I think the choice between chivalrous vs. assholishness guys is pretty simple for girls and not really the point the OP had in mind. It is more about assertiveness and passivity IMO. I get the feeling too many girls are fine with getting seduced and pampered on dates and not taking an active role in seeking out a partner. This is something I do not like.
I like strong individuals. Someone who doesn't have to come to me over every insecurity they have. Someone who is critical of pro-active about their role within society or a group. I'm not saying that these kind of girls do not exist, I'm just saying that it shouldn't be something to be ashamed of and should be promoted.
Maybe I'm just disposed towards a more egalitarian balance in a relationship. If I see a girl as anything less than my equal, I will have a hard time being attracted to her. Girls stereotypically seem to like the incompatible option, that the man should be richer, older and stronger, physically and mentally, than she is.
The way I see it, anyone who "admits" to being a "nice guy" is really just a low-balling douche putting up a facade to try to lure girls into beds.
You can't say you are nice anymore than you can say you are wise.
Uh, not really man. Sure, someone saying they are nice doesn't make them nice, but nor does it somehow invalidate their niceness. If someone asked me if I was a nice guy, I'd say yes, I am. Why? Because I am often described by others as a nice guy, and therefore I consider it just to describe myself as so.
No way duder. How many times have you seen some "nice guy" shitting on some dude who's dating a girl he likes? All the time we hear them say how the guy's a jerk and is only dating her so he can fuck her, which begs the question of what the hell that "nice guy" wants the girl for anyway.
The type of guy we're talking about is also usually an orbital. He stays around a girl acting as nice as possible all the time so that when she does break up with her he can have a foundation to come to her emotional rescue. A pretty sneaky fucking trick, and we always feel like breaking these douches necks.
It's obvious that if he wasn't attracted to her and or she was ugly as hell he probably wouldn't be doing this shit unless he had low standards. But it's rare to see this play out when standards are low because with low standards you can get just about anything. Pretty girls are like a normal good, and Ugly girls are inferior goods you see.
And for those who think Chivalry means you treat women better than men? Not by a longshot. People who do chivalry treat women differently from men, but certainly not better. If you look throughout history, women generally lived shitty fucking unfulfilling lives compared to men up until recently.
It's simple to understand why, but difficult to rationalize when you look at numbers. The death of one man means the death of millions of potential men. Scholars, thinkers, inventors and writers. The death of one woman only means the death of however many men she could pop out in her lifetime, which is probably about 15 or 20. Very low. Knowing that women were so expendible begs the question of why the hell you should try so hard with them. Well there is a reason.
Men are also much more equal to each other than women are. You see, not all men may have been born equal, but then guns and swords made them equals. Women however, are very stratified, arguably up until very recently (and even then theres debate). A woman who's ugly and has a shitty body or is dumb or all three is probably going to create similar babies, and theres nothing she could do about it. Women typically don't age as well as men, which is why you can predict how hot a girl will be based on how well her mother has aged. A pretty woman is very valuable for her beauty, which cannot be counterfeited (until plastic surgery, school, etc)
Chivalry fits into all this by creating an art in which men can seduce the best of women. Everywhere an attractive girl goes there is a market for her. Yea, it may be mostly full with a shitload of buyers but there sure as hell is one hot seller.
It's simple to understand why, but difficult to rationalize when you look at numbers. The death of one man means the death of millions of potential men. Scholars, thinkers, inventors and writers. The death of one woman only means the death of however many men she could pop out in her lifetime, which is probably about 15 or 20. Very low. Knowing that women were so expendible begs the question of why the hell you should try so hard with them.
I didn't know men had the ability to make children without women.
It's simple to understand why, but difficult to rationalize when you look at numbers. The death of one man means the death of millions of potential men. Scholars, thinkers, inventors and writers. The death of one woman only means the death of however many men she could pop out in her lifetime, which is probably about 15 or 20. Very low. Knowing that women were so expendible begs the question of why the hell you should try so hard with them.
I didn't know men had the ability to make children without women.
After a man fucks a woman and makes her preggers, yes, he can create a child without being around the woman. Ever again too.
It's simple to understand why, but difficult to rationalize when you look at numbers. The death of one man means the death of millions of potential men. Scholars, thinkers, inventors and writers. The death of one woman only means the death of however many men she could pop out in her lifetime, which is probably about 15 or 20. Very low. Knowing that women were so expendible begs the question of why the hell you should try so hard with them.
I didn't know men had the ability to make children without women.
What's really funny is that he has it completely backwards.
One man alone could - in theory at least - inseminate thousands of women or more, whereas one woman can only be inseminated by 15 or 20 (to use his figures) and then only one at a time. Men are more expendable because it only takes one of us to get a lot of babies made.
It's simple to understand why, but difficult to rationalize when you look at numbers. The death of one man means the death of millions of potential men. Scholars, thinkers, inventors and writers. The death of one woman only means the death of however many men she could pop out in her lifetime, which is probably about 15 or 20. Very low. Knowing that women were so expendible begs the question of why the hell you should try so hard with them.
I didn't know men had the ability to make children without women.
What's really funny is that he has it completely backwards.
One man alone could - in theory at least - inseminate thousands of women or more, whereas one woman can only be inseminated by 15 or 20 (to use his figures) and then only one at a time. Men are more expendable because it only takes one of us to get a lot of babies made.
It's simple to understand why, but difficult to rationalize when you look at numbers. The death of one man means the death of millions of potential men. Scholars, thinkers, inventors and writers. The death of one woman only means the death of however many men she could pop out in her lifetime, which is probably about 15 or 20. Very low. Knowing that women were so expendible begs the question of why the hell you should try so hard with them.
I didn't know men had the ability to make children without women.
What's really funny is that he has it completely backwards.
One man alone could - in theory at least - inseminate thousands of women or more, whereas one woman can only be inseminated by 15 or 20 (to use his figures) and then only one at a time. Men are more expendable because it only takes one of us to get a lot of babies made.
You would think that. And you would be right. In theory.
But think carefully about what you are implying. You are saying that seeds are less valuable than the dirt they get planted in.
It's simple to understand why, but difficult to rationalize when you look at numbers. The death of one man means the death of millions of potential men. Scholars, thinkers, inventors and writers. The death of one woman only means the death of however many men she could pop out in her lifetime, which is probably about 15 or 20. Very low. Knowing that women were so expendible begs the question of why the hell you should try so hard with them.
I didn't know men had the ability to make children without women.
What's really funny is that he has it completely backwards.
One man alone could - in theory at least - inseminate thousands of women or more, whereas one woman can only be inseminated by 15 or 20 (to use his figures) and then only one at a time. Men are more expendable because it only takes one of us to get a lot of babies made.
You would think that. And you would be right. In theory.
But think carefully about what you are implying. You are saying that seeds are less valuable than the dirt they get planted in.
Seeing as the seeds replenish themselves a few times a day while each patch of dirt can only be used once every nine months, yeah, that's pretty much how it works.
It's simple to understand why, but difficult to rationalize when you look at numbers. The death of one man means the death of millions of potential men. Scholars, thinkers, inventors and writers. The death of one woman only means the death of however many men she could pop out in her lifetime, which is probably about 15 or 20. Very low. Knowing that women were so expendible begs the question of why the hell you should try so hard with them.
I didn't know men had the ability to make children without women.
What's really funny is that he has it completely backwards.
One man alone could - in theory at least - inseminate thousands of women or more, whereas one woman can only be inseminated by 15 or 20 (to use his figures) and then only one at a time. Men are more expendable because it only takes one of us to get a lot of babies made.
You would think that. And you would be right. In theory.
But think carefully about what you are implying. You are saying that seeds are less valuable than the dirt they get planted in.
Seeing as the seeds replenish themselves a few times a day while each patch of dirt can only be used once every nine months, yeah, that's pretty much how it works.
Yes, but unlike seeds, men also have the potential to create new women, which nullifies the argument. If a man can create new women to replace the ones lost he now becomes more valuable.
If a guy is a genius you want him to produce as many men as possible.
If a women is a genius, well that's nice and all but she can only create about 20 new people.
And here it becomes more obvious to realize why women are expendable. They can't transfer their traits over onto other people without creating new men.
It's simple to understand why, but difficult to rationalize when you look at numbers. The death of one man means the death of millions of potential men. Scholars, thinkers, inventors and writers. The death of one woman only means the death of however many men she could pop out in her lifetime, which is probably about 15 or 20. Very low. Knowing that women were so expendible begs the question of why the hell you should try so hard with them.
I didn't know men had the ability to make children without women.
What's really funny is that he has it completely backwards.
One man alone could - in theory at least - inseminate thousands of women or more, whereas one woman can only be inseminated by 15 or 20 (to use his figures) and then only one at a time. Men are more expendable because it only takes one of us to get a lot of babies made.
You would think that. And you would be right. In theory.
But think carefully about what you are implying. You are saying that seeds are less valuable than the dirt they get planted in.
Seeing as the seeds replenish themselves a few times a day while each patch of dirt can only be used once every nine months, yeah, that's pretty much how it works.
Yes, but unlike seeds, men also have the potential to create new women, which nullifies the argument. If a man can create new women to replace the ones lost he now becomes more valuable.
How? The production of additional men will probably be roughly equal to the production of additional women, and those men will still be able to produce sperm by the time the additional "women" can safely carry a child to term. Making everyone expendable. Just like real-life.
If a guy is a genius you want him to produce as many men as possible.
If a women is a genius, well that's nice and all but she can only create about 20 new people.
And here it becomes more obvious to realize why women are expendable. They can't transfer their traits over onto other people without creating new men.
But what if he's a genius but also a pickpocket? Then you don't want him to reproduce at all!
Posts
I like strong individuals. Someone who doesn't have to come to me over every insecurity they have. Someone who is critical of pro-active about their role within society or a group. I'm not saying that these kind of girls do not exist, I'm just saying that it shouldn't be something to be ashamed of and should be promoted.
Maybe I'm just disposed towards a more egalitarian balance in a relationship. If I see a girl as anything less than my equal, I will have a hard time being attracted to her. Girls stereotypically seem to like the incompatible option, that the man should be richer, older and stronger, physically and mentally, than she is.
This.
No way duder. How many times have you seen some "nice guy" shitting on some dude who's dating a girl he likes? All the time we hear them say how the guy's a jerk and is only dating her so he can fuck her, which begs the question of what the hell that "nice guy" wants the girl for anyway.
The type of guy we're talking about is also usually an orbital. He stays around a girl acting as nice as possible all the time so that when she does break up with her he can have a foundation to come to her emotional rescue. A pretty sneaky fucking trick, and we always feel like breaking these douches necks.
It's obvious that if he wasn't attracted to her and or she was ugly as hell he probably wouldn't be doing this shit unless he had low standards. But it's rare to see this play out when standards are low because with low standards you can get just about anything. Pretty girls are like a normal good, and Ugly girls are inferior goods you see.
And for those who think Chivalry means you treat women better than men? Not by a longshot. People who do chivalry treat women differently from men, but certainly not better. If you look throughout history, women generally lived shitty fucking unfulfilling lives compared to men up until recently.
It's simple to understand why, but difficult to rationalize when you look at numbers. The death of one man means the death of millions of potential men. Scholars, thinkers, inventors and writers. The death of one woman only means the death of however many men she could pop out in her lifetime, which is probably about 15 or 20. Very low. Knowing that women were so expendible begs the question of why the hell you should try so hard with them. Well there is a reason.
Men are also much more equal to each other than women are. You see, not all men may have been born equal, but then guns and swords made them equals. Women however, are very stratified, arguably up until very recently (and even then theres debate). A woman who's ugly and has a shitty body or is dumb or all three is probably going to create similar babies, and theres nothing she could do about it. Women typically don't age as well as men, which is why you can predict how hot a girl will be based on how well her mother has aged. A pretty woman is very valuable for her beauty, which cannot be counterfeited (until plastic surgery, school, etc)
Chivalry fits into all this by creating an art in which men can seduce the best of women. Everywhere an attractive girl goes there is a market for her. Yea, it may be mostly full with a shitload of buyers but there sure as hell is one hot seller.
Understand? (Y/N)
I didn't know men had the ability to make children without women.
After a man fucks a woman and makes her preggers, yes, he can create a child without being around the woman. Ever again too.
One man alone could - in theory at least - inseminate thousands of women or more, whereas one woman can only be inseminated by 15 or 20 (to use his figures) and then only one at a time. Men are more expendable because it only takes one of us to get a lot of babies made.
Exactly.
You would think that. And you would be right. In theory.
But think carefully about what you are implying. You are saying that seeds are less valuable than the dirt they get planted in.
Seeing as the seeds replenish themselves a few times a day while each patch of dirt can only be used once every nine months, yeah, that's pretty much how it works.
Yes, but unlike seeds, men also have the potential to create new women, which nullifies the argument. If a man can create new women to replace the ones lost he now becomes more valuable.
If a guy is a genius you want him to produce as many men as possible.
If a women is a genius, well that's nice and all but she can only create about 20 new people.
And here it becomes more obvious to realize why women are expendable. They can't transfer their traits over onto other people without creating new men.
How? The production of additional men will probably be roughly equal to the production of additional women, and those men will still be able to produce sperm by the time the additional "women" can safely carry a child to term. Making everyone expendable. Just like real-life.
But what if he's a genius but also a pickpocket? Then you don't want him to reproduce at all!