Women with insane dating standards

ICXC

Newbie
"Women with insane dating standards" - if you want the real red pill about this topic it's that they actually don't have any standards. Everything in society acts as a mechanism to cater to the woman's biological prerogative and or sex, and I mean literally everything except for maybe the Church.

What do I mean by this? Everything in modern society (especially the west, but it's intrinsic to society structures in general) acts as a rationalization mechanism to 'preserve' the woman.

What I'm saying won't make any sense if you haven't drowned on red pills for years and years but basically everything in society is geared towards sex, and by extension preserving the woman's 'virginity' and or 'dignity' and or 'ego'. A simple proof is tell a man he's a whore or chad even now or anytime in history and the man doesn't really care. What's the worst thing you can say to a man which would destroy his entire reality? Maybe something like he's 'worthless', or a 'slave' or has no 'future' or something like that possibly maybe, there's not much you can tell a man that would basically destroy his reality. But with girls, anytime in human history if you call her a whore it cuts to her deep. That's why society currently is all the more vile, because no other time in human history have women openly accepted their existential 'worthlessness'.

The point here being that any 'standards' any girl claims is just her parroting back anything society has always told her. Society was structured historically to preserve the dignity of a woman and for men to not just F anything that moves. In reality that's all (sadly because of sin) human civilization is, it's just a series of gatekeeping tools towards procreation. Do I want it to be 'only' that, no. Do I think everyone thinks that, no, but subconsciously they do. Can you have a society not like this, yes. But is society and civilization itself by and large built to gatekeep for sex, yes.

Why is this? Because the jackpot of human existence is procreation, to pass on your genes is (to a a materialist - and all of nature) the only thing that matters ultimately. The jackpot of human existence is this: to live forever. So when monks and priests and religious forgo sex and in effect they are choosing their biological 'death' it is in essence the most difficult thing to do. Ask any man to just become celibate overnight and choose to never marry and to never desire kids ever again - to me (and I believe the vast majority of men) it is one of the hardest things to do, because it is so deeply tied to all of humanity and the self. I'll speak for myself, but I find celibacy to be the hardest thing a man can do in this life, hands down. If I never had to worry about wanting sex and or desiring marriage I can safely say I could 'conquer the world', because when sex is not on your mind, or finding a mate is not on your mind, or family is not on your mind, you can accomplish an insane amount. But it's in reality one of the hardest things to do.

The jackpot of human existence is to live forever, we do this by procreating, it's a pseudo-form of being immortal, but not real immortality. Real immortality is found in eating the Eucharist of Christ Jesus - that is how you live for ever. But procreation is so deeply tied to life itself that it literally structures all of society and all of human civilization is built around either 'banging anything and everything' or 'gatekeeping' and placating to the woman's every need.

Subconsciously you could say all of society is in effect gatekeeping for having sex with women. I actually don't have a problem with society having dignity and respect for the human person and having structures which protect this, there's nothing wrong with that generally, but the problem is society is distorted. Historically it has been structured in such a way to block off 'any' man from banging 'any' girl he wants. The fact remains that sex is subconsciously the strongest urge, by far in my opinion, hands down, what men will do to get sex has historically been men forming armies to invade cities, building technology to impress her, making grand inventions, you name it, men have probably done it in some way shape or form to try to 'get the girl', whether that has been accomplished directly or indirectly.

The reason you can't just bang anything that moves is because we weren't made to do that, but when the society restrictions are built in such a way to where you can't get the most basic urge 'satisfied' then men go gay or go crazy. Were meant to have sex, God made us to have sex and bond with the opposite sex, but under God's laws and conditions, not societies, the big lie is how society has structured the way for men to get sex. The vast majority of women can get sex or a partner at the drop of a hat if they really wanted, they might not get the man they 'want' (the one society tells them they need) but they can get it near instant if they want, the opposite is true for a man, espcially nowadays.

Long sad story short is this: society is built for women and structured in such a way for men to have to play by rules to get laid and marry, almost always has this been and probably always will be, because sex is their prized commodity, and the one thing every man wants. Society isn't going to change, the only thing I would like to see changed is having arranged marriages in the West, that almost won't certainty happen, but the Church needs some kind of courtship program in place, because people are so far gone at this point you have to do something, anything. I don't care if people meet for 'dates', but they have no 'plan' - if the 'date' has no end goal (marriage) then you aren't going about the 'date' right, if you don't intend to marry that girl you don't go on the date, that's how it works.

My point here is that societies gatekeeping is pure insanity and is a lose-lose for men in every way possible, and the only way to counteract this is to create an actual acknowledged gatekeeping within the Church with an end goal of marriage. Because seriously, people think they are 'adult' and can meet up and go on 'dates' and all is well, but dudes end up banging out girls left and right and no one is being held to any standard, the whole sick show continues. All of civilization is structured for the woman ok, this is the bitter black pill if you are a hardcore 'alpha' guy you'll resent that concept and think it's not true but it's the truth. Society is built for women, all of it. Because it's their number one commodity everything is centered around the procreative act. It's either being savages and F-ing anything and everything and everyone (like we currently are now believe it or not all with pseudo-gatekeeping) or it's having some kind of rules in place which acknowledges natural law with the intent being to make families.

Obviously it's something that has to happen with the Church, but the fact of the matter is society was structured to make it so that men were not F-ing any girl they wanted and to restrict 'small armies' (families) from creating 'out tribes'. The 'hardwiring' of human behavior is to protect your family, and when societies and tribes are formed this creates more and more barriers for entry. If the barrier is abandoned (as is the case currently in many ways) - the barrier being arranged marriages - then you have 'out tribes' deflowering daughters and destroying families. The point is you need some barrier to entry, that has been historically arranged marriages, courtship, having an end goal and intent to wed off the 'prize' (the girl). But when the barrier is forgone, then you end up with pseudo-barriers to entry; i.e. false gatekeeping which exploits both parties; i.e. dating. The guise that men and women can just 'hang out' and deny their most fundamental natural urge, an urge which propels all of human civilization forward, yeah good luck with that.

Thinking men and women can just 'hang out' - sure we can do it under social settings, duh, obviously I have no problem just hanging out with a girl. But the lie is the 'dating scene' - for man and woman to not do anything takes a lot of self control for both parties, it's definitely possible, but for pro-longed periods of time is kind of difficult. It's in effect asking them to be nuns and monks, which I have no problem with generally speaking, but the vast majority will fail with the social experiment of dating, and most have. Do I think people can 'hang out' and not have sex, yes, obviously, but many also fail.

A lot of men resent any form of gatekeeping and think arranged marriages would be 'beta' and there's plenty of men who just want to keep banging whatever they wanna bang, by all means go right ahead, its your lost soul, not mine. But on a whole society needs to publicly embrace God and the Church again, and publicly funnel people into arranged marriages. Right now they're funneled into porn. Anytime you don't acknowledge the Creator your living a lie and there is no freedom found outside the Catholic Church, none. You aren't free in this world at all anyways. Look around, how free are you? Not much. Sure, you're free to make certain choices no doubt and I'm not denying free-will, not at all, but the freedom to make militias and real armies is gone, those days are over in the West, the government is so intrinsically tied to all of society and people you could never establish some colony to overtake the U.S., from within that is, not publicly could you do this anyways. Regardless that's not the point as much as it is that there is no outlet for men to make families, only outlets which exaggerate the sexual fantasies and which result in sterility.

At the end of the day any standards she has are just her being a parrot to whatever 'tribe' she belongs. In reality her nature has 0 standards, none, nada, zip, zero. You make her whatever you want her to be, and she knows it, thus the entire stage show of civiizaiton.
 
Last edited:

ICXC

Newbie
I should clarify and be a bit charitable towards my sisters in Christ here. By 0 standards I mean her natural standards; i.e. that being 'in nature', in a state of sin and being outside of God's grace. Not everything natural is 'good'. Though God made all thing's and all things are good, it is the inner sin within humans which is where evil comes from. Men and women 'in nature' is a complicated topic, but I would simply say that 'in nature' (i.e. without society and civilization) women have no standards (it seems) while in a state of sin. One could say the exact same for men, the only difference appears to be women prefer guidance and being directed, all the more in nature. And so her standards appear nonexistent in nature. (This is ironic because it seems the opposite in many ways, because she is nothing without support or to support someone she demands everything in exchange; i.e. picture a woman alone in the woods or trapped on a desert island). Point being to demand a list is basically her playing out her subconscious existential crisis of sorts. In other words her 'list' is literally anything and everything, because women are so deeply tied to self they need others to bring them out of themselves. The worst 'evil' for a woman would be isolation, she thinks if she doesn't have 'everything' then she has 'nothing'.

The deterrent for her is society and divine law. Because women subsume ideologies she will fight to the death for an ideology, not to say men won't but normally a man needs convinced first. Again it's a complicated topic, because were talking about a series of different states of being; in sin, in grace, in nature, in society etc. I don't have the answers, simply seems women are far more mailable while in sin sadly and they naturally subsume ideologies easier whereas men appear to be far more rebellious outwardly and aggressive in sin and go against others more easily. So, again, it's complicated, not something you can just write a paragraph about and explain away, generally these things can result in pretty huge errors and I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but yeah normally 'lists' and society expectations are just a form of rationalization to oneself because you lack true identity. As do we all, who can say they have true identity and is in a perfect state of grace?

If ALL men and women were in perfect states of grace could you still have procreation and sex? Theologically that's a difficult question to answer, I think the Lord Christ say's we are like angels when in Heaven and so sex is not really a prerogative there, but as far as our human nature goes sex and sin are two sides of the same coin. I'm not sure the theological answer. Could you be in a state of grace and have sex? Maybe. I'm pretty sure John Paul II in Theology of Body makes the claim that any misattributed desire during sex is in fact sinful, so I'm not 100% sure what the answer is.

My question is simply could you be in a state of grace while having sex? I think it seems possible, but is highly unlikely. Ultimately if man and women were their true selves and all men and women were in a state of grace procreation would not exist and the human race would in effect die off; i.e. if all men and women truly acknowledged God and all decided to not procreate, THAT'S when it would seem Christ would return or when God would actually be like, "Ok, now I'm listening" - THAT'S when the world would truly end. Is when all men and women finally decide to love instead of desiring procreation, and we no longer procreate and the last of us die. Why? Because men and women would be like nuns and monks, and they would no longer desire their human pseudo-immortality, but the immortality of eternal life found in the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ and being tied to Him, not to ourselves. Then again, God made for man and woman to be together, so that might be an abomination of God's design, procreation seems intrinsic and ordered, but the monk and nun and the celibate and the virgin is definitely more worthy and of more honor, and so it would appear if all peoples decided to do this, than in fact that ends life as we know it. Is that God's will though, no way of telling, but seems possible.

The true utopia I think would simply be families oriented towards Christ. While the celibate are of more dignity and merit greater glory it would seem that disbanding humanity would undo the promise God made ot Abraham, for his descendants to be like the stars.

Genesis 22:17
"I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies..."

Obviously I drifted way off topic and into theology, but seems relevant. In conclusion we need some structure or system in place for marriages, it doesn't have to be 'arranged marriages', but just marriage in general. The Catholic Church already has rules obviously to get married, but the entire process of courtship has been done away with and needs some real consideration and some real follow through because as explained, if there's no funnel to marriage then there's only a funnel to depravity and death.
 
Last edited:

Jaszczurka

Sparrow
The man wants the hottest girl he can get ok, that's like his entire metric he goes off of, sad but true. A girls entire metric is based on support, whether thats emotional or financial. The guy will wait out marriage to find the hottest girl he can get, whereas the girl will wait out marriage to find the wealthiest guy she can get. When you have 50k subs you're reality worldview is so insanely distorted and gased up you think you should be getting a sports athlete at very least who makes millionaires a year. Ask any guy how much he would value other women if he had even 100 women constantly emailing him and asking him and wanting to go out. The average guy would become a lot like the average girl, suspicious of everyman's 'true' motives, would only look for one that was 'real', etc [insert every common female complaint about men here] ... because the philosophy of supply and demand value applies sadly.
A couple observations about this SMV micro-economics exchange.

Girls don't base their entire metric on the financial/emotional support. It's a combination of the man's looks, his social status, and the support. For example, women will pretend that they are somehow virtuous if they're an attorney and marry a low wage schoolteacher, but a schoolteacher has social status. Similar to high ranking enlisted (non-officer) men (such as sergeant). At one time, a half century ago, sergeants largely married working class women but as the supply of well-to-do young men dried up and career women flooded the market, such men now are higher SMV. Another factor for women many ignore is the "serendipity factor". There's little status for women to brag to other women that she married a guy she got off of the net.

I think that the dating site's affect on women's ego isn't consistent. Yes, a woman's mailbox floods with spam and she goes out on a few dozen dates, but these are often low quality where she gets hit with cut-and-paste comeons, guys who lie in their profiles, and top-grade betas who act like chad alpha PUAs. Women who write on the subject often say the process depresses them and they drop out.

Feminists often claim that men are the more shallow sex wanting "the hottest girl he can get" but women also put looks high up particularly on online dating. There's classic studies (no doubt already cited on this forum) where on Tinder, girls viewed men who are 8's to be 5's while men's was largely consistent (they would be happy to date a plain girl if he was also plain looking.)

There was even a film about this that won the Academy Award on the topic: "Marty".

Combining that they want to date "up" in looks AND income AND emotiona support is quite a matrix of high demands for women particularly since feminism has lowered men's effective wages in the past half century.

Ironically, as I went through my 20's trying to figure out what I could get out of a relationship, I found that my desire to compromise on looks in exchange for a woman who was more mature in dating (would she pay for her share of the date being one main factor I considered), didn't net me any benefit. Namely, it was just as easy for me to date a prettier women and buy her a nice family restaurant meal as it was a plain one. Heck, oftentimes the plain women were MORE demanding looking for a handsome, wealthy guy to up her SMV.

I realized this in a moment I remember almost as if yesterday, but 25 years ago, when I went out on an internet date with a woman who was very plain to me (on the bottom end of the scale) and was willing to pay her way and was very reasonable. Earlier, I would have jumped on the opportunity and married her but it occurred to me: It was just too much of a tradeoff. For a woman who was just not a bother, who would at least pay her own way and not be an emotional basket case, I'd have to hit the bottom on my looks demands. I decided to compromise on everything else, at least by a LITTLE bit.
 

Jaszczurka

Sparrow
Long sad story short is this: society is built for women and structured in such a way for men to have to play by rules to get laid and marry, almost always has this been and probably always will be, because sex is their prized commodity, and the one thing every man wants. Society isn't going to change, the only thing I would like to see changed is having arranged marriages in the West, that almost won't certainty happen, but the Church needs some kind of courtship program in place, because people are so far gone at this point you have to do something, anything. I don't care if people meet for 'dates', but they have no 'plan' - if the 'date' has no end goal (marriage) then you aren't going about the 'date' right, if you don't intend to marry that girl you don't go on the date, that's how it works.
It's funny that feminism sort of is correct in that women were treated as chattel by human civilization, but this is because men largely were in competition with each other for both survival and for possession of women. I read that at the onset of civilization, something like 1/100 guys were procreating as large harems were procured for the alpha males (sort of like today) but that didn't last very long probably for the same reason today: the beta males of the time did the absolute minimum because like with communism, why work harder than you have to when society gives you the minimum? It's a debate I also have with free market economists about the minimum wage when I tell them that they also wind up with minimum effort which is why so many service workers are unreliable. You get what you pay for.

Women evolved (or created of course :) to want men to gatekeep them, to protect them, and to be a trusted advisor. In a harem, she's cattle so women prefer marriage where she monopolizes a single man. But since women have led such protected existences throughout history, they lack the ability to make this decision rationally most of the time. As men, project this on them, but the PUAs know better in that "gaming" women works best by short-circuiting their dopamine centers.

Our modern western culture is an anachronism in several ways. So-called women's equality requiring a massive welfare state, a "free market" that happily replaces western people with immigrants for quick profits, and a consumer society where people have little connection with each other beyond micro-economics. It's so huge and powerful, that many I talk to don't realize that this isn't the world at large much less history even in this nation. Heck, even my grandmother told me tales of how different things used to be.
 

ICXC

Newbie
It's a combination of the man's looks, his social status, and the support.
Of course looks matter to her now - as does everything else. But in nature and historically looks are irrelevant. I mean you could make the claim that only the 'most' 'well-built' 'alpha' 'chad' got the girl and looks have always mattered, but society has always played gatekeeper while the 'alpha's' all fight in wars and die, and the betas all wind up bedding the hotties, and the vicious cycle continues. I can only think of a handful of 'civilizations' - if you want to call them that, which practiced out right eugenics and attempted to breed the strongest and fittest they could. By and large civilizations haven't really done this. You brought up harems, so yeah the 'top dog' or the 'warlord' would spread his genes all over, but generally speaking I think looks are by and large not a requirement for the woman historically and otherwise.

Were kind of talking at two different wavelengths here. I probably didn't clarify everything as well as I could of. I think society is sinful, I think civilizations (if not focused on God directly and explicitly) result in not just sinful people, but entire generations and generations of prescript rules, with the vast majority of these gatekeeping rules built on sin; i.e. harems are example like you brought up. It's not to say don't have rules, but any rules a society has need to have God explicitly acknowledged, and I mean explicitly, like as obvious as it can possibly be, otherwise you have people essentially acting like savages and being herded and steered every which way based on every emotional fixation possible. Society is structured to reduce sin ok, this goes for any 'government' - they are meant to reduce harm or extract resources of some kind, you could say the extraction process is sinful, but generally speaking 'government's' and laws are built around the prime mover of the whole thing - sex. And so the average person will think that sounds like kind of dumb or bizarre theory, but I can't seem to find any other reason for society over lording itself. Yes, people say oligarchs want to be in charge and rich want to stay rich etc, nothing new under the sun right, but at the end of the day humans were made to bond and be with other like minded people, and so societies are by and large demonstrations of people (men and women) placating to the female gender. I didn't explain it all very well ok, sue me, but psychologically if 'in nature' by themselves and isolated women go insane ok, men don't, as far as I can tell. The point here being that women don't just 'want' everything but they psychologically 'need' everything, whereas men don't need anything.

Ask what a man's list of demands looks like for a girl: 1) she's hot, 2) she's devoted/caring/'loyal' 3) and has common sense...maybe not that last one, but it's not much ok, men want the good genes, women want literally everything because their existential reality demands it. And it should be noted that I'm referring to men and women in a state of sin, being 'in nature' you are in a state of sin because you a have made yourself outside of divine law - and the greater point I was trying to articulate, which is complicated, is that governments are man made, the gatekeepers are man made, they aren't divine laws or decrees - thus the man and women in that society (while under an illusion of control) are still 'in nature' and in a state of sin. Anyways it's complicated discussion, at the end of the day I give both men and women the benefit of the doubt because there are in insane amount of external factors pushing and pulling them in directions which they have no clue they are being pulled in. Only those who publicly and intentionally put themselves under divine law (Catholic Church) are able to navigate society more easily, and while that's not a guarantee, it still helps, alot.
 
Last edited:

Jaszczurka

Sparrow
Ask what a man's list of demands looks like for a girl: 1) she's hot, 2) she's devoted/caring/'loyal' 3) and has common sense...maybe not that last one, but it's not much ok, men want the good genes, women want literally everything because their existential reality demands it.
I don't want to get into the religious/philosophy points you made (that would get rather lengthly to say the least) but let's address desires.

As I said, up until recently, they were moot. Women in most homes had arranged marriages and in much of the world, that's still the case. As an outsider, I expect it works like this: The father, mother, and perhaps extended family reviews the available suiters for a young woman and looks matter less because they aren't ****ing the guy, right? :) Provided he appears otherwise healthy, they're looking at more altruistic and pragmatic concerns: Honesty, reliability, religious devotion and of course, wealth. The daughter might be able to object if she has sufficiently strong reasons to do so, but even she might also be more pragmatic as women follow the group lead.

I was setting up subtitles for my father-in-law for Fiddler on the Roof, here's one of the funniest scenes on the matter:

In the end, most reasonable women can fall in love with most any man in such a situation and here's why: If she married an alpha and he wasn't a perfect guy, she'd cut him a lot of slack. She loves her children even if they aren't perfect. A reasonable person doesn't need a perfect mate. Most of us are worthy of love and respect from our mates. The arranged marriage required women to treat nearly all the men they married as alphas, as "kings" in the castles, and that isn't a bad thing if those men deserved that respect.

So here's my insight: In modern dating, she doesn't have this group to force her to think pragmatically. On the contrary, her herd instinct is an unreasonable one: the mass media has "wholesome" family entertainment such as Disney with princesses going to sleep and waking up to a perfect man. Most families encourage their daughters to get educated and put off getting married and starting a family. The dating paradigm is what is known as overchoice: If there's a pool of a thousand men living near her, why shouldn't she demand he be perfect? And as part of that perfection, why shouldn't she also demand that she have little to offer him BESIDES the only bait a woman has in a traditional approach? Sexual attractiveness?

Story about a woman relative of mine: She was complaining that all men thought about online was "sex sex sex". So she put in her online ad: "If sex is all you want, don't contact me!" Well, since her bio had the charm of a metermaid, and she had a pretty photo, what possible reason why men would contact her OTHER than sex? It's like telling a dog: "No treats for you until you perform tricks for reasons other than tricks!"

Ironies abound that women want (and need) everything today because, ironically, society caters to them. The simplest way to sum it up is to say they're spoiled but another would be that they're weaker. That rather than making women more equal to men, they've made them incredibly helpless.

When my wife gave birth, she was terrified. My grandmother would have laughed her *** off. Even though my wife is a country girl compared to "city girls", she's emotionally weaker than women a century ago. Women worked less in the formal workplace than men did, but most working class women HAD to work not for "fun" and a "career" but out of necessity. But since women of means considered it status to NOT work, wages were higher and therefore, men's wages were higher. Women in the past "worked" for the family: Their income was meant to help the family, they mended clothes to save money, they cooked at home to save money, etc. An "industrious" wife was the norm.

So this brings us to what men "want". Men don't "need" anything from women because for generations, modern women have offered little. They don't mend clothes, many can't cook, and their income is either for independence or for stuff they want such as private schools for the kids, fancier homes, etc. But it's not to make HIS life any easier. On the contrary, career women usually have more baggage in the form of they don't have time to take care of their own kids so they expect the man to "help out" with diapers, etc.
 

BigFellow

Sparrow
I have had various women call me out on my online dating profile for having standards that are too strict. This is basically what I wrote on an online dating profile:
"As for who I'm looking for, I would like to find a woman who does not have tattoos. I would like to find a woman who has not had a child out of wedlock. The only body piercings that I like are earrings (preferably only one earring at the bottom of each ear). I absolutely love long hair! It looks so pretty when it is long! I prefer that hair length be shoulder-length or longer. Also, I like dresses. Whatever you do, please do not wear a pants business suit!"

You would not BELIEVE the responses I have received over that. There was one girl who labelled herself as "conservative" and "Christian" say that although she met all of my criteria, my remarks were offensive and that what I've written was superficial and it doesn't tell you anything about a woman's character. She said, "I'm not interested in any further communication." At least one woman has asked me if I was joking when I wrote this. Another woman said my remarks come off as controlling, or something like that, and I will likely end up with no wife at all if I don't get my act together. I had another woman, who messaged me first, say that she looks sexy in a pants suit and that she had a baby out of wedlock, and she is currently good friends with the baby's father and the baby's father's new woman. I remember a woman that thought I was being too picky talking about hair length, and then I pointed out she had mentioned hair length in her own profile as well, saying that she wanted a man who was "clean cut". Women talk about their requirements for age, height, job status, income, etc... Women are free to have all sorts of standards for a man, but apparently men aren't allowed to have standards for a woman.
 

KingDavid

Sparrow
I have had various women call me out on my online dating profile for having standards that are too strict. This is basically what I wrote on an online dating profile:
"As for who I'm looking for, I would like to find a woman who does not have tattoos. I would like to find a woman who has not had a child out of wedlock. The only body piercings that I like are earrings (preferably only one earring at the bottom of each ear). I absolutely love long hair! It looks so pretty when it is long! I prefer that hair length be shoulder-length or longer. Also, I like dresses. Whatever you do, please do not wear a pants business suit!"

You would not BELIEVE the responses I have received over that. There was one girl who labelled herself as "conservative" and "Christian" say that although she met all of my criteria, my remarks were offensive and that what I've written was superficial and it doesn't tell you anything about a woman's character. She said, "I'm not interested in any further communication." At least one woman has asked me if I was joking when I wrote this. Another woman said my remarks come off as controlling, or something like that, and I will likely end up with no wife at all if I don't get my act together. I had another woman, who messaged me first, say that she looks sexy in a pants suit and that she had a baby out of wedlock, and she is currently good friends with the baby's father and the baby's father's new woman. I remember a woman that thought I was being too picky talking about hair length, and then I pointed out she had mentioned hair length in her own profile as well, saying that she wanted a man who was "clean cut". Women talk about their requirements for age, height, job status, income, etc... Women are free to have all sorts of standards for a man, but apparently men aren't allowed to have standards for a woman.
They likely see it that way because men today have sexual license, and thus they assume you will pump and dump anyway; so how can you have standards for something disposable. They sometimes show remarkable self awareness and will let you know exactly what they're worth.
 
So this brings us to what men "want". Men don't "need" anything from women because for generations, modern women have offered little. They don't mend clothes, many can't cook, and their income is either for independence or for stuff they want such as private schools for the kids, fancier homes, etc. But it's not to make HIS life any easier. On the contrary, career women usually have more baggage in the form of they don't have time to take care of their own kids so they expect the man to "help out" with diapers, etc.
Solid post, my comrade. But I have to disagree on your last paragraph. It is a two way street: women don't care to make the lives of their men easier because men don't know how to handle women. A good amount of women and men are beyond repair, but there is a good amount that yearns for the affections of a real man and a real woman. If you are a real loving man, you can destroy the masculine traits a feminine-inclined woman has, and vice-versa it is also true. The lack of strength of men, wich is a lack of caring also, is the reason why it seems women are spoiled and unbearable. But the good old Sean Connery solution can fix a lot of mental degeneration.
 
Yes and no. She's looking for a provider and also a romance partner; i.e. she wants the whole package or whatever. Is the list typical, yeah for delusional women who probably were relatively attractive ten yeas ago, went through the dating scene, and are now still locked into her old mindset. Basically she's acting like she's still young and has a ton of value and also is demanding the provider 'alpha' guy or what have you.

I mean for her age bracket, and her attractiveness etc, yeah that's pretty average. I would say the 'list' is more of her just rationalizing to herself more than anything else. It's not reality at all because attraction is less of a list and more of a physical response, with the list coming in later which if she's physically attracted to the guy she'll disregard most of that list.

Younger girls don't really have a 'list' per say. Younger girls who are displaying themselves online etc. are way beyond some 'list'. The attractive ones know they can get basically any guy ok, so what does she do? She sells out, as in whores out, sadly. Not all of them are like this, but it's kind of a mixed bag. Some are super shy and though attractive and can get guys have a 'fantasy' life they want projected and made. But do young girls make absurd lists? If she's attractive I would say not really, because the 'fantasy' guy isn't really a priority until they want to settle down.

Their absurd list revolves more around copying every other girl and being the 'perfect' copycat 'supermodel'. In other words young girls don't really care about the guy, he's basically just a prop to her, sad to say. Again, this isn't always true, but you see it enough times and it's unfortunately the case. When she's not looking for a relationship the traits of the man are irrelevant as long as he plays along with her mindless 'game' for whatever it is she's after, which is basically sex or money if she's cracked out of her mind. The same could be said for a lot of younger guys, the difference though is young attractive girls are having hundreds and hundreds (literally, no exaggeration, even average looking cute girls are in incredibly high demand, I'm surprised the bubble hasn't burst yet honestly) of men throwing themselves at anything and everything online and the young guys don't have that happening to them, not at all, not in the slightest. So, you have young generation of men resenting their counterparts, and girls who have the field day of a lifetime and can choose basically a large variety of men if they want, but they don't because women don't choose typically.

They like to think they 'choose' the man, but the fact of the matter is, as online dating shows, women become insanely complacent when given their pick of any man available, they don't do it, especially when all of the men are already providing her emotional feedback she's been wanting. Subconsciously she traps herself. The young group of women who in the past were more shy and had to idealize their male 'fantasy' man from far away, is now allowed to be 'proactive' online and get massive attention and not have to commit to any man at all. She thinks she's being 'proactive' ok, but to her being 'proactive' in online dating is just replying to a message here or there, she doesn't make plans, she doesn't 'try', why? Because she doesn't need to, there's literally no incentive other than sex or money for her. Young girls, unless raised properly, want 'fun' and 'excitement' and she's getting plenty of that, well, some are. Long story short every possible fantasy 'list' she could ever have conceived of or thought about is at her fingertips. It's this ladies list x10,000 ok. If she's actually young and attractive basically any guy will sadly placate to her. It's kind of true, but also a half truth. Their heads are so gased up by the hundreds of messages they all think they can get literally any guy. This isn't always true ok, but for certain girls it definitely is. Some are so shy that they can't handle it I've noticed, even though they get tons of spam they just don't like it, so it's not all of them, but just realize the 'list' is essentially in her mind she thinks she can get any man she wants.

So to answer your question any 'list' she has in her head is provided by her 'harem' of male followers flooding her messages. She gets a 'taste' of literally every type of guy, without the procreation involved. In other words she doesn't have to have kids with any of these guys but she basically is living out fantasy lives with all of them. Biologically going on a real date is 'dangerous' for a woman, in the past it's not normal and a girl knows if she gets pregnant from a random dude he could leave her and she's stuck with the kid, the threat of bein abandoned is hardwired into most girls. She's getting EVERY fantasy list fulfilled for her online. When you're getting flooded hundreds of messages from people as a girl that emotional fix satisfies any 'fantasy' list you think you need. The few women who are serious about dating are the older one's, like the one in this video.

But for her the list is basically just a rationalization she's making to justify why she's single. Younger girls might have a 'list' of some kind that they really want, but they are socially uncalibrated, they don't 'act' on messages and replies, because they don't need too, they get a taste of every man coming through their inbox and feeding them attention. It's pretty sad hate to say. I've known women who have been on dating sites for literally years and years and years. Who knows how many dates, who knows how much this or that, but what is she looking for? The 'perfect' guy right? Yes and no. She might have a fantasy of some perfect guy, but she's already getting all the attention she needs. Women don't act on attention as a motivator generally. Whereas if a man is getting dozens and dozens of messages from cute girls he's going to want to meet almost all of them, but a girl gets the emotional 'fix' and attention which is as satisfactory to her as it is for a man to go on a date. It's a complicated problem, but lets just say the internet exaggerates the problems in both genders dramatically.

It's interesting you say 'younger single women' - girls don't need the 'psychical' bond all of the time ok, they can be very satisfied just getting emotional feedback and positive affirmation and or emotional support of some kind. You say 'single', but the sad truth is while they are technically 'single' in name; i.e. they would tell you they aren't dating', but they'll have 78 messages in their inbox, and 13 guys on their list of potential boyfriends, and 3 guys who are 'friends' of hers and 1 guy who is her current 'potential boyfriend' - ok so it's a disturbing trend and I wish I was exaggerating but I'm not. Well, maybe I am, but were talkin' basically the 'average' cute girl here is getting a ton of messages from guys, is it '78'...no, maybe double or just half that if I'm being realistic. It depends on what site she's using. It depends on a lot of things ok, but yeah the point is she might say she's 'single', but her mental mailbox is definitely taken.
This sounds like it was written by Trump.
 

Jaszczurka

Sparrow
Solid post, my comrade. But I have to disagree on your last paragraph. It is a two way street: women don't care to make the lives of their men easier because men don't know how to handle women. A good amount of women and men are beyond repair, but there is a good amount that yearns for the affections of a real man and a real woman. If you are a real loving man, you can destroy the masculine traits a feminine-inclined woman has, and vice-versa it is also true. The lack of strength of men, wich is a lack of caring also, is the reason why it seems women are spoiled and unbearable. But the good old Sean Connery solution can fix a lot of mental degeneration.
Been married to a Ukrainian for 16 years. Trust me, I know what you mean by "handling women." :)

I want to start a thread soon about "marriage game" but I'm still rolling it around in my head (feel free to beat me to it). I don't think the Sean Connery solution is needed. If we all agree that women are the "fairer" (weaker) sex, then psychological methods are preferable.

In my own case, I give my wife the silent treatment if she gets on my nerves. She doesn't dare try it on me. She knows that's precisely what I'd enjoy. :)

I think my wife is finally getting that the external world, as exciting as it is with the shops, all the interesting women, and "stuff" doesn't provide her with happiness. She needs me and her child to provide her with happiness and yet the outside world tries to grab all of her attention. Continuously. They're like cats with shiny things.

Speaking of that: I'm a cat person. My cat realized that she likes playing with the toys because it's about playing with me. They've gotten a bad rap in European history and with "cat ladies". Truly wondrous creatures.
 

bucky

Pelican
Been married to a Ukrainian for 16 years. Trust me, I know what you mean by "handling women." :)

I want to start a thread soon about "marriage game" but I'm still rolling it around in my head (feel free to beat me to it). I don't think the Sean Connery solution is needed. If we all agree that women are the "fairer" (weaker) sex, then psychological methods are preferable.

In my own case, I give my wife the silent treatment if she gets on my nerves. She doesn't dare try it on me. She knows that's precisely what I'd enjoy. :)

I think my wife is finally getting that the external world, as exciting as it is with the shops, all the interesting women, and "stuff" doesn't provide her with happiness. She needs me and her child to provide her with happiness and yet the outside world tries to grab all of her attention. Continuously. They're like cats with shiny things.

Speaking of that: I'm a cat person. My cat realized that she likes playing with the toys because it's about playing with me. They've gotten a bad rap in European history and with "cat ladies". Truly wondrous creatures.
I like cats a lot too. Supposedly they never really develop real loyalty like dogs and will happily eat your corpse if you die, but still, there's something about them.

Compliments on getting an Ukrainka to even start realizing that true happiness doesn't come from material things. I was married to one for a few years and did not do as well as you've done. I've always wondered if I'd have done better with her if I'd have known about game at the time.
 

ABeast

Sparrow
His stuff is woo-woo. Not as bad as Deepak Chopra woo, but still woo-woo.
I like how he uses lots of data in his books though. At least "Dogs Who Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home' has a shitload of interesting information about animals and their incredible abilities. Also he is a Christian so that is nice, though Anglicans aren't my favorite sect.
 

hkhathaj

Pigeon
Akhschually having standards is a good thing for girls. I would not want my daughters to look for a husband just by following their instincts because that way they would and up in the fishing net of players. They have to have some knowledge to evaluate men who court them. The problem is that these standards should come from their father and family and not from cherry picking the attractive features of the boyfriends of her girlfriends. (As ICXC insightful comment explained.) Having these deranged standards is a sign of lack of good parental influence.

Having a husband who can provide is not a sin but it is a basic expectation if a woman really wants to be a trad wife. And having attractive genetics is also a good to have. So I consider these expectations normal. But they have to be backed by her own value to be a realistic expectation: she has to be being young and virgin.

These expectations that he has to be no friends and no strong connection to his family are totally ill and thinking like that is the product of an sick society. Just the fact that she has these expectations show how ruined she is. She is not just old but also she also has serious mental problems. Too many red flags to count.
 

Jaszczurka

Sparrow
I like cats a lot too. Supposedly they never really develop real loyalty like dogs and will happily eat your corpse if you die, but still, there's something about them.

Compliments on getting an Ukrainka to even start realizing that true happiness doesn't come from material things. I was married to one for a few years and did not do as well as you've done. I've always wondered if I'd have done better with her if I'd have known about game at the time.
Cats have different personalities, much like humans, even in the same litter.

I had a street Norwegian Forest Cat/mutt who "adopted" me. He sensed I was a cat person and rode on my shoulders, followed me around, and became friends with whomever my friends were. 3 other families adopted cats because of him. If I left the house for a few days on vacation, he'd miss me terribly. He wouldn't let me leave his side when he passed on. He was virtually indistinguishable from a dog in terms of behavior.

I currently have an (expensive) and pretty exotic/persian mix that's sweet, but she's not as clingy/friendly. She demonstrates love and affection, but more like in a traditional cat fashion. My daughter is frustrated that this cat doesn't like to be held and squeezed (many cats don't).

I chuckle about the notion that a cat would unceremoniously eat their owner's corpse. Cats notoriously are fussy about their meat. They have weak stomachs. I test food safety by offering it to my cat. Anything that sits longer than an hour or so, she'll snub. And it takes a lot longer than an hour for my cat to get hungry...

My cat doesn't know when I'm coming home BUT when I do, she wakes up and the first thing she does is go to the litter box and then come and see if I'm really home and then... leave. Her feelings were hurt. I can see shedded fur everywhere from the stress. Then she's super friendly and affectionate to see me again.

Speaking of cats... working on the Ukrainian wife meant I explained to her that material things are important in that they can make our lives better. Airplanes take us to wondrous places. Having a comfortable car can get us where we need to go. A good quality frying pan makes excellent food. But these are things that should serve us rather than us serving them to serve other people (namely, she often frets about how expensive things are useful to impress other women.) I realized in debating about feminism that feminists aren't rebelling against the Patriarchy, they are slaves to the Matriarchy and a need to be accepted by and dominate other women.
 
Last edited:
Top