Frosty

I actually have this dilemma myself, I am an atheist agnostic. However a great many of the nu-atheists that came from the liberal/SJW movement are fairly leftwing people. Before I started to identify as MGTOW probably about >5 years ago, I would actively try and date and I couldn't wrap my head around the idea of dating someone with genuine religious beliefs, I didn't think i'd be able to respect that person, it'd be like dating someone who genuinely thinks Father Christmas is real. Fast forward maybe 4 years and I'm a MGTOW and I tend to keep an eye on how the dating scene is evolving and changing, mostly with the intention to just verify my position is actually a rational one. But then I started to 180 my position on theists, mostly from FDR and learning that what you really need to look for more than anything else is virtues and values. So just out of intellectual curiosity I went back and changed my dating profile filters to allow religious women and the profiles are a lot better on average, purely from my anecdotal experience. I've started to see the benefits of traditional marriage, it's basically better in about every way we can reasonably measure which is why I feel like I've become more right wing. It's certainly an odd position because I am liberal about some things like gay marriage, and libertarian at core, but definitely do recognize that if you want to do the family unit thing, then there's already a good template for how to do it. One of the biggest things I've been thinking about for maybe 2 years is how do we replace the values religion has instilled in people, because it's a fact, religion is going away, at least in the UK, at about 1% per year. Tracking the national census 2001 was 15% non religious, 2011 was 25% non religious. We want to do away with the irrational stuff that conflicts with science, reason and evidence. But ideally we need a replacement for the moral/values part. That's not to say that biblical morality is perfect, it's downright awful in places, but the basics seem to be there. That's something I'm coming to believe more strongly as I listen to lectures by a guy called Jordan B Peterson, check him out, interesting Dawinian take on religion. The point is we need rational and secular replacements for the masses, most people do not think deeply about this and so liberalism has become very much anything goes morally. This whole "find a good woman" thing is so terribly naive in my opinion, sure we want to avoid the state machinery that sucks up fathers and husbands, drains them of all their money and assets, takes their kids away and spits them back out. Just find a good woman, yeah right. Just looking at the ratio of women to men with FDR shows you the maths wont ever work out for this strategy. World is a mess and I default back to my position of MGTOW, stay away from this horrible horrible mess because it ain't worth traversing this particular minefield.

Going to see this in Norwich UK on the 18th, there's screenings for the 18th and 19th. Cassie is also going to be there, so will Erin, which is awesome. So excited, I can't wait. Glad I backed the kickstarter for this all those years ago,

Basically this. The statistics on bottlenecks to sex are well known. Women are picky and selective so men have to bring their A game and put a lot of effort in. Men are generally horny dogs (or a lot are) which means being a slut it easy. Doing something hard gets you recognition and doing something easy to excess is generally frowned upon, kind of like a type of gluttony. There's also a supply/demand balance that women collectively benefit from, the less the supply of sex the more value it has, and so it can be used to get presents, meals, jewelry, etc. When women devalue it by being slutty then they increase the supply and the value drops.

I try not to engage in discussion with women that is likely to lead to them being upset about something, it simply isn't worth it because you'll never in a million years get something rational out of them, so why bother. The few times women have seen fit to sling insults or get angry I don't recall being called crazy. Remember that women are much better social manipulators than men, they've evolved with social manipulation as a primary strategy for having agency in the world, they're also trained around other girls from a young age to socialize and manipulate through their play. I would make a stab in the dark that you're sensitive to this particular insult. Has it been used any more than the others, or is it confirmation bias where you remember that particular insult more than others. What women choose to call you won't be random, it will be designed (albeit it unconsciously) to do the most amount of damage. And women can feel out your personality quite well over time. So for example if you have a deep worry that you'll turn out like your father, and he was hypothetically a drunk or whatever, then they'll shout something like "you're just like your dad". So question. Does that insult bother you more than others? If so why? Do you think you outwardly project anything that would tell a woman that it would be a particuarly damaging insult to you? Those are HARD questions to answer on your own because of your subjective bias. If you have a close female friend then speak to them about it and ask them those questions.

I've been a MGTOW for about 4 years and live alone. It's sustainable for me so far. We have a brilliant service in our area called Deliveroo which allows you to order food from a restaurant locally and have it shipped to you, so I order that about 3 times a week for food, you get restaurant quality food to your door for a delivery fee of about £2.50, otherwise there's takeaway delivery, and the other days I just eat things like microwave meals. I literally cannot be bothered to cook, no point. Most normal days there's a sandwich lady at work who visits and I buy salads/greens from her to stay a bit more healthy. Long term you have to balance out the costs, there's savings if you share a home, rent and bills. But then also you're going to spend a lot on her, probably gifts while you're courting, an expensive wedding, and then the biggest of all costs are children. Most married couples have children and they're super expensive, this is where long term you make your bank. Children cost something in the region of £250,000 as a minimum to raise and it can be a lot more depending on things like if you go private school route and have to pay for tuition. Living alone isn't a problem for anyone who isn't a total mong. Get on a career ladder and you can be earning more than enough cash for the bachelor lifestyle. And you get to spend all of your money on yourself. I'm saving for a mortgage at the moment and get to drop silly money into my savings account each month. It happened in Rome shortly before the fall of Rome. The native Roman population in the major cities had become rich through owning land during the aggressive expansion of the empire. Roman men became lazy fatcats who didn't care for wives or children, they were just seen as an unnecessary burden. The native birth rate plummeted way below replacement rate. In the end they put in a bachelor tax for unmarried men and for married men without children, but the Roman men just paid the tax and went on with their lives. Interestingly it was the monks who wanted to remain celibate for religious reasons who turned over the laws. It's also happening in a more advanced stage in Japan, men are checking out in massive numbers, they tend to be called Herbivore men or "grass eaters" who have little to no interest in long term relationships with women, their birthrate is way below replacement rate at the moment.

I think it's worth understanding that many of these things are hardwired biological responses, they're not reasoned. And you have to be careful about the cause and effect, not getting these 2 things flipped. During humans early development, men capable of providing and protecting gave the genes of women a survival advantage. The men that acquired these resources displayed outward indicators of their success, which is generally more confidence and more alpha traits of dominance and many cases charity, which in the case of charity to beta males created social hierarchy. The women who evolved a strategy of being attracted to alpha male traits were more likely to sexually interact with the alpha and thus more likely to pass on those qualities in their genes. Game is just a modern day attempt to recreate those qualities. One of your points correctly shows that women aren't always interested in a mans resources, especially if she has a lot herself, but remember the attraction is not to resources but to what indicate the resources, which is the confidence and the alpha male traits. And because that biology evolved over a long period of time, it's not going away any time soon, and PUA make use of that fact to get laid. Game isn't used to pick partners for long term relationships, a large number of the people using it are simply interested in getting laid and are logically picking the shortest line between 2 points. The more tricky thing about relationships where this becomes a grey area for me is that I believe virtue is a better reason to pick a partner than for just biological attraction, but does the existence of game directly conflict with virtue? I'm not so sure. What I believe for sure is that it's not a direct replacement, that you need to display virtue to attract other virtuous people, but I suspect that certain elements of game can be used in addition to that to increase your chances. Intelligence certainly isn't a moral virtue, and so while an intelligent female might understand when they're being gamed and reject the man, what you might lose in virtuous intelligent women you might be able to gain in virtuous attractive women, and that seems like a reasonable trade off for many men. Some elements of game may be considered fraud in the context of negotiating a relationship though and so plausibly a violation of the NAP. Outside of that I see it as relatively harmless, a kind of "male makeup", women boost their attractiveness to men with makeup. Intelligent men know why this works and may reject women who use it a lot, but what women lose in intelligent men they gain in having greater pick of attractive men, or men with other qualities they prefer.

Go to the police, they have a process for escalating punishment for harassment, if you have reasonable grounds for a restraining order then any such further action is punished severely because the person harassing is given a warning to stop and boundaries they should not exceed, which seems reasonable to me. However my gut tells me we don't have the entire story here, that someone that persistent is likely either doing it for some reason which we don't see here, maybe the girl is pregnant with his kid, or she owes him money, or whatever it is. Or that the guy in question has some kind of mental imbalance that doesn't allow him to deal with loss/breakup. It's rare that people are just crazy and risk harassing other people for literally no reason at all, which is kind of the premise we're implicitly being asked to accept in this scenario. Given the police response that there was circumstances leading to the breakup that matter, we'd need to understand what those circumstances were, and ideally from a 3rd party impartial person who could tell us without bias. It's super easy when you hear only one side of a story to assume who the bad guy is here. You see this kind of hilarious 180 degree flips in understanding from things like reddit posts on relationships where a woman comes in and tells this torturous story of woe and the guy finds it and posts his side of the story and suddenly we learn actually he's been extremely reasonable and she's been manipulative to both him and the readers.

I see no reason to believe that a smart, moral and virtuous person must never use makeup, or that use of it necessarily implies the lack of those things. It is however a red flag for me, if a woman uses makeup and sexual attraction alone to net a partner, then it could be reasonably assumed that she is primarily interested in men who are interested in her for her looks. However if you meet a woman who displays virtuous traits and looks for virtuous traits in people she is romantically interested in, but also happens to wear makeup, then I see no problem with that at all, it's something that needs to be seen in context. As humans we're hard wired to enjoy certain things and there's nothing wrong with indulging those desires, it's kinda like saying if a man takes you out on a date and he pays for an expensive restaurant that serves 5 star food, then be on the lookout as he might be trying to buy your affection. There's nothing wrong with enjoy good food or enjoying an attractive face, it just can't be the primary motivator for a relationship if you want long term happiness. I wouldn't be outspoken against makeup or even particularly supportive of women who don't wear it, that's the wrong end of the stick. Just continue to champion virtue. Why not have it all, virtue, attractive looking mate and good food?

I don't think there's anything wrong with that, most humans have at least some empathy which is triggered by outward physical indicators of distress. In some senses my understanding of it is more logical than it is emotional, the crying really doesn't trigger empathy in me and I don't lack empathy in many other situations so something odd is going on. I think because it feels like we've waged war with these people for so long, a war in which we're fighting to stop them from robbing more of our money and assets through force, we find it hard to emphasize with someone who does not reciprocate it. I can put myself into their mindset enough to know why they're upset and if you are an "emotional thinker" then it's not a surprise to see an overly emotional reaction to the result. And I can even understand in their world view why they think trump is a Monster/Hitler/Super Villain. But what really pushes me over the edge where I take almost a perverse pleasure in their suffering, and why I think it's justified, is that these people think they're so morally virtuous and so smug about being right, and they didn't think Trump stood a chance, it was hilarious to them that he might win (see audience reaction on Ann Coulters prediciton of a Trump win on the Bill Maher show). The emotion is real but the suffering really isn't, most of these people are liberal middle class white women, they're among some of the most protected people on the planet, they've never had to work a dangerous job, or ever been left unprotected by men, these are some of the most entitled people on earth. Their lives are so good the thing that makes them break down crying is an election loss. Anyone who is hard because they went through rough childhoods or had/has to work in a dangerous job, or has a disability they overcame, or were abandoned or abused and had to fight on their own...these people understand that crying at this kind of crap show you're a very sheltered person. It's like the person who whines about having to go to the dentist to have an injection to numb an area for drilling. Complaining about the pinch is something you only do when you've never felt the absolute agonizing pain of an exposed nerve in a cavity. It betrays their lack of perspective.

I think in the case where significant damage is done and where there's heavy reliance on the government by many, simply kicking the crutch away would be an enormously bad idea, we're talking about the likely deaths of many people as they fail to be able to support themselves, a power vacuum that would almost certainly be filled by something undesirable. If I got to personally pick a future for America, and really the world, it's that we'd gradually lessen government and wean people off and gradually lower the amount of violence and coercion in the process. I've discussed this before on this board with libertarians or anarchists who are so principled that they'd prefer to just snap their fingers and end government. That's why if I was a US citizen I'd vote Trump, not because his policies are best or align with my own beliefs, but because they're CLOSER to what I believe than any other party/candidate who actually stands a chance of winning. With the hope that if people see the benefits of less tax and smaller government, then people will change the way they vote to reflect that, for more freedom, and keep repeating this process until government is negligibly small. Many drug addicts are successfully weaned off drugs by continuing to administer smaller and smaller doses of either the drug or some chemical equivalent, and that typically causes less pain and discomfort to the drug user and has less chance of a relapse that comes with people who go cold turkey.

It might come down to the type of lie, lies of omission such as leaving out skills you do have or leaving out other work placements I wouldn't personally consider immoral, it's an assumption by the employer that your CV covers everything, it's their responsibility to ensure you're appropriate for the position and not yours, that means they need to check the facts they care about. Other types of lies such as presenting false information, for example altering the period you've worked for prior employees could be construed as fraud I guess (not fraud by any legal standard I'm aware of), which is broadly against the NAP, you are misleading someone else for your own benefit at their expense. It's plausible an employer might tie terms of contract to information you've provided being accurate which if later discovered would be seen as a breach of contract which and you'd have to suffer whatever agreed penalty that came with.

My predictions are that if we see collapse it wil predominantly be economic, I don't think we need to worry about cabins in woods or guns, I don't think food will stop being produced or that shelter will collapse and water stop pumping. What'll happen is that people with assets and savings will get completely wiped out, which means you need a safe place to invest your money. That can be overseas in more economically stable regions or in physical assets with some intrinsic value such as precious metals. One convenient ways to buy gold which you can spend with a credit card type deal is with Peter Schiffs gold banks, i think it's EuroPac, you can buy gold which he holds overseas and you spend gold through a typical card and you spend gold at its current value against the currency. Don't look to gold to save you from societal collapse, no one is going to trade gold at the end of the world, instead it's really just a good mechanism to sustain value through economic upheaval. You want to make sure that when the currency crashes and eventually builds back up to where it was, that the value you have stored is the same and not completely demolished. Any assets held in the currency that crashes will become worthless. I think food hording is generally silly, if things get that bad then what you'll need is guns because if no one else is prepared and you are, then people are going to be coming for your stuff.

Sex is determined by genetics, the XX and XY chromosome pairs, in "normal" human growth that covers the vast majority of the population and has been the working mechanism powering evolution by creating diversity from which nature selects. These genetic differences in sex leads to typical differences in physical and mental characteristics, testosterone produced by men makes us more aggressive and bigger risk takers for example, men are taller on average etc. Outside of genetic abnormalities or illness sex has largely stayed a binary distinction. Sex is entirely nature and nothing to do with nurture. Gender and sense of gender identity is a term which has changed with usage over time, as our understanding has improved. Gender identity is thought to be set during fetal development while the brain structure is developing, spikes in testosterone at certain weeks can cause permanent changes in brain structure and give males a more female orientated brain and females a more male orientated brain. So a sense of gender identity is also nature, whether that be congenital conditions or illness, or just environmental, nurture cannot set or undo a sense of gender identity. It can only suppress expression of it. It's worth noting that gender identity leads to a type of gender expression in society and this expression is where nurture comes in, different races evolve different cultures in which gender expression is typically different although shares some commonality, this suggests that gender expression is still influenced by gender identity but not completely. That is to say there is some common elements that are feminine and masculine but this changes in subtle ways from culture to culture. In most of the important ways discussed today it seems like most gender differences come down to evolutionary traits that benefit eiher men or women. So for example females tend to do better on standardized empathy tests and have more interest in helping other people in their careers and personal lives, this would facilitate raising children while men went off to hunt, men tend to be more aggressive this facilitates protection of the family. You can pretty much tell what is a social construct and what isn't if you look to evolutionary biology for reasons we might have these different behaviors, if there's a good evolutionary reason and the trait crosses cultures then odds are its heavily influenced by nature and not by society. Feminists tend to want to believe that apart from sexual organs that men and women are essentially the same and that all differences are due to society, which is getting cause and effect the wrong way around. Sexual dimorphic characteristics that come directly from evolution heavily inform gender expression which then inform societal behaviour, for example we know that people who are over exposed to testosterone as a fetus are more likely to enter the STEM field later in life, irrelevant of whether you're male or female, it's just that typically men are exposed to more testosterone under normal healthy conditions. A good documentary on this investigates these issues, links here https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1vuho8/the_documentary_that_made_scandinavians_cut_all/

It seems obvious to me that HRT would make it harder for male to female trans to compete against other men, and that there would be a natural disadvantage due to inability to grow and maintain muscle mass. However that's not the same thing as saying that they're on par with naturally born females, the smart money would be that because they grew up male for some portion of their life and inherited benefits of being male during important growth periods and formed male skeletal structure but also suffer from diminished capacity that they'd lay somewhere between the average woman and average man in athletic ability. I think it's something for athletes to figure out among themselves, what I'd expect to see is if it becomes a problem people do what they always do in the free market and vote with their feet, move to professional athletic competitions which support your preferred treatment of trans athletes, that is to say if you're a female runner and some trans woman joins the competition and thrashes everyone, stop competing there, go compete elsewhere where trans competitors are not allowed. The free market will sort the rest out.

I'm confused, you obviously use the internet...yet you thought that dating a feminist was going to end well. Can anyone help me out here?