The Destruction of Modern Women

[Blade Runner]

It's really not that much better here in LatAm, though.

Where are you and are you saying they are demanding?

 

[Unending Powerhouse Match]

Where are you and are you saying they are demanding?

In all of LatAm, the women are very thoroughly americanized in every negative way you could think of. I see a lot of Americans online acting like it's night and day and like it's somewhat easy to find angelic women here, but I really don't see that being the case at all. On the contrary, it's been quite a while since the last time I met a woman who I thought was worth associating with beyond basic courtesy, let alone dating/courting. I'm a city-slicker, though. Maybe it's better outside the big cities.

I guess they're more feminine and physically attractive than Californian creatures, but I wouldn't bother leaving the first world in search of latinas if I were an American. The devout Catholic ones you hear so much about are very few and far between. You're probably better off looking for a wife in Florida or some American small town.

 

[Australia Sucks]

It's really not that much better here in LatAm, though.

Latin American girls are usually mentally ill, retarded or low IQ and virgins are rare. Girls in the Balkans are extremely difficult because people are closed minded and girls won’t even go on dates if they don’t know you well first but at least here you can find some more serious girls and virgins are more common here. So the Balkans are more work than Latin America but the prize/quality is higher also. But in Balkans countries you need live in the same place 2 - 3 years before you got half a chance of meeting a girl.

 

[Douglas Quaid]

There are a very small percentage of women that are worth pursuing. Maybe 2-3%. And this is women under 25. The odds are even worse past that. If they aren't a slut, they're obsessed with a career or social media.

That Matthew Stafford story is unreal. Imagine being a professional athlete, making actual hundreds of millions of dollars and settling for a whore like that. Even "Chads" can be idiots.

The real answer here is to stop simping for these awful women. It's better to be alone.

 

[Blade Runner]

I guess they're more feminine and physically attractive than Californian creatures, but I wouldn't bother leaving the first world in search of latinas if I were an American. The devout Catholic ones you hear so much about are very few and far between. You're probably better off looking for a wife in Florida or some American small town.

I mean, mostly they are going to be closer to the profile of what I see frequently in a place (I'll use the most talked about) like Colombia, which is lower IQ, but friendlier, and with that (I agree with the American influence) also less likely to be actually religious given modern influences and high levels of marxism within the educational systems.

There are some caveats to this, such as I find particular european types better looking, more feminine and generally thinner (probably the most important characteristic physically), but what knocks someone out who is even successful who is older - and that means mid to late 30s and 40s in America - is that you can't get age gaps. I hate to keep bringing that up, but it's the biggest single problem of the feminist West, and other issues aren't even close.

 

[Blade Runner]

here are a very small percentage of women that are worth pursuing. Maybe 2-3%. And this is women under 25. The odds are even worse past that. If they aren't a slut, they're obsessed with a career or social media.

I think this is the most pithy way to state it. The percentage is really low, and when I did math a couple years back, I think it's likely even lower. The problem with delineating it is mostly that all the coincident characteristics come at young age, age that's definitely not 24. Good diet and physical exertion are really rare, and if there is a girl that has done those well, she'll be on IG or something, which then essentially excludes her or means she's just a toy for others. Sad.

 

[The Penitent Man]

I saw this on natty or not, the truth seeker forum, which has some good blog posts. A self reported good looking guy, but short, had this to say:



This was somewhat in response to Prof Truth's idea that the only thing that matters is what you bring and/or recent events right before or after a date. That is, you aren't going to change much about whether the girl, let's say, likes you. She either will or won't almost immediately or in a way that won't be changed significantly, but for the downside if you talk too much or get into controversy (anything straying from what this guy Chadlet, who writes above, states).

Since they are reactive, it's funny that he uses the term NPC for the dude. Largely, that means detached, outcome independent, and true I'd say. It's a generalized comment for effect of course, but you can see how it is quite clearly a successful maneuver or tactic. You could look at it another way, which would be, "Most people aren't all that interesing or want to talk about very interesting things, so why would a woman?" On average, that's of course going to be the case. Put another way, how many women would find even 10% of the threads on this forum interesting? Yet for us or other men it, or something like it, might be the most interesting on the entire internet.

This unfortunately has a lot of truth to it. It took me a while to figure out what worked and didn’t as far as interacting with women I had any interest in. I was never into any of the pick up stuff as I found it to be disingenuous, deceitful, and counterproductive to my interests in a relationship. I was generally familiar with some of the tactics, just not really good at them. It just isn’t in my personality.

However, after a while of failing to make anything meaningful or long term of my interactions with women I was genuinely attracted to, I reflected and took stock of what seemed to work and what didn’t. I came to the conclusion that the most successful interactions I had were the ones where I treated the woman like a child and the least were when I treated her as an equal (i.e. another man).

This worked to get me women I wasn’t really interested in, or had only a passing interest in, because I’d unwittingly use the kind of tone and level of discourse a man might use with a young teenager with those women. I don’t want to say dismissive but I will say patronizing. I think this was stimulating to them in some way.

If I was really into a woman, even if she was also initially interested, her attraction wouldn’t last long because I’d invariably start trying to have an honest conversation with her. My friends would accurately joke that, if an attractive enough woman showed any interest in me, it wouldn’t last long if time was allowed for me to engage in any substantial conversation (which would typically involve the same topics I’d raise with a man).

When I figured out I needed to stop talking to women I liked as if they were equals instead of little kids, my initial thought was that women didn’t want to engage in any deeper dialogue because they were guarded and socially intelligent, not superficial. My impression later evolved to the opinion that they simply weren’t capable of having those conversations. I’ve heard plenty of “deep thoughts” held by women and they always involve their emotional impressions and never any sort of dispassionate analysis. It always amounts to “this can’t be true because it hurts my feelings,” or “this must be true because it satisfies my ego.” They’re also completely uninterested in any topic that doesn’t involve them, either directly or indirectly.

I’ve heard it said before and I agree with the conclusion that women are basically just a more developed and articulate version of a child, basically a tier above someone in their early teens with some more reasoning skills but ultimately the inability to transcend their emotional and reactive thought process.

 

[Blade Runner]

If I was really into a woman, even if she was also initially interested, her attraction wouldn’t last long because I’d invariably start trying to have an honest conversation with her. My friends would accurately joke that, if an attractive enough woman showed any interest in me, it wouldn’t last long if time was allowed for me to engage in any substantial conversation (which would typically involve the same topics I’d raise with a man).

Yes, when you are fed BS egalitarianism, you'll not really understand what's going on socially, which is what you adeptly point out.

The girls most attracted to me, and they had baseline levels of attraction already, were those that I was playful with and there was a harmony already or I simultaneously had playfulness or indifference, or even someone I ignored at one point that later gave her the tingles. But to not put off people or worry about them disengaging you can't bring up stuff in life that actually matters, since a lot of times those same girls have opinions on the topics (just being talked about) which reflect what their current friends, circle, family, or the culture dictates. That's why unless you are talking to another person from your religion and culture, or you are red and she is blue, it'll fail - but for the woman those are social realities, not ideas or having anything to do with truth or the "way one ought to live." Sad to say, but true certainly for 99% of women.

When I figured out I needed to stop talking to women I liked as if they were equals instead of little kids, my initial thought was that women didn’t want to engage in any deeper dialogue because they were guarded and socially intelligent, not superficial. My impression later evolved to the opinion that they simply weren’t capable of having those conversations. I’ve heard plenty of “deep thoughts” held by women and they always involve their emotional impressions and never any sort of dispassionate analysis. It always amounts to “this can’t be true because it hurts my feelings,” or “this must be true because it satisfies my ego.” They’re also completely uninterested in any topic that doesn’t involve them, either directly or indirectly.

I agree with your conclusion. I think the closest they can get to in terms of "deeper dialogue" would at best be policies that are conservative because they have tax/money implications. The social parts or family things are totally dependent on how you were raised, not on the actual idea. While that's true for men as well to a degree, there are tons of exceptions.

The last couple of lines is indicative of a weak society, one that is gynocentric, which proves your point. People will object to it because a lot of men now base things on weak feelings and silly ego, but that just proves the point that principles don't matter much anymore, just "how can I get more money" or how does this help me, which is a feminine imperative.

 

[The Penitent Man]

The last couple of lines is indicative of a weak society, one that is gynocentric, which proves your point. People will object to it because a lot of men now base things on weak feelings and silly ego, but that just proves the point that principles don't matter much anymore, just "how can I get more money" or how does this help me, which is a feminine imperative.

I think what strikes me most about feminine thinking patterns is that they: 1) only consider what impacts them or those closest to them; and 2) they don’t seem to stretch beyond the present or the immediate future. They do not appear willing or perhaps even capable of considering that what happens today may affect things both beyond themselves and also in the unforeseen future. A person who cannot even consider the consequences of today’s decisions upon tomorrow surely isn’t considering a year from now, a generation from now, and most certainly their soul an eternity from now. It makes me think about God’s positioning man in the natural role of leadership and also to question the extent of women’s moral culpability in the absence of that leadership, in a world gone insane. I guess that brings us back to the Eve question.

 

[Christos_NIKA]

I think what strikes me most about feminine thinking patterns is that they: 1) only consider what impacts them or those closest to them; and 2) they don’t seem to stretch beyond the present or the immediate future. They do not appear willing or perhaps even capable of considering that what happens today may affect things both beyond themselves and also in the unforeseen future. A person who cannot even consider the consequences of today’s decisions upon tomorrow surely isn’t considering a year from now, a generation from now, and most certainly their soul an eternity from now. It makes me think about God’s positioning man in the natural role of leadership and also to question the extent of women’s moral culpability in the absence of that leadership, in a world gone insane. I guess that brings us back to the Eve question.

This is why women make terrible leaders, and should certainly not be heads of state or government institutions. Look at the West today...especially the EU, where women are Military Secretary in multiple states, or head of European commissions. It's a freaking disaster.

 

[Unending Powerhouse Match]

This worked to get me women I wasn’t really interested in, or had only a passing interest in, because I’d unwittingly use the kind of tone and level of discourse a man might use with a young teenager with those women. I don’t want to say dismissive but I will say patronizing. I think this was stimulating to them in some way.

What level of discourse would you use with a young teenager? I'm not sure I know what level of discourse I would use, as I don't talk to teenagers. If I absolutely had to talk to a teenager, I would probably only discuss very surface-level things like entertainment media, I would mostly just let the teen talk, maybe ask simple questions if the teen stops talking, and I would be thoroughly uninterested in the whole exchange and want it to end ASAP. Is that how one should talk to women? Would the level of discourse change once she's your wife?

 

[Rational1]

This unfortunately has a lot of truth to it. It took me a while to figure out what worked and didn’t as far as interacting with women I had any interest in. I was never into any of the pick up stuff as I found it to be disingenuous, deceitful, and counterproductive to my interests in a relationship. I was generally familiar with some of the tactics, just not really good at them. It just isn’t in my personality.

However, after a while of failing to make anything meaningful or long term of my interactions with women I was genuinely attracted to, I reflected and took stock of what seemed to work and what didn’t. I came to the conclusion that the most successful interactions I had were the ones where I treated the woman like a child and the least were when I treated her as an equal (i.e. another man).

This worked to get me women I wasn’t really interested in, or had only a passing interest in, because I’d unwittingly use the kind of tone and level of discourse a man might use with a young teenager with those women. I don’t want to say dismissive but I will say patronizing. I think this was stimulating to them in some way.

If I was really into a woman, even if she was also initially interested, her attraction wouldn’t last long because I’d invariably start trying to have an honest conversation with her. My friends would accurately joke that, if an attractive enough woman showed any interest in me, it wouldn’t last long if time was allowed for me to engage in any substantial conversation (which would typically involve the same topics I’d raise with a man).

When I figured out I needed to stop talking to women I liked as if they were equals instead of little kids, my initial thought was that women didn’t want to engage in any deeper dialogue because they were guarded and socially intelligent, not superficial. My impression later evolved to the opinion that they simply weren’t capable of having those conversations. I’ve heard plenty of “deep thoughts” held by women and they always involve their emotional impressions and never any sort of dispassionate analysis. It always amounts to “this can’t be true because it hurts my feelings,” or “this must be true because it satisfies my ego.” They’re also completely uninterested in any topic that doesn’t involve them, either directly or indirectly.

I’ve heard it said before and I agree with the conclusion that women are basically just a more developed and articulate version of a child, basically a tier above someone in their early teens with some more reasoning skills but ultimately the inability to transcend their emotional and reactive thought process.

This is an accurate analysis, sad we are in this state but accurate. I’d like to think this is a product of the modern environment, but it may not be.

I too have tried to foster a relationship by deeper conversation about values and things that would actually matter in a marriage or partnership. Invariably, it failed, I think every time. I can’t think of one time off the top of my head it worked.

Instead when I engaged in fun conversation, engaged her various emotions, was dominating, and just went for physicality as quick as was appropriate, I was much more successful. Note that this was irregardless of whether she was conservative/religious or not. Promiscuous or a prude this worked and the important conversation and topic approach failed.

My conclusion is harsher than yours. The vast majority of women 95% or more I’ve met are completely stupid directionless emotional wrecks with no business being leaders or in charge of anything. The only exception I’ll grant here is raising children and even then it still requires a strong male lead. So nothing really at all.

I’d rather have a dementia patient (Biden) in charge than ANY woman.

 

[Australia Sucks]

We need to go back to a system of women’s fathers deciding who they should marry. Women (in general) are too dumb to make their own decisions.

 

[dgbrown]

^
^
A great (read: terrible) microcosm of many of the problems this thread discusses: the wedding of Susan Sarandon’s daughter/Tim Robbins’ stepdaughter (she seems to regard Robbins as more of a father than her biological father).

This is from a pre-wedding Thanksgiving where her ex on the right joined them:

None of those three kids are the groom’s.

The slutty attention-seeking in that wedding photo is beyond the pale, like a reverse Barbara Streisand Effect -tip off People Magazine about a beat-up “story” where you talk about your flopped-out-breasts-for-all-the-world-to-see on your wedding day to generate clicks, keeping your nepo-baby self relevant.

 

[The Penitent Man]

What level of discourse would you use with a young teenager? I'm not sure I know what level of discourse I would use, as I don't talk to teenagers. If I absolutely had to talk to a teenager, I would probably only discuss very surface-level things like entertainment media, I would mostly just let the teen talk, maybe ask simple questions if the teen stops talking, and I would be thoroughly uninterested in the whole exchange and want it to end ASAP. Is that how one should talk to women? Would the level of discourse change once she's your wife?

When I say teenager just keep in the forefront of your mind that for 99% of females, prepubescent to post-menopausal, their most basic desire is to dance around with their eyes closed at a pop music concert for hours on end. That is their highest state of being. So like you said, just keep things very basic and emotionally stimulating and let them talk. Less is probably more on your part once their motor mouth gets warmed up. Steer away from political conversations or serious discussion regarding anything of import.

For example, the woman brings up Taylor Swift (red flag if in a positive light but this is what we’re dealing with). My initial reaction would be to respond that her songs are vapid and meaningless at best, and more likely subversive and destructive to young women. This poison is evident in the woman herself, who despite being good looking and resourceful is an aging, childless, and unmarried trollop. Bad role model (launches into diatribe about cultural decline).

A more appropriate response might be to just say that Taylor and I have bad blood, we have problems and we know we can’t solve them, and she’s the problem because she told me so in another one of her songs. I would say I have higher aspirations for women than Taylor Swift and leave it at that. That is how I would convey my position to a teenager, and it keeps the dialogue light. If she asks for more you can tell her. As you already said, if this is the level of discourse you’re going to have best avoid that person but again, I think this is most women in this day and age.

If this was your wife obviously you’d need to include more substance. My wife knows where I stand and why, though I don’t dig into issues like I would with one of you unless she asks, and even then I don’t get too involved. If I need a friend with ears to listen I have a dog.

 

[Rational1]

When I say teenager just keep in the forefront of your mind that for 99% of females, prepubescent to post-menopausal, their most basic desire is to dance around with their eyes closed at a pop music concert for hours on end. That is their highest state of being. So like you said, just keep things very basic and emotionally stimulating and let them talk. Less is probably more on your part once their motor mouth gets warmed up. Steer away from political conversations or serious discussion regarding anything of import.

For example, the woman brings up Taylor Swift (red flag if in a positive light but this is what we’re dealing with). My initial reaction would be to respond that her songs are vapid and meaningless at best, and more likely subversive and destructive to young women. This poison is evident in the woman herself, who despite being good looking and resourceful is an aging, childless, and unmarried trollop. Bad role model (launches into diatribe about cultural decline).

A more appropriate response might be to just say that Taylor and I have bad blood, we have problems and we know we can’t solve them, and she’s the problem because she told me so in another one of her songs. I would say I have higher aspirations for women than Taylor Swift and leave it at that. That is how I would convey my position to a teenager, and it keeps the dialogue light. If she asks for more you can tell her. As you already said, if this is the level of discourse you’re going to have best avoid that person but again, I think this is most women in this day and age.

If this was your wife obviously you’d need to include more substance. My wife knows where I stand and why, though I don’t dig into issues like I would with one of you unless she asks, and even then I don’t get too involved. If I need a friend with ears to listen I have a dog.

I laughed at this. Appreciate the real talk Penitent.

 

[Wutang]

Based on all of what is being said, it seems like being around women constantly like you would be doing so in a marriage sounds completely unappealing. It's strange that on the one hand men desire being around a woman so much that plenty of men on this forum are willing to take such big time investment in wanting to go across the world just for the chance of meeting a woman but on the other hand once you do meet a woman, the experiences of interacting with one ranges either from hellish if you end up a deeply combative BPD woman to at best, a submissive one that won't give you a headache but is less interesting to interact with than a pet would be. If this is the case then it seems like the Apostle Paul's advice on marriage is the best way to go.

I realize sex is a big part of the equation but assuming you do get a woman who is willing to satisfy all your needs in that area, what are you going to do with her the rest of the time she is around? You can only have so much sex per day. Even in the case scenario, when you do a cost benefit analysis it doesn't seem worth it.

 

[FrancisK]

We need to go back to a system of women’s fathers deciding who they should marry. Women (in general) are too dumb to make their own decisions.

You're there right now....

 

[The Penitent Man]

Based on all of what is being said, it seems like being around women constantly like you would be doing so in a marriage sounds completely unappealing. It's strange that on the one hand men desire being around a woman so much that plenty of men on this forum are willing to take such big time investment in wanting to go across the world just for the chance of meeting a woman but on the other hand once you do meet a woman, the experiences of interacting with one ranges either from hellish if you end up a deeply combative BPD woman to at best, a submissive one that won't give you a headache but is less interesting to interact with than a pet would be. If this is the case then it seems like the Apostle Paul's advice on marriage is the best way to go.

I realize sex is a big part of the equation but assuming you do get a woman who is willing to satisfy all your needs in that area, what are you going to do with her the rest of the time she is around? You can only have so much sex per day. Even in the case scenario, when you do a cost benefit analysis it doesn't seem worth it.

I heard it adroitly put once (and not in a joking manner) that women are so naturally repulsive to men that God had to make sexual impulse in man so strong as to be nearly irresistible or the species would die off after a single generation, because no man would willingly engage with a woman absent the presence of sexual desire (and the instinctual desire to reproduce children in your image). I think about that a lot.

 

[Rational1]

Based on all of what is being said, it seems like being around women constantly like you would be doing so in a marriage sounds completely unappealing.

This is a good point. Looking back on my long term relationships, I didn’t enjoy them that much. I have several married coworkers and they don’t seem happy to the point that they tell me it’s not worth it. These are upper middle class guys with advanced degrees, but they also married upper class women like doctors, etc. so that could be a problem. Still it’s an incomplete sample.

It's strange that on the one hand men desire being around a woman so much that plenty of men on this forum are willing to take such big time investment in wanting to go across the world just for the chance of meeting a woman but on the other hand once you do meet a woman, the experiences of interacting with one ranges either from hellish if you end up a deeply combative BPD woman to at best, a submissive one that won't give you a headache but is less interesting to interact with than a pet would be.

I’d argue there still are good marriages, but they are few and far in between. The cultural dynamics tend to prevent it, lack of good women, feminism, etc. You need a solid connection with the woman where your personalities and values match and I’d say that is incredible rare.

If this is the case then it seems like the Apostle Paul's advice on marriage is the best way to go.

What was Paul’s specific advice? He seems split on the matter.

I realize sex is a big part of the equation but assuming you do get a woman who is willing to satisfy all your needs in that area, what are you going to do with her the rest of the time she is around?

Bingo. You’re only having sex for a small portion of the time, which is why I state a real connection and enjoying time together is much more important.

You can only have so much sex per day. Even in the case scenario, when you do a cost benefit analysis it doesn't seem worth it.

Again, why men are just checking out or finding women who they can just have sex with. It’s sinful for a Christian, but let’s not kid ourselves this is what most guys are doing. Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free.