MGTOW Lesson for the Gynocentric Cucks

[MrMan]

Contrarian Expat,
Any time you get close to people and entrust a lot to them, they could wreck havoc on your life. Is the solution not to involve other people in your life, or to be careful who you involve and in what way? I'd go with the later. The former is a rather lonely alternative. There are ways a woman could hurt you badly or you could hurt a woman without ever getting married.

What do you mean by 'taking her onboard'? Do you mean live with her and make babies, but not marry? How does that shield you from the risks? In most states, alimony is not a big risk, but child support is. If you have children with a girlfriend, can't she still get child support from you if the relationship goes north?

If you actually marry a woman with high moral principles, and those principles include belief in marriage and loyalty, you are in a much safer position than if you just make babies or just live together in a 'committed relationship' without marriage. You'd have to make sure you have the same understanding of marriage, but committing to marriage has historically been a commitment for life. If you are just dating, she could break up with you one day, and how is that wrong? But if she commits for life, then dumps you, that's clearly wrong and she would know it. If the reason to make babies with her is because she has good principles and morals, then it does make sense to marry, to get those principles and morals working in the direction of keeping your relationship together.

If you married a 19 year old at 50, and the average lifespan is just under 79, then she may just keep her looks for nearly all of your married life. Some women start to fall apart as far as looks go around 40. Keeping up with a 19 year old in one's 50's may be challenging, possibly a fun but exhausting challenge.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Contrarian Expat,
Any time you get close to people and entrust a lot to them, they could wreck havoc on your life. Is the solution not to involve other people in your life, or to be careful who you involve and in what way? I'd go with the later. The former is a rather lonely alternative. There are ways a woman could hurt you badly or you could hurt a woman without ever getting married.

What do you mean by 'taking her onboard'? Do you mean live with her and make babies, but not marry? How does that shield you from the risks? In most states, alimony is not a big risk, but child support is. If you have children with a girlfriend, can't she still get child support from you if the relationship goes north?

If you actually marry a woman with high moral principles, and those principles include belief in marriage and loyalty, you are in a much safer position than if you just make babies or just live together in a 'committed relationship' without marriage. You'd have to make sure you have the same understanding of marriage, but committing to marriage has historically been a commitment for life. If you are just dating, she could break up with you one day, and how is that wrong? But if she commits for life, then dumps you, that's clearly wrong and she would know it. If the reason to make babies with her is because she has good principles and morals, then it does make sense to marry, to get those principles and morals working in the direction of keeping your relationship together.

If you married a 19 year old at 50, and the average lifespan is just under 79, then she may just keep her looks for nearly all of your married life. Some women start to fall apart as far as looks go around 40. Keeping up with a 19 year old in one's 50's may be challenging, possibly a fun but exhausting challenge.

I am philosophically opposed to marriage, period! Marriage in the modern world is typically a temporary arrangement and therefore it is better to never engage in it. Trouble is, religion, peer pressure, pop culture, and women persist in brainwashing men into the delusion that to reject marriage is "just bad" without thoughtful logic or reason.

As to your other point, I do not believe that women are primarily driven by "morals and principles." They are driven, first and foremost, by feelings and emotions. To think otherwise is to commit the fatal flaw that too many men commit to their own detriment. Women's feelings and emotions override their capacity for morals and principles. The great thinkers and philosophers knew this (Einstein, Tesla, Schopenhauer, Rousseau, Aristotle, Nietzsche etc.) but feminist orthodoxy has obscured this from the contemporary debate.

But one day you will know all that I say is true. Listen to Schopenhauer's wisdom to get a clue on the truth about women. Particularly poignent is his view of Christianity's role in obscuring the true nature of women. You would do well to expand your mind and take heed.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLDQVLuBbiw[/youtube]

[MrMan]

He says that men are more beautiful in body than women. I can't relate to that at all. What a strange thing for a man to write.

I looked an article up about him. He had a love interest who was 17 who rejected him. Did he write this after that rejection?

Women may be more led by emotions than principle to a greater extent than men. That's probably true. But plenty of men are led by their emotions, and some women are more principled than others. It's not the case, that men are principled, and women are not, and women are led by emotions and women are not. Some women are strong in their principles also. These are things we can see by observation.

Does the young woman you are considering know that you are anti-marriage? I would assume you mention this to other people. It would be right to let her know, but foolish for her to pursue a relationship with a man who is anti-marriage when there are men out there who are not. We may disagree on whether marriage benefits men, but I think we can agree that it benefits women.

[MrMan]

He says that men are more beautiful in body than women. I can't relate to that at all. What a strange thing for a man to write.

I looked an article up about him. He had a love interest who was 17 who rejected him. Did he write this after that rejection?

Women may be more led by emotions than principle to a greater extent than men. That's probably true. But plenty of men are led by their emotions, and some women are more principled than others. It's not the case, that men are principled, and women are not, and women are led by emotions and women are not. Some women are strong in their principles also. These are things we can see by observation.

Does the young woman you are considering know that you are anti-marriage? I would assume you mention this to other people. It would be right to let her know, but foolish for her to pursue a relationship with a man who is anti-marriage when there are men out there who are not. We may disagree on whether marriage benefits men, but I think we can agree that it benefits women.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

He says that men are more beautiful in body than women. I can't relate to that at all. What a strange thing for a man to write.

If you think about it, he is telling the truth. If you walk outside, only 1% to 5% of women are what I would consider beautiful. The rest are either too old, too fat, or too ugly for my taste. The VAST majority of women are repulsive and it is only the exceptional ones that are comely. For you and others to judge women's beauty on that 1% -5% is called Apex Fallacy.

Also, there is a reason women spend billions of dollars a year getting their genitalia trimmed and beautified. It is because they know it is not attractive in the natural state. I have never heard of a man getting cosmetic surgery on his genitalia. Finally, as someone who takes great pride in staying physically muscled and trim, I do appreciate the beauty of the male physique. The female physique at my age is utterly repulsive. Women's bodies are only attractive to me from the age of 18 to 28 generally, and then only the very best looking young women catch my eye.

Remember, the exception never disproves the general rule. That might be difficult for you to see because being married to one woman puts a man like yourself in a sexual prison whereby ANY woman besides his wife begins to look attractive to him. This is what I am picking up from you here.

I looked an article up about him. He had a love interest who was 17 who rejected him. Did he write this after that rejection?

This is one of the telltale signs that marriage has affected a man negatively is the fact that the man often begins to THINK like a woman. Women generally use such foolish and illogical arguments such as, "Aw, I think he was just previously hurt and that's why he feels that way." For a man to use that argument against a philosopher's reasoned position is troubling and a sign that you've been cucked by your wife. Not a good look "MrMan" which is quite the ironic moniker after that statement.

Women may be more led by emotions than principle to a greater extent than men. That's probably true. But plenty of men are led by their emotions, and some women are more principled than others. It's not the case, that men are principled, and women are not, and women are led by emotions and women are not. Some women are strong in their principles also. These are things we can see by observation.

Again, the exception does not disprove the general rule. Sure there are women who are logical and guided by reason, but these are exceptions that do not render my position false. MOST women do not and CANNOT be guided by reason and logic over emotion and feelings because they have not evolved the wiring for that.

Does the young woman you are considering know that you are anti-marriage? I would assume you mention this to other people. It would be right to let her know, but foolish for her to pursue a relationship with a man who is anti-marriage when there are men out there who are not. We may disagree on whether marriage benefits men, but I think we can agree that it benefits women.

As a wealthy foreigner who lives among the elites in her country, I don't even need to broach the issue with her for her to know the colossal improvement I represent in her life chances and standard of living. Moreover, she is still in the haze of first love and would not at all care so long as she has me in her life.

As a man, the woman needs to be on MY program 100%. Western men often fail to understand that women are not to be the leaders of relationships, men are to be. Sounds to me like you may have forfeited leadership of your relationship to your wife already. Marriage tends to facilitate that process of leadership shift but it won't be happening in my situation.

[Yohan]

On this issue, I am more aligned with Yohan than you are. I am aware of some of the dangers of the western legal system. I also warn men (on forums like this or elsewhere as I have opportunity) of the dangers of marrying the wrong type of woman who will divorce them and the problems with the legal system. I married a foreign woman and I live overseas, like Yohan.

I don't know if he lives overseas as an anti-divorce strategy. I don't. I didn't marry a foreigner to avoid the potential dangers of the family law court system in the US. I also would not say that there are no women in the US or other western countries who would make good wives, but I do think that good wives are in the minority.

We are simply said different men coming from different countries and our way of thinking and our needs are different from each other.
I often agree with Contrarian Expatriate, but not always.

To live overseas is indeed an anti-divorce strategy, I think however not in my case. In Europe I would be still a single man, not because of family law, but because while still living in Europe I never met any woman of my age, who was single, available (without 5 or 8 boyfriends next to me), not totally materialistic orientated, who did not give preference to bad boys etc. etc. - I moved overseas away from Europe, as I could find a better life-style for me in Asia. It was not only because of women, I still find life in Europe inconvenient for me regarding cold weather, opening time of shops, problems regarding housing, and so on.

About women, my experience so far is that a huge number of women in Europe are plain trash, unfit for a long term relationship.

When there is no logic to support the argument, the MGTOW started calling names.

What is 'not logic' about MGTOW?

About calling names, you have first of all to point out how feminists talking about men. Of course Contrarian Expatriate is from USA, and what kind of reply do you expect from him when talking back?

Feminism is bad in Continental Europe too, but still women remain more polite in their way they talk to men. Indeed women from USA, UK and Australia are the worst I met in my life.

I had on the other side some discussion with pro-feminist women from Sweden and Germany (not in English, this makes a big difference) - while we never agreed with anything, surprisingly for me not in a single case one of these women used any abusive term against me.

You will not find any abusive term against women in general in any MGTOW forum in German language. A bit cynical, or try to ridicule arguments, but never personally abusive like I have seen it in USA.

For example in
https://manndat.de

[MrMan]

He says that men are more beautiful in body than women. I can't relate to that at all. What a strange thing for a man to write.

If you think about it, he is telling the truth. If you walk outside, only 1% to 5% of women are what I would consider beautiful. The rest are either too old, too fat, or too ugly for my taste. The VAST majority of women are repulsive and it is only the exceptional ones that are comely. For you and others to judge women's beauty on that 1% -5% is called Apex Fallacy.

Maybe 1% to 5% of women are beautiful. But 0% of men are beautiful from my perspective. I"m not attracted to any of them.

What percent of women are beautiful depends on your sample. I find basically no senior citizens to be beautiful, possibly with the exception of a few that have really good plastic surgeons. I don't find fat women attractive. Maybe I find 5 to 10% of thin, American women under 35 somewhat attractive. I don't know if the number goes up to 5% if we count fat and old women. My guess is that the percent would be higher in some place like China since more women are thin.

I've spent a lot of time in Indonesia. My wife is a beautiful woman, and is considered pretty in the US. But it seems like it is about half as likely that I'd encounter a young, thin woman I find pretty in Indonesia than in the US.

Also, there is a reason women spend billions of dollars a year getting their genitalia trimmed and beautified. It is because they know it is not attractive in the natural state.

That's your personal opinion. I have no experience with the trimmed variety. How many women who do not go sleeping around pay to get trimmed and beautified?

Finally, as someone who takes great pride in staying physically muscled and trim, I do appreciate the beauty of the male physique. The female physique at my age is utterly repulsive. Women's bodies are only attractive to me from the age of 18 to 28 generally, and then only the very best looking young women catch my eye.

50 year old women's bodies... doesn't sound good to look at. But I don't really see the appeal of the male body at any age, for men. Women seem to like that sort of thing.

Remember, the exception never disproves the general rule. That might be difficult for you to see because being married to one woman puts a man like yourself in a sexual prison whereby ANY woman besides his wife begins to look attractive to him. This is what I am picking up from you here.

You sure like to read ideas into the conversation where there is no evidence, and interpret everything through this narrow anti-marriage MGTOW framework, and you consistently miss it with your guesses about my thoughts and preferences.

I have always been super picky about looks. It doesn't really matter now since I'm married. Back when I was single, it was rare that a woman's looks really piqued my interested. I may find a slightly higher percentage of women to be good-looking these days because I've gotten more used to Asian faces and because I'm getting older and appreciate the attractiveness of youth more. But the difference isn't great.

Btw, what's marriage a sexual prison? A prison with lots of sex? I rather enjoy that aspect of marriage, but I don't consider it a prison. She doesn't rape me, not really, and there aren't any guards, so the prison analogy doesn't work.

I looked an article up about him. He had a love interest who was 17 who rejected him. Did he write this after that rejection?

This is one of the telltale signs that marriage has affected a man negatively is the fact that the man often begins to THINK like a woman. Women generally use such foolish and illogical arguments such as, "Aw, I think he was just previously hurt and that's why he feels that way." For a man to use that argument against a philosopher's reasoned position is troubling and a sign that you've been cucked by your wife. Not a good look "MrMan" which is quite the ironic moniker after that statement.[/quote]

Rational? No, I made that comment because so much of what the man said was extreme and unreasonable. Some of it was well-reasoned. Women do not generally contribute the greatest thoughts to philosophy and other fields. But when he wrote that, a small percentage of women were educated in these fields. Nowadays, there are many women contributing to a lot of academic fields. I don't really know modern philosophy authors and I don't know of any famous women philosophers. Economics started as a branchof philosophy. Penrose's approach to the growth of the firm comes to mind. I think she wrote her work on that in the 1950's. That was influential. Some of the big theories in certain fieldscome from women, but that still seems to be the minority. Some of this statements about these things still have some merit, but he's still too extreme, especially considering that women are adding to some of the academic disciplines.

And a lot of his comments just aren't true. They are way too extreme and inaccurate. It sounded more like he was talking from emotion from reason.

Women may be more led by emotions than principle to a greater extent than men. That's probably true. But plenty of men are led by their emotions, and some women are more principled than others. It's not the case, that men are principled, and women are not, and women are led by emotions and women are not. Some women are strong in their principles also. These are things we can see by observation.

Again, the exception does not disprove the general rule. Sure there are women who are logical and guided by reason, but these are exceptions that do not render my position false. MOST women do not and CANNOT be guided by reason and logic over emotion and feelings because they have not evolved the wiring for that.

Nearly all human beings are guided by both logic and feeling. Women may tend, in general, a bit more toward emotion than men. It's a matter of degree.

Does the young woman you are considering know that you are anti-marriage? I would assume you mention this to other people. It would be right to let her know, but foolish for her to pursue a relationship with a man who is anti-marriage when there are men out there who are not. We may disagree on whether marriage benefits men, but I think we can agree that it benefits women.

As a wealthy foreigner who lives among the elites in her country, I don't even need to broach the issue with her for her to know the colossal improvement I represent in her life chances and standard of living. Moreover, she is still in the haze of first love and would not at all care so long as she has me in her life.

As a man, the woman needs to be on MY program 100%. Western men often fail to understand that women are not to be the leaders of relationships, men are to be. Sounds to me like you may have forfeited leadership of your relationship to your wife already. Marriage tends to facilitate that process of leadership shift but it won't be happening in my situation.

[/quote]

In traditional (and sensible) cultures, the woman is on her father's program until she gets married, and then she is on her husband's program. 'Boyfriends' have no rights. It sounds like you are trying to get her to base her relationship on her feelings for you rather than basing it on something more principled.

If you are thinking of having children with this woman, then you put yourself in a very vulnerable place by not getting married. If her culture is a bit traditional about marriage, you are giving up some important social glue to keep you together. You may stay in great shape at 50 years old, but your body is deteriorating. If you don't have any real commitment to her, no marriage, etc., and you get to a certain age where your face starts to loosen up and droop and if you started to get a bit feeble, then you don't really give her a reason of 'principle' to stay with you. If she has married you and committed to stay with you for life, and she's a principled ethical person, she'd take that seriously.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

In traditional (and sensible) cultures, the woman is on her father's program until she gets married, and then she is on her husband's program. 'Boyfriends' have no rights. It sounds like you are trying to get her to base her relationship on her feelings for you rather than basing it on something more principled.

Wrong, and this is why you are a cuck. Getting a girl on "your program" is not about culture. It is about your power, authority, and appeal as a man. If you have never been able to get a girl on your program, that says more about you than it does about anything cultural.

If her culture is a bit traditional about marriage, you are giving up some important social glue to keep you together. You may stay in great shape at 50 years old, but your body is deteriorating. If you don't have any real commitment to her, no marriage, etc., and you get to a certain age where your face starts to loosen up and droop and if you started to get a bit feeble, then you don't really give her a reason of 'principle' to stay with you. If she has married you and committed to stay with you for life, and she's a principled ethical person, she'd take that seriously.

When you get a girl on your program, she takes on what is important to you as a man.

As a man who understands the female nature, a woman can choose to leave whenever she wishes. There are benefits to that for the strong men also.

Overall, it sounds like you've bound yourself to a marriage and you are now struggling to come up with rationalizing why it was good for you. Your platitudes about "principle" mean nothing to me when I know how married women often take advantage of naive men like you. Married women are some of the most sexually frustrated and cheating people on the planet. All while you are working to uphold "principle."

Deep down, you know you would prefer the freedom, higher wealth, and autonomous living of being unmarried. If that were not the case, you would not be so compelled to aggressively trumpet just how "GREAT" your marriage is.

We all know the real deal with married men like yourself.

[MrMan]

In traditional (and sensible) cultures, the woman is on her father's program until she gets married, and then she is on her husband's program. 'Boyfriends' have no rights. It sounds like you are trying to get her to base her relationship on her feelings for you rather than basing it on something more principled.

Wrong, and this is why you are a cuck. Getting a girl on "your program" is not about culture. It is about your power, authority, and appeal as a man. If you have never been able to get a girl on your program, that says more about you than it does about anything cultural.

You are stuck in this narrow ideology, yet you have described yourself as a free thinker. Your philosophy says that marriage is bad, and you interpret married men's support of marriage as cognitive dissonance to deal with any cognitive dissonance you have with your own framework. Us married men who have it pretty good can just laugh off this kind of nonsense. I have read the feminist argument that says that men are afraid of powerful women, and want to laugh when I read that. In some cases its unseemly, but afraid? That's silly, certainly to assume that all men are afraid. You attribute motives to married men, but us married men know you don't know what you are talking about. What you hold to is basically a massive conspiracy theory because it makes men all throughout history into either self-deceived men or outright liars about marriage.

You've never been married. All you've got is this ideology to base your speculations about other men's thinking on. I can understand the man who went through a bitter divorce with a nasty wife thinking like this, that all marriage is bad.

As far as getting a girl 'on your program' goes, the way you are talking about, yes a man has to do it. And it is an ongoing thing that requires adjustment. It makes sense to choose a girl with the same values. And some 'programs' a man may have may not be in his own best self interest. You are already past 50. The days of being a increasingly feeble senior citizen are closer to you than the days of being a 19-year-old pinnacle of health. You should keep this in mind. Physically, though you could be in good shape as a senior citizen going forward, chances are, your age will catch up with you and slow you down. What's the other alternative? Death?

If this girl is with you just because of your male 'power' and her feelings, what's to happen if you needed a cane later on, or if your teeth start to come out? If you look 30 now, how long do you think that will last? What will you do if the skin on your face starts to sag? Botox can only take you so far. Then you'd have to either let it all hang loose or go to a doctor to get cut. After so many surgeries, your face would look unnatural and your eyebrows would be in the wrong place. You may be able to keep some of your 'power' on an emotional level, but that may start to slip as you get older and older and loose a bit of mental sharpness.

My scenario makes a lot more sense. My program includes marriage. I wouldn't have pursued something serious with a woman who did not believe in marriage. There would have been no point. We both share religious beliefs that strongly motivate us to be faithful and to work on our marriage. Her culture is pro-marriage. Her family wants us to have a good stable marriage. Both her immediate family and distance relatives are in favor of that. So are mine. I do not have to get her onto some 'program' that is going totally contrary to the influences she has experienced all her life.

How long has this counter-cultural 'program' thing worked for you? If you are trying to get a girl on your program contrary to society, culture, and the wisdom of the ages, maybe that can last for a little while, as long as her hormones keep her in the feeling of new love. But if you haven't made a commitment to her for life, why would she keep you when you are old, weak, and saggy and your teeth fall out? Why would she change your bedpan wipe your backside for you while you are old and feeble and the nurse has to take a day off? A faithful woman might do that for her older husband. If you are 50 and 19, marriage actually makes sense for you as a man. If she had your children, you'd still be vulnerable, legally. If she's not that faithful for the long run, as far as money motivation goes, half your estate may be worth staying with you until death as opposed to dumping you early.

My situation makes a lot more sense. My program includes marriage and staying faithful. Our beliefs and values support that. Family supports that. I've got a lot of support for my program.

Overall, it sounds like you've bound yourself to a marriage and you are now struggling to come up with rationalizing why it was good for you.

You've bound yourself to an anti-marriage philosophy, so you defend your philosophy, even when it runs against your own self interest to do so, and even though you benefit from their being marriage in society. Women are varied in their personalities and beliefs. Some are easy to get along with. Some are difficult. Some are in the middle.

Your platitudes about "principle" mean nothing to me when I know how married women often take advantage of naive men like you. Married women are some of the most sexually frustrated and cheating people on the planet. All while you are working to uphold "principle."

Again, you are trying to squeeze all of reality through this narrow key hole of your anti-marriage MGTOW philosophy. You are a few years older than me, but I know a lot more about being married than a 50-year-old whose been single all his life. I know about being single, too. I've experienced both first hand. Some men have miserable marriages and difficult wives. Some wives divorce their husbands and take their stuff. But a lot of wives don't. If 50% of marriages in the US end in divorce (including the marriages of those who have been married multiple times) then the rest of marriages don't.

It's less common than it used to be in the US, but common with Asian wives, that the wife cooks for her husband, takes care of cooking, cleaning, etc. If you get a good woman who works hard, that's a real benefit. We've had a number of maids, and even the good ones don't put their hearts into it like a dedicated wife.

Btw, my wife and I have too much sex for her to have a partner on the side. I can say that because I have known her for the better part of 20-years and know what she was like when she was in the early throws of being in love. She's got no reason to be frustrated. The has multiple opportunities to get rid of frustration quite often. Your assumptions are based on a philosophy that women are out to get men and that women are cheaters. Maybe that comes from being brainwashed by MGTOW videos and website writings that leave you with a cynically skewed perception of reality. Or maybe you are projecting your own morality onto other people. Back a few hundred years ago in Europe. someone who said that types of things you write about other men's wives was likely to find himself in duels until he died. Even know, it shows a low standard of ettiquette and interpersonal ethics. I'd imagine you'd be quite the loner if you go around telling people things like that offline 'in real life.'

What would you think if someone who did not know you or your girl insisted your 19-year-old girlfriend must be banging some other dude on the side?

Deep down, you know you would prefer the freedom, higher wealth, and autonomous living of being unmarried. If that were not the case, you would not be so compelled to aggressively trumpet just how "GREAT" your marriage is.

Do you know how idiotic your logic sounds to someone like me who is happy to be married? It shows me just how brainwashed and close-minded you are because of this philosophy. I also wonder if it is just a pride issue that keeps you from conceding that there are more life scenarios than your philosophy let's on. You call yourself a free-thinker, but you are way too wrapped up in this anti-marriage MGTOW way of thinking. It's so extreme it's unrealistic. In it, women are ruled by emotion. That's a blanket statement. In your philosophy, marriage is bad. Men who are content in their marriage must be lying, you think, and they are positive about marriage to defend their mistake. It's not even realistic to think like that. Sure, some men have miserable marriages. Some women divorce their husbands and use the courts to take their money. You can simply dig up some research and see that a lot of women don't do this. It's out there. You might insist that any man who say she likes being married is lying. That's silly and unrealistic, but it's irrational to think that every woman divorces her husband and takes his money.

Men viewing every woman as a potential divorce-court-bandit is kind of like feminists thinking of every man as a potential rapists. Sure, if your only objective is to protect your wealth or protect your hymen, either of those philosophies may work for you. But both of them have some negative social ramifications and can cause an individual to miss out on potential opportunities in life.

If you don't want to marry for financial and other reasons, okay, don't marry. But that doesn't mean that anyone else who married and likes it who doesn't share your priorities is lying or self-deceived.

I could say that deep down you know you want to be married because of the stability, good food, clean house, frequent sex that doesn't require a lot of effort for 'game', and having someone else to do the shopping and run your errands without the hassle of having to hire someone. Otherwise you wouldn't trumpet how 'great' MGTOW is.

[MrMan]

In traditional (and sensible) cultures, the woman is on her father's program until she gets married, and then she is on her husband's program. 'Boyfriends' have no rights. It sounds like you are trying to get her to base her relationship on her feelings for you rather than basing it on something more principled.

Wrong, and this is why you are a cuck. Getting a girl on "your program" is not about culture. It is about your power, authority, and appeal as a man. If you have never been able to get a girl on your program, that says more about you than it does about anything cultural.

You are stuck in this narrow ideology, yet you have described yourself as a free thinker. Your philosophy says that marriage is bad, and you interpret married men's support of marriage as cognitive dissonance to deal with any cognitive dissonance you have with your own framework. Us married men who have it pretty good can just laugh off this kind of nonsense. I have read the feminist argument that says that men are afraid of powerful women, and want to laugh when I read that. In some cases its unseemly, but afraid? That's silly, certainly to assume that all men are afraid. You attribute motives to married men, but us married men know you don't know what you are talking about. What you hold to is basically a massive conspiracy theory because it makes men all throughout history into either self-deceived men or outright liars about marriage.

You've never been married. All you've got is this ideology to base your speculations about other men's thinking on. I can understand the man who went through a bitter divorce with a nasty wife thinking like this, that all marriage is bad.

As far as getting a girl 'on your program' goes, the way you are talking about, yes a man has to do it. And it is an ongoing thing that requires adjustment. It makes sense to choose a girl with the same values. And some 'programs' a man may have may not be in his own best self interest. You are already past 50. The days of being a increasingly feeble senior citizen are closer to you than the days of being a 19-year-old pinnacle of health. You should keep this in mind. Physically, though you could be in good shape as a senior citizen going forward, chances are, your age will catch up with you and slow you down. What's the other alternative? Death?

If this girl is with you just because of your male 'power' and her feelings, what's to happen if you needed a cane later on, or if your teeth start to come out? If you look 30 now, how long do you think that will last? What will you do if the skin on your face starts to sag? Botox can only take you so far. Then you'd have to either let it all hang loose or go to a doctor to get cut. After so many surgeries, your face would look unnatural and your eyebrows would be in the wrong place. You may be able to keep some of your 'power' on an emotional level, but that may start to slip as you get older and older and loose a bit of mental sharpness.

My scenario makes a lot more sense. My program includes marriage. I wouldn't have pursued something serious with a woman who did not believe in marriage. There would have been no point. We both share religious beliefs that strongly motivate us to be faithful and to work on our marriage. Her culture is pro-marriage. Her family wants us to have a good stable marriage. Both her immediate family and distance relatives are in favor of that. So are mine. I do not have to get her onto some 'program' that is going totally contrary to the influences she has experienced all her life.

How long has this counter-cultural 'program' thing worked for you? If you are trying to get a girl on your program contrary to society, culture, and the wisdom of the ages, maybe that can last for a little while, as long as her hormones keep her in the feeling of new love. But if you haven't made a commitment to her for life, why would she keep you when you are old, weak, and saggy and your teeth fall out? Why would she change your bedpan wipe your backside for you while you are old and feeble and the nurse has to take a day off? A faithful woman might do that for her older husband. If you are 50 and 19, marriage actually makes sense for you as a man. If she had your children, you'd still be vulnerable, legally. If she's not that faithful for the long run, as far as money motivation goes, half your estate may be worth staying with you until death as opposed to dumping you early.

My situation makes a lot more sense. My program includes marriage and staying faithful. Our beliefs and values support that. Family supports that. I've got a lot of support for my program.

Overall, it sounds like you've bound yourself to a marriage and you are now struggling to come up with rationalizing why it was good for you.

You've bound yourself to an anti-marriage philosophy, so you defend your philosophy, even when it runs against your own self interest to do so, and even though you benefit from their being marriage in society. Women are varied in their personalities and beliefs. Some are easy to get along with. Some are difficult. Some are in the middle.

Your platitudes about "principle" mean nothing to me when I know how married women often take advantage of naive men like you. Married women are some of the most sexually frustrated and cheating people on the planet. All while you are working to uphold "principle."

Again, you are trying to squeeze all of reality through this narrow key hole of your anti-marriage MGTOW philosophy. You are a few years older than me, but I know a lot more about being married than a 50-year-old whose been single all his life. I know about being single, too. I've experienced both first hand. Some men have miserable marriages and difficult wives. Some wives divorce their husbands and take their stuff. But a lot of wives don't. If 50% of marriages in the US end in divorce (including the marriages of those who have been married multiple times) then the rest of marriages don't.

It's less common than it used to be in the US, but common with Asian wives, that the wife cooks for her husband, takes care of cooking, cleaning, etc. If you get a good woman who works hard, that's a real benefit. We've had a number of maids, and even the good ones don't put their hearts into it like a dedicated wife.

Btw, my wife and I have too much sex for her to have a partner on the side. I can say that because I have known her for the better part of 20-years and know what she was like when she was in the early throws of being in love. She's got no reason to be frustrated. The has multiple opportunities to get rid of frustration quite often. Your assumptions are based on a philosophy that women are out to get men and that women are cheaters. Maybe that comes from being brainwashed by MGTOW videos and website writings that leave you with a cynically skewed perception of reality. Or maybe you are projecting your own morality onto other people. Back a few hundred years ago in Europe. someone who said that types of things you write about other men's wives was likely to find himself in duels until he died. Even know, it shows a low standard of ettiquette and interpersonal ethics. I'd imagine you'd be quite the loner if you go around telling people things like that offline 'in real life.'

What would you think if someone who did not know you or your girl insisted your 19-year-old girlfriend must be banging some other dude on the side?

Deep down, you know you would prefer the freedom, higher wealth, and autonomous living of being unmarried. If that were not the case, you would not be so compelled to aggressively trumpet just how "GREAT" your marriage is.

Do you know how idiotic your logic sounds to someone like me who is happy to be married? It shows me just how brainwashed and close-minded you are because of this philosophy. I also wonder if it is just a pride issue that keeps you from conceding that there are more life scenarios than your philosophy let's on. You call yourself a free-thinker, but you are way too wrapped up in this anti-marriage MGTOW way of thinking. It's so extreme it's unrealistic. In it, women are ruled by emotion. That's a blanket statement. In your philosophy, marriage is bad. Men who are content in their marriage must be lying, you think, and they are positive about marriage to defend their mistake. It's not even realistic to think like that. Sure, some men have miserable marriages. Some women divorce their husbands and use the courts to take their money. You can simply dig up some research and see that a lot of women don't do this. It's out there. You might insist that any man who say she likes being married is lying. That's silly and unrealistic, but it's irrational to think that every woman divorces her husband and takes his money.

Men viewing every woman as a potential divorce-court-bandit is kind of like feminists thinking of every man as a potential rapists. Sure, if your only objective is to protect your wealth or protect your hymen, either of those philosophies may work for you. But both of them have some negative social ramifications and can cause an individual to miss out on potential opportunities in life.

If you don't want to marry for financial and other reasons, okay, don't marry. But that doesn't mean that anyone else who married and likes it who doesn't share your priorities is lying or self-deceived.

I could say that deep down you know you want to be married because of the stability, good food, clean house, frequent sex that doesn't require a lot of effort for 'game', and having someone else to do the shopping and run your errands without the hassle of having to hire someone. Otherwise you wouldn't trumpet how 'great' MGTOW is.

[MrMan]

I used to go to church with a man, also a black man, who used to be in the military. He was going to go home and surprise his wife when he got some time off. Some of the lower-ranking solders who were older than he was told him not to do that without calling. She might have someone there at the house. At first they were offended that he would imply such a thing about his wife. Then he realized that they were talking about their genuine fears of their wives and what they said reflected the way they lived their own lives. He and his wife are Christians and lived differently from the people he was working with.

If someone asks you if you have been burnt by a woman, that doesn't mean they are repeated some script taught by women. They are probably just trying to figure out why you hold to such unreasonable and extreme views. I listened to the excerpt from that German philosopher you posted, the one who thought male bodies were more beautiful than female bodies. I read he'd been rejected by a 17-year-old when he was older. His viewpoint was so extreme, I wondered if he wrote that after he'd been rejected. This is a reasonable questions. It's trying to figure out how people get extreme views.

It's just like if a feminist goes on a man-hating rant about how all men are rapists, we might wonder if she had been raped, maybe by her dad, or something like that, to hold to such extreme views.

[gsjackson]

Sounds like the girls are trying to flirt with this guy, but don't really know how. I don't know whether he's humble bragging, or just isn't able to read them right. It's no surprise that women who have their noses buried in virtual reality all the time are socially maladroit in face-to-face interactions. And fixation on looks has been a big part of the American dating scene at least since Hollywood really took hold of the culture in the 1920s. Nothing new or unique to L.A. about that.

So, I don't doubt that the L.A. dating scene is nightmarish, but I don't think this guy makes the case persuasively in the half of the vid I watched. Oops, wrong thread -- should be under chad thundercocks

[Contrarian Expatriate]

In traditional (and sensible) cultures, the woman is on her father's program until she gets married, and then she is on her husband's program. 'Boyfriends' have no rights. It sounds like you are trying to get her to base her relationship on her feelings for you rather than basing it on something more principled.

Wrong, and this is why you are a cuck. Getting a girl on "your program" is not about culture. It is about your power, authority, and appeal as a man. If you have never been able to get a girl on your program, that says more about you than it does about anything cultural.

You are stuck in this narrow ideology, yet you have described yourself as a free thinker. Your philosophy says that marriage is bad, and you interpret married men's support of marriage as cognitive dissonance to deal with any cognitive dissonance you have with your own framework. Us married men who have it pretty good can just laugh off this kind of nonsense. I have read the feminist argument that says that men are afraid of powerful women, and want to laugh when I read that. In some cases its unseemly, but afraid? That's silly, certainly to assume that all men are afraid. You attribute motives to married men, but us married men know you don't know what you are talking about. What you hold to is basically a massive conspiracy theory because it makes men all throughout history into either self-deceived men or outright liars about marriage.

You've never been married. All you've got is this ideology to base your speculations about other men's thinking on. I can understand the man who went through a bitter divorce with a nasty wife thinking like this, that all marriage is bad.

As far as getting a girl 'on your program' goes, the way you are talking about, yes a man has to do it. And it is an ongoing thing that requires adjustment. It makes sense to choose a girl with the same values. And some 'programs' a man may have may not be in his own best self interest. You are already past 50. The days of being a increasingly feeble senior citizen are closer to you than the days of being a 19-year-old pinnacle of health. You should keep this in mind. Physically, though you could be in good shape as a senior citizen going forward, chances are, your age will catch up with you and slow you down. What's the other alternative? Death?

If this girl is with you just because of your male 'power' and her feelings, what's to happen if you needed a cane later on, or if your teeth start to come out? If you look 30 now, how long do you think that will last? What will you do if the skin on your face starts to sag? Botox can only take you so far. Then you'd have to either let it all hang loose or go to a doctor to get cut. After so many surgeries, your face would look unnatural and your eyebrows would be in the wrong place. You may be able to keep some of your 'power' on an emotional level, but that may start to slip as you get older and older and loose a bit of mental sharpness.

My scenario makes a lot more sense. My program includes marriage. I wouldn't have pursued something serious with a woman who did not believe in marriage. There would have been no point. We both share religious beliefs that strongly motivate us to be faithful and to work on our marriage. Her culture is pro-marriage. Her family wants us to have a good stable marriage. Both her immediate family and distance relatives are in favor of that. So are mine. I do not have to get her onto some 'program' that is going totally contrary to the influences she has experienced all her life.

How long has this counter-cultural 'program' thing worked for you? If you are trying to get a girl on your program contrary to society, culture, and the wisdom of the ages, maybe that can last for a little while, as long as her hormones keep her in the feeling of new love. But if you haven't made a commitment to her for life, why would she keep you when you are old, weak, and saggy and your teeth fall out? Why would she change your bedpan wipe your backside for you while you are old and feeble and the nurse has to take a day off? A faithful woman might do that for her older husband. If you are 50 and 19, marriage actually makes sense for you as a man. If she had your children, you'd still be vulnerable, legally. If she's not that faithful for the long run, as far as money motivation goes, half your estate may be worth staying with you until death as opposed to dumping you early.

My situation makes a lot more sense. My program includes marriage and staying faithful. Our beliefs and values support that. Family supports that. I've got a lot of support for my program.

Overall, it sounds like you've bound yourself to a marriage and you are now struggling to come up with rationalizing why it was good for you.

You've bound yourself to an anti-marriage philosophy, so you defend your philosophy, even when it runs against your own self interest to do so, and even though you benefit from their being marriage in society. Women are varied in their personalities and beliefs. Some are easy to get along with. Some are difficult. Some are in the middle.

Your platitudes about "principle" mean nothing to me when I know how married women often take advantage of naive men like you. Married women are some of the most sexually frustrated and cheating people on the planet. All while you are working to uphold "principle."

Again, you are trying to squeeze all of reality through this narrow key hole of your anti-marriage MGTOW philosophy. You are a few years older than me, but I know a lot more about being married than a 50-year-old whose been single all his life. I know about being single, too. I've experienced both first hand. Some men have miserable marriages and difficult wives. Some wives divorce their husbands and take their stuff. But a lot of wives don't. If 50% of marriages in the US end in divorce (including the marriages of those who have been married multiple times) then the rest of marriages don't.

It's less common than it used to be in the US, but common with Asian wives, that the wife cooks for her husband, takes care of cooking, cleaning, etc. If you get a good woman who works hard, that's a real benefit. We've had a number of maids, and even the good ones don't put their hearts into it like a dedicated wife.

Btw, my wife and I have too much sex for her to have a partner on the side. I can say that because I have known her for the better part of 20-years and know what she was like when she was in the early throws of being in love. She's got no reason to be frustrated. The has multiple opportunities to get rid of frustration quite often. Your assumptions are based on a philosophy that women are out to get men and that women are cheaters. Maybe that comes from being brainwashed by MGTOW videos and website writings that leave you with a cynically skewed perception of reality. Or maybe you are projecting your own morality onto other people. Back a few hundred years ago in Europe. someone who said that types of things you write about other men's wives was likely to find himself in duels until he died. Even know, it shows a low standard of ettiquette and interpersonal ethics. I'd imagine you'd be quite the loner if you go around telling people things like that offline 'in real life.'

What would you think if someone who did not know you or your girl insisted your 19-year-old girlfriend must be banging some other dude on the side?

Deep down, you know you would prefer the freedom, higher wealth, and autonomous living of being unmarried. If that were not the case, you would not be so compelled to aggressively trumpet just how "GREAT" your marriage is.

Do you know how idiotic your logic sounds to someone like me who is happy to be married? It shows me just how brainwashed and close-minded you are because of this philosophy. I also wonder if it is just a pride issue that keeps you from conceding that there are more life scenarios than your philosophy let's on. You call yourself a free-thinker, but you are way too wrapped up in this anti-marriage MGTOW way of thinking. It's so extreme it's unrealistic. In it, women are ruled by emotion. That's a blanket statement. In your philosophy, marriage is bad. Men who are content in their marriage must be lying, you think, and they are positive about marriage to defend their mistake. It's not even realistic to think like that. Sure, some men have miserable marriages. Some women divorce their husbands and use the courts to take their money. You can simply dig up some research and see that a lot of women don't do this. It's out there. You might insist that any man who say she likes being married is lying. That's silly and unrealistic, but it's irrational to think that every woman divorces her husband and takes his money.

Men viewing every woman as a potential divorce-court-bandit is kind of like feminists thinking of every man as a potential rapists. Sure, if your only objective is to protect your wealth or protect your hymen, either of those philosophies may work for you. But both of them have some negative social ramifications and can cause an individual to miss out on potential opportunities in life.

If you don't want to marry for financial and other reasons, okay, don't marry. But that doesn't mean that anyone else who married and likes it who doesn't share your priorities is lying or self-deceived.

I could say that deep down you know you want to be married because of the stability, good food, clean house, frequent sex that doesn't require a lot of effort for 'game', and having someone else to do the shopping and run your errands without the hassle of having to hire someone. Otherwise you wouldn't trumpet how 'great' MGTOW is.

Given the volume of your response, I have clearly hit a nerve with you. And rightly so...

I noticed again you have tried (and failed) to shame me because of my age. That is the western man's thinking. The girls in this part of the world LOVE unattached men of my age because it implies high wealth, high wisdom, and high value. Yes, I am 50 and when I am 60 I will be even happier that my wealth will have doubled into the ranks of multi-millionaire. It goes without saying that I look forward to the coming decades unlike yourself obviously.

The most important factor in my success both professionally and as a man who no longer has to work at all, was my remaining unmarried. It has enriched my life with scores of gorgeous women, many of whom I remain in close contact, and it has made me a member of the top 10% in America (which means 1% worldwide). I would choose that over a squat, aging, troll wife from Indonesia (I've been there and know how they look.)

But these are things you cannot relate to; you can only react to them. So you go ahead and continue to do you, you really have no other choice!

[Eric]

Back to the O.P. I have to agree that we live in a gynocentric society simply because, it's what we cater to. Equality DOESN'T work, and amounts to you not being able to say or do anything, because you cater to the lowest common denominator, that is whenever a woman opens her mouth to bitch about something everything stops. That's why EQUALITY doesn't work. I was on an internet forum, and was simply talking about my experiences of women in the grocery store, and some feminist with no sense of humor took offense. Men and women think differently - it seems women get offended over everything. Which is why mixed chat rooms barely work.
Equality is a joke and is a nightmare. Now back to the op. I'm all for specified gender roles, MGTOW not so much. I'm not into being single the rest of my life. I just see the net that women spend when they have control or power. No one can say anything, it's why everything sucks and you can't speak your mind anymore. Someone's always getting offended, and that someone is usually always a woman.

[MrMan]

Given the volume of your response, I have clearly hit a nerve with you. And rightly so...

It's easier to dodge the points I made in my weighty response than to actually deal with them. I suspect this is a pride and identity issue. You've said you support this MGTOW anti-marriage philosophy, and it's become a part of your identity in your mind, so you just dodge the issue when someone pokes holes in it and points out how extreme and unreasonable it is.

I noticed again you have tried (and failed) to shame me because of my age.

Where? 50 is not that old, but it is closer to senior citizen than it is to physical prime at about 24 or 25. I'm aging, too. It's realism, not shaming. Health and stamina are temporary. You should be more aware of your own mortality than I am since I am a a few years behind you. But maybe being married gives me more insight because I go to some of my wife's family's funerals, too, so probably far more than double the funerals you experience since she has a large family.

That is the western man's thinking. The girls in this part of the world LOVE unattached men of my age because it implies high wealth, high wisdom, and high value.

And if they are young, and do not have a real grasp on their own mortality and just how short this life is, then they may not think about being with an elderly, physically weak man. For them, 20 years seems so long it is hardly worth thinking about. But in 20 years, you'll be 70, and your girlfriend will be 39. I'm not opposed to age gaps in relationships. But it does make sense to 'lock her in' going along with other influences like society, family, culture, morality, etc. that might influence her to stay committed if you are thinking of long term. It's in your own self-interest if that is one of your objectives or if you are thinking of having children. Also, the kids don't have to be bastards, another advantage.

Yes, I am 50 and when I am 60 I will be even happier that my wealth will have doubled into the ranks of multi-millionaire.

So you say. You don't even know if you will live through the night. You don't have control over that. I hope you get up tomorrow, but it is not in our control.

If you develop health issues as you age, how much is that worth to you? How much is a heart problem? What about impotence? Would you rather be physically young if you had the choice and have a decent income, or be totally rich, but be old and feeble?

It goes without saying that I look forward to the coming decades unlike yourself obviously.

I've got a lot to look forward to. I am also at a good stage in life as far as income and growing earning potential. I just don't think I'll truly retire. If I did, I think I would do something, run a business or a charity or something like that.

The most important factor in my success both professionally and as a man who no longer has to work at all, was my remaining unmarried. It has enriched my life with scores of gorgeous women, many of whom I remain in close contact, and it has made me a member of the top 10% in America (which means 1% worldwide). I would choose that over a squat, aging, troll wife from Indonesia (I've been there and know how they look.)

I wonder if you act this nasty and rude in real life. I've spent more time in Indonesia than you have. On average, young Indonesian women tend to be less likely to be good looking, from my perspective, than thin white women of the same age. But it is still a huge country and there are a percent of the women that are beautiful. I married one of them, and she looks quite young for her age. No offense, but to me personally, Indonesian women still tend to look better on average than African or Subsaharan African American woman I've seen.

But these are things you cannot relate to; you can only react to them. So you go ahead and continue to do you, you really have no other choice!

You can't relate to a lot of things you comment on. I don't know what it is like to retire early and travel the world, so I don't pretend to be an expert. But you know very little of what it is like to be married, but foolishly act as if you are an expert.