IoHL Community Coffee Shop

Discuss everything else: politics, society, culture, science, philosophy, ideas, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
pjhair
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 457
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 1313

Re: IoHL Community Coffee Shop

Post by pjhair » 1 week ago

Exodus wrote:
1 week ago
Thanks. Another vote of confidence, but im not sure if you guys are just trying to be nice :P
Nah man. Not trying to be nice. 5'2 for a man living in western countries is really, really bad. Being 5'6 and bald is far more preferable. if you are 5'6, you can bulk up, wear elevator shoes to bump up height for a few inches, then you are all set. At 5'2, you can't do anything except getting limb lengthening procedure.

User avatar
EvilLocks
Hair Loss Rookie
Hair Loss Rookie
Posts: 246
Joined: 5 months ago
Reputation: 747
Norwood: NW5
Regimen: Nada

Re: IoHL Community Coffee Shop

Post by EvilLocks » 1 week ago

Exodus wrote:
1 week ago
jesus fucking christ. so i'm on the same level of 5'2 guys?
No I think he's worse off to be honest. Unless he has a magic d*ck to make up for it :lol:
En får væra som en er når'n itte vart som en sku :thumbup:

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1135
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 2957
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: IoHL Community Coffee Shop

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 1 week ago

Exodus wrote:
1 week ago
also lmao at many ways to be smart. bluepill cope for idiots
No, that's something that's been measured by professional psychometricians.

A common real IQ test, for example, will give you six different scores that are indicative of six different types of intelligence. People can, and do, get a high score in one area and a low score in another area.

Added in 6 minutes 44 seconds:
Exodus wrote:
1 week ago
Thanks. Another vote of confidence, but im not sure if you guys are just trying to be nice :P
At the very least, @EvilLocks and myself have a long track record of emphasizing the importance of height. We're just telling you what you think.

In general, at least within North America, it's abundantly clear to me that height (assuming a proportionate frame) is vastly more important than hair in order to attract women. The ideal height is in the range of 6'1-> 6'4, where I'm giving a range both due to being uncertain, and due to women having slightly different preferences. If you're in that height range, a receding hair line is a null or negligible limiting factor to your romantic and sexual potential.

As you get shorter, you have less margin of maneuver, and then every additional failing matters more. It's like adding another straw on the camel's back.

Social skills, experience, money, status, matter etc. as well, but not that those factors are not independent, there are amplifiers and positive feedback loops involved. If you are tall, you will be more respected by other men, which will contribute to your social skills, experience, money, and status. However, other men don't give a shit about your hair. Your hair is purely for women and for your own self-image.

Added in 6 minutes 57 seconds:
pjhair wrote:
1 week ago
Did the Guardian article mentioned in the video really advocate that Native Europeans shouldn't have babies because it's bad for climate?? Jesus Christ man what the fuck is wrong with them? They want native Europeans to go extinct or what? On one hand they claim that Europe should accept more migrants as Europe's native population is declining. At the same time they argue that native population shouldn't reproduce as it's bad for climate. Do they even realize how stupid they come across making these kinds of insane arguments?

By the way, I like Hungry's approach to increase the birth rate of native population. Just incentivize having babies through money or other benefits. Importing millions of people from other countries that have diametrically opposite world view and way of life shouldn't even be an option.
He keeps implying that Hungary's fertility policies are racist but they are not. They are fertility policies for the people living in Hungary. Nobody's required to take a blood test.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 ... d7f5a6f959

Low fertility rates are a complex issue, and by and large pregnancy incentives are not very successful, in spite of being tried in multiple jurisdictions. The only developed country that has succeeded in maintaining a high fertility rate among its secular population is Israel. Even non-observant Jews there average 2.2 children per women. They have much more ambitious policies in place, for example they subsidize fertility treatment, which enables women to have kids past age 35 much more easily.

User avatar
Exodus
Hair Loss Rookie
Hair Loss Rookie
Posts: 231
Joined: 10 months ago
Reputation: 432
Norwood: NW6
Regimen: nothing

Re: IoHL Community Coffee Shop

Post by Exodus » 1 week ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
1 week ago
No, that's something that's been measured by professional psychometricians.

A common real IQ test, for example, will give you six different scores that are indicative of six different types of intelligence. People can, and do, get a high score in one area and a low score in another
i looked this up and only found stuff about gardners 9 types of intelligence which i see lacks empirical support. most damning is that there is low correlation between his different "kinds" of intelligence. it always seemed like a laughable cope to me anyways. i mean come on, "interpersonal intelligence"? "naturalistic intelligence"? so identifying butterflies and trees and rocks are intelligence now? its hilarious and face palm worthy

also obviously just because scientists said it doesnt mean its true.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1135
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 2957
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: IoHL Community Coffee Shop

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 1 week ago

Exodus wrote:
1 week ago
i looked this up and only found stuff about gardners 9 types of intelligence which i see lacks empirical support. most damning is that there is low correlation between his different "kinds" of intelligence. it always seemed like a laughable cope to me anyways. i mean come on, "interpersonal intelligence"? "naturalistic intelligence"? so identifying butterflies and trees and rocks are intelligence now? its hilarious and face palm worthy

also obviously just because scientists said it doesnt mean its true.
Perhaps, but just because you say the other doesn't make that true either.

It's not just scientists speculating (the "hypothesis" stage). It's also scientists testing this and confirming this. It's something that can be measured in people. You can see that people getting high scores in one area (e.g. spatial-visual reasoning) does not imply that they will get a high score in another area such as verbal reasoning.

This study looked at the correlation between spatial-visual intelligence and mathematics in some elementary school students:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0534/8 ... 0009f3.pdf

They found a correlation of r = 0.50. That's moderate, but sufficiently low to demonstrate that there are at least two variables.

User avatar
Exodus
Hair Loss Rookie
Hair Loss Rookie
Posts: 231
Joined: 10 months ago
Reputation: 432
Norwood: NW6
Regimen: nothing

Re: IoHL Community Coffee Shop

Post by Exodus » 1 week ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
1 week ago
Perhaps, but just because you say the other doesn't make that true either.

It's not just scientists speculating (the "hypothesis" stage). It's also scientists testing this and confirming this. It's something that can be measured in people. You can see that people getting high scores in one area (e.g. spatial-visual reasoning) does not imply that they will get a high score in another area such as verbal reasoning.

This study looked at the correlation between spatial-visual intelligence and mathematics in some elementary school students:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0534/8 ... 0009f3.pdf

They found a correlation of r = 0.50. That's moderate, but sufficiently low to demonstrate that there are at least two variables.
i already know about verbal, logical-mathematicsl and spatial reasoning. but i was asking about the 6 kinds of intelligences you named. i couldnt find anything about that.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1135
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 2957
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: IoHL Community Coffee Shop

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 1 week ago

Exodus wrote:
1 week ago
i already know about verbal, logical-mathematicsl and spatial reasoning. but i was asking about the 6 kinds of intelligences you named. i couldnt find anything about that.
It was a test meant to diagnose ADHD. I took it with a psychiatrist working at a top-20 medical school. Unfortunately, I "cheated" on the video game section which invalidated the test. That apparently happens a lot.

The video game section is meant to measure reaction speed, which is clearly a subcomponent of intelligent. Do you expect that reaction speed will be tightly correlated with verbal intelligence?

User avatar
Exodus
Hair Loss Rookie
Hair Loss Rookie
Posts: 231
Joined: 10 months ago
Reputation: 432
Norwood: NW6
Regimen: nothing

Re: IoHL Community Coffee Shop

Post by Exodus » 1 week ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
1 week ago
It was a test meant to diagnose ADHD. I took it with a psychiatrist working at a top-20 medical school. Unfortunately, I "cheated" on the video game section which invalidated the test. That apparently happens a lot.

The video game section is meant to measure reaction speed, which is clearly a subcomponent of intelligent. Do you expect that reaction speed will be tightly correlated with verbal intelligence?
so you dont have any links that mention your 6 kinds of intelligence? i couldnt find anything at all online about it besides howard gardners theory. is that what you're referring to mistakenly?

so far thats only 3 kinds which i already was aware of.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1135
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 2957
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: IoHL Community Coffee Shop

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 1 week ago

Exodus wrote:
1 week ago
onest id prefer primal value over relationships. Which is moot anyways considering primal value GETS you relationships

We wont be able to fulfill ourselves with tech until we get both AI AND virtual reality
I'll look for it in my cupboard in a bit. If I don't write about it within a couple days, feel free to remind me.

User avatar
That Guy
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 856
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 1870
Norwood: NW2.5

Re: IoHL Community Coffee Shop

Post by That Guy » 1 week ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
1 week ago
He keeps implying that Hungary's fertility policies are racist but they are not. They are fertility policies for the people living in Hungary. Nobody's required to take a blood test.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 ... d7f5a6f959

Low fertility rates are a complex issue, and by and large pregnancy incentives are not very successful, in spite of being tried in multiple jurisdictions. The only developed country that has succeeded in maintaining a high fertility rate among its secular population is Israel. Even non-observant Jews there average 2.2 children per women. They have much more ambitious policies in place, for example they subsidize fertility treatment, which enables women to have kids past age 35 much more easily.
and the jewish tricks just keep comin'.

Orban is one of the most staunch anti-migrant leaders in Europe. He's built successful border walls, not taken migrants, and has allocated Hungarian troops to Greece and Bulgaria to help build border defenses there. Who tf do you think he's creating incentive births for if not his own people so as to further prove how you actually don't need a flood of brown people? There are not enough muds in Hungary to demographically replace Hungarians. Everyone here knows this.

Also, your whole "it's complex and most of the time it doesn't work, goy" thing is complete bullshit and is typical obscurantism peddled by your people. This is not a complex issue to solve. It is actually seen now as a status symbol for women to not have to work anymore, where it was the norm in the past — there are an increasing number of women who will jump at the chance to achieve that status by becoming income tax free if they have babies instead of slave for the man 8+ hours a day. Women tend to do whatever is seen as trendy or high-status. We also know that women who make more money than men, will not marry those men.

Women in better times:

Image

Inflation and rising costs of essentials like housing, food, petrol, etc. which is exponentially worsened by the addition of thousand or millions of foreigners makes it extremely difficult for responsible white people to have a house and feed themselves, never mind even one child. Not a problem for blacks on welfare to leave a trail of single moms or asians cramming 13 or more of them into a house with 4k rent a month and all working minimum wage jobs, though!

Once again, demographics and tradition are the answer. Get young women out of the workforce and bringing life into world; this can be religiously and financially incentivized, deport the shit out of migrants depressing the wages and inflate housing markets, limit immigration based on ethnicity, reign in the capitalism we've allowed to go unrestricted.

These things have worked for thousands of years, they worked in the 1920, 30s and 40s, and they have worked in present times, and will work into the future. Having babies and raising families is supposed to be the most basic, natural human behavior. Georgia had the lowest birthrate in Europe, but increased it thanks primarily to the patriarch of the church personally blessing babies; half of all births in France (among whites) are from catholic women, who make up 30% of the population; births now outnumber abortions (which have dropped dramatically) in Russia, which has similar pro-family policies and celebrations to what Italy and Hungary are adopting; Germany turned its birth rate around in the 30s with the same kind of financial incentives Orban is implementing, Evangelicals, mormons, Amish and the like will overtake secular whites in less than 2 centuries on account of being the only whites who are still breeding above replacement, etc.

None of this is complicated or difficult to solve. We simply need leaders who are for the people instead of the dollar, and will implement these policies and dgaf about whatever mean names they get called by jews and degenerates while doing it.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1135
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 2957
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: IoHL Community Coffee Shop

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 1 week ago

That Guy wrote:
1 week ago
and the jewish tricks just keep comin'.

Orban is one of the most staunch anti-migrant leaders in Europe. He's built successful border walls, not taken migrants, and has allocated Hungarian troops to Greece and Bulgaria to help build border defenses there. Who tf do you think he's creating incentive births for if not his own people so as to further prove how you actually don't need a flood of brown people? There are not enough muds in Hungary to demographically replace Hungarians. Everyone here knows this.

Also, your whole "it's complex and most of the time it doesn't work, goy" thing is complete bullshit and is typical obscurantism peddled by your people. This is not a complex issue to solve. It is actually seen now as a status symbol for women to not have to work anymore, where it was the norm in the past — there are an increasing number of women who will jump at the chance to achieve that status by becoming income tax free if they have babies instead of slave for the man 8+ hours a day. Women tend to do whatever is seen as trendy or high-status. We also know that women who make more money than men, will not marry those men.

Women in better times:

Inflation and rising costs of essentials like housing, food, petrol, etc. which is exponentially worsened by the addition of thousand or millions of foreigners makes it extremely difficult for responsible white people to have a house and feed themselves, never mind even one child. Not a problem for blacks on welfare to leave a trail of single moms or asians cramming 13 or more of them into a house with 4k rent a month and all working minimum wage jobs, though!

Once again, demographics and tradition are the answer. Get young women out of the workforce and bringing life into world; this can be religiously and financially incentivized, deport the shit out of migrants depressing the wages and inflate housing markets, limit immigration based on ethnicity, reign in the capitalism we've allowed to go unrestricted.

These things have worked for thousands of years, they worked in the 1920, 30s and 40s, and they have worked in present times, and will work into the future. Having babies and raising families is supposed to be the most basic, natural human behavior. Georgia had the lowest birthrate in Europe, but increased it thanks primarily to the patriarch of the church personally blessing babies; half of all births in France (among whites) are from catholic women, who make up 30% of the population; births now outnumber abortions (which have dropped dramatically) in Russia, which has similar pro-family policies and celebrations to what Italy and Hungary are adopting; Germany turned its birth rate around in the 30s with the same kind of financial incentives Orban is implementing, Evangelicals, mormons, Amish and the like will overtake secular whites in less than 2 centuries on account of being the only whites who are still breeding above replacement, etc.

None of this is complicated or difficult to solve. We simply need leaders who are for the people instead of the dollar, and will implement these policies and dgaf about whatever mean names they get called by jews and degenerates while doing it.
You say that it's not complicated, but in practice most countries that are trying are failing to raise their fertility rates by a sufficient amount. Here is a list of countries sorted by fertility rates:

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countr ... lity-rate/

Hungary is near the bottom of the list, with 1.397 children per women. Japan is nearby, with 1.478 children per women. Given that Japan is racially homogeneous, it should have a high fertility rate according to your logic, yet it does not.

You consistently believe two things:
- That today's problems have simple and easy solutions;
- That you know these solutions;

Actually, no, a lot of problems are genuinely difficult to solve and low fertility rates are an example of such a problem. But you don't need to make up your mind right this minute. Try and remember this conversation, and check up on Hungary's fertility rate in five years to gauge the validity of my prediction: Hungary's fertility rate should increase, but by a modest amount.

That said, I think that lowering immigration and raising fertility rates is a good idea for western nations, and Orban's policies are a good start. I like that he offers support for grandmothers.

As for minorities living in Hungary, they get access to the same family benefits if they are Hungarian citizens. This isn't the racist nirvana that you're portraying it as. It can be justified by appealing only to cultural issues, and not to race. Children raised in the country will be more acclimatized to that country's norms than people brought in as adults, and thus assimilation will be facilitated.

PS You're the only person that I know who uses the word "goy" and who thinks in those terms.

User avatar
That Guy
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 856
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 1870
Norwood: NW2.5

Re: IoHL Community Coffee Shop

Post by That Guy » 1 week ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
1 week ago
You say that it's not complicated, but in practice most countries that are trying are failing to raise their fertility rates by a sufficient amount. Here is a list of countries sorted by fertility rates:
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countr ... lity-rate/
Hungary is near the bottom of the list, with 1.397 children per women. Japan is nearby, with 1.478 children per women. Given that Japan is racially homogeneous, it should have a high fertility rate according to your logic, yet it does not.

You consistently believe two things:
- That today's problems have simple and easy solutions;
- That you know these solutions;

Actually, no, a lot of problems are genuinely difficult to solve and low fertility rates are an example of such a problem. But you don't need to make up your mind right this minute. Try and remember this conversation, and check up on Hungary's fertility rate in five years to gauge the validity of my prediction: Hungary's fertility rate should increase, but by a modest amount.

That said, I think that lowering immigration and raising fertility rates is a good idea for western nations, and Orban's policies are a good start. I like that he offers support for grandmothers.

As for minorities living in Hungary, they get access to the same family benefits if they are Hungarian citizens. This isn't the racist nirvana that you're portraying it as. It can be justified by appealing only to cultural issues, and not to race. Children raised in the country will be more acclimatized to that country's norms than people brought in as adults, and thus assimilation will be facilitated.

PS You're the only person that I know who uses the word "goy" and who thinks in those terms.
Sure it will. Just like "assimilation will be facilitated in the UK, right? I don't care about "assimilation".

We need enough births to sustain our population. That is it, and these policies will work as they have before.

Look how much bullshit I have to go through to justify to why whites don't need to be minorities in their own countries. I shouldn't even have to.

Look how much bullshit you, a non-white, go through to argue why "it's totally not a big deal" or trying to make it seem like "nothing can be done" or something.

I want everyone here to take a long, hard think about that. You refuse to even condemn mass immigration and these "progressive" and globalist ideologies. You refuse to condemn these ideas perpetuated by the likes of Barbara Spectre and other jews; you instead strawmanned it by saying "Jewish nationalists". Except those people aren't "Jewish nationalists'. I don't have a problem with Jewish nationalists. I have also asserted that colonialism was a mistake.

I will never accept any ideology that seeks to make whites become minorities in their own country.

I will never accept an ideology that does the same to Indians, Muslims (Arabs), Japanese, and yes even Jews in their own lands.

You, on the other hand, offer nothing but platitudes and defense of such ideologies.

User avatar
yettee
Hair Loss Rookie
Hair Loss Rookie
Posts: 231
Joined: 8 months ago
Reputation: 633
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Minoxidil

Re: IoHL Community Coffee Shop

Post by yettee » 6 days ago

After a couple of generations, every new wave of immigrants that was once so discriminated against and considered to be an inferior race, like the Slavs, is now so sure that it's "their" land... lol

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3485555?se ... b_contents

User avatar
That Guy
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 856
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 1870
Norwood: NW2.5

Re: IoHL Community Coffee Shop

Post by That Guy » 6 days ago

yettee wrote:
6 days ago
After a couple of generations, every new wave of immigrants that was once so discriminated against and considered to be an inferior race, like the Slavs, is now so sure that it's "their" land... lol

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3485555?se ... b_contents
"White people in the past had petty squabbles over land so therefore just let yourself get flooded with infininiggers, goy; it's totally the same thing".

That's where you're going with this, and it's completely fucked retarded.

User avatar
Arjen
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 836
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 1383
Norwood: NW5
Regimen: Shaving

Re: IoHL Community Coffee Shop

Post by Arjen » 6 days ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
1 week ago
If we can stop talking about race-mixing for five minutes,

I am amazed as to how women are completely blind to all red-pill thinking. As a reminder, I think that red-pill thinking, specifically the importance of looks money and status on dating potential, is an accurate albeit incomplete description of the world. I'll give three examples.

1) I have one female friend that I sometimes discuss these issues with, though she's fed up with me. I brought up some recent dates with her yesterday that failed, and she said that I project my own obsession with looks onto women, and I assume that women are the same. Her supporting argument? She said that I never describe anything about my dates other than what they look like.

So that really shook me, because it was true, it would be really fucking damning. I went through my chat history and ... it wasn't true. For my most recent date, I had written the following, this is all of the following, (in gchat) and included one photo:

"Last night might have been my most successful first date since moving here. We'll know for sure in a few days."
"She's a very dedicated schoolteacher."
"So the one from this week giggled and looked away in embarrassment every time I gave her a compliment, it was fun. At a later point, I teased her and I told her that I was never going to give her another compliment."


I checked other dates to be sure, and yes, she made up the claim. She did not apologize for making it up, nor did she acknowledge that she was mistaken. My thinking is that she has ideological blinders, which leads her to any supporting conclusion that might be handy. I did tell her that her comment was hurtful.

2) I've been seeing a mostly brilliant therapist for about two years now. She is brilliant, and I've described a lot of our discussions on here, I am very fortunate to have found a good therapist.

She is also, a physically attractive white woman, and thus she has necessarily experienced the world differently which has led to clashes between us. She got mad at me when I started Invisalign, she said that it was interfering with our work that she wanted to have a personality-based focus on. She has discouraged me from fasting (though she stopped doing that). For a long time, she discouraged me from getting an hair transplant.

So I think that she's given up based on my continued failures. The standard thing that women generically say about men who can't get women " They're lazy ! They're unemployed !! They're alcoholic !! They're not making the effort to meet women they just stay in their basement !! They lie !! They don't know what they want !! They only want to date supermodels !! They don't listen !! They manterrupt !! They have poor hygiene !! They dress poorly !! They're boring !! They don't tip !! " might have been partly true of me ten years ago, but all of them have clearly been irrelevant for me for several years. The "standard model" is falsified, at least in my case. The most recent woman that I went out with complimented me on being smart, kind, modest, and having a good sense of humor with excellent timing. The one before that I looked cool, she took a photo of me playing with some branches in a park, she liked that I was thoughtful, and she spent 6 hours with me doing multiple independent activities during which she had many opportunities to leave. Both of them ghosted.

She recently told me that she felt hypocritical for advising me against an hair transplant given that she gets botox treatments. She hadn't made the connection. She then said that she simply doesn't know how women's responses to me would improve after particular modifications, but she's worried that I would be crushed if I put in the effort and kept failing. There is some truth there, nobody knows whether I'd get more value spending a given amount of money on an hair transplant, a jaw/chin implant, or laser eye surgery, or a nose job. When I posted some photos on HairLossTalk years ago, you guys gave different advice.

My therapist recently gave me some purple-pilled advice, she encouraged me to buy a cell phone with a better camera so that I can take better photos. The idea was that images that are in-focus, less distorted, and have more vibrant color will look better.

Overall, I think that she's exasperated with me. She's told me that she sees a lot of value in me as a potential partner, and she wishes that it was legal/ethical for her to fix me up with people. She said that she wonders if I behave differently outside the office than I do in the office, and she can't know that.

3) I participate in a different forum dominated by a lot of women feminists, and they had an interesting reaction to the new movie "Long Shot":

They hate the premise.

As you might know, Seth Rogen plays an unemployed journalist who is hired to work on the presidential campaign of a woman played by Charlize Theron, an accomplished secretary of state. He is nice to her, and she falls in love with him. Like perfect red pillers, they hate the premise. They point out that it would never happen, and that we never see the opposite in movies.

They're correct, in my opinion, and I hate the premise too, but don't call them red pillers.
What I find interesting is that you get dates, i.e. you (unlike me) match with women you find somewhat attractive and vice versa. Now my question would be: had any of those women known you/seen/witnessed you in person before agreeing to a date with you? And: while they (or at least some of them) compliment you on a lot of your traits, is it possible you lack some of the essential ones when it comes to dating and that prevent you from creating attraction? I’m for once not talking about looks, though you may have read a past thread of mine where I was convinced that my date ended before it started once she saw me in person, leading me to assume that I looked better to her in pics than in person.
I’d also be curious as to the looks-level of women you match and meet up with, namely in relation to my assumption above (seeing mutual dating potential in each other: is it possible that, although they are women, they are so far down the food chain that they “use” you to enjoy some attention and interest at all, possibly even enjoying the opportunity to reject someone, since they are usually on the receiving end of it?

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest