[magicone]

(02-20-2015 05:30 PM)kosko Wrote:  

femenist who started the charge to get it repelaed.

ethier a man

its getting to the point where women take classes on 'Consensual Non-Concent"

It is thier most evil and dark desire

evrey corner

rape fsntasies when polled

female anotomny, thier actions

all descredit

My reading comprehension in English sucks, kosko´s writing is
unfortunately too much for me, as a non native English speaker.

I apologize I did not understand most of these words,
and google translate was not of any help either

[kaotic]

The greatest realization from Bosch:

[u]Quote:

Then I noticed just how consistently ugly the screaming women always are, and could only come to the most likely conclusion: Social Justice isn't their cause: it's simply a boyfriend substitute.

[/u]

[Geomann180]

(02-23-2015 07:07 AM)magicone Wrote:  

My reading comprehension in English sucks, kosko´s writing is
unfortunately too much for me, as a non native English speaker.

I apologize I did not understand most of these words,
and google translate was not of any help either

Takes a big man to admit to his mistakes.

And in light of your explanation, I think I went a tad overboard.

No hard feelings.



G

[Rutting Elephant]

(02-18-2015 10:38 PM)Suits Wrote:  

Simply define entering a man's private dwelling as consent to sex. She can withdraw consent any time by leaving.
Teach women not to spend time alone with men that she doesn't want to have sex with.

This principle is common sense in certain societies which, while maybe not "patriarchal" overall, still have vestiges of patriarchal norms.
After number closing on the second attempt at her mall workplace and text and phone game, an eighteen year old Javanese girl - who lived with her parents surrounded by rice fields outside of Yogyakarta - met me for dinner. She brought a friend to chaperone. But shortly after that she mentioned casually, "you should show me your (rental) house sometime." The implication was that this time she would arrive alone, and there was no doubt that this was a circumlocutionary, maybe even unconscious, invitation to sexual initiation.
I read local newspapers avidly, and whenever rape cases come up, they are always a girl accusing a group of men of getting her drunk and raping her, or a home invasion. Unless the girl is underage, when she consensually enters a guy's residence or hotel room to be alone with him, the implication is obvious and unstated - she wanted the D, and LMR is irrelevant.
I'm not advising guys just to go for it, because many things can still go wrong, just pointing out a cultural trait antithetical to US "withdrawal of consent during intercourse" laws.

(02-19-2015 09:21 AM)Krusyos Wrote:  

the generation of the 70's and 80's lost the tradition of the Great Books altogether and except for a select few, didn't give their children even a hint about the thousands of years of intellectualism and wisdom that came before.

Ask any 15 year old the difference between Plato and Aristotle's philosophies 200 years ago, and you would have gotten an impeccable answer.

Harvard's 1869 entrance exam

[Parlay44]

The only time I've ever had a girl say stop mid-bang was because she was in pain not because she had some moral epiphany. That's what all this bullshit is about. To preserve a girl's honor or some shit like that.

[Isaac Jordan]

(02-22-2015 12:09 PM)philosophical_recovery Wrote:  

Then, I realized, Facebook has been around a decade. These girls have likely spent a significant proportion of their puberty being hard wired into attention getting via social media.

The other realization then dawned on me about my generation (older, but still with internet access) having high speed internet porn access during puberty. There's been the whole NoFap (very minor) rebound from that phenomenon, where men realize how bad it has been to have been stimulated by digital screens for so long. It's way, way more obvious to the blue-pilled society because masturbation usually has ejacuation, usually makes a mess, and has always had a stigma against it until very recently.

But, look at these girls. They're being stimulated by digital screens during the major developmental period of their young adulthood, fixing behavior patterns on what stimulates them. The backlash against it will probably never be even as strong as the pathetic NoFap movement, because the effects are less obvious and clearly misogynist . But will there start to be a No-iWhore movement? Or NoSelfie, NoLikeWhore, NoSnapChat, I don't know, some kind of movement to help counteract this? How can it get kicked off?

I'm glad you brought up NoFap, because that's exactly what I was thinking about after reading AB's insightful post. Pardon me while I continue the derailment.

...

Humans (like all animals) evolved to elicit certain responses to environmental stimuli. These instincts, ingrained into the human psyche, allowed us to navigate and survive in a harsh and unpredictable world.

Today's environment, however, is nothing like the world in which our brains developed. We now find ourselves surrounded by supernormal stimuli, which are orders of magnitude more powerful than those to which we've been exposed throughout our evolutionary history.

These novel experiences elicit reactions far greater than our bodies are prepared to deal with. Junk food, for example, preys on our evolved tastes for salt, sugar and fat, overriding our usual satiety cues as our body attempts to "get while the gettin' is good".

Porn, as described here, does something similar: it hijacks your brain's reward system, flooding it with dopamine. Dopamine is a neurochemical "motivator"; when your brain sees the possibility of a "reward," in the form of food, or money, or beautiful women, it releases pleasurable dopamine as a way of encouraging you to pursue that reward.

Porn tricks your brain into thinking that you have the option of mating with dozens of potential hotties, and the ensuing dopamine tsunami it releases is your brain's way of telling you, "Hey, here's a fantastic opportunity to pass your genes on to the next generation! I'll make sure you feel really good about it so you're motivated to pursue it!"

The only problem is, your brain doesn't want to be constantly overloaded with neurotransmitters, and it contains feedback mechanisms to prevent this from happening. After a large infusion of dopamine, your brain pares off some dopamine receptors, so that if it were to be exposed to a similar amount again in the future, it won't overload brain circuitry to the same extent.

This negative feedback loop, of reducing receptors after each large exposure, is the basis of addiction. As the brain makes it harder for dopamine to have an effect, more dopamine is required to achieve past results.

This is why cocaine addicts have to use more and more each time to achieve the same high, why guys on testosterone have to cycle their injections, and why porn addicts find themselves escalating their viewing habits over time. Each "hit" makes it harder to achieve the same "high," as the brain reacts to the supernormal stimulus by reducing the ability of that neurotransmitter to affect its neurons.

I believe we're seeing a similar phenomenon occurring with the millennial generation's addiction to social media. Every time a person receives a "like", or a retweet, or a Tinder match, their brain rewards what it views as social success with a hit of dopamine. Over time, as the user becomes accustomed to a certain level of ego-boosting stimulation, they find themselves requiring more and more in order to achieve the same feelings of satisfaction.

As philosophical_recovery states above, today's young women have spent their formative years slowly becoming addicted (literally) to a variety of ego-validating, drama-inducing, dopamine-releasing social media technologies. Their developing brains have been exposed to thousands of hours' worth of stimulation that, as AB suggests, the average boyfriend probably doesn't even come close to matching. Just like many men today gladly eschew real sex for online pornography, I'm guessing many women will forgo "boring" dates and relationships in exchange for exciting alpha flings and the attention/emotional validation of social media.

I do expect to see a backlash eventually, just as we've seen with men and the NoFap/NoPorn movements. Unfortunately, I also expect it will take much longer, as the millennials themselves will need to crash and burn before the masses recognize the damage being done.

[CH-Toronto]

(03-05-2015 11:00 AM)Isaac Jordan Wrote:  

I believe we're seeing a similar phenomenon occurring with the millennial generation's addiction to social media. Every time a person receives a "like", or a retweet, or a Tinder match, their brain rewards what it views as social success with a hit of dopamine. Over time, as the user becomes accustomed to a certain level of ego-boosting stimulation, they find themselves requiring more and more in order to achieve the same feelings of satisfaction.

As philosophical_recovery states above, today's young women have spent their formative years slowly becoming addicted (literally) to a variety of ego-validating, drama-inducing, dopamine-releasing social media technologies. Their developing brains have been exposed to thousands of hours' worth of stimulation that, as AB suggests, the average boyfriend probably doesn't even come close to matching. Just like many men today gladly eschew real sex for online pornography, I'm guessing many women will forgo "boring" dates and relationships in exchange for exciting alpha flings and the attention/emotional validation of social media.

I do expect to see a backlash eventually, just as we've seen with men and the NoFap/NoPorn movements. Unfortunately, I also expect it will take much longer, as the millennials themselves will need to crash and burn before the masses recognize the damage being done.

'You just hit the nail on the head. Girls/women get "high" off being popular - and they are realizing the fastest way to being popular/famous is to claim a "social injustice" on the internet. The funny thing is - it used to be as long as you posted a few attractive pictures of yourself guys would flock to you. Now girls don't even have to do that. ANY LOOK WILL DO. ANY OPINION WILL DO. They know some guy is there parroting her opinion on the off chance he can get laid. And of course she just uses that "desperate guy's opinion" as a springboard to self-validation so she can find herself a 'real man' (like she thinks she deserves)- ironically the exact kind of man she's been protesting against.

I forget where it was but Roosh posted the claim that in the future guys will need not only "Game" and "Money" but also "Fame" to get girls.

[puckerman]

There was a lot of truth to your article, Roosh. However, you really do need to make an exception for minors as well. You didn't mention this.

[Travesty]

^ Lol!

Sometimes I imagine a completely blue pill acquaintance of mine never having read any red pill let alone RVF material. I have them shown the legalize rape article then make them read thread posts like this that try to offer constructive critism on how to better construct a satire on legalizing rape.

[puckerman]

(02-18-2015 09:32 PM)GeroMeroHero Wrote:  

In parts of Sweden according to some stuff Zelcorpion posted, blondes dye their hair to be less enticing. So yea, when there is a real rape problem girls do safeguard themselves.

Yes, this is in a country which wants people to be victims of crime. It is illegal in god-damned Sweden to carry pepper spray. It is for guns as well.

This is what would happen if rape were legalized on private property, a lot more rapists or attempted rapists would get shot.

[Thoroughbred]

(02-22-2015 11:36 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Female entertainment functions as emotional porn.

I'm fucking speechless.

My surface personality does not want to accept what my subconscious knows is true due to the sheer weight of processed, real, experiences.

Another level of NAWALT...dying.

I still meet young girls without the usual standard issue full battery of social media accounts, who don't seem to have the need to light fires in their life for no reason. I also think this adjusts for emotional intelligence. Do you see variation of this Anonymous?
The base phenomenon itself is universal, I mean the inflammation and hyper-expression of it.

[Suits]

(03-07-2015 06:19 AM)Ollave Wrote:  

(02-22-2015 11:36 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Female entertainment functions as emotional porn.

I'm fucking speechless.

My surface personality does not want to accept what my subconscious knows is true due to the sheer weight of processed, real, experiences.

Another level of NAWALT...dying.

I still meet young girls without the usual standard issue full battery of social media accounts, who don't seem to have the need to light fires in their life for no reason. I also think this adjusts for emotional intelligence. Do you see variation of this Anonymous?
The base phenomenon itself is universal, I mean the inflammation and hyper-expression of it.

Give 'em ten years. Young girls don't need to start needless fires because they are constantly given attention, especially if they are a 6+.

Once that natural attention starts to fizzle, you'll see them going to increasingly long lengths to try to recreate that emotional feeling.

[Sombro]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/20...ine-47.php

Quote:

Ammo Grrrll returns to share A COUPLE OF THINGS I KNOW FOR SURE ABOUT SEX. She writes:

...In the endless, tedious discussions about “rape culture,” over and over I read testimony from coeds – adult women! – who willingly get into bed with guys and then are amazed when sex occurs. Is there some parallel universe where that is considered unusual?

The reason I ask is that I can say with dead certainty that I have never in my entire life gotten nekkid into bed with a male person without the expectation, nay the fervent hope, that sex could occur. But that’s just me.

Help me out here, young ladies, because I’m pretty Old School. How humiliating can it be if you get naked with a guy and yet you expect no response? (“Hey, nuthin’ to see here. Just your average naked woman from the dorm next door hoping to catch a few Zs while you watch ESPN. Carry on.”) Here we have a generation of women who have been putting condoms on cucumbers since kindergarten who apparently do not have even a passing acquaintance with actual male sexuality.
[…]
I try to examine my soul about whether I would feel different about the disgusting “rape culture” falsehoods if I were the mother of daughters instead of sons. I don’t think so. Not only am I a woman myself, of course, but I’m pretty sure I would advise an adult daughter (among many things) not to go into biker bars in Daisy Dukes and tube tops; not to get too drunk to drive or to keep an eye on her drink at all times; and definitely not to get into bed with a naked man unless she expects to have sex. And quite soon.

Just wait until the first woman is accused by another woman of sexual assault. It’s only a matter of time if it hasn’t happened already. Then how will the unhinged “Women never lie” crowd know whom to exalt as a heroic victim and whom to crucify as a rapist?

[Hector_St_Clare]

Holy sh*t. I had vaguely heard about the 'legalize rape' thing but I assumed it was a very tasteless joke. If not, it's a pretty damned evil and revolting thing to say.

It *is* a bad joke right?

[Volbeck]

(08-09-2015 06:55 PM)Hector_St_Clare Wrote:  

It *is* a bad joke right?

You know what satire is, right?

[CH-Toronto]

(08-09-2015 06:55 PM)Hector_St_Clare Wrote:  

Holy sh*t. I had vaguely heard about the 'legalize rape' thing but I assumed it was a very tasteless joke. If not, it's a pretty damned evil and revolting thing to say.

It *is* a bad joke right?

It's a fine line between satire/serious. The whole point is to bring the attention that girls hold no responsibility when it comes to themselves, and when they get drunk/high all of their actions are immediately disqualified.

[Eskhander]

I always thought the article's point is that women certainly don't behave as if we live in a rape culture where men can prey on them.

[aphelion]

Look up 'A Modest Proposal'.

[Hector_St_Clare]

(08-09-2015 08:01 PM)aphelion Wrote:  

Look up 'A Modest Proposal'.

Roosh implied he's semi-serious. Even on the 'borderline' between satire and serious is horrible.

[RickyGP]

(08-09-2015 09:50 PM)Hector_St_Clare Wrote:  

(08-09-2015 08:01 PM)aphelion Wrote:  

Look up 'A Modest Proposal'.

Roosh implied he's semi-serious. Even on the 'borderline' between satire and serious is horrible.

[Volbeck]

(08-09-2015 07:00 PM)Volbeck Wrote:  

You know what satire is, right?

Okay, so the answer is No.

[bacan]

Interesting that this thread got bumped.

Have any senior members given this article a lot of thought and reconsidered any of the potential implications for how it will help or harm our cause?

I always thought the potential for controversial sound bites and quotes, like we saw on the anti roosh Montreal coverage, was very strong. It is tough to respond by explaining the nuances of the satirical article when your enemies have killer one line quotes.

It is enjoyable to watch the SJWs get fired up over a satirical article but I wonder how this affects men's first impressions of Roosh. In particular I'm imagining a man who has never heard of roosh and is only seeing these CBC news broadcasts or posts on his Facebook feed from SJWs, but would potentially be sympathetic to the neomasculinity ideas.

[Samseau]

(08-09-2015 11:07 PM)bacan Wrote:  

Interesting that this thread got bumped.

Have any senior members given this article a lot of thought and reconsidered any of the potential implications for how it will help or harm our cause?

I always thought the potential for controversial sound bites and quotes, like we saw on the anti roosh Montreal coverage, was very strong. It is tough to respond by explaining the nuances of the satirical article when your enemies have killer one line quotes.

It is enjoyable to watch the SJWs get fired up over a satirical article but I wonder how this affects men's first impressions of Roosh. In particular I'm imagining a man who has never heard of roosh and is only seeing these CBC news broadcasts or posts on his Facebook feed from SJWs, but would potentially be sympathetic to the neomasculinity ideas.

If he isn't smart enough to see through the media's lies he would never be an ally of us anyways.

[Bear Hands]

If you aren't ready to read things for yourself and think critically, you aren't ready for neomasculinity anyway. The article is a fantastic filter for that. It's not about rape, it's about accountability.

[ChickenLover9T9]

(03-05-2015 12:23 PM)CH-Toronto Wrote:  

I forget where it was but Roosh posted the claim that in the future guys will need not only "Game" and "Money" but also "Fame" to get girls.

If at any point in the near future we need fame to get someone like Aurelie Nix then I think we should just kill ourselves right now.