@Botond173's banner p

Botond173


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 06:37:06 UTC

				

User ID: 473

Botond173


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 06:37:06 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 473

It's a bit of a stretch to say that disagreeableness is common on this site, isn't it?

Vietnam is just an average, mostly functioning Asian nation free of extremes of any sort. South Korea is a realized cyberpunk hellscape afflicted by every conceivable form of degeneracy and blight brought about by modernity and late-stage capitalism, whereas North Korea somehow managed to the realize the horror of Confucianism and Communism being combined and ruled over by a dynasty. And yet you’re arguing that the long-term outcome of US victory for the Korean Peninsula is preferable to the long-term outcome of US defeat for Indochina.

It changes everything. If he's unavailable for long-term commitment, he's no longer a potential catch for women who want that.

so long as that man is not looking for life long commitment or is demanding sex before taking things any further

Then he's not relationship material.

Your post reads like the blame lies somewhere with 'attractive' men not committing to the women who want them. But chances are there are simply not enough 'attractive' men for these women.

I’d say women in the past generally understood that they can elicit long-term commitment from the men they identified as desirable partners, and that this isn’t achieved by merely offering up their orifices for use. This knowledge is mostly lost at this point, which incentivizes women to fruitlessly try out-slutting one another in order to pander to the whims of the top men. In fact, even the simple idea that young women should learn how to become eligible long-term partners if they want a happy relationship is largely forgotten.

That's indeed the gist of women's usual complaints: the ones willing to exclusively commit aren't desirable, and the desirable ones don't commit exclusively.

Has there ever been a case of a successful project in any large Western city to build a network of lanes exclusively for cyclists, scooter-riders and Walmart/mobility scooters?

I've seen it mentioned by X channels that follow the war. But even if it's untrue, and why would it be, the Russian government having suspended participation in the treaty in 2023, which I wasn't aware of, renders the whole issue moot anyway. There's no good reason to leave heavy bombers out in the open.

I'm not sure how exclusive their bike lanes are in relation to cars and pedestrians

@2rafa commented on this very aspect negatively in this thread.

"Men build civilizations, women build cultures."

For the second - there is no found cure yet for people not giving a shit for the common good under socialism.

How about even more beatings?

Do perceived crime rates really change that quick on average though?

Dr. Timberlake is correct. If your condition disables you to perform the sorts of work that anyone in your vicinity would be willing to pay you money to do, you're factually disabled.

Priests and especially Protestant pastors, influenced by feminist tendencies, often tend to push misandric, gynonormative ideas, even though Christianity as a creed is unreservedly and unquestionably patriarchal.

Im not sure how to reconcile these two realities.

It's simply the 'alpha fucks, beta bucks' phenomenon in action. And what you and @rae are generally describing are the 'I don't know anyone who voted for Nixon' effect in action.

Such modern women do exist but it's generally not that they refuse to act like that. It's that it never even occurs to them that they should act like that in certain contexts, have no concept of it at all in the first place, and don't know how to do it even if they consciously want to. It's generally something nobody ever explained to them, never talked with them about, and had no woman in their lives whom they ever had a chance to emulate in that regard.

One big difference is that a rich guy can throw cool parties and have lots of people come to hang out at his house.

That'll be a great advantage to him as long as he's strongly an extrovert. There's also the aspect that he'll have to clean the mess all up afterwards or hire some maid to do so, and that his social circle will come to expect him to keep throwing cool parties.

he's pretty much forced to always go to other people's houses for social interaction

If he lives in a community where third places don't exist at all, then yes.

Can't you muster up some level of genuine sympathy for a single woman who doesn't want to live as a girlboss? Why would she even want to?

What difference does that make?