you are certainly NOT a beta male. You are clearly alpha, looking out for your own best interests with zero regard for anyone else you encounter. You don't want a woman for a companion or mate, you want a slave who will fulfill your every need while never having any of her own.
I understand why you empathize with Elliot Rodger because your views appear to be exactly in line with his. I hope you can figure out a way to change your way of thinking.
No, that's not how it works. That's how it worked in the Bad Old Days when women were heavily incentivized to settle quickly. It does not work that way now.
Ah. So it's simply a matter of women having too much freedom and not being coerced to settle. Yeah, any man approaching the opposite gender with that attitude isn't going to have much success.
I never actually claimed to be a beta male. I certainly never claimed to be a "nice guy;" I would never describe myself as such. I can thank that fact for what limited success I have had. I emphasize with them because I've had a similar experience even if for somewhat different reasons. And whether you want to believe it or not, I do believe in something greater than myself. That something isn't the frivolous, self obsessed individuals around me however. I give them as much consideration and regard as they give me (none).
See, I actually did bungle my life. I can acknowledge substantial if not majority culpability at this point. Maybe around 40-60%. But it's not even close to 100%. That's just silly.
Quote:
Ah. So it's simply a matter of women having too much freedom and not being coerced to settle. Yeah, any man approaching the opposite gender with that attitude isn't going to have much success.
Being a self flagellating white knight is the true path to woman's heart. You can see this on your average college campus, where the apex alpha male frat boy types win fair lady with their eloquent and heartfelt recitals of feminist poetry and expressions of support for female emancipation and empowerment.
Ah. So it's simply a matter of women having too much freedom and not being coerced to settle. Yeah, any man approaching the opposite gender with that attitude isn't going to have much success.
Don't you get it? Prior to 1964 was a golden age when men were all assigned a woman, and she'd have to perform her wifely duties on demand and like it or be stoned in the town square! Or something. It was good times for all!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
