• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Men's Rights Dweebs

calamity

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
flat,800x800,075,f.u7.jpg


MRA Dweeb: Women are shallow. I'm short, fat and broke. So women won't go out with me.

Reply: When was the last time you asked out a short, fat, broke woman?

Dweeb: Why would I do that?


:doh
 
MRA guys complain about things like child support, family court issues, circumcision, unequal sentencing, male parental rights issues, etc, while red pill guys complain about dating and the sort. You might want to get your groups straight.
 
calamity said:
flat,800x800,075,f.u7.jpg


MRA Dweeb: Women are shallow. I'm short, fat and broke. So women won't go out with me.

Reply: When was the last time you asked out a short, fat, broke woman?

Dweeb: Why would I do that?


:doh
Click to expand...
I had not realized you're a misandrist

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
I've sat through a university lecture on sexual selection (a su-theory within the Theory of Evolution), in a biology course, lectured by a woman with an advanced degree in biology.

So, I get what Dr. Peterson is saying in this very short video below pertaining to sexual selection (which has been studied by scientists).



Although, as I recall what I learned, statistically some men have like 100 wives, some 5, some 2, most 1 wife, and then lots of men that have zero (also in terms of sexual female mates period).

The research found that almost all women have 1 male mate.

The research is pretty clear in its conclusions: women are very choosy and more so than men.

Basically, this is a sexual issue that is essentially the same as the economic issue between the Republican and Democrats respective stories. Except, pertaining to the economic issue the Republicans are correct, all American poor men can be middle-class and rich, and far easier than male low on the social/hierarchy totem pole getting chosen by women.

(The social/hierarchy rankings are relative to ones culture, as in inner-city American women favor unemployed, violent, criminal men over working poor men.)

In terms of sexual selection, the life and odds of women are analogous to the wealth distribution in the Scandinavian countries. The life and odds of men are analogous to the wealth distribution of Brazil.

Men are not very discriminating, unless the go higher and higher up the hierarchy totem pole, then they will still usually sleep with "frumpy" women if its freely offered but they become extremely picky about who they choose as a wife.
 
FastPace said:
I've sat through a university lecture on sexual selection (a su-theory within the Theory of Evolution), in a biology course, lectured by a woman with an advanced degree in biology.

So, I get what Dr. Peterson is saying in this very short video below pertaining to sexual selection (which has been studied by scientists).



Although, as I recall what I learned, statistically some men have like 100 wives, some 5, some 2, most 1 wife, and then lots of men that have zero (also in terms of sexual female mates period).

The research found that almost all women have 1 male mate.

The research is pretty clear in its conclusions: women are very choosy and more so than men.

Basically, this is a sexual issue that is essentially the same as the economic issue between the Republican and Democrats respective stories. Except, pertaining to the economic issue the Republicans are correct, all American poor men can be middle-class and rich, and far easier than male low on the social/hierarchy totem pole getting chosen by women.

(The social/hierarchy rankings are relative to ones culture, as in inner-city American women favor unemployed, violent, criminal men over working poor men.)

In terms of sexual selection, the life and odds of women are analogous to the wealth distribution in the Scandinavian countries. The life and odds of men are analogous to the wealth distribution of Brazil.

Men are not very discriminating, unless the go higher and higher up the hierarchy totem pole, then they will still usually sleep with "frumpy" women if its freely offered but they become extremely picky about who they choose as a wife.
Click to expand...


History proves that already. What actually ended up happening was that women would all pick the same small group of men, while a lot of men didn't have anyone. That of course turned into a complete disaster and a change of cultural standards.
 
Last edited:
trouble13 said:
I had not realized you're a misandrist

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Tell me. Do you ask fat broke women out on dates?
 
calamity said:
flat,800x800,075,f.u7.jpg


MRA Dweeb: Women are shallow. I'm short, fat and broke. So women won't go out with me.

Reply: When was the last time you asked out a short, fat, broke woman?

Dweeb: Why would I do that?


:doh
Click to expand...

Wow it's almost like I saw that same exact quote on the FP of imgur yesterday....
 
Henrin said:
History proves that already. What actually ended up happening was that women would all pick the same small group of men, while a lot of men didn't have anyone. That of course turned into a complete disaster and a change of cultural standards.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wish I could remember the name of the author or title of book I had read some years ago, but it was a popular science book written for us laymen and it looked at the history of humanity in mating terms.

One of the examples it focused on was the Aztec empire. I had read about the Aztecs before but this was the first time I had heard that there lower tier men basically ended up womanless. By law each higher level on the social strata a man went up the more wives he was allowed. When you got to the Actual Aztec emperor it was some crazy number of wives he had it was in the hundreds or thousands, I can't remember the exact number the author mentioned.

But he gave examples of Christian Europe and roughly the same thing existed de facto, except it was through mistresses in extra-marital affairs.

Basically, I think scientists tried using statistical math to arrive at some estimate that all humanity is linked to a relatively small portion of men.

(I think from a different source somewhere I read that something like 20% of the Black-American male population fathers most the children in Black-America. I think I read that but I might be remembering incorrectly.)

Anyways, the author of that book tried arguing that the rise of democracy greatly helped men on the lower tiers access women as mates, because men on the lower tiers could use their voice in votes to promote policies that gave them a chance at getting female mates.

A sexual mate is not necessarily the same as marriage. Any obese woman can walk into a bar full of men, declare loudly she wants to get banged and some if not all of the men will have sex with her. Only the most handsome of men on earth, or the most famous, or publicly known wealthiest men (basically the top tier alpha males) could walk into a bar full of women and get laid after loudly declaring they want to get laid. Beta males and certainly the omega males would get cursed out or shunned by the women in the bar loudly declaring something like that.
 
Henrin said:
MRA guys complain about things like child support, family court issues, circumcision, unequal sentencing, male parental rights issues, etc, while red pill guys complain about dating and the sort. You might want to get your groups straight.
Click to expand...

Actually "red pill" guys don't need to complain. It's the action that matters. MGTOW gives the option of not even acknowledging a woman's presence nor communicating with her.
 
Henrin said:
History proves that already. What actually ended up happening was that women would all pick the same small group of men, while a lot of men didn't have anyone. That of course turned into a complete disaster and a change of cultural standards.
Click to expand...

It's cool that we have the internet to be informed about such phenomena. It easier to be a small group of men out of 7 billion than out of 300 million. While it doesn't work so well in IT, outsourcing is great in the relationship arena. Of course one must meet them half way: either learn to like the smell of curry or learn how to speak Spanish or Vietnamese as applicable.
 
FastPace said:
I've sat through a university lecture on sexual selection (a su-theory within the Theory of Evolution), in a biology course, lectured by a woman with an advanced degree in biology.

So, I get what Dr. Peterson is saying in this very short video below pertaining to sexual selection (which has been studied by scientists).



Although, as I recall what I learned, statistically some men have like 100 wives, some 5, some 2, most 1 wife, and then lots of men that have zero (also in terms of sexual female mates period).

The research found that almost all women have 1 male mate.

The research is pretty clear in its conclusions: women are very choosy and more so than men.

Basically, this is a sexual issue that is essentially the same as the economic issue between the Republican and Democrats respective stories. Except, pertaining to the economic issue the Republicans are correct, all American poor men can be middle-class and rich, and far easier than male low on the social/hierarchy totem pole getting chosen by women.

(The social/hierarchy rankings are relative to ones culture, as in inner-city American women favor unemployed, violent, criminal men over working poor men.)

In terms of sexual selection, the life and odds of women are analogous to the wealth distribution in the Scandinavian countries. The life and odds of men are analogous to the wealth distribution of Brazil.

Men are not very discriminating, unless the go higher and higher up the hierarchy totem pole, then they will still usually sleep with "frumpy" women if its freely offered but they become extremely picky about who they choose as a wife.
Click to expand...


interesting...thanks for the analysis
 
Men's Rights Activists are pretty much just like feminists. The majority of them are reasonable, decent people, but the loud assholes dominate the conversation.
 
This isn't about any "men's rights activists", but an acquaintance of mine who said something similar as the OP. He's been married once with a child and then has another child with his former girlfriend. He told me that girls with no kids or marriages wouldn't give him the time of day. I said, "Would you go for a girl who has a couple kids with two different dads?" and he looked at me like I was insane and said that was "incredibly gross". Uh....... *eyeroll*
 
Josie said:
This isn't about any "men's rights activists", but an acquaintance of mine who said something similar as the OP. He's been married once with a child and then has another child with his former girlfriend. He told me that girls with no kids or marriages wouldn't give him the time of day. I said, "Would you go for a girl who has a couple kids with two different dads?" and he looked at me like I was insane and said that was "incredibly gross". Uh....... *eyeroll*
Click to expand...

If I was in that position, the girl with a couple of kids might work if those kids were 18 or older.
 
molten_dragon said:
Men's Rights Activists are pretty much just like feminists. The majority of them are reasonable, decent people, but the loud assholes dominate the conversation.
Click to expand...

Ah, they are like americans.
 
calamity said:
flat,800x800,075,f.u7.jpg


MRA Dweeb: Women are shallow. I'm short, fat and broke. So women won't go out with me.

Reply: When was the last time you asked out a short, fat, broke woman?

Dweeb: Why would I do that?


:doh
Click to expand...

I have never understood that mentality among some men. Alright, so your criteria in women is almost exclusively based on looks and age. So be it. But do you conform to such narrow standards yourself? Do you have a body that is worthy of a cover shot on a fashion magazine? Or are you just an average Joe or lower who feels entitled to winning the Blonde Bombshell Sweepstakes?
 
Phys251 said:
I have never understood that mentality among some men. Alright, so your criteria in women is almost exclusively based on looks and age. So be it. But do you conform to such narrow standards yourself? Do you have a body that is worthy of a cover shot on a fashion magazine? Or are you just an average Joe or lower who feels entitled to winning the Blonde Bombshell Sweepstakes?
Click to expand...

It's amazing to see, hear and read men bash women for their looks who are themselves nothing much to look at. Are they delusional? Perhaps.

I have a friend, 45 years old and recently divorced, with two kids and bills coming out his ass. For some reason he believes he has a shot at 25 year old women who look like they could be on the covers of magazines. He gets so mad too when they blow him off. It's funny.

I always egg him a bit by saying, "there's a reason I got divorced at 39, Broh."
 
Last edited:
The entitlement is strong in some of the race to mate's losers
 
SDET said:
It's cool that we have the internet to be informed about such phenomena. It easier to be a small group of men out of 7 billion than out of 300 million. While it doesn't work so well in IT, outsourcing is great in the relationship arena. Of course one must meet them half way: either learn to like the smell of curry or learn how to speak Spanish or Vietnamese as applicable.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're talking about.
 
SDET said:
Actually "red pill" guys don't need to complain. It's the action that matters. MGTOW gives the option of not even acknowledging a woman's presence nor communicating with her.
Click to expand...

Red pill and MGTOW are different.

Red pill is men interested in dating and being in a realtionship with women, but don't like how they act in relationships or when in comes to dating.
MGTOW is men not interested in relationships with women.

Some red pill guys might become MGTOW in time, but many others will either stay in that situation or find happiness in a realtionship.
 
Henrin said:
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

If a guy wants an Indian woman, he needs to learn to like curry, if a Hispanic woman, Spanish, if a Vietnamese woman, Vietnamese, a Western woman, to not speak and be seen and not heard.
 
SDET said:
If a guy wants an Indian woman, he needs to learn to like curry, if a Hispanic woman, Spanish, if a Vietnamese woman, Vietnamese, a Western woman, to not speak and be seen and not heard.
Click to expand...

:lol:

I have to admit I like the western woman bit.

You should add "do as your told".

What people aren't getting when they insult MGTOW and red pill is that it's women that caused it. A lot of western women have really no business being in a realtionship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom