Botond173
15d ago
It changes everything. If he's unavailable for long-term commitment, he's no longer a potential catch for women who want that.
Botond173
16d ago
And if US didn't lose the war, Vietnam could be what South Korea is now. Which is better than what it is now.
How exactly?
Botond173
16d ago
the victorious British (if they were lucky) or French (if not) troops
Care to explain the distinction?
Botond173
16d ago
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.
Botond173
17d ago
Isn't it more accurate to say that being a single woman carries a lot less stigma and is much more normalized and thus much fewer women are compelled to become nuns as a consequence?
Botond173
17d ago
Point taken. But OP's comment and the reply only concern the effects of the black pill lifestyle on yourself. Your comment concerns its effects on everyone else. Those are rather different things especially in the case of Alzheimer's when you're unaware of what's happening to you either way.
Botond173
17d ago
And even if you're healthy, what happens if you get Alzheimer's? You wouldn't even know it, and eventually you'd either freeze to death trying to walk to work or get in a car accident if you still drive.
As opposed to keeping to exist basically as a vegetable in the nursing home your children paid to let you in, which I suppose is much better.
That’s a fair point and we need to consider the steps that need to be taken to avoid that fate.
• You need to have a happy, functioning marriage that preferably produces multiple children
• Those children need to become well-adjusted working normies producing an economic surplus
• Both you and at least one of the children need to organize your lives so that you live in relatively close vicinity
• Your children need to be willing and able to help you with their time, effort, money etc. whether they are themselves married or not
You’ll avoid the sad fate you described when all four of those conditions are met.
Botond173
17d ago
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.
Botond173
17d ago
after the convents became selective
?
taken care of by a male relative
Indeed it's another important aspect of a society where men are generally expected to fulfill the roles of protectors and providers.
Botond173
17d ago
These are all good points. However, I'd mention that none of that is relevant to the examples the OP gave, namely "working out, playing the same video games, watching the same tv/movies/anime, scrolling too much on social media and going traveling to similar places from time from time".
Botond173
17d ago
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.
Botond173
18d ago
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.
Botond173
18d ago
If one considers the same overall phenomenon from what I assume is women’s usual perspective, I’m sure one can’t help but roll the eyes at the recent discussion on Aella’s degeneracy, for example. Shaming and punishing e-thots can only work when alternative life paths are broadly accessible for average women.
The norm of enforced monogamy (heh) in the old days of Christian patriarchy (heh) basically functioned as a life insurance policy for women. Someone was surely going to marry each woman, with a few extreme exceptions, no matter how stupid, ugly or fat she was. The same path for heterosexual women today, on the other hand, is largely up to chance and luck, something that is pretty much optional – it may happen and may work out well, but there’s a significant probability that it won’t. Just listen to women’s usual complaint about men, which is usually that attractive men refuse to commit to an exclusive relationship. Of course we see the massive proliferation of e-thotting, sugar-mommying, gold-digging etc. when the social consensus is that a happy marriage is by and large off the table.
Botond173
18d ago
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.
Botond173
18d ago
Botond173
23d ago
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.
Botond173
23d ago
mixed cycle and bus lanes
That seems sort of dangerous. And yes, I'm sure Bordeaux counts as large.
Botond173
24d ago
Botond173
24d ago
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?
Botond173
1mo ago
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link