@WarnerBro

What do you call the sex-negative psychos?

People communicate but we've evolved the "flirt".

What do we call self-excluding schizos/psychos like:

Sex-negative feminists

• Is not willing to diet, work out and engage dating
• Sometimes a "polilez"
• Calls non-conforming women "sluts"
• They hate others for having sex
• Politically aggressive

Pussy-cartel feminists

• They want "to control the boys"
• Fakes religion/morals
• Calls non-conforming women "sluts"
• They hate others having sex
• Politically aggressive

Incels

• They don't want to believe in personal responsibility/improvement
• They don't want sex
• They feel comfortable in their "loser identity" and they don't want it to be debunked/taken away
• They hate others having sex
• Politically aggressive

Sex-negative gossip guys

• They lurk male spaces
• They disturb and leak gossip to women for attention
• They shame men to virtue-signal
• They hate others for having sex
• Politically aggressive

etc.

This list doesn't include nerds, geeks and other sexually useless hobby cliques because they're not really aggressive. The list doesn't include WAATGM or other loser women stereotypes because they actually date and fuck — they're real people with real problems. None of the destructive behaviours listed above actually benefits their sex lives,

What do you call the people that actively try to make sex a difficult conversation for everyone?

This is relevant because I want to entertain strategies that actively avoids these types.

14h ago

Hey @carnold03 , Does the dating dictionary have an entry for this behaviour?

So far, you've had about a month to study the book for yourself.

@Hugo_The_Great

Ever met a girl you were willing to drop your other plates for?

I'm wondering if you guys ever met women who were of such quality and with whom you had such great compatibility that it was worth it to drop your other plates/become exclusive?

Personally I'd like a family at some point, and I can imagine that it's likely impractical/unwise to still fuck around having young kids and would probably be willing to let go of other women.

However, that's probably 5 years away, assuming I meet the right woman.

I'm just cynical towards myself that I'll even be able to let go of the thrill of chasing tail/optionality when I arrive at that point. Because it is super addictive. I already have achieved financial independence at a very young age and pretty much the only things that are of interest/stimulate me now is being with my family/couple close friends doing cool shit, some intellectual pursuits and a significant part of my days is managing multiple women.

Guessing that quite a few veterans here have given up monogamy altogether precisely because of this & the fact that they have become so picky most women no longer qualify as anything more than plates.

Consider investing into a reliable ready reference you can pick up and study to better prepare yourself for engaging the opposite sex. I'd suggest that you get yourself a copy of Doc Love's "The System: The Dating Dictionary". Doc Love, who until his passing was also known as Tom Hodges, wrote a weekly advice column that's archive is mirrored on several mens focused sites and a podcast. His media is a bit pricey, but it's a solid foundation a guy can branch out from in RP aware circles. I'd suggest you review his advice column to decide if his view on dating and relationships is aligned with what you aspire for yourself. To save yourself a search, give this scribed link a gander to find out if his #book is something you'd like to add to your library. It should also be available on libgen.

@Stigma Trump as President has violated the bill of Rights, the Constitution, the Geneva Convention, the separation of powers to name a few specifics. He demonizes and scapegoats what he considers powerless minorities and tells his followers that attacking and driving them out will restore our country to greatness. He builds concentration camps around the country, and created and lavishly funded a special militarized force of thugs under his command to fill these camps without due process. He sends military into cities of political rivals against their own will.

At this point, Trump has broken Godwin's Law, for discussing Nazis and Hitler Is no longer absurd hyperbole that demeanor reasonable discussion, it now accurately describes his behavior in the context of a once mighty empire whose hubris brought about its own downfall.

Cartoons like this therefore serve as denial and rationalization crutches for those unwilling or unable to face this unfortunate reality.

@Stigma

What's the use in trying to differentiate political motives be it left, or right?

I don't see this sentiment in those reacting to Kirk's shooting. But this sudden onset disinterest apathy and weariness, I get all the time when asking pointed questions that people prove unwilling to answer.

Charlie Kirk's assassination was a very personal act of violence, based on a warped reality that Charlie was some ontological evil that any action, no matter how drastic, was justified against him.

What is your basis for "knowing" this and presenting it as fact?

It's not the alleged shooter's own words, as of an hour ago he has not confessed and is "not cooperating" with investigators.

It's not forensic evidence conclusively tying him to the shooting.

So, what basis do you have for "knowing" what you wrote above?

It's perfectly honorable to admit that yeah, I don't actually hold any supporting evidence and for now this is only conjecture.