And despite everything else you say, you sum it all up right here. You've already picked what you want to believe, and because you've "seen it over and over again" you believe the worst about human nature to the extent that you're willing to call all women whores (not 'horny' like most people, men and women alike, but outright whores). You tell yourself that you're being objective and that the 'evidence is on your side', but you draw biased conclusions to support a view that you're predisposed to believe and you don't look this up (or anything up, to be frank) beyond either cursory summations without factual understanding or looking for keywords and then claiming that X is Y. This has been pointed out to you countless times now, but you just turtle into a circular defense of"I already explained WARBLEGARBLE"while ignoring people whenever they point out that the conclusions you've drawn are so far from what you're trying to base it on that it's downright sad. You even got caught doing that with one guy's blog, but you completely ignored the caveats that he threw out himself that contradicted the conclusions that you drew from his blog. Your arguments in this thread are a prime example of the larger issue of "Knowledge on the Internet", except you don't even seem to understand that you're doing much the same thing that some people do when they traipse around the Internet looking for articles to support their beliefs then linking articles from TheBlaze.Com as if it's some bastion of unimpeachable peer-reviewed fact.
Most people gave up arguing with you a long time ago and just started asking you if your mom is a whore once they realized that you're either too stupid or too stubborn to admit that the bullshit you regurgitated from Reddit posts doesn't actually support what you say it does.
In before"I already explained it all before, go back to my old posts if you want proof".
I believe what the
data shows as true. It is you and the others who have not shown
any evidence whatsoeverto the contrary. While I, Ant, Himeo have put forth countless links to articles and journals. No, not redpill blogs. No, not anecdotes (even though we provided those too.) It is on
youto show us differently, and the only things you've shown is that you 'feel' our view is incorrect based on idealism; based on idealistic notions of gender equalism; based on how it
shouldbe.
Show me. Show me the data that shows women prefer socially awkward, socially nondominant, socioeconomic poor, weak men. Show me the data that shows women get aroused by agreeableness, kindness, gentleness, understanding, and respect. Show this to me. I want to see the studies that back any of that nonsense up. I want to see
anythingthat runs contrary to what I've said here this entire time.
Anything.
The answer is you don't have it because it doesn't exist. Because that kind of woman doesn't exist. Because women get
universallyaroused and cue on certain fitness traits. And they base their decisions and behavior with regards to sexual partners on those cues.
There is not 'different types of women'; not different buckets women - no whores on the right, good girls on the left. No. That's not reality. No data anywhere backs any 'different types of women' perspective up. That's based on idealism born in that gender equalist fantasy put in your head by society.
All women are hypergamous and will fulfill that impulse, regardless of in whatever fantasy buckets or labels you place them. If they haven't fulfilled it yet, then they haven't yet met the men who will help them do the fulfilling.
One GNO, one glance at the grocery store, one office party, one yoga trainer, one FB chat is all it takes for the vagina tingles to start, for the hypergamous hamster to start its wheel -
for any and every woman.
No, this thread is a great example of people living in a idealistic fantasy, based on notions that while good on paper, don't exist in reality. I accept and love women for
what they are, not the idealistic notions you place upon them simply because it sounds good or makes you feel better.
