Government should pay women to date losers

[Josornio300]

"Makes no sense. Why shouldn't people who've been cheated by society not feel entitled to something they cheated out of?"

So true. This is the equivalent of being told how much youre getting paid every week only to find out a week later your paycheck is cut in half or reduced to 25%. My first job was like this.

 

[AnonymousBosch]

"Government should pay women to date losers."

We already have that. It's called welfare.

 

[AnonymousBosch]

I find it unbelievable that neither the HuffPo article nor anyone else have pointed out that the governmentsgetgirlfriends guy is a complete, frothing at the mouth psycho. I'm not being hyperbolic when I say he might become the next George Sodini.

I find it not only believable, but predictible.

The HuffPo article functions to generate advertising via page hits. They snip the less-crazy quotes out of context to make him sound reasonable, then summarise the gist of the article, with the expectation that the cubicle drones will be angry enough to rush straight to the comments section to post their furious responses with much use of ALLCAPS and multiple exclamation marks, instead of clicking through to the source to read the full article and draw their own conclusion about the content within.

Obviously, the subtext here is to sell this crazy fringe belief as normalised male expectation, to threaten the arrogant female reader that this is a realistic possibility, so as to generate more outrage, so that the article is more-likely to be shared and commented over, since women are the main consumers and sharers of spurious, ignorant shite.

The average feminist commenting on HuffPo is basically filling the same role as the 86-year-old war veteran does when he writes outraged letters to the Daily Mirror. It's simply a rebranded tabloid for Narcissists with University Degrees.

A girl once said I was very cynical. I only wish it was cynicism.

 

[Katatonic]

How the hell did I miss this? I was seriously working on a similar project called "Redistribution of Bangs: A Treatise on Applying Mechanisms to Achieve Sexual Egalitarianism". I am attempting to prove that your good hygiene, personalities and fit bodies are undeserved advantages, and should be appropriated by the state for the good of the public. Obese women with horrible personalities would obviously want to get in shape and become nicer if they got laid by good looking guys with no effort of their own right?

 

[Dusty]

ics:

What does the dude look like?

 

[germanico]

It does.

If she dates a loser for some months, and then marries him and divorces him, she gets a free house and a monthly check.

 

[Maciano]

Women's sexual response

Charm > looks >>> intelligence

 

[RexImperator]

If, for whatever reason, you have completely failed at attracting the opposite sex, that is nature's way of informing you that your genetic package is unfit for reproduction.

Interesting theory.

 

[Rawmeo]

Scorpion's point would be valid in a society where women can use logic to reasonate, rather than feelings. This is also referred to as "utopia".

I agree with the quote saying that if you failed to attract the opposite sex, your genes are not fit for reproduction. However, women will prefer a smoking tattooed prison guy rather than an educated and well-off cardiologist, simply because the "bad boy" look pleases them more and triggers, again, the "feelings" of the girl.

This is another downside of feminism; with all current marriage laws in the Western world, women can date any man they feel like will "bring her something", rather than "fit for reproduction". If she changes her feelings, she just needs to divorce and she gets rich.

 

[Conscious Pirate]

Kabal took the words right outta my mouth. And here's me thinking I was being clever...

 

[Glaucon]

In the name of equality, lets summon our favorite bully the Government to force people to act inhuman!

 

[Off The Reservation]

Hate to give Huff Post page views but:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...-men_n_3293626.html?utm_hp_ref=women&ir=Women

or go here:

http://governmentsgetgirlfriends.wordpress.com/867-2/


Looks like the incel losers have hit rock bottom.

This guy needs to watch this video:



Then he can do this:

After she's done with him:

This is the program he should advocate:

That would stimulate high tech as well as incel losers.

Just so you know the song is about Chess not whores.



Bangkok, Oriental setting
And the city don't know what the city is getting
The creme de la creme of the chess world
In a show with everything but Yul Brynner

Time flies, doesn't seem a minute
Since the Tirolean Spa had the chess boys in it
All change, don't you know that when you
Play at this level, there's no ordinary venue

It's Iceland or the Philippines
Or Hastings or, or this place

One night in Bangkok and the world's your oyster
The bars are temples but the pearls ain't free
You'll find a God in every golden cloister
And if you're lucky then the God's a she
I can feel an angel sliding up to me

One town's very like another
When your head's down over your pieces, Brother

It's a drag, it's a bore, it's really such a pity
To be looking at the board, not looking at the city

Whaddya mean?
Ya seen one crowded, polluted, stinking town

Tea girls, warm and sweet, warm, sweet
Some are set up in the Somerset Maugham Suite

"Get Thai'd", you're talking to a tourist
Whose every move's among the purest
I get my kicks above the waistline, sunshine

One night in Bangkok makes a hard man humble
Not much between despair and ecstasy
One night in Bangkok and the tough guys tumble
Can't be too careful with your company
I can feel the Devil walking next to me

Siam's gonna be the witness
To the ultimate test of cerebral fitness
This grips me more than would
A muddy old river or Reclining Buddha

But thank God, I'm only watching the game, controlling it

I don't see you guys rating
The kind of mate I'm contemplating
I'd let you watch, I would invite you
But the queens we use would not excite you

So you better go back to your bars, your temples
Your massage parlors

One night in Bangkok and the world's your oyster
The bars are temples but the pearls ain't free
You'll find a God in every golden cloister
A little flesh, a little history
I can feel an angel slidin' up to me

One night in Bangkok makes a hard man humble
Not much between despair and ecstasy
One night in Bangkok and the tough guys tumble
Can't be too careful with your company
I can feel the Devil walking next to me



Read more: Murray Head - One Night In Bangkok Lyrics | MetroLyrics

 

[fokker]

Some more info about the GovernmentsGetGirlfriends (also known as CoALphaAntiModernistIncelBlogger) can be found here: https://lolcow.wiki/wiki/Marjan_Šiklić

I've also done some edits to the Kings Wiki entry on the guy (originally created under the CAAMIB name): http://en.kingswiki.com/wiki/Marjan_Šiklić

 

[anthony]

This Huffpost writer wants the Government to pay women to provide a "Girlfriend Experience". So really he wants government subsidized prostitution.

He really wants the government to pay for this.

http://sfist.com/2014/03/04/new_startup_wants_to_create_sf-nyc.php
http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/05/shipped-to-california.html

 

[Brosemite]

Women have always gravitated to what they "perceived" as "alpha qualities" as a means of survival throughout time. Progressions in technology have tilted Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs in a different way; in this case, the luxuries of modern society have altered how women perceive "alpha qualities" with many of their basic needs being met. What has not been changed is that women have been and always will be "emotional thinkers."

Regarding what Scorpion said, I think women go beyond what they see in front of them. It could be good looks, great profession, salary, bad boy tattoos, or chiseled body...but if a woman cannot come to terms with respecting another guy (often based on her unreasonable emotions), then she's not going to qualify him as being a candidate to fuck let alone reproduce with.

With enough life's experience & trial/error in social situations, a normal guy should eventually know how to make a girl's boxes tick.

I disagree with the notion that a guy's standing in society or appearances alone means that he deserves to get laid. Last year, I was invited to have dinner with a fellow ex-pat at his place.

1) Semi-retired guy
2) Is very rich
3) Good looking
4) Phat apartment with an expensive pool table in a great neighborhood
5) Well-traveled and speaks at least 4 languages fluently
6) Works out at the most prestigious country club with the city's richest poon being there as well

He was however coming off a divorce several months ago despite all that asking me for advice. During dinner, I talked about my background & what the future held for me; I even gave the guy extensive game & fitness tips doing some quick workout demonstrations.

When I asked him about his background, he got reluctant and started shitting on my pool technique. He then reprimanded me for not taking the bullshit friendly game of pool seriously enough. He got bitter when I mentioned the other ex-pats in our city because they were mainly couples or families while lacking single chicks in the community. (It's obvious the group was horrible for meeting single chicks, but he was too much of a condescending incel to comprehend that).

Few weeks later, I gave the guy one more chance by taking him to a mixer where I knew a lot of females. Bad move. He ended up making me look bad & gave me shit while expecting to have his feelings coddled at the same time.

So just because a guy has "status" doesn't mean he is a person worthy of fucking, dating, or reproducing with; he wasn't even deserving of my attempt at friendship either. Had enough of the dude after seeing him twice & there's a reason why his ex-wife divorced his ass. He has nephews & nieces whom he visits out of the country occasionally, but God forbid he has his own one day.

 

[EDantes]

So basically guys who can't even afford a $15 handjob from the skankiest hooker in the hood want the govt to subsidize it. The Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves if they knew this is what we have become.

 

[EDantes]

Women have always gravitated to what they "perceived" as "alpha qualities" as a means of survival throughout time. Progressions in technology have tilted Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs in a different way; in this case, the luxuries of modern society have altered how women perceive "alpha qualities" with many of their basic needs being met. What has not been changed is that women have been and always will be "emotional thinkers."

Regarding what Scorpion said, I think women go beyond what they see in front of them. It could be good looks, great profession, salary, bad boy tattoos, or chiseled body...but if a woman cannot come to terms with respecting another guy (often based on her unreasonable emotions), then she's not going to qualify him as being a candidate to fuck let alone reproduce with.

With enough life's experience & trial/error in social situations, a normal guy should eventually know how to make a girl's boxes tick.

I disagree with the notion that a guy's standing in society or appearances alone means that he deserves to get laid. Last year, I was invited to have dinner with a fellow ex-pat at his place.

1) Semi-retired guy
2) Is very rich
3) Good looking
4) Phat apartment with an expensive pool table in a great neighborhood
5) Well-traveled and speaks at least 4 languages fluently
6) Works out at the most prestigious country club with the city's richest poon being there as well

He was however coming off a divorce several months ago despite all that asking me for advice. During dinner, I talked about my background & what the future held for me; I even gave the guy extensive game & fitness tips doing some quick workout demonstrations.

When I asked him about his background, he got reluctant and started shitting on my pool technique. He then reprimanded me for not taking the bullshit friendly game of pool seriously enough. He got bitter when I mentioned the other ex-pats in our city because they were mainly couples or families while lacking single chicks in the community. (It's obvious the group was horrible for meeting single chicks, but he was too much of a condescending incel to comprehend that).

Few weeks later, I gave the guy one more chance by taking him to a mixer where I knew a lot of females. Bad move. He ended up making me look bad & gave me shit while expecting to have his feelings coddled at the same time.

So just because a guy has "status" doesn't mean he is a person worthy of fucking, dating, or reproducing with; he wasn't even deserving of my attempt at friendship either. Had enough of the dude after seeing him twice & there's a reason why his ex-wife divorced his ass. He has nephews & nieces whom he visits out of the country occasionally, but God forbid he has his own one day.

You made an insightful post - on the basic level I believe "alpha" qualities that are attractive are those that make a man a good leader. Our brains are still like that of a hunter-gatherer, and until the advent of civilization (a recent advent on the evolutionary timeframe), men who were strong, courageous leaders and warriors were the best providers.

I feel the professional sports is the closest to a "hunter-gatherer" community that exists in the modern world

However division of labor today allows men who aren't cut out to be leaders of men to still be good providers (and vice versa, it often punishes men who are courageous and independent with overly rigid laws).

Today the mild mannered accountant might earn more money than the local drug dealer, or minor league professional football quarterback, but in many ways the latter still possess more of the traditionally masculine qualities of leadership than the former, and will probably be physically attractive to a lot more women even making just $30,000 a year, than Marvin Milquetoast will ever be even if he earns $100,000 a year at his accounting or computer programming job.

 

[TravelerKai]

Women have always gravitated to what they "perceived" as "alpha qualities" as a means of survival throughout time. Progressions in technology have tilted Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs in a different way; in this case, the luxuries of modern society have altered how women perceive "alpha qualities" with many of their basic needs being met. What has not been changed is that women have been and always will be "emotional thinkers."

Regarding what Scorpion said, I think women go beyond what they see in front of them. It could be good looks, great profession, salary, bad boy tattoos, or chiseled body...but if a woman cannot come to terms with respecting another guy (often based on her unreasonable emotions), then she's not going to qualify him as being a candidate to fuck let alone reproduce with.

With enough life's experience & trial/error in social situations, a normal guy should eventually know how to make a girl's boxes tick.

I disagree with the notion that a guy's standing in society or appearances alone means that he deserves to get laid. Last year, I was invited to have dinner with a fellow ex-pat at his place.

1) Semi-retired guy
2) Is very rich
3) Good looking
4) Phat apartment with an expensive pool table in a great neighborhood
5) Well-traveled and speaks at least 4 languages fluently
6) Works out at the most prestigious country club with the city's richest poon being there as well

He was however coming off a divorce several months ago despite all that asking me for advice. During dinner, I talked about my background & what the future held for me; I even gave the guy extensive game & fitness tips doing some quick workout demonstrations.

When I asked him about his background, he got reluctant and started shitting on my pool technique. He then reprimanded me for not taking the bullshit friendly game of pool seriously enough. He got bitter when I mentioned the other ex-pats in our city because they were mainly couples or families while lacking single chicks in the community. (It's obvious the group was horrible for meeting single chicks, but he was too much of a condescending incel to comprehend that).

Few weeks later, I gave the guy one more chance by taking him to a mixer where I knew a lot of females. Bad move. He ended up making me look bad & gave me shit while expecting to have his feelings coddled at the same time.

So just because a guy has "status" doesn't mean he is a person worthy of fucking, dating, or reproducing with; he wasn't even deserving of my attempt at friendship either. Had enough of the dude after seeing him twice & there's a reason why his ex-wife divorced his ass. He has nephews & nieces whom he visits out of the country occasionally, but God forbid he has his own one day.

Well said.

We can take what you said and what Scorpion said and simplify it more even.

Pussy belongs to no man. Period.

Like Scorpion said, if you want it, go earn it. Men need to be good at more than just one facet of life. Being a mad scientist but a social no one, doesn't cut the mustard if you want to pass down your genes and your name. A man that lays up with women with no resources to pass down or give to his children and grandchildren, is a shameful man as well, if it was possible for him to do so.

Too many young men throughout history died in wars without ever passing down their seed, let alone feeling the comfort of a woman. All without having any choice in the matter (drafted, forced, child soldiers, etc.)

The LEAST any free man can do is get off their fucking ass and put in the work and effort. In Economics, there is no free lunch and in genetics, there is no free reproduction.

 

[Mikan]

This guy reminds me of the people on wizardchan.com, except they have largely accepted their lots in life and are trying to make the best of living off SSI in their parents basements.

 

[Brosemite]

You made an insightful post - on the basic level I believe "alpha" qualities that are attractive are those that make a man a good leader. Our brains are still like that of a hunter-gatherer, and until the advent of civilization (a recent advent on the evolutionary timeframe), men who were strong, courageous leaders and warriors were the best providers.

If I'm not mistaken, it was Mark Cuban who said the best leaders are the best communicators. In the present day first world where we've evolved to having many of our basic needs met, leading through "verbal communication" might be as important if not moreso than leading by "example."

Speaking of leadership & communication....

Pussy belongs to no man. Period.

Like Scorpion said, if you want it, go earn it. Men need to be good at more than just one facet of life. Being a mad scientist but a social no one, doesn't cut the mustard if you want to pass down your genes and your name. A man that lays up with women with no resources to pass down or give to his children and grandchildren, is a shameful man as well, if it was possible for him to do so.

Too many young men throughout history died in wars without ever passing down their seed, let alone feeling the comfort of a woman. All without having any choice in the matter (drafted, forced, child soldiers, etc.)

The LEAST any free man can do is get off their fucking ass and put in the work and effort. In Economics, there is no free lunch and in genetics, there is no free reproduction.

When learning a foreign language, they say the three categories of each are:
A) Family
B) Social
C) Academic/Professional

These aspects of a foreign language can be transformed into the categories of even "communication styles in your own language."

You can "communicate well" in category C, but it does not necessarily mean that you will "lead effectively" as a result in categories A/B..vice versa. TravelerKai hit the mark.

As Cuban said, people can calibrate your leadership qualities based on your communication abilities. The end goal is not being able to "impress others" but eventually develop the skills of "influencing others on a positive level" in the aforementioned three aspects of communication or rather....life.