- Messages
- 916
I think society trains women to think, "Well, most of the men out there are losers, so what I should do is become successful in a career, and then I can just buy one of those losers and start a family. I'll just pick the best-looking one I can find." https://vintologi.com/threads/men-cant-sell-themselves-to-a-wife-women-cant-buy-a-husband.339/
Alternatively, it trains the trashier chicks to think, "Well, I'll just find some badboy and get knocked up by him, and then become a single mom and go on welfare. Then I can get banged by whatever men I want, because I won't have to submit to a betabuxx. Or, if I need extra cash, I can just be a prostitute." This prostitution can take many forms; it could be straight-up money for sex, or it could be one of these instawhores who has a Patreon, although most chicks will only be able to get a limited amount of support by those means. Even cucks have their limits, if they aren't getting any tail out of the deal.
Anyway, yeah, it's true that most guys can't really afford a lavish lifestyle for a chick. They're gonna have to keep her to a pretty strict budget. And guys have a lot of demands they'd like to impose on chicks; e.g. probably a lot of guys want more than a couple kids. That too is gonna put limitations on how nice of a house, how expensive of vacations, how many meals out at the restaurant, etc. they can afford.
Still, it's a fantasy if chicks think that by having a job, they can lock down a dude to be faithful and loyal and submissive to them. That's not how it works. The way it works is, she needs to be cute, sweet, and submissive, and THEN maybe he'll do his best to step up and be a man and support the family; although even in that case, there aren't enough capable men to support all the women out there who want to be supported; although it might be managed with the help of extended family, however uncomfortably for her.
Basically the past 50 years or so have been an experiment to see what happens if we invest massively in women's education in business, law, and other fields that used to be men's domain, and let them be the heads of households based on their being breadwinners. It hasn't worked out too well; neither sex likes for the woman to be dominant and the man to be submissive, really. The chick, even if she has submissive men around, will look for a man to dominate her; and the man who's being dominated will look for a chick he can dominate. It could even be his own daughter, who knows; maybe Ivanka's willingness to be a submissive gold-digger was part of what The Donald liked about her, for instance.
Another myth is that the two spouses can just be coequal partners. Doesn't really work. She's gonna cheat, because for one thing she just has so many opportunities to, and so many temptations. If her husband were a real man, he'd keep her away from all that, in her view; since he's not a real man, she's entitled to cheat. If a chick doesn't cheat in that situation, it's probably because she doesn't think any other men would want her; but in reality there are always gonna be guys interested in fucking her on a casual basis, or maybe even falling in love with her.
Anyway, there are some chicks who in other circumstances might have been marriage material, but society led them down the wrong path and they became femcels when they didn't even need to be. Maybe some of those chicks are like, "I don't mind this; it's better than having to submit to patriarchy" because they feel more competent than the average man, but in reality, competence is something men offer and beauty is something women offer; a chick's being submissive goes a long way toward making her attractive because it allows him to put her body to the uses he has in mind.
We can't really change the attraction triggers of the sexes; it's always going to be what it is, because the only choices are either separation or hierarchy if two people are going to try to work together. We can be like cats that just mate and go their separate ways, or we can be like those animal species where one or the other is more dominant. If there's some species where the female is more dominant, that isn't us; we'd have to rewire our brains to be adapted to that. But even if we did, then we would just be back where we started, except with the sexes reversed, and there wouldn't really be any advantage to the new state of affairs.
Alternatively, it trains the trashier chicks to think, "Well, I'll just find some badboy and get knocked up by him, and then become a single mom and go on welfare. Then I can get banged by whatever men I want, because I won't have to submit to a betabuxx. Or, if I need extra cash, I can just be a prostitute." This prostitution can take many forms; it could be straight-up money for sex, or it could be one of these instawhores who has a Patreon, although most chicks will only be able to get a limited amount of support by those means. Even cucks have their limits, if they aren't getting any tail out of the deal.
Anyway, yeah, it's true that most guys can't really afford a lavish lifestyle for a chick. They're gonna have to keep her to a pretty strict budget. And guys have a lot of demands they'd like to impose on chicks; e.g. probably a lot of guys want more than a couple kids. That too is gonna put limitations on how nice of a house, how expensive of vacations, how many meals out at the restaurant, etc. they can afford.
Still, it's a fantasy if chicks think that by having a job, they can lock down a dude to be faithful and loyal and submissive to them. That's not how it works. The way it works is, she needs to be cute, sweet, and submissive, and THEN maybe he'll do his best to step up and be a man and support the family; although even in that case, there aren't enough capable men to support all the women out there who want to be supported; although it might be managed with the help of extended family, however uncomfortably for her.
Basically the past 50 years or so have been an experiment to see what happens if we invest massively in women's education in business, law, and other fields that used to be men's domain, and let them be the heads of households based on their being breadwinners. It hasn't worked out too well; neither sex likes for the woman to be dominant and the man to be submissive, really. The chick, even if she has submissive men around, will look for a man to dominate her; and the man who's being dominated will look for a chick he can dominate. It could even be his own daughter, who knows; maybe Ivanka's willingness to be a submissive gold-digger was part of what The Donald liked about her, for instance.
Another myth is that the two spouses can just be coequal partners. Doesn't really work. She's gonna cheat, because for one thing she just has so many opportunities to, and so many temptations. If her husband were a real man, he'd keep her away from all that, in her view; since he's not a real man, she's entitled to cheat. If a chick doesn't cheat in that situation, it's probably because she doesn't think any other men would want her; but in reality there are always gonna be guys interested in fucking her on a casual basis, or maybe even falling in love with her.
Anyway, there are some chicks who in other circumstances might have been marriage material, but society led them down the wrong path and they became femcels when they didn't even need to be. Maybe some of those chicks are like, "I don't mind this; it's better than having to submit to patriarchy" because they feel more competent than the average man, but in reality, competence is something men offer and beauty is something women offer; a chick's being submissive goes a long way toward making her attractive because it allows him to put her body to the uses he has in mind.
We can't really change the attraction triggers of the sexes; it's always going to be what it is, because the only choices are either separation or hierarchy if two people are going to try to work together. We can be like cats that just mate and go their separate ways, or we can be like those animal species where one or the other is more dominant. If there's some species where the female is more dominant, that isn't us; we'd have to rewire our brains to be adapted to that. But even if we did, then we would just be back where we started, except with the sexes reversed, and there wouldn't really be any advantage to the new state of affairs.
