LOOKSMAXXING

Join 84,000+ Looksmaxxing Members!

Register a FREE account today to become a member. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox.

Register Log in
  • DISCLAIMER: DO NOT ATTEMPT TREATMENT WITHOUT LICENCED MEDICAL CONSULTATION AND SUPERVISION

    This is a public discussion forum. The owners, staff, and users of this website ARE NOT engaged in rendering professional services to the individual reader. DO NOT use the content of this website as an alternative to personal examination and advice from licenced healthcare providers. DO NOT begin, delay, or discontinue treatments and/or exercises without licenced medical supervision. Learn more

Serious how to stop being misogynistic?

northka said:
I'd say stop using your phone because if you just walk around in a grocery store I found that its hard to hate anyone
Click to expand...
whenever i go outside i hate other people even more than inside
 
ToryToad said:
as evil people

hypergamie, personal experience and just stupidity of most women online
Click to expand...
you cant forget your experience but i would guess if you experience the opposite of how you view them, it could change

But besides this there is nothing it could change, is it even bad thinking like you do, why would you change it or feel the need to
 
northka said:
then only think about yourself, and what good comes from hating women? there isnt much of a benefit
Click to expand...
Loving women is infinity more mentally straining. Not a single woman has developed a relationship with a man that she truly values over all else.
 
northka said:
but you should find a valid reason, id rather you stay mysoginistic than be at odds with yourself
Click to expand...
i also dislike most of the males, i could rather than just be mysoginistic, stop being mysoginistic but only like a part of women just like i already only like a part of males,no? what do u think
 
ToryToad said:
i also dislike most of the males, i could rather than just be mysoginistic, stop being mysoginistic but only like a part of women just like i already only like a part of males,no? what do u think
Click to expand...
Id say base your decisions on a person on value rather than sex, and if you hate a woman because of her character rather than just plainly being a woman thats not misogyny. It is alright to judge someone on what they say and do generally
 
ToryToad said:
whenever i go outside i hate other people even more than inside
Click to expand...
you do not know anyone outside but for a tidbit of time. people on the internet are acessible at any time and thus forming any judgment on such individuals has more of a basis of formation rather than fleeting judgments of passerby's you do not know to well. these are not people who are similiar to you so its easier to dislike them on that basis as well. Wordswordswords water, but strangers serve not for a viable foundation of judgment and opinions due to lack of context, and permanence
 
northka said:
Id say if they dont care about you have that attitude, but if she does then I would put effort into liking her too
Click to expand...
What a waste of efficacy.

No woman would ever like you for more than things that can be distributed materialistically.
 
bledilletante said:
that definitely adresses the subject at hand. Brilliant dnr rope
Click to expand...
It directly simplifies the issue at hand to a matter of direction attention to more malleable causes and results.
 
hyperion said:
What a waste of efficacy.

No woman would ever like you for more than things that can be distributed materialistically.
Click to expand...
Cope for maladjusted infants. No woman would like nor entertain a man showcasing this sort of character within their immidiate enviroment.
 
hyperion said:
It directly simplifies the issue at hand to a matter of direction attention to more malleable causes and results.
Click to expand...
Does not deal with the issue at hand, and dismisses it. Your teachers have failed you. Additionally, this method surely has proved effective bringing you to boast about it, proving it's exellence on a Lm forum which is all for well adjusted individuals, these results i say.
 
hyperion said:
What a waste of efficacy.

No woman would ever like you for more than things that can be distributed materialistically.
Click to expand...
Objectively I think that women like that do exist but I have met women that are less like that. I dont really blame anyone, its nature and there can still be love despite that
 
bledilletante said:
Cope for maladjusted infants. No woman would like nor entertain a man showcasing this sort of character within their immidiate enviroment.
Click to expand...
The point is that you don't? Are you retarded?

You develop a facade that portrays an interested and invested man, after coming to the very raw realization - the one I am actively highlighting.

Developing your character on raw, unfettered emotions is what is portrayed in fantasy books with dragons and wizards.
 
hyperion said:
The point is that you don't? Are you retarded?

You develop a facade that portrays an interested and invested man, after coming to the very raw realization - the one I am actively highlighting.

Developing your character on raw, unfettered emotions is what is portrayed in fantasy books with dragons and wizards.
Click to expand...
Emotion is of course only distributed materialistically oh how could i forget. Such a thing only exists in fantasy books, but surely it cannot exist in a co-occurent, and not wholly materially provident, but not dismissive man, it simply cannot. Amazing.
 
Get out of your head and live life beyond statistics and graphs. Your lack of results is damning, as you have not had one thing worthy to speak of, for you to insist upon your presence in such a place.
 
bledilletante said:
Emotion is of course only distributed materialistically oh how could i forget. Such a thing only exists in fantasy books, but surely it cannot exist in a co-occurent, and not wholly materially provident, but not dismissive man, it simply cannot. Amazing.
Click to expand...
Your rebuttable fails to address my main contention - and to peruse any constructive discourse in future, I feel the need to reinstate my contention with more simple wording. For sake of your comprehensibility.

I simply suggest that for optimal relationships, men should subject themself to the understanding that women are only interested in things they can provide physically - as a direct effort to promote the following trains of though (only in the men reading).


Train of thought 1:
Anything you can provide, can and will be upstaged by other men when provided the opportunity. Its in the upmost concern of every man to ensure they have something of attraction to provide to any woman in their relationships - as if their material value exhausted itself, they're essentially worthless.

Train of though 2:
Agency to dictate a relationship is entirely withheld for the man. Realizing how much control you have over the environment - provides an equally revolutionizing realization of importance of one's own weighing in all situations.


bledilletante said:
Emotion is of course only distributed materialistically oh how could i forget.
Click to expand...
Emotion is a byproduct of materialistic transactions.
bledilletante said:
Such a thing only exists in fantasy books, but surely it cannot exist in a co-occurent
Click to expand...
"exist in a co-occurent", something co-currant? what are you pertaining to?
bledilletante said:
, and not wholly materially provident, but not dismissive man, it simply cannot. Amazing.
Click to expand...
The word you're looking for here is prominent, not provident.

What the fuck are you even saying, I've read this multiple times over and your phrasing is hard to discern.

Maybe think about shit before you spray it next time.

bledilletante said:
Get out of your head and live life beyond statistics and graphs. Your lack of results is damning, as you have not had one thing worthy to speak of, for you to insist upon your presence in such a place.
Click to expand...
Op you must ignore this advice. Treat women like objects that are fixed to consume materialistic material - and you shall treat them in accordance to how they wish to be treated.
 
hyperion said:
Your rebuttable fails to address my main contention - and to peruse any constructive discourse in future, I feel the need to reinstate my contention with more simple wording. For sake of your comprehensibility.

I simply suggest that for optimal relationships, men should subject themself to the understanding that women are only interested in things they can provide physically - as a direct effort to promote the following trains of though (only in the men reading).


Train of thought 1:
Anything you can provide, can and will be upstaged by other men when provided the opportunity. Its in the upmost concern of every man to ensure they have something of attraction to provide to any woman in their relationships - as if their material value exhausted itself, they're essentially worthless.

Train of though 2:
Agency to dictate a relationship is entirely withheld for the man. Realizing how much control you have over the environment - provides an equally revolutionizing realization of importance of one's own weighing in all situations.



Emotion is a byproduct of materialistic transactions.

"exist in a co-occurent", something co-currant? what are you pertaining to?

The word you're looking for here is prominent, not provident.

What the fuck are you even saying, I've read this multiple times over and your phrasing is hard to discern.

Maybe think about shit before you spray it next time.


Op you must ignore this advice. Treat women like objects that are fixed to consume materialistic material - and you shall treat them in accordance to how they wish to be treated.
Click to expand...
One telling trait of a lacklustre argument is it insults the reciever/recipient it is supposed to convince of verity. As such it renders you a asinine nincompoop one which, as you would, knows a fair bit about spraying "shit" and thus urges you to verbalise it.

Besides this, how would a reverse reading of this go, were the opposite question asked "How to stop being a misandrist" for example? "Treat men like objects which are fixed to provide with materialistic material, and then you shall treat them in accordance to their will?" This is unidirectional as a definitive descriptive statement ought to be, as it cannot be both true and false at the same time, yes?

Would you describe yourself this way? What is your worth then? What would you do were you an object fixed to consume materialistic material? What would your worth be then?

About the other claims, first, that what a man provides Can affect a woman's attraction. It Can.

Second, that because another man might provide those things better, the first man's value is therefore contingent upon continually outperforming his competitors. That doesn't follow. Replaceability establishes that a relationship is contingent, not that the person being replaced was worthless.

Just because relationships involve reciprocal benefits, emotion is therefore a product of materialistic transactions. That's the largest unsupported leap. “We benefit from each other” does not entail “our emotional attachment was caused by the exchange of benefits.” A can be B, but B does not have to be A.

Your framework also seems to conflate agency with control. A man cannot dictate another person's preferences, but neither can a woman dictate his participation. Both posess the ability to establish boundaries, terms, and leave. Recognizing the other person's agency doesn't eliminate your own.

“Men should remain independently valuable, understand that relationships aren't guaranteed, and avoid making their entire sense of worth dependent upon being desired by one particular woman.” Is one defensible qualm, but that is about it.

What I dispute is the additional conclusion that a man's value is exhausted by what he provides, that women's interest is exclusively reducible to provisions, and that emotion is merely a consequence of material exchange. Those propositions require arguments that you don't actually provide, dubious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (Looksmaxxers: 0, Guests: 1)
Back
Top