More Dads Are Getting Plastic Surgery (and Hate For It)

[That Guy]

this is the starwmanning, hypergamy is not the crux of their philosophy.

Jesus Christ, dude.

No, it's not a strawman because a strawman is attacking a point the opposition never made. The points I address are points they bring up in their videos and blog.

and Hypergamy is the crux of their entire philosophy because it is what all of their viewpoints are ultimately based on.

MGTOW arguments are from biology and the study of the human animal.

There arguments almost exclusively stem from broscience and Briffault's law, the latter of which is the study of hypergamy in the animal kingdom and MGTOW believes that Hypergamy is a woman's — wait for it —....nature.

isn't there a possibility on earth where the males of a species have it harder then their female counterparts ?
take for example male redback spiders, they get eaten by the female.
and in some other species the males have it better like bees, drones live their life chilling all day and f*****g the Queen

These are insects; far and away from the most evolved mammal and most advanced species in the known universe.

it's like this, biology imposes shitty lives on some males in nature, and the civilised human animal is definitely having it hard.
he can't have it easy with the female monetizing sex for food.
if you're with a female who doesn't ask you to marry her and splits all the bills with you then good for you.
if you're with the typical professional woman who monetizes every interaction with you, and require you to sign a contract so you will technically be her slave, then i say you just got your sh*t fucked up fam.

So what? I want to ask the girl out to dinner, but at the end of it, I'm supposed to say "Cover your half of the bill, you hypergamous b**ch!"? Because that'll ensure a second date.

I used to date this girl where we'd often go to sushi restaurants. The first time we went to our favourite place, she was insistent on paying and I said no, but when I went to the bathroom, she went up to the till and paid for it all in advance. So I made a deal that the next time would be on me; a promise I kept and the cycle went back and forth like that.

I know that kind of thing sounds just unbelievable to the MGTOW hivemind, but generosity and charity are actually character traits and not just stripper names possessed by many adult women.

nope, we have data on traditional rural women divorcing with western women rates as soon as other financial opportunities are available. so the thing is, rice is what's holding the nuclear family not love, women don't love men.
it's not just the legal aspect of marriage that sucks,the whole thing is still transactional even in traditional non western societies

Since you bring up data, there is one simple truth that destroys the entire MGTOW philosophy in one fell swoop:

The overwhelming majority of people date and marry in their same social class. For example, a 2008 study found that there was no statistical difference in wealth and status in over 1,000 first-time married, American couples.

Movies stars and rich people, almost exclusively marry other movies stars and rich people.

Woman who lives across the street from me is the owner of that house for the past 15 years and is the manager of a furniture store. All 3 of her boyfriends over the years have moved in with her and her current guy works a low-level position a bottling plant. If anything, those guys date up.

The fact of the matter is, and I know this is an impossible pill for MGTOW to swallow, the guy that she ditches you for or picked over you: It is statistically unlikely that he has a higher net worth than you. He'll a be another middle-class guy with a steady 9 - 5.

It's quite possible he'll be better looking, though.

whatever, the woman is still a market commodity. wether her family or herself knows it is irrelevant.
her value peak at 25 then it's downhill from there.

"I think of other people as simply commodities with a shelf life on the market who are too stupid to realize they are and can't understand why said commodities don't want to have sex with me."

and i'm happy for them, at least they don't have to pretend to love a man just to eat rice and survive.

and most don't

you're wrong and uninformed about MGTOW, see the traditional video above, MGTOW are really happy for women who don't have
to pretend to love some clueless beta provider just for ressources. that's why i respect some feminists more than contract w****s, traditional leeches !

and you're a bitter bro who chases women that are likely either: club and tinder skanks or girls obviously out of your league to begin with and is looking for something to blame other than yourself. Based on your own opinions, you're going to be one of these guys like Nameless where they're 40 years old, still wanting to bang 22 year old women (because their shelf life is running out!) and actually believing that a lack of $ or hair (if you've got $) is exclusively why they aren't into you. I'm sorry but those are the kinds of guys who follow MGTOW like religion.

The kinds who, IRL, are 29 years old, still wearing that "Captain Crunk" T-Shirt and backwards hat, have teenagers outside of their family on their FB friends list and send many a drunken "Yeaaaaaa buddy!"s and "wheeeeeeeuuuuuuu"s echoing through the suburbs every Saturday night in the summer.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

have teenagers outside of their family on their FB friends list

lol.

 

[hairblues]

Jesus Christ, dude.

No, it's not a strawman because a strawman is attacking a point the opposition never made. The points I address are points they bring up in their videos and blog.

and Hypergamy is the crux of their entire philosophy because it is what all of their viewpoints are ultimately based on.



There arguments almost exclusively stem from broscience and Briffault's law, the latter of which is the study of hypergamy in the animal kingdom and MGTOW believes that Hypergamy is a woman's — wait for it —....nature.



These are insects; far and away from the most evolved mammal and most advanced species in the known universe.



So what? I want to ask the girl out to dinner, but at the end of it, I'm supposed to say "Cover your half of the bill, you hypergamous b**ch!"? Because that'll ensure a second date.

I used to date this girl where we'd often go to sushi restaurants. The first time we went to our favourite place, she was insistent on paying and I said no, but when I went to the bathroom, she went up to the till and paid for it all in advance. So I made a deal that the next time would be on me; a promise I kept and the cycle went back and forth like that.

I know that kind of thing sounds just unbelievable to the MGTOW hivemind, but generosity and charity are actually character traits and not just stripper names possessed by many adult women.



Since you bring up data, there is one simple truth that destroys the entire MGTOW philosophy in one fell swoop:

The overwhelming majority of people date and marry in their same social class. For example, a 2008 study found that there was no statistical difference in wealth and status in over 1,000 first-time married, American couples.

Movies stars and rich people, almost exclusively marry other movies stars and rich people.

Woman who lives across the street from me is the owner of that house for the past 15 years and is the manager of a furniture store. All 3 of her boyfriends over the years have moved in with her and her current guy works a low-level position a bottling plant. If anything, those guys date up.

The fact of the matter is, and I know this is an impossible pill for MGTOW to swallow, the guy that she ditches you for or picked over you: It is statistically unlikely that he has a higher net worth than you. He'll a be another middle-class guy with a steady 9 - 5.

It's quite possible he'll be better looking, though.



"I think of other people as simply commodities with a shelf life on the market who are too stupid to realize they are and can't understand why said commodities don't want to have sex with me."



and most don't



and you're a bitter bro who chases women that are likely either: club and tinder skanks or girls obviously out of your league to begin with and is looking for something to blame other than yourself. Based on your own opinions, you're going to be one of these guys like Nameless where they're 40 years old, still wanting to bang 22 year old women (because their shelf life is running out!) and actually believing that a lack of $ or hair (if you've got $) is exclusively why they aren't into you. I'm sorry but those are the kinds of guys who follow MGTOW like religion.

The kinds who, IRL, are 29 years old, still wearing that "Captain Crunk" T-Shirt and backwards hat, have teenagers outside of their family on their FB friends list and send many a drunken "Yeaaaaaa buddy!"s and "wheeeeeeeuuuuuuu"s echoing through the suburbs every Saturday night in the summer.

Brilliant.

 

[Min0]

Jesus Christ, dude.
No, it's not a strawman because a strawman is attacking a point the opposition never made. The points I address are points they bring up in their videos and blog.
and Hypergamy is the crux of their entire philosophy because it is what all of their viewpoints are ultimately based on.

i didn't say it's a strawman fallacy, i was implying that you're attacking a weaker definition of MGTOW obviously.
"you're strawmanning MGTOW", not you're using a strawman fallacy against mgtow people.

and no, hypergamy is just another detail why you shouldn't invest in a relationship.
i think about MGTOW as redback spiders. they understand that their reproduction system imposes shitty life on them.

There arguments almost exclusively stem from broscience and Briffault's law, the latter of which is the study of hypergamy in the animal kingdom and MGTOW believes that Hypergamy is a woman's — wait for it —....nature.

calling it broscience is not an argument, we do study different species and understand and PREDICT their behavior.
the human animal is not different, there is no divinity in us, god doesn't exist.

These are insects; far and away from the most evolved mammal and most advanced species in the known universe.

so you agree that it's possible, good.
now what do you say about some primates and the practice of the females leaving their sons to die at the hands of the new dominant male so they can join his harem ?
do you think the females in this case love the males ?

So what? I want to ask the girl out to dinner, but at the end of it, I'm supposed to say "Cover your half of the bill, you hypergamous b**ch!"? Because that'll ensure a second date.

I used to date this girl where we'd often go to sushi restaurants. The first time we went to our favourite place, she was insistent on paying and I said no, but when I went to the bathroom, she went up to the till and paid for it all in advance. So I made a deal that the next time would be on me; a promise I kept and the cycle went back and forth like that.

I know that kind of thing sounds just unbelievable to the MGTOW hivemind, but generosity and charity are actually character traits and not just stripper names possessed by many adult women.

if you're paying for her companionship and sex, you're a beta provider.
girls suck the balls of the males they love FOR FREE. some even give them money.

Since you bring up data, there is one simple truth that destroys the entire MGTOW philosophy in one fell swoop:

The overwhelming majority of people date and marry in their same social class. For example, a 2008 study found that there was no statistical difference in wealth and status in over 1,000 first-time married, American couples.

Movies stars and rich people, almost exclusively marry other movies stars and rich people.

Woman who lives across the street from me is the owner of that house for the past 15 years and is the manager of a furniture store. All 3 of her boyfriends over the years have moved in with her and her current guy works a low-level position a bottling plant. If anything, those guys date up.

The fact of the matter is, and I know this is an impossible pill for MGTOW to swallow, the guy that she ditches you for or picked over you: It is statistically unlikely that he has a higher net worth than you. He'll a be another middle-class guy with a steady 9 - 5.

It's quite possible he'll be better looking, though.

what class they're marrying is irrelevant, what's relevant is WHY they are marrying, if it was for love then women with money should
marry or divorce with the same rates as poor women.

"I think of other people as simply commodities with a shelf life on the market who are too stupid to realize they are and can't understand why said commodities don't want to have sex with me."

a woman knows her market value.

and most don't

so why are they not marrying and are divorcing more when other financial options are at hand ?

and you're a bitter bro who chases women that are likely either: club and tinder skanks or girls obviously out of your league to begin with and is looking for something to blame other than yourself. Based on your own opinions, you're going to be one of these guys like Nameless where they're 40 years old, still wanting to bang 22 year old women (because their shelf life is running out!) and actually believing that a lack of $ or hair (if you've got $) is exclusively why they aren't into you. I'm sorry but those are the kinds of guys who follow MGTOW like religion.

nope, i'm not the kind of man who chases girls, i value myself too much (looks and intellect), in fact it's the women who should pay me to talk and f*** them, not the other way around.

The kinds who, IRL, are 29 years old, still wearing that "Captain Crunk" T-Shirt and backwards hat, have teenagers outside of their family on their FB friends list and send many a drunken "Yeaaaaaa buddy!"s and "wheeeeeeeuuuuuuu"s echoing through the suburbs every Saturday night in the summer.

you sound like you can't accept the truth, there is no mommy out there who loves you and cares for you, deal with it, fap to traps and save money for Tsuji, Peace.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

in fact it's the women who should pay me to talk and f*** them, not the other way around.

On what basis?

 

[kj6723]

Plastic surgery of any kind makes you less of a man.

Dumbass. This person is in need of a good curb stomping

 

[Min0]

On what basis?

i said earlier it should be 50/50
and if not, then i should be the one benificing, why ? because i value myself and refuse a bad deal maybe ?

 

[Min0]

meanwhile inside a woman's brain
Study reveals price plays exclusive part in women’s approval of sexualy explicit advertisements

“This should come as no surprise to anyone who has studied the subject matter” he said. “Women regard the sex they offer as a highly valuable commodity that carries with it the important quality of scarcity, which is essential in keeping the price of sex high.”

Abstract
Two experiments tested when and why women’s typically negative, spontaneous reactions to sexual imagery would soften. Sexual economics theory predicts that women want sex to be seen as rare and special. We reasoned that this outlook would translate to women tolerating sexual images more when those images are linked to high worth as opposed to low worth. We manipulated whether an ad promoted an expensive or a cheap product using a sexually charged or a neutral scene. As predicted, women found sexual imagery distasteful when it was used to promote a cheap product, but this reaction to sexual imagery was mitigated if the product promoted was expensive. This pattern was not observed among men. Furthermore, we predicted and found that sexual ads promoting cheap products heightened feelings of being upset and angry among women. These findings suggest that women’s reactions to sexual images can reveal deep-seated preferences about how sex should be used and understood.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797613502732

 

[That Guy]

you sound like you can't accept the truth, there is no mommy out there who loves you and cares for you, deal with it, fap to traps and save money for Tsuji, Peace.

You're just a manchild

meanwhile inside a woman's brain

To be honest, I think this study is kind of the opposite of your point.

You are looking at this through the lense of women are attracted to the fact that the product is expensive rather than because the promotion of the more expensive thing generally has more aesthetic advertising or the product itself is I.e., better looking.

What the study is showing is that women want sex to be something special and as such they want to give to something special rather than just any old thing.

Here are some examples of advertising applied to other things and I'll end it on sexual advertising catering to men:

Just the other day, I was at the Liquor store to buy for my dad on father's day. Bud Light sells 12.99 for a six pack, but Dos Equis and Corona go for about 16.99. I bought the latter and let's take a look at the typical ads.

First Bud Light ad I found, I'll link since these pics are huge:

Bud Light vs Dos Equis & Corona

If I drink Bud Light, I can party with bros and watch sports, but the most interesting man in the fuckin' world drinks Dos Equis, what with his suit and tie and sauve accent and I can chill on the finest beaches with Corona? I would take that over a sports bar any day.

Typical Burger King ad:

It's literally telling me how cheap and shitty their breakfast menu is.

Typical Red Lobster Ad:

Would not rather eat that fancy-*** lookin' plate of food? It's certainly better and definitely more expensive.

Hugo Boss Ad:

Ryan Reynolds in a suit.

Axe, cheaper of the two:

Women at the gas station will love me and I can look like that douche.

Lastly, typical Instawhore selfie:

Pro, vintage model shoot:

I don't know about you, but even though she's wearing more clothes, I'd choose the classy Bond Girl on the bottom ANY DAY. Guess it must be the "hypergamy" talking.

Fancier/expensive stuff LOOKS MORE APPEALING AND GOOD in ads but that doesn't mean it can't still give you ECOLI

 

[Min0]

read and understand the study before you lose your time posting irrelevant stuff.
http://sci-hub.io/http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0956797613502732

 

[hairblues]

read and understand the study before you lose your time posting irrelevant stuff.
http://sci-hub.io/http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0956797613502732

I think you need medication.

 

[Min0]

I think you need medication.

only the one that cures hairloss

 

[That Guy]

read and understand the study before you lose your time posting irrelevant stuff.
http://sci-hub.io/http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0956797613502732

This is exactly the same as what we just went over. I'd also like to point out to you, as someone who had to suffer through some sociology courses in college, that "studies" like this in social "science" are rarely reflective of what the truth actually is on the macro level.

Tell me:

Why aren't Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates married to the hottest women on Earth? Why has Bill kept Melinda around for 23 years when he should have no problem getting a younger, far hotter woman?

How do you explain the fact that the majority of people date and marry, even multiple times, the exact same social status and class as themselves?

How do you explain that women are trusted for their opinions in fashion, makeup, hair, etc. (aesthetics) and have biologically superior eyes for colour, but somehow money wins out over aesthetics when it comes to men, despite statistics repeatedly proving this isn't the case?

What explanation do you offer for people preferring imagery attached to expensive things, when expensive things like cars and houses simply look nicer. What solid proof do you have that it is dollar value that is attractive and not the aesthetics of the higher value items?

If you can't explain this without some sort of mental gymnastics, then you need to re-evaluate your stance.

I'm sorry man, she turned you down because she doesn't like you and is probably not dating a rich guy right now.

 

[hairblues]

This is exactly the same as what we just went over. I'd also like to point out to you, as someone who had to suffer through some sociology courses in college, that "studies" like this in social "science" are rarely reflective of what the truth actually is on the macro level.

Tell me:

Why aren't Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates married to the hottest women on Earth? Why has Bill kept Melinda around for 23 years when he should have no problem getting a younger, far hotter woman?

How do you explain the fact that the majority of people date and marry, even multiple times, the exact same social status and class as themselves?

How do you explain that women are trusted for their opinions in fashion, makeup, hair, etc. (aesthetics) and have biologically superior eyes for colour, but somehow money wins out over aesthetics when it comes to men, despite statistics repeatedly proving this isn't the case?

What explanation do you offer for people preferring imagery attached to expensive things, when expensive things like cars and houses simply look nicer. What solid proof do you have that it is dollar value that is attractive and not the aesthetics of the higher value items?

If you can't explain this without some sort of mental gymnastics, then you need to re-evaluate your stance.

I'm sorry man, she turned you down because she doesn't like you and is probably not dating a rich guy right now.

I think this is like his 'religion' this is his "bible'--he is a true believer--you are NEVER going to make sense to him because he is drinking the 'kool aid'.

 

[That Guy]

Occam's razor.

Right now, I see people getting a lot of upvotes on Facebook for conspiracy theories to explain the attacks in Europe.

Global joo conspiracy that brainwashes Muslims to blow themselves up, false flags, it's all fake! The government is behind it, and the media too, everyone! They're all in on it!

Yep, so much more believable than: some religious extremists just want us dead because we're infidels in their eyes.

The mental gymnastics...

Indeed, the simpler explanation is probably the correct one.

 

[Min0]

This is exactly the same as what we just went over. I'd also like to point out to you, as someone who had to suffer through some sociology courses in college, that "studies" like this in social "science" are rarely reflective of what the truth actually is on the macro level.

dude, the only thing that changed is the price, they used the same ad.
and the men showed the same reaction unlike women.

i'm not saying one study is enough, but when you have hundreds of studies confirming what's PREDICTED based on the understanding of the human reproduction system and natural selection, then you can't argue against it.
even honest women like esther vilar and karen straughan are confirming all this.

Why aren't Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates married to the hottest women on Earth? Why has Bill kept Melinda around for 23 years when he should have no problem getting a younger, far hotter woman?

this proves my point, men can love women, like i said, men are programmed to f*** anything tha moves but also to fall in love with a type of women, (they usually look like them)
as a typical behavior of a male of a real pair-bonding species. because this kind of men passes his genes thanks to his attachment (love) to the female, so he will be there to provide and protect the vunerable pregnant female. that means a higher survival chance for the baby.

How do you explain the fact that the majority of people date and marry, even multiple times, the exact same social status and class as themselves?

ressource preservation, rich classes marry between them to keep their ressources to them.
and when someone marries down, it's always a man, not a woman.
women get the ressources from the tribe of the husband to her and her tribe. that's how ethnicities like jews cumulated ressources
based on their definition of jewness (you're a jew when your mother is jewish), this gets them ressources from the outside.
but prevents the ressources from going outside through a jew man marrying a non jewish woman.

How do you explain that women are trusted for their opinions in fashion, makeup, hair, etc. (aesthetics) and have biologically superior eyes for colour, but somehow money wins out over aesthetics when it comes to men, despite statistics repeatedly proving this isn't the case?

who said that ?
i said women marry for ressources, but fucks for free with someone who's aesthetically appealing. (alpha fux, beta bux). we have studies and data proving this.

What explanation do you offer for people preferring imagery attached to expensive things, when expensive things like cars and houses simply look nicer. What solid proof do you have that it is dollar value that is attractive and not the aesthetics of the higher value items?

again, you didn't read the study, it's the same ad with just different prices. and men still didn't react differently.

If you can't explain this without some sort of mental gymnastics, then you need to re-evaluate your stance.

you're the one who needs to re-evaluate your position with an open mind.

I'm sorry man, she turned you down because she doesn't like you and is probably not dating a rich guy right now.

again, this never happened to me, i've just had enough with women.
men do all the approaching, the talking, and even the f*****g.
i just came to the conclusion that the juice ain't worth the squeeze, the bang ain't worth the buck anymore.
i'll only be with a girl that wants to get drunk and sucks my balls on the weekends.

i have better things to do with my life, like graduating, starting my own company and making a shitload of money to get my hair back if i lose it.

 

[That Guy]

The study, by its own conclusions, demonstrates that females (in the study) had a more positive response to a sexually-charged watch ad when the watch was more expensive than when it was a cheap watch. Also, there were just 47 women in this study; a far cry from the MILLIONS who DON'T date and marry rich guys.

For all you know, the sexually explicit material in the ad could've featured women. Especially since it says the 2nd ad was for women's watches.

All that this shows is that women see sex as something that is special and rare (of high value) and disapprove of it being used to promote shitty things. Men don't care; they see sex as a "whatever" thing.

This is not the same as "I'd f*** the guy in this ad because he's got a more expensive watch!" it's saying "This watch is more rare and special, like sex — therefore, it is worthy of sexually explicit advertising".

Put a scrawny, hairy guy with a grown-out horseshoe on the cover of GQ with a Rolex, survey 2,000 women and simply ask them "Do you feel sexually attracted to this man?" and then get back to me with your results.

Until then, grow up, my good sir — as I don't think having the level of maturity to believe "women don't really love men" bodes well for business endeavors.

 

[Min0]

The study, by its own conclusions, demonstrates that females (in the study) had a more positive response to a sexually-charged watch ad when the watch was more expensive than when it was a cheap watch. Also, there were just 47 women in this study; a far cry from the MILLIONS who DON'T date and marry rich guys.

For all you know, the sexually explicit material in the ad could've featured women. Especially since it says the 2nd ad was for women's watches.

All that this shows is that women see sex as something that is special and rare (of high value) and disapprove of it being used to promote shitty things. Men don't care; they see sex as a "whatever" thing.

This is not the same as "I'd f*** the guy in this ad because he's got a more expensive watch!" it's saying "This watch is more rare and special, like sex — therefore, it is worthy of sexually explicit advertising".

Put a scrawny, hairy guy with a grown-out horseshoe on the cover of GQ with a Rolex, survey 2,000 women and simply ask them "Do you feel sexually attracted to this man?" and then get back to me with your results.

Until then, grow up, my good sir — as I don't think having the level of maturity to believe "women don't really love men" bodes well for business endeavors.

agree to disagree.

 

[hairblues]

She's not attracted to you, but to the money and the advantages it provides.

She's still going to lie like a dead fish when she lets you have your monthly pity f***.

"Gotta keep f*****g this ugly bald freak to enjoy his money."

Glorified prostitutes.

some are some aren't.

Some are genuinely hot for their husbands.

 

[hairblues]

They could find him hot, totally possible, I agree.

But still, they are not getting off as much as if they were with genuinely attractive guy who's not rich.

Not even close. Compromise.

Not really being with a guy you are hot for wears off quickly that 'hotness' does not last if nothing else is there BUT sometimes an attraction can grow when other stuff is aligned.

Have you not ever seen a girl you are not compatible with in a lot of ways who is smoking hot..you f*** her a few times then you are over it correct?

marriage in general is a compromise..YOU will be turned on by other women daily in your life but go home and f*** MRS Polar bear--THAT is a compromise.

People who succeed in marriage building a life together no matter how aligned in looks, profession, money etc are always going to compromise. There is ALWAYS going to be a hot guy ALWAYS a hot woman.

so if a woman is attracted to a man who ALSO has the same goals in life--then what business is it of any of 'ours' to judge what works for them in a marriage?

You want to just brand everyone looks matched attracted OR gold digger and glorified prostitutes.

Life does not work that way.