patrick.net

Whether women compete with each other or not, they are like a consolidated union when it comes the to commodity value of sex. They do everything they can to tempt, tease and sell while creating scarcity in order to maximize the commodity value of sex.

If they don't believe they have received the appropriate value, then they think they are justified to re-draw the consent script after the fact to characterize the man in a way that draws scorn, humiliation or expense on him.

The age of information has revealed the true costs of sex, and tended to drive the market value away from permanent contractual quicksand to more negotiable short term arrangements. Women see that sex has become cheaper for men, and react in rage to drive things back to higher prices and more mired contractual relationships. Unattractive women, of course, get the short end of this stick, but like everybody knows, just about any horrid woman can find a male troll who will screw her and knock her up. They don't even need the male, they can just hijack some sperm.

Women don't even perceive that they have negative motives, since they narcissistically believe that they are faultless, blameless, pure, unsullied, and act out of benevolent, nurturing motivation when they are actually acting out of greed, covetousness, selfishness, jealousy and vindictiveness.

All this really does is drive things back to sexual segregation, because men just won't want women around them when they actually have to work and get things done.

Malcolm says

My philosophy is simple, and I like what Patrick wrote on another thread:
1. When a woman chooses to be alone with a man, it should be viewed as general consent.

A little bit more than that might be needed for consent in today's world.
She chooses to be alone with a man.
They have drinks.
Sit close to each other.
Start kissing, and make passes at each other.

After that it's ....fuck my brains out baby, and don't stop until I tell you to stop.

Men are also at fault, esp. the young dudes.

Guys, Vag ain't rare, stop treating it like it is. Ceffer hit on what the core problem is, women value themselves too highly. Everything is about the value of their vagina, aka "Feelings".

I can't understand how a man can believe in Left wing principles. It's embarrassing to our gender when a man wants redistribution of wealth and social justice. I can somehow see how women believe those things, but it's a disgrace when it's a man.

anon_86e60 says

redistribution of wealth

Do you own your own company? If not, your boss is redistributing his wealth to you. It's possible to work for a woman too. Wouldn't that be tricky. We could call is Social Wealth Redistribution. Or SWR.

The only thing that really matters is how large your penis is. Right? I'm 9 and 1/16th inches. Beat it, I dare anybody.

WookieMan says

The only thing that really matters is how large your penis is. Right? I'm 9 and 1/16th inches. Beat it, I dare anybody.

9 and 1/8. :)

Women clearly enjoy sex. But the preconditioning may be different than for men.

Common male triggers:
Physical attraction.
No funky smells.
No kids.

Common female triggers:
Love.
Security ($$).
Hai Karate.

Obligatory:

In my experience while women seem less inclined to aggression and violence, they are as much or even more than men but avoid physical intimidation because we generally have the upper hand. But they are vengeful and never forget their resentments. They certainly drive as aggressively as men and when driving a larger vehicle like to thro their 'weight' around. That is the root of this whole harassment #MeToo, etc. industry.

This could go on forever.

This will go on forever.

WookieMan says

anon_86e60 says

redistribution of wealth

Do you own your own company? If not, your boss is redistributing his wealth to you. It's possible to work for a woman too. Wouldn't that be tricky. We could call is Social Wealth Redistribution. Or SWR.

The only thing that really matters is how large your penis is. Right? I'm 9 and 1/16th inches. Beat it, I dare anybody.

I'm 9 and 5/64ths inches.

anon_86e60 says

It's embarrassing to our gender when a man wants redistribution of wealth

No, it's embarrassing when a man doesn't understand how an economy works.

WookieMan says

Do you own your own company? If not, your boss is redistributing his wealth to you.

Actually if you are a worker, your boss is most likely redistributing your wealth up to him. Workers almost certainly don't receive all the fruits of their labor.

anon_8f378 says

WookieMan says

Do you own your own company? If not, your boss is redistributing his wealth to you.

Actually if you are a worker, your boss is most likely redistributing your wealth up to him. Workers almost certainly don't receive all the fruits of their labor.

I get this perspective, honestly. But if that's your thought process, why would you have a boss? Just be a business owner.

I'm okay with a boss myself. I know I create value and money for him. He started a business and took on risk I wasn't willing to. There's value to that. That is hard to understand for most workers. And if it's so easy, just go start a business. That's all I'm getting at. It's not an either or situation. The boss creates something of value to the employees and the employees create value to the boss/owner. It's a give and take.

I'm also thinking you'd have a different perspective after having to pay, hire and work with 1, 5, 10 employees that you're in charge of. They also rely on you the business owner to keep their paychecks flowing. That can be some stress that some will never understand, yet so many darts are thrown at the business owner. Who in a lot of cases has some employees that might be making more salary or commissions then they take home annually as the boss.

And yes there are shithead business owners and some really nasty large corporation. Or kids that were handed businesses by mommy and daddy who didn't have to take the risk and now boss people around. So I'm not Mr. business defender by any means.

But it's the equivalent of Libtard and Trumpcuck. Neither side is going to be perfect, but neither side is always wrong. Everyone has to get out of the fringes and edges of the force fed narrative and start seeing the reality of the big picture.

WookieMan says

I get this perspective, honestly. But if that's your thought process, why would you have a boss? Just be a business owner.

We shouldn't make this about me, but who says I'm not a business owner?

Woman astronaut to ground control: "Houston, we have a problem."

Houston: "What's the problem?"

Woman astronaut: (silence)

Houston: "Please reply."

Woman astronaut: "Never mind"

Houston: "So there is no problem?"

Woman astronaut: "You know what the problem is."

anon_8f378 says

WookieMan says

I get this perspective, honestly. But if that's your thought process, why would you have a boss? Just be a business owner.

We shouldn't make this about me, but who says I'm not a business owner?

If you are a business owner or aren't that doesn't matter to me either as my reply wasn't about you.

I was addressing the social stigma of owners bad, employees good, wealth distribution, etc that was brought up. All I'm getting at, is it's not a A OR B conversation. It's an A AND B conversation. You can't have one without the other Al Bundy.

My apologies if you thought I was talking about you in the reply. I was more or less using the word "you" in the greater sense of us all as business owners or employees.

WookieMan says

I was addressing the social stigma of owners bad, employees good, wealth distribution, etc that was brought up. All I'm getting at, is it's not a A OR B conversation. It's an A AND B conversation. You can't have one without the other Al Bundy.

OK good. Owners in general aren't bad. They are trying to maximize their wealth, like any good capitalist. The problem is with the system.

Of course we need owners, although in theory and oftentimes in practice, businesses can be employee owned. We need the system to properly compensate owners and workers, which doesn't happen now.

anon_8f378 says

which doesn't happen now.

I'm with you on pretty much everything else you said here. This part of the last sentence stuck out to me though. I would just suggest adding "always" between doesn't and happen. There really are some good business owners out there that would put their employees before themselves. It might only be 5-10% of businesses, but they do exist.

anon_8f378 says

They are trying to maximize their wealth, like any good capitalist.

In a truly healthy company, aren't the owners AND the employees trying to maximize their wealth, right? I've yet to meet an owner or employee that doesn't want to make more money. If the owner is making money and the employees know it and aren't getting raises, most intelligent employees will be gone. Then that owner has a bit of a problem.

I'm not saying this is an argument at all. But as with most things we're not going to see eye to eye 100%. You've been cordial compared to some other anon accounts and I'll keep responding, but I'm not sure there's much more here unless we're going to start getting into specific companies or something like that. We, and probably me more then anyone, have effectively hijacked the thread to an extent. So I plan to let it go back to it's original topic.

WookieMan says

'm with you on pretty much everything else you said here. This part of the last sentence stuck out to me though. I would just suggest adding "always" between doesn't and happen. There really are some good business owners out there that would put their employees before themselves. It might only be 5-10% of businesses, but they do exist.

I agree with you there. I should have added some wording to show that sometimes it doesn't happen.

8 years of losing under Obama made it trendy to be a loser (e.g., identity politics, socialism, beta, lazy poor, victim, feminist, racist toward whites).

Now that Trump is in office, it’s getting trendy to be a winner again (e.g., hardworking, alpha, capitalism, wealthy, dominant, confident, fucking hot women of all races who need your schlong)

Clear divide of winners and losers.

Now ask yourself. Which philosophy do you subscribe to?