Great Comments By RVF Members


AnonymousBosch said:
If I could only offer one piece of advice to a man, it is to master your sexual desire. Cultivate the ability to be able to walk away from women if you don't like their behaviour, even if sex is on the table.

I've never had or observed a relationship where a woman hasn't tried to use her pussy to always get her way, usually by either withholding sex or threatening to.

Take away their most powerful card and show it has no effect on you, and they'll think your a man in an entirely-differently league to what they've experienced before. This is where you cultivate obsessive devotion from them.


How do you hate somebody you once loved?

Handsome Creepy Eel said:
Imagine having a dog who is cute, playful and protective about you. You love it and would do anything for it. It's the best dog in the world and you are its best friend.

Even though you're treating it well all the time, the dog slowly starts to misbehave. It doesn't let you pet it, it runs away or destroys stuff. You forgive him because it's your dog and you love it with all your heart.

You know that it doesn't have it in its heart to be a bad dog and this is just a passing phase, otherwise you wouldn't love it. You don't care. It's just a tiny, irrelevant detail.

The dog then bites you. You try to understand what you did to make the dog angry and placate it, but no avail; the dog is snarling and barely seems to be recognizing you. Even though your heart is full of terror and you feel a primal urge to run away, you force yourself to stay and take care of your friend until it gets better.

The dog ends up biting you several more times over the next few months, and all of its initial playfulness is gone. The memories of how the dog was before are fading, slowly being replaced by new ones. Eventually, the only thing you can recall is the dog foaming at the mouth and trying to kill you. All positive association is gone from your mind, your love slowly conditioned out of you. You still love the dog, but it's very distant.

Sometime after this point, you snap and decide that any kind of life is better than life with the dog who is making you miserable. You leave. The love that was once in your heart fractures and transforms itself into wondering how the dog that you treated so well could have done this to you.

Indifference is impossible at this point - you struggle with trying to understand how it's possible that anyone could do that to you, and you hate the dog for it. The dog is a monster and you never want to see it again. However, if it came back and treated you well like it once did, you could still forgive it and give it another chance, even if you'd never admit it.

You spend a long time hating the dog. The very thought of it makes you feel betrayed, wounded and useless. You wonder if you're ever again going to feel love from a dog. Life seems cruel and punishing. As you realize that that the good things you felt about your dog were all an illusion, you sink into despair. Then you slowly start recovering.

The anger fades slowly, but it fades. It either goes away by itself, you cleanse it by having happy experiences with other dogs, or you realize that it was unrealistic to expect a dog to treat you well for such a long time, or a combination of all that.

After a long time, your previous hate becomes like a pebble smoothed by a river and built into the mosaic of your life. You can look forward to having another dog, you talk about dogs without any illusions, and you can even joke about the experiences with your dog, both good or bad. A slight sting is still there, but it is no worse than the sting that you might feel from any minor inconvenience in your life.

In the future, you end up enjoying many more moments with other dogs, but treating them well only as long as they treat you well too, and getting rid of them the moment they start to misbehave. You eventually get so good at it that you always extract the maximum possible pleasure from dogs and enjoy them like a fine wine connoisseur - with appreciation of their good attributes, but also a sense of restraint born out of vast experience. Your life is content.

You feel no pain or hate for your old dog anymore, perhaps even a sense of nostalgia has replaced them. You could even see your old dog again and would not be upset. However, seeing that your old dog has suffered and is living a miserable life at the junkyard after splitting from you also brings you no pleasure. What's past is past.

You have grown up.



Samseau said:
Women are a qualitatively unique experience unlike any other. Too important to be trivialized, and yet too basic to be glorified, women are for men the problematic need that reveals his character.

Let me elaborate.

Although sex and love are amazing, there are still greater pleasures. But these greater pleasures - such as building lasting fame or wealth, raising a son, doing something that improves the lot of many - still cannot fill the basic needs for love, sex, and affection that only women provide.

Women are not merely "dangerous playthings", since playthings are not necessary. I challenge any man to go without interacting with any women; he will be miserable. No plaything has such power over us. Women are a need. For something to have such a powerful hold on our minds and being deserves a greater title than "dangerous plaything."

But this title should not go too far. There is also the popular, and old, Platonic idea of lovers being the "other half" to complete us as men, but this reeks of overzealous romance. While it is true that women are a need for men, it is also true that men need food. Does food complete us? Why doesn't food get similar appraisal?

Women fall into their own category which deserves its own description. We can compare many things to women, but women cannot be compared to anything else. To describe how women are to man who has yet to experience, or fully understand, them is one of the most challenging things a man can do for another man. There is the cliche analogy of "red pill" to describe the transformation it takes for a man to really understand the sexual nature of women, and it is appropriate - for men to fully understand how women actually are requires a new design of his worldview.

Additionally, gaining access to the world of women can be a man's most challenging accomplishment, or trivial act, depending on how attractive he is. So in finding a title women have for men, we must remember this title needs to be true for both the ugly and attractive man.

And this is why I believe women reveal a man's character.

What I find to be universally true for men concerning women is that it reveals who we are. When a man desires a woman, he must decide: How should I acquire one? And then, regardless of how he beds a woman, the man must decide: What should I do with her?

Look at man who is passive towards acquiring women. Women who come into his life do so purely by chance. We know that he is weak. His will to satisfy his own desires is nonexistent. He is manipulable and timid. He chooses nothing, accepts everything.

Examine the man who only bangs women through his social circles. He uses his popularity to increase his access to women. We know that he is willing to use his friends for his own gain. We know that he is enjoyable to be around. We know that his vanity controls him, since he is only an alpha male when he can brag in front of others he already trusts. He selects that which has already been selected by his friends; his thoughts will always be confined inside the thoughts of others.

Follow the man who is able to seduce women virtually anywhere. He is a master of understanding social nuance. He can bend others to his will. He is strong, yet the potential for abuse and evil are great. He places his desires above others. We know he had to practice to develop his skill with women, so we know he is obsessive. He is powerful, but dangerous.

How about men who lie excessively in order to seduce women? Is this man trustworthy about anything else if he is willing to distort the truth for his own pleasure? Compare that to men who never lie when seducing - is this man naive, or so pure-hearted he cannot do slight wrongs in the name of expediency? Would you want a friend who always chooses truth even if it means constant conflict?

Next, consider how men treat women after they have had sex with them.

Does he carelessly discard relationships without any forethought or regret? We know this man is dead inside. What good is a dead man?

Does he try and keep her like she is the last woman on earth? This is a man who has no self-esteem. He will never be able to stand up for what is right, or for greater ideals.

Does he keep his distance while opening himself up to her? A man who is secure enough to walk without afraid of being hurt? This is a man I could trust with my children.

Women - so problematic in that they defy any easy description or summary, so necessary for our happiness while being utterly inscrutable, they represent a need which reveals everything about a man's character.
And for having such a title, women are honored.


POHammer said:
I found an opportunity to buy an old zebra for a low price and I've convinced my cousin to buy it and keep it on his ranch.
How much land does it require (small pasture is enough?)

Can I ride it? My guess is no...

Still looks badass, and when it gets too old its edible just like horse. It was gonna get slaughtered anyways, now it will get a few extra years.


A woman's value is her behavior, not her looks:

Shotgun Styles said:
This post is more for ongoing interludes that for the ONS only crowd. If you're doing minis, building a harem, or just have a FWB situation, this is more for you.

A woman should be nice and she should behave. Feel free to establish this early on, once your value to her has been established. Being direct and assertive, drawing lines early, will prevent future mishaps. Like a dog, you must train a woman not to pee on the carpet when you first get her. Wait until she's already started and you'll be shampooing stink out of the floors until the little bitch goes back to the pound.

Guys tend to get a little caught up when they get a hot one. Too tolerant of bad behavior, particularly if she's good in the sack. But looks really have no value. Her looks won't improve YOUR quality of life unless you can enjoy them in peace. So as tempting as it may be to let her get away with a little of this or a little of that, slam the brakes on her ass. Believe it or not, it WILL make her more hot for you.

Women want a man with inherent value, but won't value him if he doesn't value himself. If she doesn't think he's willing to walk a way the second she acts a fool. The door is a POWERFUL weapon, and the reason you never really need to hit a woman to control her. She the second she steps out of line, correct her. If she resists: door. Use it, or put her though it (the doorway not the wood, tough guy). She'll typically try to resist more, but the conversation is already over. Door.

And the key is: not to give a fuck. She's not "the one". None of them are. "Yeah but Shotgun, what if she doesn't call?" She will. You've shown strength and woman love that. Not physical strength, which is overrated, but mental toughness which is a rare trait that all women, on some level, crave. Happy women are submissive by nature. You show me a miserable woman and I'll show you a woman trying to run shit. When they let go, and let you, you'll see the happiness come over them. It makes them feel safe with you, and the instinct to seek security is found in ALL female social mammals.

"Yeah, but what if she really doesn't call, Shotgun?" Then fuck her. If you're on this board you know the world is full of bitches that are hotter and nicer than her. Let someone else put up with her bullshit. You're a man and you plain old fashioned don't have to take that shit off her or anyone else. If a woman doesn't IMPROVE your quality of life then she is worthless to you. And looks alone do nothing for your peace of mind.


DetlefMourning said:
I was once with a woman that was sorta like this. Her biological father had abandoned her mother when she was in infancy and then remarried when she was 5. She didn't have a happy childhood. When faced with unanticipated stress, women like this have few internal strengths available to them to manage the situation. Energy is misdirected to avoid rather than to adapt. That line too about her own feelings of inadequacy when it comes to her ability to give and receive love - these women are filled with insecurity and self-loathing. They are broken, lost and hurting in ways you can't imagine.

Some of us (myself included) had to learn the hard way that women with troubled pasts rarely if ever make good relationship candidates. If you ask me, this appears to be a classic case of a girl with "daddy issues.” The following is my theory on such girls. Yes I know it generalizes and there are always exceptions to everything, but from what I've repeatedly seen, I've formed the following explanation. We model our idea of love from our parents. When a girl grows up with a missing or weak father figure, she lacks that model. Such a girl has no concept of what love is. She equates the intense, lustful emotions of the "honeymoon period" with "love" because those emotions and feelings are all she has to go on (modern media thanks to romantic comedies and books like Twilight is also at least partially guilty for proliferating this misconception - but that's a different discussion altogether). However, the honeymoon period is only one phase of any viable relationship which, inevitably, comes to an end. As the initial intensity of the relationship begins to wane (as it always does), normal relationships move into the next phase where partners become more comfortable with one another and things become more routine. This is a different sort of "love" than that of the honeymoon period. In a relationship with a "daddy issues" girl, this is when she starts to think that she is falling out of love because, once again, she doesn't know what love is. Once the excitement, the thrill, the joy of the honeymoon period ends, the girl loses interest. The rest becomes predictable. The girl loses interest at this point for no apparent reason to the male while he is still heavily invested in the relationship. From my experience such girls always leave abruptly and always hurt their partner. Stay away from them.


Gold Member
Anonymous Bosch On the advantage of getting muscles

AnonymousBosch said:
dreambig said:
I used to be the skinny guy who got laid anyway and argued that muscle doesn't matter.

Let's just say that I was totally wrong.

At 6'2 and 200 lbs I'm by no means "big", but the difference in attention is huge.

IMO the only guys with the right to comment are the ones who have made the full transition.

Personally, my biggest friends all get laid like crazy. And this is in Asia where muscles aren't supposed to matter.

We can't trust what women say they like in a man, especially as there's a lot research that shows that a womea's concept of what she likes is fluid, and largely-dependant on the man she's currently with. And I'd agree men need to experience both being 'fit' and being 'big' for themselves and go with whatever gets the notches for them.

I added about 10kgs (22lbs) of muscle in the back half of last year, which took me up to 220lbs. Girls kept calling me a 'beast'. The ugly 5-and-unders, and the overinflated, bitchy 6-7 range seemed to get resentful and pre-filtered themselves out from any real world conversations with me when they're with their friends, which was all right with me, but damn, do they look as they sip their frapps, and if you have to social interact with them isolated from their circle, then they're all big eyes.

Day game improved greatly. The prettier women were very friendly and polite. An 8.5 opened me in the Health Food Store, asking for 'nutritional advice', and swung that into a training session by the lake here and a few weeks of post-workout banging. Tiny-waisted women would talk to me in the supermarket, opening me by asking if I could reach something on a high shelf for them. Girl game recognised. A lot more pokes and jokey 'plausible-deniability' flirting from girls in my circle and on Facebook too.

There were also instances of random sexual come-ons where women would simply decide they wanted me to fuck them. This'll sound like crap, but I'm sure the bigger guys will recognise the random shit that happens.

- A chick rubbing up against my cock in an elevator. Didn't bang - ugly.

- At a concert, a tidy blonde walked past, looked at me, came back, threw her arms around me and said "I'm coming home with you." Saw no reason to argue. Banged.

- A girl stopped me in the street and said they needed a male stripper for a friend's bachelorette party, and would I be interested, but she'd need a 'private show' first to see if I was any good. Banged.

- The early 20's temp at work corned me in the copy room at my previous job and started talking how she was studying 'Reiki massage' and needed someone to practice on, if I'd like to come around one night, coupled with stroking my arms and arse, with me praying one of the lesbo haired HR bitches didn't wander past. It was literally the first time she'd spoken to me in 3 weeks of her working there, and that's what she opened with. Banged, but after she stopped working for us. I don't shit where I eat.

- A note tucked into the seat on my bike with a number promising 'the best blowjob of your life', which I never rang. Suspected it was a dude.

- A mate's neighbour takes in his washing during a dust storm, rewashes it for him, then hangs it on his line a few minutes after we both return. She bends to the basket and hangs, over and over, short summer dress with no-underwear. Her husband was at work. Didn't bang, but he did. Smokin' hot, but batshit crazy. She told him during sex she'd take on both of us if I wanted and she was into being beaten and autoerotic asphyxiation.

I suspect extreme size makes thirsty girls who hunger for dominance act out irrationally.

Slimmed back down over December for health reasons. Down to about 200 now with lower body fat. Life seems less like a porno.

AnonymousBosch On the 4 rules predicting female behaviour, had to browse through his post and it help get his next gems as he refers to it a lot

AnonymousBosch said:
LINUX said:
I stopped throwing hissy-fits and saying "all women are the same" in third grade.

I have 30 years of banging women under my belt - enough that I'd never publicly voice the count on here because I'd just called a liar - and 45 years of being friends with women and observing their social interactions.


Noticing the predictability of their "I wouldn't normally do this" patterns, this is how I formed my four predictive rules of female behaviour:

Rule #1: Everything I want, I believe I deserve.

Rule #2: What's the least amount of effort I can expend to get what I believe I deserve as quickly as possible?

Rule #3: If the quickest and laziest route to achieving what I believe I deserve would require serious moral or social transgressions, then those rules don't apply to me, because of how righteously-deserving I am.

Rule #4: If I am stigmatised for any moral or social transgressions in the righteous pursuit of what I believe I deserve, then what is the least amount of effort I can expend to defuse criticism, deflect blame or escape punishment?

This is why I'm not remotely-surprised that the potential first Female President of the United States should already be in Prison for crimes she thinks 'don't apply to her'.


I found a picture the other day of the Slootiest Sloot I ever knew - astronomical notch count - around her 29th birthday - bragging about getting engaged to her new boyfriend.

I guarantee experienced Players know what is coming.

Looking at the pic of the pair of them, I remember at the time thinking how wrong he was for her. The guy was a overweight Beta Schlub - a far cry from all the muscled-up Grunt Dick she was used to riding.

However, he was a Lawyer. She was the first case of Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks I experienced through direct observation, but not the last, as I've seen many other reformed Sloots marry up Doctors, Lawyers and High Ranking Public Service Men since. In retrospect, it also explained a lot about the second marriages of the women of my mother's generation.

Interestingly, the wedding pictures - him leaning in to kiss her, her leaning away - were the first and last time I ever saw any pictures of him. Her online world for the last 16 years has completely-revolved around pictures of her and the daughter he gave her. I mean, she's still wearing the expensive wedding ring but, it's like the guy doesn't exist in her world at all.

I remember laughing about how at least he'll enjoy her blowjob skills and she said "Oh, I don't do that with him. I love him too much.. He thinks I've only been with my ex-husband."

Bluntly: this is a girl who once bragged to me she could deep throat a guy's cock and lick his balls at the the same time. I mocked her and said "You just need a bigger challenge." Now, I'm very-happy with what God gave me, but damned is she didn't take me into the toilets and show me that she wasn't lying. I didn't think that was anatomically-possible, and I'd already been around by then.

A girl only learns to be that much of a skilled whore by years of committed, regularly dick-sucking, where if you laid them out end to end you'd have a couple of miles of dickroad that she's gobbled up like Pacman.

Incidentally, she was back in Australia around Easter, and apparently had contacted my sister, multiple friends, my old workplace and even turned up on my stepfather's doorstep trying to track me down, because she 'just wanted to catch up.'

I wonder what she wanted?

The thing about Reformed Sloots and their Beta Money and Baby Dispensers... the wedding ring on their fingers has never once given them pause for trying to get fucked again by me. Worse still, the physical presence of their boyfriends hasn't stopped them openly-flirting with me or trying to flamboyantly catch my attention whilst they stand there, clueless, extinguishing any slight flame of suspicion with the Gilded Snuffer of 'She's Not Like That'.

Sometimes I want to grab them, shake them and say "Be a fucking man!" but, like the guy in this original stories, they're just too far gone.

I once saw a girl start making out with another girl in front of her boyfriend, trying to prove that marriage hadn't made her 'sexually-boring' when I accused her of 'slowing down'. The other guys in the group were all whooping and hollering, and you could see her husband getting that glimmer of hope that maybe his sex life was about to get a lot more interesting, the naive fool.

She stopped, and looked directly at me, rather than her husband, waiting for comment, thinking all men are led by their dicks and that her little show was going to turn me into a horny, slavering dog.

I remained unimpressed. "If you keep up that kind of behaviour, you'll be wearing dungarees and sporting a mullet by 40."

I wasn't born cynical to female bullshit. I became that way through years of experience with them. Note that I don't hate them for their bullshit - It's just what I expect girls to do.


John Silva

"People will do anything for those who encourage their dreams, justify their failures, allay their fears, confirm their suspicions, and help them throw rocks at their enemies."

"I can give myself an orgasm. I like to include girls for the atmosphere, ambience, and human connection."


Tuthmosis said:
It's simultaneously encouraging and disheartening to read this thread. I thought I just had a bad crop of women in my life--ones that when I hit rock bottom simply turned their back on me or worse, put salt in the wound. Now it's seeming like this is more common than I ever imagined. It makes sense, for every reason we've ever discussed on this board.

Despite all this "being equal" and being "strong women," women are as weak as ever (even weaker). It takes a real man, not some knock-off wannabe man-woman, to extend a hand to guy who's down and pull him back up on his feet. I've done it, and I've had it done for me.


peterthephoenix said:
A lesson I recently learned is that in your darkest times you cannot turn to a woman (unless it's your mother) for support.

Girlfriends or wives. They will see your weakness and turn against you. They won't be there when you need them the most.

Who do you turn to? Your friends. They are your brothers in arms and will be there for you through highs and lows. You don't even need to talk to them about it, just the fact that they can grab beers with you or go out to the driving range is enough.


StrikeBack said:
My takeaway from this is that women are insane, but God gave man the cure for said insanity: a much stronger backhand. And women crave it.

Unfortunately, men have outlawed this cure and made it hard for ourselves.


Gold Member
Icarus said:
StrikeBack said:
My takeaway from this is that women are insane, but God gave man the cure for said insanity: a much stronger backhand. And women crave it.

Unfortunately, men have outlawed this cure and made it hard for ourselves.

This one has practical value in conversation. When a woman starts bragging about her job and how she doesn't need a man, you can say, "Money isn't the reason women need men, women need men to keep from going crazy."


Veloce said:
Anytime I've experienced tragedy in life and turned to a girl for support it's been a complete joke. As much as women try to portray themselves as emotionally evolved creatures capable of the utmost compassion, nothing could be further from the truth. In each instance I found each girl to be completely incapable, and far too insecure and hung up on "having the right reaction" than providing any solid compassion. No matter how warranted (in my case my mom's death), a girl will see a hurt male as weaker or inferior.


Gold Member

Paracelsus about How being a Miserable Man is a consequence from not following your manhood and surrendering it to a woman:

Paracelsus said:
MaleDefined said:
There's a sadness in that man's eyes. Between the half twinkle in his eyes to the bags under them - he shows defeat that no half-smile could ever cover up. He knows he could have done something more, something better, but didn't have the balls or the know-how.

Here's the tragedy. He wanted to be an architect; probably wanted to build great halls, soaring spaces to inspire men and lift the soul in our barren postmodern wasteland, design and see built places where the acoustics would ring like the finest of crystal. Even was going for for a doctorate in architecture, which would suggest he had a fine eye for detail or a finer sense for space and line and light and how they intersect.

Now look at him. Just look at him. The only thing that can be said in his favour is that of the two, it's a damned sight better that he's at home rather than she. He might well be a candidate for putting a gunbarrel in his mouth about the age of 40 or so, but if it was her she'd likely terminate the kids as well as herself in order "to save them pain".

Even thirty years ago, were this a man and a woman she would have pulled the fucking pin and been out the door with the two kids after his first psychotic break. Him ... he'll just take it. Because that's what he's been taught to do, and because he's convinced himself he'll be a Bad Father And Husband if he walks on a fucking nutball spouse. And because it's all he has left: there's no dream of great buildings left in those eyes, only the weariness of a guy who's been in prison ten years and has another fifteen to eighteen to go at least. Some dark night, about 3:00 am when that bitch was smashing vases or tearing the wallpaper, he let that dream go, and he put a new one in: "since I can't ever be the architect I wanted to be, I might as well try and be a father and paper over this hole in my heart with kids."

That beard is there either for faux masculinity or because the fucker has given up on his physical appearance. Make no mistake, being on the receiving end of her shit has drained every last ounce of life and vitality out of him. Dracula could take a suck on his throat and come up dry, she got there first.

Check the body language. He's still the more relaxed of these two. She is clinging, possessive, onto the fucking elder daughter, projecting how insecure she is with him at home in sole command of their children. The smile looks Joker-crazy and there's a certain glint in the eyes I wouldn't find out of place on a predator. I pity that poor fucking eldest child, even with him around. The kid looks uneasy because (a) she never sees her mother or (b) she's seen a couple of doses of the crazy already.

She's going to fuck up that girl's head completely before she's fifteen no matter what he does. You can't avoid the crazy 24 hours per day. It's a girl, so she'll treat it like her own fucking proxy, moreso than daughter number two who's more likely just to turn to drugs or bad boys to find some spark of life or attention that she won't be getting at home. Women like this are both the matriarch and the first child of the family, always.

I know this sounds very 'Won't someone think of the children', but the problem is, women fucking don't. Not these days. And every kid comes into this world defenceless, never choosing to be born, never choosing which parents to have, coming into this world with only simple love and trust that those who brought her into this world are going to do right by her and not by themselves. I've had few times I've been more saddened and sickened by a story than I am with this one.

Never stick your dick in crazy. And if you're going to do so, never, never fucking marry it afterwards.

Paracelsus again on adaptation and training to overcome stress

Paracelsus said:
Leonard D Neubache said:
Modern life is not to blame, though I used to think so. Living in stone age times with the constant threat of starvation, animal attack,infant mortality, tribal women dying in childbirth, death by disease or parasite and "drop of the hat" tribal warfare or intertribal infighting to the death was not a recipe for sound mental heath "because it's what we're adapted to."

The mental health field is largely populated by pussy pharma-fags who seem to have this bizarre idea that nobody should ever be unhappy, evvvveeeeerrrrrr. And it sure helps if they make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year pushing that nonsense.

Being down on life is a natural thing. It exists to correct our shitty choices that brought us there and makes us work hard to avoid bad situations in the future. It's a self enforced consequence that provides for our long term survival. Sure, some people are down there too long (often because they refuse to correct their choices) and those people need serious help, but any man, woman or dog can now get diagnosed with depression just by walking into a doctors surgery and saying "I'm sad a lot of the time".

It's rubbish. Feeling shitty every now and then is normal, even for playboys and mountain men.

Muscle is gained only through progressive overstress. Overstress involves the pain response, since muscles build by microtears in the tissue which the body then heals, resulting in an increase in size of muscle. Thus the saying no pain, no gain.

Cardiovascular health is acquired principally via conditioning -- that is, limited stressing -- of the heart to 80% of its maximum rate.

The liver, via years of abuse, can process toxicities of alcohol that would kill another person.

A bone, if broken but set correctly, will grow back together stronger than it was before it was broken.

The body is an organism designed to adapt to change and adapt to progressively greater stress, physical and mental. All of these body parts swim in the same soup of hormones and fluids that the brain does. Yet psychologists think the brain -- which, as The Brain That Changes Itself shows us, is a phenomenally adaptable organ in itself -- is magical and special and cannot, should not, be taught to cope with stress of any kind, that stress must be avoided at all costs. This is like saying the best way to deal with an overweight guy who won't get off his bed is to buy him more pillows so his back will be more comfortable.

"In a crisis, you don't rise to the occasion, you fall to the level of your training." Military training involves conditioning of the mind to respond to and deal with the stress of battle. When PTSD cases happen, they are invariably due to some event of extreme or continuing high stress during the soldier's career, not the basic training. (This does not demonstrate Basic's inefficiency, one might add. Even bodybuilders, conditioned for large weights, will hurt themselves sometimes. Henry Rollins speaks vividly about one such experience in his essay The Iron. Although there's no shortage of liars or people who had PTSD from their early lives who claim it did.) The mind can be trained to deal with stress just as the body can. Men are naturally built to handle more stress -- right down to our brain's structure, there are less direct connections between the left and right hemispheres -- because that is how we evolved.

Psychology chooses not to educate people on training to deal with life's stresses in a functional way. They do so for the same reasons that the food industry chooses not to do anything about the obesity epidemic.

[email protected]

Gold Member
'Fat, Stupid, and Proud' is the next big thing:

Alsos said:
HermeticAlly said:
This stuff is just plain sad. These people are fools - there's not of the wry charm Days Of Broken Arrows describes of old-school deviants. Instead of being weirdos, embracing it, and letting everyone else go on with their lives, they're manufacturing artificially-constructed identities and trying to impose their warped view of reality on outsiders. If these people would just shut up and keep to themselves then I wouldn't give them a moment's thought.

I've long suspected that these types are far less motivated by sexual deviancy and are driven mainly by narcissism. This is the dead end of a hyper-individualistic society that sows harmful notions of "you can be whoever you want to be" right from birth. They construct a completely contrived identity out of pseudo-academic jargon, then armor themselves in Marxist bullshit, all the result from mental railroading originating with delusional college professors and idiotic internet communities (eg, Tumblr.)

There also a strong martyr complex at work here (an aspect of the narcissism you mention). Deliberately making yourself detestable and repulsive, then claiming that all the world rejects you because they're afraid or unenlightened, is a powerful source of narcissistic supply.

The catch is that it's an endless struggle to keep ahead of the curve of what is detestable and repulsive - there are only so many taboos one can break and boundaries one can transgress before people stop caring because they've seen it all already, a hundred times over. And the trick of combining them into "intersectional" patterns is no solution to Peak Freak, as the returns diminish even faster the more boxes one checks - claiming one or two forms of oppression (black and woman, gay and disabled, fat and stupid) is plausible, but the more a bio becomes a buffet plate of hairsplitting, unlikely, contrived, and incompatible oppressions the more transparent the scheme becomes.

Aside: note that Alex-Quan Pham actually misgenders themself in their own bio by using they/them/their as plural rather than singular - the correct phrasing per the chart would be "They is tender and dangerous. They loves mangoes." Etc. And that would make them sound semi-literate, which wouldn't do. I'd guess that since people of this stripe can't ever possibly be wrong about anything related to their individual identity and how they individually choose to express it, if this were pointed out they would claim it's the chart which is incorrect. Any such codification limits and thus erases whole identities with its attempt to codify the practice into a few oppressively coherent rules, especially when such rules wouldn't allow for "fluid" or continually-shifting self-perceptions.

More generally, if the rules for alt-pronouns were coherent and consistent the way the chart presents them, usage would be intelligible to outsiders/normals, and the freaks who demand their use would be far less able to leverage "misgendering" by people they've never met into narcissism-feeding outrage.

Notice the resemblance to how vaguely-written laws are used by corrupt and/or tyrannical regimes.

birthday cat

Gold Member
Dantes said:
Nascimento said:
- Women are more used to emotional turmoil

Yes, to expand on this point- women create drama in their daily lives with friends, colleagues and family members. A breakup is an extension of the emotional turmoil they seek and desire. Emotional highs and lows are an essential part of their constitution. They are better equipped at dealing with the feelings of loss and grief from the end of a relationship, as they have a psychological immunization towards it. Men as rational beings, seek to avoid emotional turmoil and achieve harmony in their relationships.

As a young college student I studied social exchange theory, the idea that relationships are not predicated on love and commitment, but rather and equal change of relational benefits. As a romantic, I remember feeling disillusioned and disappointed. It wasn't until later, with more experience with women that I accepted this principle as a sad reality.

I think the most difficult red pill to accept is that women will never fully commit to us in the way we expect or tantamount to our commitment to them.

As others have mentioned, women have more support from their community just as they do when they become sick. Observe how their community rallies around them when they experience illness, grief, and emotional duress. Men on the other hand, are expected to deal with it quietly and not to burden others with their trauma.