Home › Forums › MGTOW Central › So What Happened to That "Do Women Love Men" Thread?
This topic contains 47 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by 
surfdude12 2 years, 8 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
It is not like he wasn’t given a chance to clarify or explain.
I saw the original post and only scanned some replies. That topic should have expected a somewhat strong reaction considering the company he’s in…. but claws weren’t really called for. Yet. I did understand the strong reaction though.
I just didn’t see the claws. I certainly didn’t have my claws out.
I tried to stick to my point and get it to clarify or correct etc.
It seemed to be too wrapped up in ego, and was p~~~ed its thesis wasn’t received as some breakthrough moment for all of us.
He had answered and said he did not blame men. Look, either way what was likely a young kid who liked us is now gone, make of the situation whatever you like.
But his thesis did exactly that! Shift all responsibility for earning love onto men, and thus shifting blame onto them if they fail to earn/keep love. (plus it isn’t even love)
I pointed it out and asked for him to correct me where I was wrong.You can’t just try to qualify it as not being something, when in fact the logical conclusion is exactly what you are saying it isn’t.
“Purple people are lazy… but I am not being racist!”
Anyway, its all cool. KM handled it.is now gone
He’s not gone and I hope he doesn’t leave.
I liked the guy right out of the gate. A kindred spirit in a way.We have an obligation to delete him if he still wants. But we don’t have an obligation to make him a participant again. I really hate that. Come. Join. Speak. Expect others to read and reply and then delete yourself like everyone’s time and attention disposable?
This is why we don’t have a self delete option. If we allowed that, hotheads would come, litter the forums and bail whenever they don’t like the responses they get. We saw way too much of that before. Would rather make an effort to work it out. If they still don’t want to make that effort? Fine, nothing we can do.
He can change his display name an avatar to anything, and “start over” if he wants. The thread is deleted at his request, it was a mistake, and now he can continue. I hope he does. And I hope he reads this too.
If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.Km . When refreshing the thread it shows ya avatar as last responder on main page . But prr should be showing . It did this on a thread of petes last week .
THE PLANTATION HAS NOW TURNED INTO THE KILLING FIELDS . WOMAN ARE NOW ROLLING CAMBODIAN STYLE .
Anonymous14It is not like he wasn’t given a chance to clarify or explain.
I saw the original post and only scanned some replies. That topic should have expected a somewhat strong reaction considering the company he’s in…. but claws weren’t really called for. Yet. I did understand the strong reaction though.
I just didn’t see the claws. I certainly didn’t have my claws out.
I tried to stick to my point and get it to clarify or correct etc.
It seemed to be too wrapped up in ego, and was p~~~ed its thesis wasn’t received as some breakthrough moment for all of us.
He had answered and said he did not blame men. Look, either way what was likely a young kid who liked us is now gone, make of the situation whatever you like.
But his thesis did exactly that! Shift all responsibility for earning love onto men, and thus shifting blame onto them if they fail to earn/keep love. (plus it isn’t even love)
I pointed it out and asked for him to correct me where I was wrong.You can’t just try to qualify it as not being something, when in fact the logical conclusion is exactly what you are saying it isn’t.
“Purple people are lazy… but I am not being racist!”
Anyway, its all cool. KM handled it.I did not read his thesis as you did, we took it two different ways, as others did. I read it as him laying out how it is, not a condemnation of men, I think this is how he meant it. He also openly stated he did not mean to blame men. If the original post could be put up again I think you would be able to see this if you read it again a few times.
All good its changing now
THE PLANTATION HAS NOW TURNED INTO THE KILLING FIELDS . WOMAN ARE NOW ROLLING CAMBODIAN STYLE .
Guy wasn’t tuna in my book probably needed to lurk a bit more . I was about to throw on his thread to not give a f~~~ and move on . He was a sesitive person and we don’t know why but i would dare say something has made him that way
But ghost do some lurking and keep ya same name . Good blokes on here bro . I copped s~~~ on here once been called tuna . I didn’t give a f~~~ and moved on . Lots of us have .
THE PLANTATION HAS NOW TURNED INTO THE KILLING FIELDS . WOMAN ARE NOW ROLLING CAMBODIAN STYLE .
Something I said?!?!
"Women have become so full of hatred that they are blind to reason and humanity. That which they practice will be the end of humanity, long before any war that men may fight.." "Women are predators by nature. Why else do you think they are so quick to gang up and go after a man they hate for showing any sign of weakness?"
Anonymous14Guy wasn’t tuna in my book probably needed to lurk a bit more . I was about to throw on his thread to not give a f~~~ and move on . He was a sesitive person and we don’t know why but i would dare say something has made him that way
But ghost do some lurking and keep ya same name . Good blokes on here bro . I copped s~~~ on here once been called tuna . I didn’t give a f~~~ and moved on . Lots of us have .
Ha, Blade you amaze me every 10 posts or so. You got called Tuna early on? That’s hard to believe. I got told to go back to Stormfront early on (never been there), but not Tuna, I kicked in the doors with both guns ablaze.
So if you are still reading this Ghost, stay or come back under a new identity. Just talk some s~~~ the next time you get called out, it works for everyone. Women are bad at talking s~~~, it is almost a test here to see how posters behave. Even if you don’t think you are able to talk s~~~, do it, it will come out just fine if you have b~~~~ in between your legs.
Oh, and as far as Blades story… I was straight up expelled at one point for being a jackass, so no worries man, me and Blade got you beat in the comeback department.
is now gone
He’s not gone and I hope he doesn’t leave.
I liked the guy right out of the gate. A kindred spirit in a way.We have an obligation to delete him if he still wants. But we don’t have an obligation to make him a participant again. I really hate that. Come. Join. Speak. Expect others to read and reply and then delete yourself like everyone’s time and attention disposable?
This is why we don’t have a self delete option. If we allowed that, hotheads would come, litter the forums and bail whenever they don’t like the responses they get.
He can change his display name an avatar to anything, and “start over” if he wants. The thread is deleted at his request, it was a mistake, and now he can continue. I hope he does. And I hope he reads this too.
Sounds great.
hopefully in the future he can defend, clarify, answer, correct or simply concede any points of discussion that meet with disagreement.
You mentioned he came from PUA, and that would certainly explain that mindset in his theory concerning men earning love through exploiting hypergamy etc.
Thanks again KM.
Km . When refreshing the thread it shows ya avatar as last responder on main page . But prr should be showing . It did this on a thread of petes last week .
That happens with me sometimes, where when I respond it does some sort of hiccup and I cannot edit it, and it doesn’t show up in latest responses etc.
Thanks joe b . I think he should keep his name . There was no harm done . It might not be the place for him to at this moment . I say let’s give him the benefit of the doubt .
Ok ghost . Lurk a bit and throw on ya mgtow armour . Answer to threads for a bit instead of making a thread for a bit . Don’t be a pussy and jump back on the horse
THE PLANTATION HAS NOW TURNED INTO THE KILLING FIELDS . WOMAN ARE NOW ROLLING CAMBODIAN STYLE .
Km . When refreshing the thread it shows ya avatar as last responder on main page . But prr should be showing . It did this on a thread of petes last week .
That happens with me sometimes, where when I respond it does some sort of hiccup and I cannot edit it, and it doesn’t show up in latest responses etc.
i noticed it on petes thread last week . On main page it froze on who responded last
THE PLANTATION HAS NOW TURNED INTO THE KILLING FIELDS . WOMAN ARE NOW ROLLING CAMBODIAN STYLE .
Something I said?!?!
don’t worry what you said if ya did say something . Ghost just needs to learn to not give a f~~~
THE PLANTATION HAS NOW TURNED INTO THE KILLING FIELDS . WOMAN ARE NOW ROLLING CAMBODIAN STYLE .
I copped s~~~ on here once been called tuna . I didn’t give a f~~~ and moved on . Lots of us have .
I think that would have made my day if you or Pete or old sage threw down a tuna harpoon on one of my sorrier posts. 🙂
I think you would be able to see this if you read it again a few times.
We still have a receipt……
Ghost wrote:
Do most women actually love a man for who he is, or, is it rather the lifestyle, or potential lifestyle, that the a man creates the object that is loved ?
Could one argue that a man’s ability to maintain a relationship, (not that one should necessarily want one) is often based on one’s financial ability to maintain a lifestle compartively equal to the class that the woman aspires to associate with, with a subsequent departure if this lifestyle is not maintained ?
If this is the case, could one argue that a relationshp is entirely based on ones ability to maintain a stable revenu in a world where the financial markets are rapidly changing ?
Your thoughts :
OK, my impartial thoughts as an observer and a “referee” ….
First, the whole post is posed as 3 questions.
He wasn’t lecturing or making a sermon.Do most women actually love a man for who he is, or, is it rather the lifestyle, or potential lifestyle, that the a man creates the object that is loved ?
I would say she “loves” what he can DO FOR HER. Whatever that is. Be it be fame, a white house and picket fence, doing her heavy lifting, white-knighting on her behalf….. she sees him as a tool and means and “loves” only to the degree to which he can provide it.
Read Briffault’s Law too.
Could one argue that a man’s ability to maintain a relationship, (not that one should necessarily want one) is often based on one’s financial ability to maintain a lifestle compartively equal to the class that the woman he aspires to associate with, with a subsequent departure if this lifestyle is not maintained ?
Read Briffault’s Law AGAIN.
That’s the questionable part and trigger phrase….. “Compartively equal to the class of the woman he aspires to associate with”.
What class is that? How HOT is she? A woman can be broke, unemployed, unskilled, brainless, with no ambition and pump coffee for a living, and a man will still “aspire” to go out with her. She doesn’t need to be in a high-rolling lifestyle that he should be responsible for maintaining – because she’s not even there herself.
Look up Hypergamy here.
The argument is the reverse.What the f~~~ is a woman who really doesn’t have much going for her – except her looks – think she can expect a $500K high-earning banker? She’s not even in that “class” herself. She has no business thinking a man should “maintain” that, or else she bolts.
Only a woman would argue that a man should provide such a thing.
And she is delusional.She wouldn’t even “associate” long enough to have a coffee with a man who earns less than $500K, and she’s the ONLY one arguing she’s in any position to pretend that s~~~.
If this is the case, could one argue that a relationshp is entirely based on ones ability to maintain a stable revenue in a world where the financial markets are rapidly changing ?
Sure if she’s a gold digger.
——
All in all, a harmless post – phrased only as questions. Any subsequent “tuna” vibe was probably just result of having to take a defensive position just for asking.
If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.
Anonymous14Something I said?!?!
don’t worry what you said if ya did say something . Ghost just needs to learn to not give a f~~~
You know Blade, back in the day when I went asshole mode for an afternoon you basically had the same attitude for everyone. “Hey, calm down, we are all bro’s here” type of attitude, kinda like “who cares what gets said, man up and move on”. It is a great quality to have when mixing it up with other men if we ever expect to be able to talk about serious s~~~ and take into consideration what others are saying, even it means getting p~~~ed off and blowing up, your attitude of everyone should always come back and try to learn from each other has not gone unnoticed by me, and for f~~~’s sake you and I have disagreed on s~~~ and we are still fine with one another…
If this is the case, could one argue that a relationship is entirely based on ones ability to maintain a stable revenue in a world where the financial markets are rapidly changing ?
You did an excellent breakdown KM.
TO me, the above section (his final conclusion) is the most troubling.It clearly places the onus on earning love (the actual existence of female love being another debate entirely) and a successful relationship on the man and his ability to earn at a level to satisfy the ever changing, whimsical expectations of the female. Thus if the relationship fails, we must reasonably conclude that it is the man who is to blame for failing in this regard.
It is also completely inaccurate at its very core, as I kept trying to point out by asking him if he supposed that above average or high earning men were immune to divorce, failed relationships etc.I welcome him, you or Joe B, or anyone else for that matter to correct where I am wrong.
I read it, and while quite a few warning signs went off, the main one being to me, that he spent absolutely NO time reading the forums it appeared, when I read what he was espousing unto us, it seems to me to definitely be “Aren’t men expected to give into a relationship without question, and women can do nothing if they choose” as a platform to point out how that would be and IS unfair.
The grammar and way of wording things used however, was definitely ambiguous enough to be mistaken for baiting. That may not have been his fault however, that could just be the way he types.
But the sentence structure and content was quite similar, if not the exact same as other threads upon which the poster revealed themselves soon after.
I believe I recall several members asking for clarification on what he meant, and the lack of response (at the time of my posting) definitely did not help to quell suspicion. Along with reports that he back-pedaled and/or played the victim card…well.
are you a chia pet in man drag
Anonymous14If this is the case, could one argue that a relationship is entirely based on ones ability to maintain a stable revenue in a world where the financial markets are rapidly changing ?
You did an excellent breakdown KM.
TO me, the above section (his final conclusion) is the most troubling.It clearly places the onus on earning love (the actual existence of female love being another debate entirely) and a successful relationship on the man and his ability to earn at a level to satisfy the ever changing, whimsical expectations of the female. Thus if the relationship fails, we must reasonably conclude that it is the man who is to blame for failing in this regard.
It is also completely inaccurate at its very core, as I kept trying to point out by asking him if he supposed that above average or high earning men were immune to divorce, failed relationships etc.I welcome him, you or Joe B, or anyone else for that matter to correct where I am wrong.
The answer would be yes, in the current Gynocentric paradigm the onus is on the man to produce what the female expects/demands or she in turn will take the next best or better offer. So if you are to play the game the way it is set up, you will always lose, hence MGTOW, do not play the game. And certainly do not play the game according to someone else’s rules i.e. Society’s rules, that being the Female’s rules and the State’s rules. If you are going to play at all play by YOUR OWN RULES. The amount of money a man makes is not relative to the equation, unless of course he has the most money on the planet and cannot be beat in the game of potential better offers as there is no operational threshold that guarantees a woman’s satisfaction.
If this is the case, could one argue that a relationship is entirely based on ones ability to maintain a stable revenue in a world where the financial markets are rapidly changing ?
You did an excellent breakdown KM.
TO me, the above section (his final conclusion) is the most troubling.It clearly places the onus on earning love (the actual existence of female love being another debate entirely) and a successful relationship on the man and his ability to earn at a level to satisfy the ever changing, whimsical expectations of the female. Thus if the relationship fails, we must reasonably conclude that it is the man who is to blame for failing in this regard.
It is also completely inaccurate at its very core, as I kept trying to point out by asking him if he supposed that above average or high earning men were immune to divorce, failed relationships etc.I welcome him, you or Joe B, or anyone else for that matter to correct where I am wrong.
The answer would be yes, in the current Gynocentric paradigm the onus is on the man to produce what the female expects/demands or she in turn will take the next best or better offer. So if you are to play the game the way it is set up, you will always lose, hence MGTOW. Do not play the game. And certainly do not play the game according to someone else’s rules i.e. Society’s rules, that being the Female’s rules and the State’s rules. If you are going to play at all play by YOUR OWN RULES. The amount of money a man makes is not relative to the equation, unless of course he has the most money on the planet and cannot be beat in the game of potential better offers as there is no operational threshold that guarantees a woman’s satisfaction.
I guess that is where we will always differ.
I am MGTOW, but I will never concede that it is ok for women to operate on pure hypergamic urges. That it is justified for them to destroy and divorce rape men because they feel like it, and that men who do want relationships just have to suck it up and play their evil game.
It isn’t logical, it isn’t justified, and it is not supportable in anyway.- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
