“It’s inexpensive, if you think about it. You’ll pay two-hundred and fifty for a Michael Kors. For something only half as cute.”
If this facade were to burn tomorrow, I wouldn’t shed a tear for its loss.
Overheard In SWPL-Land
Dec 30th, 2012 by Heartiste
296 Responses to “Overheard In SWPL-Land”
Leave a Reply
Archives
Gab Feed
-
When a German says "I'm being deadly serious", he's being deadly serious.
-
"hypergamous disengagement"
The visitors scoured the brittle pamphlets, unearthed in a climate controlled trove that survived the centuries. They had questions. Did this extinct race of intelligent beings understand the nature of the threat facing them? If so, did they attempt to avert the catastrophe?
For the vistors, a fortuitous, sex-specific genetic mutation saved them from a similar fate. What they wanted to know was whether another species tried to adapt to the same fertility pressures in their own way?
The lead investigator tugged at a yellowed printout of an ancient text. He blew off the dust.
"Dread Game"
Further examination of the writing offered an answer. They knew. Or someone knew, and tried to send the message. A blueprint to save their species.
Further down the pile of papers, another entreaty.
"III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority
Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be "The One" or the center of a man's existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a wothy man's life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman's integrity and not lie to her that she is "your everything". She is not your everything, and if she is, she will soon not be anymore."
It was, the visitor would later report to its superior, indirect proof of a cosmic law that directs the will of all advanced life in the universe. A sign, at last, of a Creator.
-
Inside women there are two wolves.
"I can make it better"
"I did that"
-
There are some fantastic archival photos of Reich era Germans smiling and laughing while jews in yellow stars skulk in the background.
The jew today says this is because the Germans were callous toward the suffering jews.
In reality, Germans were smiling because they were happy that their society was once again recognizable to them.
And, the jews were skulking for the same reason.
-
Civilization Cycle Theory and the JQ aren't mutually exclusive. A poster here makes an analogy to the serpent in the Garden of Eden. Just because Eve was weak and sinned, doesn't mean the serpent isn't culpable in the deceit.
Removing jewish influence from day to day operations of the empire would help heal the most gangrenous wounds, but the timetable of empire decline and decay of the people's virtues would remain roughly ten generations from the nation's inception.
Some cities within that declining order would survive and bristle with vitality. More relevant, there would be rural outposts that become seeding grounds for renewal, as happened many times before in European history. What we can say for certain is that separation from jewish corrupting influence will help us manage our own decline, and lead our people to the nation-creation rebirth that starts the cycle anew.
-
National Racialist or Racial Socialist.
Two ways to say National Socialist without saying it.
-
I recall reading on here that the biggest problem for jews is the globalization of Noticing.
In the golden olden days, when jews overstayed their welcome, they left (not always of their own accord) and ran the same schemes in a new town. Arrive, become hated, get kicked out, settle elsewhere, become hated, get kicked out. Repeat the process ad nauseam.
jewish group strategy succeeded with this blueprint because the accumulated benefits outweighed the costs of an occasional Local Noticing. But now that the Noticing has gone worldwide, jews can't just pack up, or progrom out, for a new White town to profit skim and culturally denude. All those escape destinations have been closed off by the rapid transmission of Gentile knowledge.
The result of this new reality is that jews feel a lot of internal pressure to stand their ground where they are, and force the natives to accommodate the imposition of jewishness. It has also turbocharged the jewish strategy of buying off, or blackmailing, the elites of White societies, to guarantee their protection from the angry peasantry.
The whole dynamic feels very much like a pressure cooker left unattended for too long. An irresistible force meets an immovable object. No one will give an inch. No side will concede anything. Mass surveillance systems and psy ops mindrape are deployed with increasing urgency, while barriers to clear thinking and truthful reality are felled every day. The tectonic plates continue to rub along the fault line, building up immense seismic energy.
Honestly, it will be a miracle if this resolves in a controlled manner.
-
Jeffrey Epstein: Woody Allen role-playing as the Marquis de Sade.
-
Epstein was deliberately creepy. He adorned his walls with the most off-putting "art" and littered his pricey shtetl with pedo-suggestive decoratives.
He had to have known the image he was cultivating and forcing on anyone who paid him a visit. Ask yourself, what kind of person would want visitors and acquaintances to feel uncomfortably creeped out?
And then ask yourself, what kind of visitors would NOT feel uncomfortably creeped out by all that creepiness?
-
My only quibble with the Gadget summary is the assumption that the jews' numerical minority status is easily overpowered or ignored by Whites, when it should be more obvious that jews use their money and information gatekeeping as a force multiplier of their influence over White societies.
Otherwise, yeah, the future for Whites is looking more and more like one that is separated from the concerns of jews.
-
PAGES
Recent Comments
Categories
GAME
MAGA MEN
SYLLOGISM AND SYNTHESIS
-
TOP POSTS
-
What was the cost of the item he was referring to? Then it’s a rational purchase. If it were $500, this statement would make no sense, as the consumer is identifying some sort of bargain. I say $300-$350 for something twice as cute as $250 warrant the statement in question.
After that, though, the whole mess of discussion commentary below sounds like this:
Who bugged alphie’s table at Starbucks?
I know you were dreamin’ of a white Christmas, baby-doll.
HA!
I know you can be first more often than that.
And not even then… sigh.
Thread winner
And still has less value than an Adolph Coors.
It never ceases to amaze me how much women will pay for handbags, jewlery, dresses, and sunglasses just because some dude’s name is on it.
Enjoy that debt and credit repossession or milking a beta…I’m not taking it on.
You already are taking it on, if you own a credit card.
GUILTY PARTY HERE! I will only buy expensive handbags. Cheap handbags stink and fall apart quickly. With expensive bags they last forever and you can always sell them if yo are ever about to go homeless
IOW’s they have value.
But clothes I will buy cheap and shoes I go more expensive too!
HEARTITE’S first post on SHOPPING and HANDBAGS!! YAY!!
Happy New Year everyone!!!!
…
HEY HUNNY! How was your XMAS???
Better than yours.
Where are my tit pics, bitch?
Do you feel like big man now? Hey fellas ANON is desperately looking for his “ooh you are such an Alpha man for saying that” pat on his head today. Please give it to him b/c its obvious this is what he wanted in his desperate attempt to look “ALPHA”.
WHose the bitch now BOY!
Neecy, quit the pop-psych judo. Show us your melanin lacquered tits.
I use “bitch” as an endearing word. I would have used “cunt” if I didn’t wanna see your titties.
I promise to spell it “bish” once in a while from now on.
And why are you so tense? Someone fucked you without paying again?
I’m not tense! lets see being called a “bitch” doesn’t exactly create calm especially after telling someone MERRY XMAS.
May you enjoy a pleasant and prosperous New Year.
YOU TOO GRAMPS!!!
How about you go tell someone who cares?
Well you obviously CARED ENOUGH to respond. :rolls: Mission accomplished!
In my opinion girls do that for a high.Its a sort of feel good rush.A Self esteem boosting move in the peer group.
And chicks that do it have the same attitude with men.My vagina is better than your vagina because it gets me this walking wallet.
*correction a heavier walking wallet
I personally don’t buy expensive handbags for recognition. I just LIKE THEM, the way they smell, their look and craftmanship quality. I can be very hard on purses and I find expensive purses and bags take a lickin and keep on ticking.
Everyone has their vices.
I cannot understand why men even weigh in on this topic b/c you will never understand the desire women have for shopping and buying things. Yall Never have and never will!
It’s probably like the equivalent of a guy buying a bad ass car.
Except a badass car may get you laid.
A girl’s handbag may not. It’s just females intra-competition bullshit.
And men buying expensive cars and the other crap you guys do to impress OTHER MEN and women isn’t done for intra-competition either?
YOU GOT IT! Not just cars but other expensive TOYS that make me look in confusion. LOL
more like guns or guitars. Still, she has a point. I have learned these things as a married man.
*Solipsistic much?*
Agreed , Even I save up for latest android phones to tinker away or for a nice blazer , but that is not what I meant to highlight.
I have seen women cut money from their groceries , daily basic needs and savings for this shit. I know a student in London who earns 1000 pounds a month max but bought a bag for 250 pounds because it was a great discount.She has a student debt to pay and lives in a shitty place.
This tendency actually gets borderline stupid as women move up the economic ladder.Not saying all women do that,but most have this crazy urge.
Ok yes. ANYONE who break the bank, avoids paying bills or other important things just to buy expensive name brand stuff is definitley doing it for purposes of getting attention and recognition – which does equate to low self esteem. But its not just women who do this. Men buy expensive stuff and front with materialistic items to impress each other and women, so its not just women who make these decisions.
If a person likes certain expensive things, its best to save for it or put a small amount aside until you have saved enough to purchase it.
No worries Neecy. I suggest you check out the Burberry Small Tote in the check pattern. It’s about $750, made in Italy, converts from a Hobo to a Tote with an included strap and has a removable pouch. Since it’s the classic check pattern it goes with almost everything…You can get it for about $600 after the VAT discount in German boutiques…
FWIW – if you’re not sporting a quality purse it’s just one of a laundry-list of extremely effective negs I’ll be able to use on you…
LOL! Hey Mike I like Negs!
But that’ll be a hard neg to do on me b/c i do not EVER get caught without a good purse. lol I am trying to venture out of my love for Gucci and Louis Vuitton. I want to get a good Chanel bag next. But I am going to go and check out that Burberry bag you suggested
http://www.saksfifthavenue.com/main/ProductDetail.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524446388134&CAWELAID=1354440545&cagpspn=pla&site_refer=GGLPRADS001
There you go. xoxo
That looks like what Rob Roy MacGregor would carriy his prey in, heading home from a duck hunt.
A Coach or other brand name bag is good. They smell like a new pair of boots or a saddle. I don’t blame any woman for wanting them.
How shocking! A black woman who likes designer stuff! What next,an Asian broad?
I buy luxury clothing, shoes, and accessories. You only have to own a small collection of luxury garments for a few years to see the superior fit and longevity. Some of it is worth the money. Some of it isn’t. Michael Kors isn’t even luxury, it’s a mall-tier brand for moms that want to drop a few hundred and wave around a logo to convince themselves they’re not buying absolute shit.
I wouldn’t put Michael Kors in that category but COACH? – yes.
I’m a Louie and Gucci girl, but I own one Michael Kors bag ( the tonne ) and the leather on it is AAAAMAZING! The smell and the texture of it. I wouldn’t even think to describe it as *absolute shit*.
Anyway, actually it makes sense as to why women spend top dollar on purses and bags. because this is an item we use DAILY. Most women are carrying purses on our arms from the time we can hold them. We put our most needed stuff in there. If you are using something DAILY like a purse, its most likely going to be taking some kind of licking. The more expensive the better it will hold up over time. Plus, Expensive purses do not depreciate in value – they appreciate.
It makes sense for a woman to spend a lot of money on a good purse vs. Spending money buying cheap purses which over the years you will probably end up spending more b/c they fall apart much quicker and you are buying & replacing them ALOT more often.
A person like me buys very expensive purses maybe 2 times a year (for seasons) and I rotate them. They don’t go out of style and I will have them FOREVER and they hardly if ever fall apart. Plus when the handles or certain things shows signs of extreme wear, you can send the products in and get them repaired and updated.
Men and people who are constantly criticizing women who buy expensive stuff only assume that its all for show. Some of us do it for the VALUE and longevity of them. This is why I will not buy expensive clothes, b/c they go out of style too much and too quickly.
Actually i take that back. Coach isn’t absolute shit either. Its actually pretty damn good quality leather that lasts forever. I just personally don’t like Coach anymore. They were my starter expensive bags for awhile.
The only purse that matters is that of your lips, my Ebonian coquette.
HEHE!!!! That was cute G!
My favorite Coach bags continue to be the ones I bought in Korea for like five bucks apiece. Are they counterfeit? Oh, hell yes. Can anyone tell the difference, back here in the States? Nope! The Asians are masters at the art of copyright infringement.
Don’t fool yourself, honey. There’s quality craftsmanship, sure, but mostly not. Anything that’s high quality and high design, made by adults getting paid a living wage, are always out of the normal person’s price range. These things are ALL put together with child slave labor in the interior of China. The only difference between the ones I acquired semi-legally on TDY to Osan AB, and the ones you buy at the mall is the price. It is all an affectation.
And the longest lasting bags I’ve ever had are the ones I bought from REI. Just sayin’.
“The more expensive the better it will hold up over time. Plus, Expensive purses do not depreciate in value – they appreciate.”
You heard it here first folks. Dump your gold, property and other investments its time to go long on purses!
I didn’t say all of that. Of course expensive purses are not investments in the sense of Gold, property etc.
My point is unlike a cheap bag or other inexpesive purses (that a woman would spend a ton of money on over time with nothing in return but a stinky, jacked up plastic bag that lasts a few months), the more expensive bags are timeless commodities. Louis Vuitton bags are timeless. Gucci bags are timeless. Chanel bags. The leather on these items lasts and holds up for decades. My granmother still has Lousi Vuitton bags from more than 2 decades ago. She can still wear these purses and they are still in fashion b/c they are CLASSICS. If a handle or anything on them gets old with wear, she can update them and get new ones through the company. You can always sell them. the older they are the more you can sell for b/c they are classic.
One of the core principles of PU is that women are what they are because thats whay they are. Get over it.You want a broad that doesnt like purses and shoes? Go fuck Rosie O’Donnell!
@josh
well said!
They need to shut up and accept women for what they are; stop trying to change them.
Likewise, men are the way they are and that’s why they like fucking young women as opposed to fucking middle-aged hags. Feminists can’t accept that, the same way the betas here can’t accept this and they bitch about it. It’s delusional and weak.
You can get a good, attractive robust purse for about $250 to $400. More than that is theft. I think that price is theft too but more tolerable than the $1500 to $4000+ a big luxury name brand purse can set you back. BTW, I think Burberry is ugly as is Vuitton. They are both sporting the granny look.
Didn’t take you very long to contradict yourself. If they hold value/appreciate, why do you buy two new ones every year? How many have you sold at a gain and how many do you currently own?
I buy 1-2 a year b/c if I like a new style that comes out then I will get it. I have accepted I like expensive purses, so I sacrifice in other areas where I would use the money for entertainment, eating out or simply cutting back throughout the year on the amount of clothing I buy to financially to fund them and that is what makes me happy. I own quite a few and I have never sold any and don’t plan too. but plenty of people sell their expensive bags on EBAY. They may not get exactly what they paid for it b/c of course its used. But if kept in good condition there are plenty of people willing to pay a little less for a used name bag then buying it full price and new.
There are people who actually prefer not to rotate their bags and when they get tired of them, they will sell (at a much less price than bought) and use the money they received from selling to go towards a newer style of that brand instead of dishing out more money for a new one etc.
Well you tried to make it sound like a smart investment, which it isn’t.
My leather wallet cost me $15 bucks about ten years ago. It carries many important items; money, license, etc. $15. Ten years ago. You dumb broads buy this crap so you can show up your girlfriends. Stop pretending it’s anything other than that.
It’s all about image — same as when a guy buys a sports car that is not necessarily that much better than a practical, less expensive vehicle.
EVERYTHING in this world is about image. Some people just prefer to get what they pay for – QUALITY – and QUALITY COSTS. Others prefer to keep replacing cheap items over time (which ends up costing almost just as much money compared to if they just spent a larger amount up front for a quality piece they would never need to replace or one which they could sell if they tired of it).
Either way its ones own business how they choose to spend money. It doesn’t always have to do with trying to impress another person. Some people chose not to skimp on certain things just to pay less. i and many other people like quality in certain things and we are willing to pay for it and it has noting to do with trying to make a statement to anyone.
Nope, a sports car might attract (hot) chicks, or as Yareally would put it, create opportunities with (hot) chicks
An expensive designer bag will never attract an alpha.
It’s not about image for men. It’s about pussy.
Maybe we’re all missing the point. A purse is a portable pussy that you can put money right into! And you show how much yours is worth by how expensive the purse is. Just a thought. lol
What’s the corresponding pussy term for phallic?
It never hurts to Vajazzle. Bling it all out.
I have no idea. We’ll have to get Whammer’s input if we’re going to deconstruct the wallet again. Btw, I tried to wish you a happy New Year’s on the other thread, but my comment is being frisked. Happy New Year’s.
Found it: Google Wallet. You can use this app to make payments from your phone. I guess I should have called a purse an “external pussy.” You see, it totally cuts out the middleman, so to speak, in the money to pussy (ugh- I hate using this word) interaction. So, the more expensive the bag, the more feminist the hag. (Excepting Neecy- she’s a doll.)
Now, on the topic of phones, I don’t see women getting into this whole paying with their phones thing, although I guess they could. Women wear their hearts on their phones. If there were ever any way to know just how fast a woman deletes your texts, that’d be the way to know where you stand in the pecking order. As a sentimental creature with a limited amount of texts I can save, I know who I care for the most by whose texts I erase right away to make room for so and so’s.
OK now I have to admit, I’m impressed by the stark simplicity of Kate’s analogy.
Thanks. And Happy New Year to you too, Terty. It’ll be belated, but its not my fault. Good God, Heartiste is all hands!
also overheard:
State of Kansas wants sperm donor found on Craigslist to pay for daughter born to lesbian couple
http://cjonline.com/news/2012-12-28/court-case-query-topeka-man-sperm-donor-or-father
I don’t think that is legal if they went to a sperm bank.
No sperm bank involved (they found the guy via craigslist). But since there were signed agreements and it sounds like the plaintiff isn’t the women, but rather the state, the whole thing looks like a mess, legally. You’d need an expert on the relevant case law to know what sort of chances the suit has. Though just as a matter of justice it certainly seems like bullshit.
Those chiks should be jailed for getting a sperm donor on craigslist! lol
DAMN what is this world coming too.
People treating babies like some commodity you can buy on craigslist? man…
Well b/c the guy was found on craigslist, I am not sure his legal rights vs. a male who donated to the sperm bank.
“But since there were signed agreements and it sounds like the plaintiff isn’t the women, but rather the state, the whole thing looks like a mess, legally.”
Reading the article, it looks like the carefully unstated part of the story is that the lesbians who wanted the kid are no longer together. (Doesn’t suit the narrative, so of course if that is the case it was omitted. The proles don’t need to know.)
Not sure how else to interpret the fact that the mother (singular) has now fallen on economic hard times, to the extent that she went and sought out state financial aid to raise the kid (which is how the state got involved in the case).
Also, wage-earners, enjoy reading about your tax dollars subsidizing the upbinging of a bastard child, born to a lesbian couple, begotten via sperm from a plastic cup sought out by craigslist transaction. We are the children, we are the future. llzzolzzlol, etc.
But Kansas is run by the biggest mangina of them all, former Republican US senator and now governor Sam Brownback. This is the father of VAWA, the one who strong-armed the entire GOP side of the Senate to vote yes on VAWA in 2005 after a deal was cut with Senator Maria Cuntwell to allow the beta judge Alito to be accepted for the Supremes without filibuster.
Brownback then recruited the corrupt former wife beater Congressman Jim Moran to also come to Kansas to get involved with politics there.
Their racket is this: they know they can get bipartisan support by being “conservatives” who support feminism. The old ladies on the right will be with them and the fembots on the left know he’s got their back on everything except abortion and they let that slide.
Brownback of Kansas is everything that’s wrong with the Republican Party and he’s got manginas like him vying for pres in 2016 in the form of Jindal and Rubio.
In what sense is Alito a beta?
Ah, this is why I never donate sperm…and always wear a condom…
Wir mussen die Feministen ausrotten!
That’ll show that idiot not to donate sperm ever again…
The “contract” the lesbians had with the sperm donors holds about as much weight as a contract between parents and underage kids allowing them to drink. You can draw up all the contacts you want, but if they’re in violation of a law (i.e. mandatory child support, underage drinking), they mean nothing.
If I lawyer helped them draft this make-believe contracts, this lawyer needs to be disbarred.
If I lawyer helped them draft this make-believe contracts, this lawyer needs to be disbarred.
————————————-
They probably got there legal advice off Craigslist too.
Serves him right. Not only did he help create a welfare dependent bastard, he helped a couple of freaks torture.. err ‘raise’ a child.
Look at the Michael Kors website, the main photo. Notice anything, ummm, interesting in the statement being made?
http://www.michaelkors.com/
Cue Claude Rains:
“I’m shocked… shocked to learn!”
Say what you want, he makes a great cheap beer.
Idk how they even start to like those things. They are full bullshit.
some kids never learn.
Its innate in us women. Don’t try to understand it.
Like men and video games. I don’t get it.
Video games = Hunting.
hth
Expensive purses = orgasms.
HTH
And SHOPPING = multiple orgasms
At least I use some semblance of pop evo psych to have some credibility.
But YOU are just typing.
Don’t worry, we still love the ones you fellas give us too.
Yawn. Nigger, be thankful every day that white men have actual logic to protect your worthless skanky ass from black men and the other uncivilized problems of the world, whilst you live in lala land with your lack of critical thinking.
Either that, or go hang out at a few nigger clubs a few nights per week. The rapes and beatings and robberies you experience there will hopefully amount to a homicide.
wf: dumb
I was bored so I wanted to look up the relative value of chess pieces for a metaphor I was thinking.
pawn = 1
knight = 3.2
bishop = 3.33
rook = 5.1
queen = 8.8
I think I know how this value translates into the feminine imperative value on males.
Pawns are unknowing betas and deltas.
Knights are the white knighters defending feminism
Bishops are Churchainity
Rooks can be the media, government, schools
Alphas are the king.
The king is the alpha of all alphas.
Alphas are the pawns that made it to the other side of the board. They represent the recovering beta, who gained insight and confidence thanks to all the bullshit he had to go through, hence his ability to move all over the board.
Which means there is no naturals in chess.
In any game of chess there is only one Alpha and its me because Im the only man bad ass enough to knock all the peices off the board and set fire to my opponent.
That sounds more like MGTOW.
Why come da white peeses alway go first and da brothas always gotsda move secund? Das raciss!
lmao.
That’s because you too stupid and uncivilized to know how to play the game, nigs.
can someone ban this fuck
I know, right?
Are you kidding? The massa here actually encourages this. This “game” blog is simply a vehicle.
He stokes the flames; throws red meat onto the fire; and plays the sokk p-ppeteer and chef de cuisine.
El Jefe cannot write these things openly because the nice folks at Automattic (W-P) will kick him into orbit if he returns to his old, overt style of attacking “n-gs.” Hence the s p-ppetry using GrgE and sundry anons.
Responsible bloggers will not link to him in their sidebars.
lmao.Gotta love the nig-loving superfags here; the lefty-tards desperate to prove how black men are Jesus and Mandingo and Superfly all rolled into one, and get offended when whitey points out they are nothign but toothless savages.
I once embedded my king in the wall board after a particularly aggravating game… then I grabbed my opponent by the collar and told him “Next time, it’s you.”
I’m a notoriously bad loser.
Extreme Amazing Super-Chess! – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV1bpMamCtY
+1… something to watch en passant.
I’m a notoriously bad loser.
Not sure how much of your anecdote is real, considering your laid-back vibe. But the description comes close to my visceral reaction to setback.
I am fortunate to have zen, however, and the intercessory peace of the Blessed Virgin. So I kill them with kindness instead. Bloody, graphic, murderous kindness.
“Hail Mary, full of grace…”
Matt
Heh, heh… I’ve been accused of many things, but never “laid back”.
Must be Neecy’s influence smoothing out the wrinkles in my nature.
Alphas eschew chess; they play go.
Après moi, le déluge.
Well, always remember that humans are a status-seeking species. Both men and women. But in paleo times – we still largely use the same neural circuitry – this did not mean large bank accounts, or even land holdings. So the things showing status were, in rough order of importance
1 Status within the tribe. This is of course circular, like celebrities today
are famous for being celebrated and vice versa.
2 Ability to provide (for men), youth and beauty (i.e. mostly fertility) for women
3. The also circular thing about sexual selection, reflecting 1 and 2. Trouble with the sexual selection theory is that it has TOO MUCH explanatory power; it can explain ANY readily observable trait.
4. Possessions. This works OK for men, partly as resource, partly as visible proof of 1 and 2. It works for women too – but not nearly as well as they think – except to impress OTHER WOMEN. Most men can tell a $25 dress from a $100 dollar dress. But they don’t know or care about the difference between a $100 dress and a $1000 dress – they are more interested in what’s in it.
So the women delude themselves (and each other). But sometimes this works in reverse too – a woman doesn’t care much about a $10 000 video/audio system over a $1000 dito, but it impresses the other guys….
Thor
ghey… or female, neither very sensible.
During the housing mania I had to become a hermit, because the tsunami of SWPL idiocy like this was literally overwhelming my sanity.
Its not just SWPL its stuff TBLKT!! (this Black girl likes too!!!) Hehe!!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3147/3747216868_1d5c02eba8_o.png
Who let this negress off her meds?
Why is there an ugly black bitch shitting up this thread?
You obviously want to do her or you wouldn’t be paying such close attention. What do you say, Neecy, want some nasty race play from a guy with a closet thing for black girls? I’m sure WF has days off from the charm school he runs.
ROFL. Oh yes, I positively fiend for the loud, stupid, slutty, ugly, toothless, 5-kids-by-6-guys ghetto whores. Must be it!
Lemme guess…Obama voter, right?
dumb
Obama is the SWPL Tebow.
Discuss.
Incorrect: Tebow isn’t on the down-low.
I’ve got a better idea, all you presumptuous fools who assume we want to discuss your comment should be drawn and quartered.
We(Americans) don’t have any noble titles or or any sort of non-monetary vocational perks(EG, the respect a teacher in East Asia would receive). Many come to the conclusion that ostentatious displays of wealth are the only way to convey their value. Consider a welfare recipient living in a ghetto toting around an iPhone and wearing a gold necklace.
That said, everyone’s allowed their vices, but ideally they should be in moderation or used as a self-reward for a significant accomplishment.
“Consider a welfare recipient living in a ghetto toting around an iPhone and wearing a gold necklace.”
That’s a very good observation, which is why the poor in our country are not like the poor in other countries. Here in the US you can be from the ghetto and still have an iPhone and a flat-screen TV, or whatever. Hell, the poor here are like the rich in many 3rd world countries.
We have a culture of spending and that’s how this economy works – we circulate the money. The government collects taxes and spends it on programs. People make a living and spend it. And the cycle repeats itself. Unfortunately, a lot of this means that real wealth is not being created – it’s just money circulating from one hand to another. But that’s part of the system. It’s a Ponzi scheme, just like banks are Ponzi schemes. Our whole financial system is a Ponzi scheme to a large degree.
Therefore, if the comments here were simply about not spending money, or on saving in general, I could agree with that. However, when most of the comments imply that spending money is bad only when women do it, that’s just absurd. Men spend as much money on their toys and on things that interest them as women do.
I personally think that spending too much money is not wise, but to each his own. Especially if you work hard to earn it, then you have a right to spend it anyway you see fit. If there are consequences to your choices, then they are your consequences to assume. Part of freedom is being able to make choices and decisions, and pay for the adverse effects later. That’s how most of us learn our lessons in life. That’s why we conservatives don’t like the Nanny State – because it takes away our freedom of risk. Humanity cannot progress and didn’t progress without risk and finding ways to avert risk. That makes us smart, smarter than any other creature on earth. Otherwise, we’d be deaf, dumb, and stupid as per the Nanny State.
“That said, everyone’s allowed their vices, but ideally they should be in moderation or used as a self-reward for a significant accomplishment.”
That’s the best way to approach spending, as a self-reward. But that requires great self-discipline and may people just don’t have it. look at how many people really save for retirement in this country? Not many, which is why they depend on SS so much. SS gives false sense of security to people.
Overall, self-discipline is definitely another moral thing lacking in this country, which would serve us well if we had more of it.
Attack of the Killer Handbags
http://takimag.com/article/attack_of_the_killer_handbags_gavin_mcinnes
Girls mind: Pay 300$+ for sunglasses that dont block uv
guy mind not plugged into appearances: 20$ walmart glasses that block uv and are polarize.
You haven’t hung around many military guys or PMCs then; many who sport $150+ Oakleys…
Those are the only type of sunglasses they sell at the BX (at least, that style, there are cheaper ones). And they issue Oakleys for deployments.
Both of those criteria (sold on base, issued and therefore free) factor into like 90% of what your average enlisted boy owns.
And what kind of sunglasses do our enlisted girls wear?
Depends on the girl – she either goes super feminine or super masculine. Most of us probably favor the same masculine, Oakley, wrap-around style. Because (a) female styles look bad in uniform and (b) we’re just as broke as the men are and if you’re going to buy one pair of good sunglasses, they better be the kind you can run in.
Thanks. Seeing a girl in a pair of masculine Oakley wrap-arounds immediately strikes a jarring, discordant note with me. I can’t quite explain it, except to say that it just makes me think the girl is saying “See! I’m just as good as the guys! That’s why I’m wearing these ultra-masculine sunglasses! Sorry excuse me while I unbutton my uniform top to breast-feed my infant….”
@ Tertullian
I won’t say that there’s not a certain element of wanting to fit in to a male-dominated culture that factors into even stupid things like sunglasses for us females. And there’s the “badass” factor, of course, that almost all military personnel, regardless of gender, want to get in on. Used to be aviators, now it’s Oakleys.
Don’t even get me started on the breast-feeding thing. That was bullshit. Those women should have been slapped with UCMJ action for that. I’m shocked that PA allowed it to go through. The military’s under extreme pressure, however, to be politically correct in all things right now, the male generals are running scared, and things that shouldn’t be happening are happening. Like that crap. Or females on submarines. It’s really terrible.
Many of the soldiers wear expensive sunglasses because those sunglasses have be specifically designed to deflect small pieces of shrapnel.
I’d pay 150 dollars if it meant I would keep my eyes.
Yeah, Oakley jumped into that niche after guys bought standard models and wore them anyways.
It’s an alternative to the ugly safety glasses that are (were?) standard issue.
Exactly. Small price.
The majority of guys I’ve seen wearing Oakleys got them from Oakley’s US Standard Issue website — not on base and not as issue. Although I was issued a pair of M-frames – those things were horrible…
The point is – implying that only women buy expensive sunglasses is silly. In case you haven’t noticed Sunglass hut has at least 50% of their shelves dedicated to men.
Pilots are (or were) famous for buying the most expensive wristwatches they can afford, with as many dials as possible. And some men spend a lot on things like Mont Blanc pens.
Men spend on sunglasses, watches, cars and what have you, and women spend on shoes, purses and fashion.
Men do it to get pussy, and women do it to attract men.
It’s exactly the same thing. I’m just amazed how some guys try to rationalize male spending and put down female spending. Talk about hamster-ing.
Well, I am not excusing males either. Of course glasses are a form of peacocking. But I for one am not wasting money on a trinket that is not protecting my eyes.
I think purses are worth it. They are for class display. Kors is Prole junk.
If you overheard that in NYC, be forgiving. Consider that we have high salaries and very limited living space. I thought I needed a new handbag, then I noticed I had no room whatsoever for one more handbag.
One day when my present bag looks too ratty, I will have to get another one. I may as well pay decent money for one since I can only get 1 per year at most.
A new word to categorise the liberal/leftist; empopath.
It can serve as the opposite of psychopath, and would exist on a spectrum of empathy, with empopath on the high end and psychopath on the low end.
Empopath would be defined as pathological altruism/empathy.
Or maybe empapath, as that’s more feminine sounding.
Oh no. The danger is real. Must. be. meaner.
Interesting. Actually you may have stumbled onto something quite significant.
You’re onto something here. Heartiste, pull on this loose thread.
Yes, but they are altruistic with someone else’s money, and empathetic for votes.
“Empopath would be defined as pathological altruism/empathy.”
I would expand on that. Empathy that the Empopath feels but expects others to pay for. The Empopath is too privileged to actually do any work, they only feel and talk. It’s a form of willing hypocrisy, hypocrisy as a noble trait.
Totally agree with Anon. If people could back up their worldviews with real service to others, I have no problem with that. Not the hypocrites who make up most of the world…
Here’s true emopathy plus white knight syndrome:
http://asserttrue.blogspot.com/2013/01/how-i-fell-in-love-with-schizophrenic.html
I’m sorry, but if Al-Queda hits a major blue city with a major attack, I’m not going to do anything but smile and cheer, unless someone I know is hurt
gay
Alphie Beta, why not just suck his dick and get it over with instead of chasing him all over the blog?
I’m sure the United States government would do it first.
Yup I went there.
uh… was my response delayed or blocked?
retry, short version:
Even though the site is supposed to perish pretty lies, it cowers to go there.
I get glad every time i find somebody who knows, and says he knows.
Then all you sister-lovers will have to do without the 50 billion blue-state subsidy we pay the inbreds of this country out of pity.
Well, at least we don’t go to the sperm banks to make a withdrawal, Schlomo.
Secession would be a big net win for Red States. Most of that 50 billion is spent on trying to give us the same social pathologoes you Yankees have.
You do know that so called red states have high rates of Blacks and Hispanics? These populations also have higher rates of single motherhood and poverty?
SWPL Liberal whites are protecting minorities and *gasp* project their hatred for those inbreed creationist redneck backward rural rednecks who don’t cause much disruption.
Shut the up fuck you disgusting rich SWPL liberal white elitist. Traitor to your own people.
Well… since you like paying for deadbeat minorities in the Red States, that’s fine with us.
lmao.The SWPL lies and denials never end. No wonder we perceive SWPL men as the limp-wristed, faggy weak women they are; observe, a female hamster in full view, but in a technical male!
What really get me are women who talk about designer shoes, handbags and such as being “good investments.”
Rent the Runway got tens of millions of dollars in venture capital and subsequent rounds of funding. They’re making a lot of cash for their investors. Therefore, dresses and etc can be excellent investments, if you’re on the producing, not consuming side.
So women are largely, though inadvertently, correct.
Let it all burn, this gay civilization.
LOL @ Western faggots and LOL @ people complaining about turd worlders and elites. As if the immigrants are coming with tanks, or as if this couldn’t have been stopped with a few protests earlier on. No, nobody “forced” this on Europe or the US, let alone the weak, faggotized “elites.” This could have all been stopped quite easily if the people stood up against it, but Western Euros and Americans are more concerned with getting fat, buying shit, supplicating wimmins, and shoving stuff up their asses for “liberation.”
It is comical that modern technological civilization will end because of the sexual vitality of the black and brown races. It’s pathetic, but if you think about it, it’s funny and the opposite of dramatic or tragic. Sorry civilization–your future is a brown cock.
Don’t imagine a boot stomping on a human face as in 1984, imagine a brown cock laying waste to cities, technology, etc.
A creaming came across the sky…
minotaur
Don’t imagine a boot stomping on a human face as in 1984, imagine a brown cock laying waste to cities, technology, etc.
———————————————————
OK, but is it alpha?
as one of my friends said when Battlestar Galactica redebuted: ahh, a futuristic society run by mexicans.
And a woman.
Ressentiment doesn’t suit this blog.
Loanwords neither.
Touché.
5 minutes of Marc Jacobs > 5 years of TJ Maxx
TJ Maxx and Marshalls are a good subtitle for spending too much money on labels. They carry a lot of good names and can get the spending out of some women’s systems. They don’t have real luxury labels but they have middle-of-the road names that can do the trick and make a woman look very well-dressed indeed. Although, there are certain TJ Maxxes that sell all of the Versace line as well as some other Italian names.
LOL! I can’t believe this warrants a thread. Some of you guys get traumatized over every insignificant thing. Women like fashion, get used to it. The billion-dollar fashion and beauty industries exist because of women and for women, and it ain’t going to change as long as we women love the way we look and compete with other women for male attention. There is nothing more thrilling for a girl than wearing a hot little number with 4-inch heels and her long hair falling down her back. That’s an attention magnet right there and then. Women live for that thrill, just as guys live for the thrill of getting a new hot girl to bang.
I have no problems with spending money on whatever makes you happy. You earned it and you have a right to spend it any way you like. The men spend money on their cars, machines, electronics, and whatever. They earned it and they have a right to spend it. The only one that has any sense here is Thor. He has it right – men and women spend money on different things but the concept is exactly the same.
Let’s be honest, since this is a blog which is somehow dedicated to honesty among other things. Some of you are complaining about this because you can’t afford these women. Deep in your subconscious you know if you dated or married a woman who likes luxuries, you’d have to provide and you don’t like it or you can’t afford it. That’s the only reason you’re putting them down. If that’s the case, then date or marry a small-town girl or the so-called “girl next door” and stop complaining. Otherwise, any hot city-slicer girl is going to have more sophisticated attitudes about fashion. And FYI, Kors isn’t such an expensive label.
Just because you can’t afford her doesn’t make her bad. It just makes her not affordable. That’s something else women should think about when trying to find a BF/husband. Some men might not be able to afford you so maybe you should tone it down a bit. The same concept holds for men too, but in a different setting. If you come across as too much of a player, some girls might not want to get involved with you……
This is the same mentality I found in the donation thread. People complaining about everything from the comments not posting to CH being a beta for asking donations. Well, I think it’s beta to complain. People with true problems and hardships don’t complain; they do what they must. If you enjoy the blog and it gives you a place to vent and discuss your shit why put it down? Same here, it’s people’s money and they have a right to spend it anyway the like. Just because men don’t understand what motivates women to buy expensive labels doesn’t make it stupid. It’s just another of the differences between men and women that cusses friction between the sexes. However, if you look closely, men spend just as much but on different things – masculine things.
Sorry, I meant the billion-dollars fashion and beauty industries….
______________________________________________________________
Another thing to take into consideration is that single women spend way more than married women. And married women who have kids spend the least on themselves. Most of their spending is done on the kids. So spending money on labs, and fashion in general, is really the domain of the single woman.
For single women spending on fashion and labels is part of the mating game. A woman feels that the only way she can attract a man is to look hotter than her friend. However, looking hot costs money – styling your hair, gym membership, nice clothes and accessories. Let me use language most of you heard before – it’s the single girl’s form of peacocking. Sorry, you can’t buy that at Wal-Mart or Kmart. Some of you men criticizing the ladies for their feminine needs are atrocious.
Keep in mind all these things are a good short-term mating strategy, not a good long-terms one. Most guys want to sleep with the type of women you describe, but don’t want to end up permanently in debt to a high-maintenance woman. The only guys who can afford such women are the athletes, actors, and CEOs you read about getting taken to the cleaners after divorce.
This also explains why guys will bang 9s but marry 7s to turn to 5s. There is a different between who you bang and who you’ll commit to and sane guys are willing to sacrifice a few points in attractiveness in the long run in lieu of funding a lifestyle for a woman so she can better attract *other* men.
“High maintenance” on a woman looks as good to a man as “no job” for a man does to a woman. Nice for a fling.
Well said Sir.
Depends on the man. There are actually men who prefer women who dress feminine and stay in fashion. of course these are men that can fund that lifestyle for his woman.
But women need to be aware of the kind of guy she is interested in being with b/c if he is more of a guy next door too much can be a turn off and come off as too high maintenance.
I think that women have to have certain “expensive” vices mixed with reasonable cheaper vices. Not too much of one thing b/c then it comes off as high maintenance or lacking.
For example, I will blow a ton on expensive purses, make up and skin care items. but I am much cheaper and frugal when it comes to clothes and a lot of other items. So its a nice balance. So even if I have an expensive hand bag on my arm, I may have clothes that are reasonably priced etc.
Another thing is this: I find people tend to respond much favorably to those who dress nice and look fashionable. So its a contradiction for people who hate high maintenance looking people, b/c usually its the lower maintenance average dressed average lifestyle people who tend to respond more favorably to those who are dressed nicely and are wearing or carrying an expensive item.
I am exactly the opposite. While I like designer handbags, which I own, I pay more attention to my clothing. I like looking good and designer clothes fit better than cheaper clothing, although I do mix and match it with lower-end stuff when it’s well made. Of course, being in that business also help. LOL! Actually, every closet should have a mix of things.
“Depends on the man. There are actually men who prefer women who dress feminine and stay in fashion. of course these are men that can fund that lifestyle for his woman.”
Well, most men like women dressing feminine and part of it is looking fashionable. If a man can’t fund it then he shouldn’t get married, or he shouldn’t marry an 8, 9, or 10, or he shouldn’t complain if his wife wants to work to supplement his income. I personally don’t think women should have a career in the same way men have careers, but having a simple secretarial job or a part-time job for her spending money is not bad at all. That said, I think this is totally irrelevant. Women living in big cities are not going to marry country boys or small-town guys that can’t afford her buying a couple of outfits a month.
“But women need to be aware of the kind of guy she is interested in being with b/c if he is more of a guy next door too much can be a turn off and come off as too high maintenance.”
Exactly, which is why I said that a woman looking to get married needs to start curbing her spending habits and start looking at life through more mature lenses. It’s not possible to live as she did when she was single and had no responsibility. She has to act the part so she doesn’t scare men off.
“So its a contradiction for people who hate high maintenance looking people”
I agree it’s just men throwing sour grapes, maybe because they can’t afford such females. I find it very similar to occupy wall street. Pay attention to some of the comments here, they sound eerily like the points of contention voiced by occupy wall street. Anything that remotely sounds like a bunch of communists complaining is definitely something I detest.
Spot on.
Women with good fashion sense can dress very well and not break the bank. The big money on purses, shoes, fashion, etc. is spent to make up for a lack of raw material and fashion sense. Its the default choice for status whoring when pithy good taste is lacking.
The problem is that many women buying luxury goods are not spending money they “earned” but running up credit card debt.
And they’ll pay for the consequences of that too. If they run up credit card bills then you’re shooting themselves in the foot. But they are adults and they will have to pay the piper. Anyway, most of these names aren’t really really luxury items. Kors, Coach, these are on the lower end of luxury items. Most singles do like those labels because they are more affordable. The items Talula is describing is another example of the men here need for exaggeration. Most single women are not buying $4,000 coats, unless they are wealthy which obviates this entire discussion.
I just spent $ 400 on a new guitar.
Don’t have any handbags, but I still have a backpack that’s almost 20 years old, has been to 3 continents and still works nicely, after a few repairs.
Original cost: A little over $ 100, I think.
It’s so easy to be a man my friend, which is why I envy you sometimes.
Of course, the grass is always greener on the other side, LOL. Men have their own set of difficulties they have to deal with.
Do you play guitar?
Typical woman.
You assume that being a man is easy because you assume that you would be one of the golden top 20% of men.
Listen here honey, you ain’t in the top 20% of women, you’d be an invisible little beta if you were a man.
And life isn’t easy for betas.
Can we muzzle these cunts?
I guess, you have reading comprehension dickhead, otherwise you wouldn’t be a dickhead, right? is your IQ that low too?
I don’t assume or assume or assume anything about anything idiot. I just mentioned that people often think the grass is always greener on the other side. All people think that way, even about the opposite sex. That was my only point. Now go fuck yourself and stop thinking about what I assume.
LOL! Where are these irrational whining guys coming from?
Lol! don’t know about whining guys but i can see a whining woman for sure on this thread, who is commenting like a crazy, Guess who’s that person?
If I get attacked I will commnet back.
That’s not whining. I never whine.
Nonesense. This is female projection, plain and simple. women who spend an egregious amount of money on fashion do so ultimately to establish their status to be above that of other women in order to be deemed as most desirable by men who women actually want.
I feel that the day that women come to realize that heterosexual men do not know, nor do they even care about the difference between Yves Saint Laurent pumps and Steve Madden pumps, they’ll start saving themselves a lot of trouble and a whole lot of money.
Women see that there is a social status among men which corresponds to their attractiveness and automatically assume there is one for women too. A man stands to gain a lot more in the sexual market from buying a Ferrari than a woman does from buying a $4000 Maisin Martin Margiela coat and $2000 charlotte olympias. Again, straight men are in no way cognizant about what designer you’re wearing or the value of these items and they certainly do not become impressed enough to love you and commit to you upon finding out how ballerific you are.
The great majority of women seem to be patently unaware of this and I feel this is again due to projection: women acknowledge what attracts them to men and assume that mimicry of these things will then cause them to rise in status and attract the men that they want. (I believe this is also the reason why women think that external accomplishments, such as those professional or academic in nature increases their desirability when it really does not in any significant way). This is a big misunderstanding of the dynamics of male/female attraction as men simply judge women on a completely different set of criteria and that is *primarily* physical attractiveness: face and body.
Essentially, you’re better off blowing those thousands you spend on a gym membership and a cosmetic surgery procedure or two.
The most entertaining thing about this is that men do it too. Almost all men have some visual insecurities – about their height, their teeth, their build, their skin, nose, penis size, weight, whatever. Very few, even those who pay lip service to evo-psych concepts, really seem to accept deep down that female attraction is really far less visually-based than male attraction is.
I know a lot of guys who could save a ton of sweat and time if they just worked on becoming more confident instead of slaving away for hours in the gym. And if all guys could somehow internalize what women actually found attractive, I’d certainly get less spam for penis enlargement products.
Deep in your subconscious you know if you dated or married a woman who likes luxuries, you’d have to provide and you don’t like it or you can’t afford it.
Alpha fucks, beta bucks.
She’s talking about alpha fucks and alpha bucks.
It’s what cat ladies usually dream about.
No, I am talking about men not being stingy with their wives. Each man according to what he can afford.
It helps marriages last. It has nothing to do with alphas or betas, except that complaining too much and being stingy are two weasel activities that take away one’s alpha status.
Nice try rationalizing (hamsterizing) the Visible Accessory Shit Test, Lils. Be careful, I like you, but you slide too easily into toeing the enemy line. The danger isn’t in the provocation — we can’t be provoked by silly femme canards. The danger is you will bore us by repetition. We do not need yet one more spirited defense of pretty lies. Our purview is lousy with them already.
Deep in your subconscious you know if you dated or married a woman who likes luxuries, you’d have to provide and you don’t like it or you can’t afford it. That’s the only reason you’re putting them down.
Say what now? Have you not heard of Skittles?
Do not speak of our “subconscious” when you are not familiar with your own. That’s okay, that’s why you’re here, and we are here to help. When a woman explicitly expresses what she “likes” and what we “have to provide,” that’s like handing us a check list of what not to do. That you are not even aware of this phenomenon makes you sound like you’re hiding your meds (the red pill) under your tongue, hoping we won’t notice the telltale behavior.
Matt
King A FTW
As per usual.
Pretty lies or no pretty lies, let me summarize the gist for you:
When men complain too much about women spending money when they do the same exact thing, I translated it only one way – they are stingy. Notice, I didn’t say hypocritical, which could be harsher. Stingy in this connotation means they can’t understand female needs, which is a form of stinginess.
Bottom line, I hate stinginess and I hate complainers. It’s beta, not alpha. Chew on that for a while before you start to twist my wording with YOUR rationalization.
You are reading “complain[t]” into something that is not complaint. It is criticism. Complaining implies that the subjects (men) are worse off because of the object’s (women) behavior and is appealing for it to stop. Criticism is noticing the behavior, speculating about its sources, making a judgment about how felicitous such activity is, and deciding what if anything that says about the object who behaves that way (women). It is a subtle shift to claim high ground, and you think we won’t notice because you didn’t notice.
I have been a bit slow on the uptake about people like you, but now I am beginning to understand that nominal conservatives without the balls to seek truth wherever it may lead are becoming as much of an enemy as the complacent center and hard left. You reek of the same entitlement and have no intuition for modesty.
The barely-concealed ideology is also distasteful. I have no respect for ideologues, even when they are accidentally promoting the truth. They haven’t won their wisdom as a hard-won prize, and so they treat it carelessly. They simply repeat inherited nostrums with ever more intensity, and make wilder and wilder claims while losing ground:
His buddies are sinking under my harsh words and they need him to let me have it. I see the weakness all around here. I wasn’t sure but now I know. Most of you are masquerading as alphas.
“Now” you “know,” do you? You know nothing. You give no indication of synthesis — reacting to and learning from your interlocutors. You are all antithesis, getting a cheap thrill out of provoking the easily provoked.
You refuse to believe that I could know you better than yourself. You refuse to admit the possibility you are an example of a type, rather than a special snowflake. I can only testify that I have met and dealt with hundreds of uppity girls/women like you, who press and press and press the one little nugget they think they know, who get just so gosh-darn-it frustrated!!! that I don’t understand the point they’re trying to make here!!!
But not only do we get it, we got it the minute you opened your mouth. What’s more, I can tell you the next three steps you will take in order, I can predict the next ten things you will do, and I can inform you how it all ends.
There is only one factor that can interrupt your progression, and that is force. I don’t believe you are in a place yet where you can admit you require a liberating slap down — you are in the thick of your dudgeon and tend to laugh at those things (like cowards chuckle at mortality as a way of avoiding the thought).
So, instead, when you are going to bed tonight, turn off every light and every sound, listen to the sound of your breathing, and meditate on that elusive little emptiness in your soul, that man-shaped hole that can never be plugged by your own fortitude. And then resolve to focus: wake refreshed the next day and begin seeking a man that can fill your hole properly, rather than this frenzied scattershot of shit-testing, begging for a man, any man to forcibly make you shut the fuck up.
Matt
Again Matt, you’re proving me that you understand nothing, absolutely nothing about anything. You live in your own bubble.
Most of the time you write these long comments with just one or two statements embedded in them that make any sense, or have any basis in truth. The rest of it is your delusional criticism of everyone else, but yourself. An honest person sees the whole picture, including his place in it.
Truth is, I have no time or energy for men like you, and I don’t find you interesting or informative or credible. I have noticed a trend with you – you like to be a CONTRARIAN. If someone says it’s blue, you’ll say it’s red. If someone says it’s beautiful you’ll say it’s ugly. And the worst thing of all, if someone agrees with you, you’ll also find something in what they said to complain about or twist their wording around. Somehow, you constantly find friction instead of common ground. It’s exacerbating and stupid and I’m not interested in arguing with you. Except, you constantly twist my words and attack my conservativeness and for that I will not quiet. That’s the only reason I even reply to you at this point. Otherwise, you would have gotten the silent treatment form me a long time ago. I like people who challenge my mind, and you sir are not challenging. You’re boring me with your nonsense.
Let me try to spoon feed you since you’re too chauvinistic to see the truth. What some of you have been saying here regarding female expenditures is not merely criticism, it’s a refusal to understand female nature and a refusal to accept it for what it is. And it’s even worse when you guys spend just as much money if not more on whatever makes you happy.
I often said on these threads that it’s futile and diabolical when women trash men for their nature. Men like younger hotter females. That’s a fact that cannot be denied and shouldn’t be used to shame men. Women should know the facts and govern themselves accordingly without shaming men.
Likewise, men need to accept women’s nature for what is and learn to work within its confines to get what they want. When you constantly bitch and complain about women’s nature, it makes you appear emotionally weak and unattractive – emotionally stingy because you see women as a diabolical creature and you can’t cut it any slack when you yourself engage in the same exact activity. Not cutting each other slack is the main problem in male-female relationships today.
“You reek of the same entitlement and have no intuition for modesty.”
Really, I reek of entitlement? Who told CH he is beta for asking donations, Ha? Projecting much? If you enjoy the website and it gives you a chance to voice your shit then support it, or are you too stingy for that too? Sorry, I DON’T BELIEVE in entitlement, yet this whole thread is about entitlement of men. Again, look at your own self before you cast stones.
LOL the modesty part I don’t understand what it has to do with my point. Unless, you mean I should be embarrassed to even open my mouth around men and just worship at their feet. The problem with that is I have to respect the man I worship, not stupid boys lacking self-esteem who get bothered by what I say about their double standards when they know I am making a valid point. Those type of boys don’t bring out my femininity cause I don’t respect them. In any case, I do understand though that you like to hurl all kinds of unfounded mambo jumbo at people and hope it will stick. I can see through you better than you figured out anything about me, kuz you still know nothing about me, nothing at all, yet I have figured you out completely.
“You know nothing. You give no indication of synthesis — reacting to and learning from your interlocutors. You are all antithesis, getting a cheap thrill out of provoking the easily provoked.”
It’s obvious you’re saying this because my argument made sense and I put many of you on the spot and showed your irrational beliefs and double standards against women when you do the same exact thing. It’s the only explanation to the vast anger I have encounters here by some men. That’s why you say I enjoy “provoking the easily provoked.” If they weren’t so stupid and so wrong they wouldn’t be so easily provoked, can’t you see that? And I provoked you too, so you too are one of the easily provoked and one of those threatened by me. Why do you think the left is so easily provoked too? Because most of its policies are nonsense so it doesn’t want anyone speaking against said policies. It’s the same mentality here with some of you. You can’t hear dissent or engage in debate because you’re too afraid to admit that not everything you say against women is true. Sometimes, you accuse women of doing the same thing you do. It’s not beta to admit the truth. It’s beta to try to cover it and lie about it.
Sorry, Matt. But the rest of what you wrote is nonsense. I got to the 4th paragraph from the bottom and I can’t go on anymore. It’s just one insult after another and I am not even going to try deciphering your contention because I care not about what you think, as I don’t think you are thinking. Let it be the end between us.
Just for the record,
the guys who asked if donating was beta were JOKING!
Dingbat woman.
Carry on.
No, I am not referring to the guys asking that question. I am specifically referring to his comment. He projects too much onto others, that all.
I just took a look at that thread again, and sure enough I am right. Why are you trying to lead me astray?
Not only King but fucking Eliot and his cheapness disgusting Bible throwing justification for being the sicko he is. The two of them in tandem posting like humpy dumpty.
As I said, he is just a contrarian. He likes to rain on every parade. It’s just his nature.
What?! You haven’t heard a man say “wow, look at that handbag, I need to fuck her now”!
In my circles, I hear that all the time. Really.
Seriously.
LOL.
[…] “It’s inexpensive, if you think about it. You’ll pay two-hundred and fifty for a Michael Kors. For something only half as cute.” If this facade were to burn tomorrow, I wouldn’t shed a tear for its loss. Filed under: Culture, Goodbye America, Ridiculousness Source: Chateau Heartiste […]
It is comical that modern technological civilization will end because of the sexual vitality of the black and brown races. It’s pathetic, but if you think about it, it’s funny. Sorry civilization–your future is a brown cawk.
Don’t imagine a boot stomping on a human face as in 1984, imagine a brown cawk laying waste to cities, technology, etc.
Burn down this gay civilization lol
cuckooclockie
It is comical that modern technological civilization will end because of the sexual vitality of the black and brown races.
————————————————————–
Wake up white man
I can’t argue with your point, which is why I mentioned: “That’s something else women should think about when trying to find a BF/husband. Some men might not be able to afford you so maybe you should tone it down a bit.” And I will add that a little bit of modesty will go a long way too if a woman wants to find a decent husband. So definitely toning down the expenses on sexy fashions and on the luxuries will help her look more down to earth and wife-material.
I also mentioned that this is really the domain of the single girl. Single women spend more money than any other group, followed by single men, which means that when people get married and they have a mortgage to maintain and kids to support reality hits hard. Any woman that continues spending as if she were single is a total airhead/idiot. But you’ll be able to tell before you marry her – how much of an idiot she is. BTW, there are men that gamble or spend money too, and yet there are stupid women that marry them. If he gambles and he has large debts (that are not the result of business ventures), trust me you don’t want him – he’s trouble. This works for both sexes.
That said, don’t judge single women negatively when they like to spends their own money which they earned fair and square. As long as a girl isn’t borrowing too much from credit card companies, she’s not a bad risk. It makes her no different than the single male who likes to spend on his toys. It’s expected that single people are going to have a different type of lifestyle from married couples, which is why some people opt to never marry. They like the freedom to date whom they want, pick up and go whenever they want, spend on whatever without much thought, and they don’t like the responsibility of having a family and the restrictions it creates. So you see, now we’re back to square one – why people don’t get married. Free sex and too much female independence are definitely two of the reasons. However, I don’t think we can reverse it – the genie is already out of the bottle. People just have to find ways to work around those issues if they want to settle down.
Another thing I want to point out is that we both know an alpha a is not going to settle down with a 7 that will turn into a 5. That’s just fairytales he tells himself and his buddies. But we all know it won’t make him happy, and what doesn’t make the alpha male happy he runs away from. Instant gratification is more his style.
For the rest of you hovering between alpha and beta city, it deepens on how attractive you are to women and who will want to settle down with you in the end. Unfortunately, some women can’t distinguish the decent guy form the asshole.
Ease back. Direct and aggressive does not suit you, though you obviously derive some satisfaction from the method. I know lots and lots of girls like you, you tell on yourselves, you spend all your energy on a losing fight, eyes rolled back like a shark-pup in a feeding frenzy, and you go down flailing and kicking and squealing. And you always go down.
You come here exclusively to test us. I suspect there aren’t many men around you who pass. You are an echo of this girl.
Do you have any strong men in your life?
Matt
Oh, here comes Matt King to the rescue. His buddies are sinking under my harsh words and they need him to let me have it. I see the weakness all around here. I wasn’t sure but now I know. Most of you are masquerading as alphas. I’m disappointed.
The thing with King is that he doesn’t bother with details. So, he won’t remember, for instance, that you’re married
I’m devastated.
NiteLily
Most of you are masquerading as alphas. I’m disappointed.
————————
You can always catch a train in the ghetto?
Didn’t Whorefinder say they are pussies in the ghettos?
Alphas don’t exist here either. Lots of wannabe whiners though. Sad!
Her big-mouthed neocon blabbery is just too off-putting to have any man hang around…
She consoles herself that this is merely a sign of “weak men”… then rationalizes her lack of male companionship as saving herself for when “her true prince will come”.
Assuming, of course, she’s not actually just some precocious little Jewess too young for anything but sex fantasy and internet masquerade… which is still my odd’s-on inkling.
Meanwhile, innumerable keystrokes serve as er satz felines.
Hey Greg!
Happy 2013.
Does anyone even care what NiteLily thinks?
And here’s wishing you and yours much fortune in the coming year, my friend.
Apparently King A (who, btw, you still unfairly disparage) occasionally lapses into addressing her bloviating… that, in my mind, is his only flaw.
But his ways are higher than mine, so likewise perhaps the perceived flaw is mine own.
Haha…….Apparently many do, which is why the outrage has been so “humongous.” They even brought in the big guns – Matt king – and the little guns – Greg Nazi Eliot – to the rescue. Kuz, how dare I point out the many discrepancies in the thinking the resident “alphas,” eh? Bunch of fools. If I can only stop laughing.
How can it be a “flaw”? The feistiest fillies are the funnest to break. She knows that, which is why she persists with the poo-poo tests, especially from the men who are already allied to her side. There’s no point for her to engage the enemy: best she can, she cuntfronts us to provoke anger in the very men she finds best suited to conquering and dominating her. The grown up girl’s opposite equivalent of boys pulling on pigtails.
What she doesn’t know, however, is the difference between annoying like a flea and provocative like a hot snotty ten — which is indicative of her physical plainness.
And she’s already conceding to reality, with her Freudian slip about my big guns.
Matt
“And she’s already conceding to reality, with her Freudian slip about my big guns.”
No, sweet pea. I thought you knew me by now?????
By saying you’re the big guns and Eliot the little guns, I point out the minusculity of him. His insignificance. You see, I was using you to trample him.
As far as annoying, it can cut both ways, just like spending too much money is a malady of both sexes.
Too complicated an explanation. Try shaving your mustache with Occam’s razor on occasion.
Ahhhhh……..the copout when you have nothing significant to say.
Nothing “significant to say”? To you? True. I am at the end of my verbal techniques to trick girls into comprehension, particularly when they struggle so inexhaustibly against understanding. No amount of persuasion can overcome an ornery child’s will to uncomprehension. Eyes shut, fingers in the ears, la la la la I can’t hear you la la la la…
It’s not a cop-out so much as a burnout.
It’s not a cop-out so much as a burnout.
Heh, heh… THIS, in spades.
She imagines victory when others have merely tired of her inanities and cuntitudes.
Excuse me loser, I didn’t ask any of you to comment to me, right? You and Mr. Big Guns (he likes it when I call him that) attacked me first. The only reason you are fuming at the mouth is because you can’t stop me from putting you in your place. So who is with the inanities and cuntitudes? You are fast becoming a cunt yourself. What happened, did wifey loan you her smelly Nazi cunt for the day? I can smell the stench all the way over here.
>The only reason you are fuming at the mouth is because you can’t stop me from putting you in your place.
This is what a feminist thinks like, Too much conservatives and we have brought out her inner feminist hag.
Oh thank you Greg Eliot for reminding me of your sorry existence on this blog. You’re the exact type of man I was speaking about – stingy (not to mention a Nazi lover, but we’ll leave that insult to another day). Aren’t you the one always complaining about women spending too much money, and how you like the girl-next-door look? I wouldn’t be surprised if your wife looked like the decrepit wasteland of usage. What’s her weight nowadays? Like 50 lbs. over her girl-next-door days? Think about buying her a new outfit from time to time, it might put some pizazz into your waning sex life. How about a membership to the gym, or is that too much money for you? And what did you buy her for Christmas? A leopard Hoodie-Footie from pajamagram? An man who buys a Hoodie-Footie for his wife should find himself on the steps of the courthouse.
Heh, heh… never known it to fail… projected stereotypes from those who cry RAY-CIS and NAH-ZEE at every opportunity… and attacks against the family, from those who screech “Decency!” and “Humanity!”
Your Jew-jitsu is showing, dragon mouth.
Oh, My! How your resentment shows its ugly head! You accuse all your detractors of being Jewish, as if it’s something to be ashamed off. I’m not Jewish, BUT I rather be Jewish than Hitlarian any day. Remember who won? I’m always on the side of the winner……………….hahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha
And as for accusing me of calling you a Nazi at every opportunity, you really need to look at your own hump my blind jigsaw poet. Don’t you accuse me of being Jewish at every turn because i disagree with your hatreds? Like I said, look at your hump, dumpty.
Finally, as for the family, LOL, thanks for the laughs. Was the leopard Hoodie-Footie from pajamagram spot on? Well, on second thought, it might be too steep for your pocket. I hear them Hoodie-Footies ain’t cheap.
p.s. I am gearing up for dragon mouthing you in 2013. There is going to be lots of FIRE.
The cunt who started out as a joke, but wound up being a farce.
Your bloviating stances and inanely-reasoned mouthing-off techniques are what betray your gender, race and adolescence.
Btw, just because you don’t actually practice the religion has nothing to do with anything… we’re talking ethnically here… and the foetor Judaicus is all over your writing and tactics.
LOL! What happened to the lololozlzozlzozlzozl ? Afraid I will steal them from you? Well, I need them now. Where are they when you need them?
The farce is a man who feels threatened, which you obviously feel, not to mention your anger betrays you so I was right when I said your wife must be freaked when she sees you all bent out of shape, fresh form the CH thread fights. That’s a vision to be held.
And how you get your panties up in a bunch every time I make mincemeat out of you and a couple of your loser Nazi fiends, shows my power over you. LOL! Your only ammunition against me seems to call me Jewish. What a joke. It mean, it’s obvious you can’t see anyone being so opposed to you unless they were Jewish, which means you think Jews are your only enemies. What a delusional clown.
BTW, if you so upset by my tactics why not stop initiating fights with me? I’ll be dragon mouthing you, get ready.
Your already tenuous grip on reality is slipping further… you’ve not won any battles here at the chateau, you’ve merely made yourself a pest that others have either tired of swatting or still occasionally poke you for their own amusement.
And to say others have their “panties in a twist” or are “bent out of shape” is laughable, when you reply with a thousand keystrokes (and inane ones at that) to their every one.
My “only ammunition” is not to call you Jewish… that’s merely an observation about the usual suspect internet phenomenon of shabbos goyim lackeys and fellow traveler cogdis agents provocateur who enjoy disrupting websites that specialize in unpleasant truths and target certain individuals they find especially effective therein.
Many have noticed that you overreact to every little mention of your tribe by me, but let others pass on their far more overt naming of the Jew… why exactly is that, Girl With The Dragon Mouth (that writes checks which her gecko ass can’t cash).
I won every battle with you. You lost them all while looking like a man on life support. The mere reason you are so full of anger is because you are frustrated as hell that you can’t stop me from insulting you with pinpointed accuracy.
As far as my long comments, interesting you don’t criticize Matt King for his humongous comments, eh? A bit of lefty double standard there? Don’t the liberals always criticize conservatives, but let their own kind slip by when doing the same thing? I ways said you’re nothing but a liberal idiot. And don’t tell me it’s because you like Matt Kings comments. That’s obvious as to why you don’t criticize his long-winded posts. That makes you the hypocrite you are, like the rest of the retarded liberals. Or should I say you employ a bit of Nazi propaganda tactics.
“shabbos goyim lackeys and fellow traveler cogdis agents provocateur who enjoy disrupting websites that specialize in unpleasant truths and target certain individuals they find especially effective therein.”
See, you’re missing the point. It’s your truth, and we all know it’s highly twisted, as you are a twisted person who doesn’t have the faintest inkling of what truth means. I enjoy setting you straight, especially when you’re so resentful. It’s quite entertaining.
“Many have noticed that you overreact to every little mention of your tribe by me, but let others pass on their far more overt naming of the Jew… why exactly is that,”
First, it’s not my tribe.
Second, there is a difference between criticizing and just spreading lies, defamations, and libels as you like to do. No one here does it better than you. You are beyond disgusting, and your enamor of the 3rd Riche disguised as conservatism is dangerous to the conservative movement. You and your kind should never be able to hijack the issues and turn them into a war against the Jews, as you’re nothing but an anti-Semites who want to turn the political issues facing our country into your own private war against the Jews. That’s exactly what Hitler did. I and others like me will not let you get away with turning this country into another Germany. Now fuck off once and for all, for the love of God.
I would also point out the lack of denial whenever Greg Eliot gets accused of Nazi-love and Hitler worship. That speaks volumes alone. But where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
I bet there are a couple of mysterious chests in his basement to which only Daddy has the key, and maybe Sonny too, when the proper level of *HATE* has been demonstrated.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury… I rest my case.
I would also point out the lack of denial whenever Greg Eliot gets accused of Nazi-love and Hitler worship. That speaks volumes alone. But where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
How about pointing out the previous threads where I’ve already addressed this inane accusation of yours, on at least two occasions, if memory serves?
Tedious AND stupid is no way to go through life, kid.
Jason,
You’re right, he only started to deny it after I put him on the spot so many times. In the beginning he didn’t deny it and went into in-depth explanations as why he thinks Hitler was so wonderful. To say it’s disgusting is an understatement. I will post a link to his rants separately because I don’t want my main comment to get caught in moderation, which often happens when you include links.
I have often said he probably has the 3rd Riche flag and other Nazi Paraphernalia at home. I suspect he comes here to spew his hate with the freedom he can’t do in real life. I also suspect he doesn’t have many friends, which is why he feels upset that he can’t voice his nasty opinions here without us raining on his parade. If he had many other people in real life who felt like him he wouldn’t be here fighting with us. This place gives him an outlet to vice his unpopular ideas and he likes to connect with like-minded retards like him.
The worst thing of all is he is probably teaching his 4 children all this hate, which will ensure them turning out to be major losers. Angry hateful people filled with venom and projection usually amount to nothing, and it doesn’t’ matter if your anger is directed against other races or the opposite sex. Your hate becomes an obstacle in your way. It’s one thing to criticize, but quite another to spread lies and libel like he does. He’s a loser. Just keep pounding him when he starts this garbage. I love dragon-mouthing him as he calls it.
Now you’re just lying, you stupid cunt.
Show me where I wrote anything about Hitler being “so wonderful”.
This whole “you worship Hitler” bullshit on your part started when I deigned to correct someone about the original quotation and meaning of “The Big Lie”.
You ran with this as me having “memorized Mein Kampf” or some such nonsense.
And at a later time, when I mentioned liking Wagnerian opera, you then claimed it was “just because he was antisemitic”… lllozozozozozlzlzlzlozozo.
This, in a nutshell, is how you and alphie imagine winning any sort of argument… you just make shit up, and when it gets rightfully ignored or mocked, you claim victory.
I’ve challenged you before to give links to my posts where I’ve said what you claimed… only to be answered by crickets… or totally unrelated further screeds that made no sense.
So, show me where I’ve made any claim about Hitler being “so wonderful”… or just STFU.
The difference is that should someone file divorce, it’s the man who winds up paying around 90 percent of the time. So if a woman marries a spendthrift gambler, that problem ends when the marriage ends. If a guy marries a woman with a bad credit card habit, odds are he’ll take her habit to the grave, even post-divorce. Throw in a couple of kids and child support and the guy may as well just go to debtor’s prison and give up, since almost all of his salary will go to that.
There is a big problem with claiming the things than men and women do within the sexual marketplace have the same value. A woman who cannot be responsible with finances will cause greater harm to a man than the reverse. The consequences are not equal, and pretending they are is a way of telling “pretty lies” to men — and avoiding that is the reason we’re here.
Also, about this: Any woman that continues spending as if she were single is a total airhead/idiot.
While that might be true, you need to take into account that marriage does not magically change people. Who you marry is who you marry. Therefore, the woman who spent like a maniac when she was single does not suddenly become a paragon of frugality just because she now wears a wedding ring. In this case, the same does go for men, but with different things: the slob remains a slob and the drinker keeps on drinking.
But as for the financial problems men and women incur because of each other, it does not “work for both sexes” and pretending it does is a denial of reality — and court-ordered reality at that.
“So if a woman marries a spendthrift gambler, that problem ends when the marriage ends.”
No necessarily. Sometimes she is stuck paying for his shit if they have joint everything. And besides, many of these types of men are far from being honorable and they do end up implicating their wives in their bad habits, like taking out joint credit cards with the wife’s name (usually because she has better credit rating than him) as the guarantor. Trust me, he can get his wife into a heap of trouble. That’s why it’s best to have separate finances, but that acts negatively on the togetherness of the couple and I am against it, just like I am against women keeping their maiden names and refusing to take their husbands’ name. They both act against the unity of the couple.
“If a guy marries a woman with a bad credit card habit, odds are he’ll take her habit to the grave, even post-divorce.”
She can wreak havoc on him, true, but he can also curb her spending without much problems. What idiotic man lets his wife spend huge amounts on their credit cards without rhyme nor reason? And especially when he is the one earning the money, not she? Why do you make it sound as if the man is helpless? Spinning maybe?
Let’s inject some common sense. If you married an attractive woman and that’s part of what attracted you to her initially (her looks) and you want her to continue looking hot way into the marriage (which most men do want), then you’re going to have to spend some money on her looks. There is always a way to do this without getting into financial trouble. You give her a monthly allowance that she spends on her looks, which is really an investment in the marriage if you think about it and see this through the lens of fairness. You want her to wear sexy lingerie, hot dresses, high-heel shoes, nice outfits, etc… well, it costs money. Otherwise, get prepared to see her frumpy at all the times. It’s a simple fact that when women don’t have nice things to wear they will let their figure go. That’s why buying that occasional fitted mini black dress or that sexy lingerie works magic on her diet if she wants to fit in it. And trust me, women constantly diet – 24/7 – if they don’t want to gain a pound. But how do they achieve this? Through motivation. And what’s the best motivation out there? The attention of men. In a marriage it has to be the attention of her man, the more he give it to her the more she worries about her figure and looking sexy for him. Well, part of that attention he gives her is that he allows her to buy nice things for herself to entice him. Any man who can’t see that is a cheap skate who wants to have his cake and eat it too – he wants her to look sexy, hot, beautiful – but he doesn’t want to have to spend any money on it. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. Spending money on your wife is part of gaming her.
Then you mentioned the divorce scenario with kids. Let’s face it, if they’re divorcing and have kids, USUALLY her credit card habits is not the reason for it. If a couple are divorcing usually it’s for other reasons, which we won’t discuss now because I don’t want to go off on a tangent. Anyway, once he has children, a divorced man has to pay and he’ll pay through the nose, no question about it. But again, couples usually don’t divorce because the wife spends too much money on their credit card so this reasoning is irrelevant to your argument. A man doesn’t put an end to his marriage and breaks his home because his wife is spending too much money. What he does is take control. Unfortunately, it’s women that ask of divorce, much more often than men.
“There is a big problem with claiming the things than men and women do within the sexual marketplace have the same value. A woman who cannot be responsible with finances will cause greater harm to a man than the reverse.”
Simply wrong because you’re assuming that you have no control over your wife, and as I mentioned above, if you earn the money, you call the shots. If both of you earn it, then you can still allocate portions of your combined salary for different purposes. However, to expect a woman will not spend any money on her beauty needs is selfish. And to expect a woman to look like before you married her when she had no responsibilities and used to spend money on her looks to attract you, is unfair, selfish, and ignorant. If you belittle a woman’s beauty needs, just as you’re doing in the statement above, don’t be surprised if her looks deteriorate within two years of marriage, and for your happiness to start going downhill from there. If you’re going to be a leader of the relationship, you must understand that your woman’s looks directly affects your happiness with her, so part of your leadership is you have to provide without getting annoyed because it’s an investment in the marriage. Of course, within reason, so don’t come back and tell me about girls that spend like maniacs.
“you need to take into account that marriage does not magically change people. Who you marry is who you marry. Therefore, the woman who spent like a maniac when she was single does not suddenly become a paragon of frugality just because she now wears a wedding ring.”
Agreed! But again, we’re not talking about maniacs – men or women. We’re talking about how women like to spend money on their looks because it’s the way of women to spend money on their looks. And I am not saying marry her with the hopes she’ll change her ways LOL. Besides choosing the right woman, no one should go into a marriage blindfolded and without conditions and agreements. Couples need to discuss these things and see where their minds are – their attitudes toward marriage, children, money, luxuries, your earning potential, her sacrifices, etc….. if she wants to marry you because she loves you, she will do what it takes to make you happy. And vice versa. I just can’t stand this absolutist attitude that somehow women’s spending is any less worthy than men’s. Spending is spending. Women spend on what they like and men spend on what they like, and to use it as another excuse against getting married is just another copout of men because they don’t want to assume any responsibility – another legacy of feminism.
I’m not going to debate this anymore, because I feel as a woman you’re invading a man’s space and spreading lies. We have daytime talk shows for that. This blog, and others like it, were conceived as antidotes to the mainstream media’s lies.
But in case men are reading, I want to refute two points for THEM:
1). Let’s face it, if they’re divorcing and have kids, USUALLY her credit card habits is not the reason for it.
Wrong. Money is the number one reason for divorce in most polls and near the top in others. Women control 80 percent of household incomes. I’m not going to include links because I’ll get caught up in moderation, but anyone can Google this.
2). …because you’re assuming that you have no control over your wife, and as I mentioned above, if you earn the money, you call the shots.
Dead wrong. One of the definitions of domestic violence is now that the man tries to control how his wife spends money. Not “controls,” mind you, but *tries* to control. Google the words Mayo Clinic domestic violence against women (no quotes) and it comes right up on their page, which is one of many pages that cite this. And you can be damned sure that lawyers will use this against any man who thinks he can “control” a wife. The same goes for prescription drugs and clothing as well, meaning if you’re wife’s a pill-head or a wanton exhibitionist you can’t do anything about it.
Excuse me – just because I like to correct YOUR MISINFORMATION doesn’t mean I am spreading lies. I am simply making you realize that blaming everything on women without taking any responsibility for relationships breakdown, or for why some of you refuse to marry, is simply an easy escape, a way to justify and rationalize your shortcomings and your refusal to grow up and act like men. Maybe women evolved into bitchy feminists, but men regressed into adolescence.
The best way not to take responsibility is to blame it all on the woman. That’s why most of you have such resentment and frustration against women, and it’s nowhere more obvious than when you attack women for liking tall men, as if they can help it. It’s the same when feminists shame men for dating younger hotter chix. Both are two sides of the same coin. Either you examine the whole enchilada, or you’re simply engaging in lies, misinformation, and feel-good mambo jumbo that doesn’t help anyone learn anything, except sink into despair and resentment of women and hatred of men (on the women side).
“Wrong. Money is the number one reason for divorce in most polls and near the top in others. Women control 80 percent of household incomes. I’m not going to include links because I’ll get caught up in moderation, but anyone can Google this.”
Spinning much???? Please let’s be more accurate, shall we? Money is one of the top reasons for marital fights, maybe even the number one reason, but is it the actual cause of divorce, or more accurate is the woman’s over spending the reason for the divorce? No! FYI, divorce negatively affects a woman’s net worth. She is not richer as the result. That’s a misconception on the part of some men, as well as some women. Single mothers end up almost always on the verge of destitution, which is why women should avoid divorce at all costs. Yet, they do initiate it at middle-age more than men do – go figure. Irrational, aren’t they?
Yet, divorce doesn’t affect the man in the same way, even a costly divorce. He doesn’t end up destitute. Of course, he has to pay and that’s no fun, not to mention not fair, and I don’t support children going automatically to the mother but to who wants and can support them. So to give the kids automatically to the mother and have her sue the husband for child and spousal support is a travesty of justice. But that’s one of the fucked up symptoms of feminism. It’s not the fault of women per se. In the same vein, to blame every marriage not working out only on women is not fair, if not childish, and only serves as the perfect excuse not to get married that some of you need in order to justify your “playing the filed” way into middle age.
“Dead wrong. One of the definitions of domestic violence is now that the man tries to control how his wife spends money. Not “controls,” mind you, but *tries* to control’
Well, this is hearsay taken out of context, as I don’t know the exact circumstances of these disputes between these husbands and their wives. But honestly…….you’re overreacting. True, feminism has a way of making men into the bad guys, but that’s why you shouldn’t marry a feminist, a feminist in the making or in training, or a woman with a feminist streak or tendencies. Additionally, you should also spend time and effort to game your wife, if you’re not too lazy. But of course, if you are too faint of heart because of extreme stories like these, then you’ll say women are bad and use it as the excuse not to settle down. Some women are bad, not all women. And not all marriages break up because the man was a paragon of virtue while the woman was a Medusa. It’s a combination of things. In a nutshell, most of it stems from growing apart and not living up to the way you were when you were dating. And the number one thing that starts to chip away at the way you were when you were dating is the wife’s deteriorating looks. So if you don’t think your wife should spend money on her beauty, it’s because you want to have your cake and eat it too, which is not possible.
That’s the only point I was trying to make – namely, that guys shouldn’t be cheap stakes over their wives spending money in order to maintain their beauty. And any man who thinks his wife is maintaining her beauty for the sake of another man is a beta paranoid weasel. Because on the other hand, if she looked bad he’d stop being attracted to her and the marriage will end anyway, so he needs to stop with the catch 22 impossibility, kuz it’s bullshit.
@ Days of Broken Arrows: you are right on all counts, including your claim that Nitelily is “invading a man’s space.”
Can’t we have just ONE article where NiteLily doesn’t post dozens of multi-paragraph, estrogen – laden comments giving us the Feminine Perspective? Between she and Neecy (who I’d thought we’d seen the last of), this site is turning into a feminine Kaffeeklatsch.
I’d rather read pages of King A (Matthew King)’s theological comments than continue to wade through the intellectual garbage heap that is NiteLily’s frenetic clucking. At least King A’s good for a chuckle, and the man makes a valid point every now and then.
Heartiste: I’ll donate $1,000 to this site if you permanently ban NiteLily, Neecy, and every other female who clucks as loudly and persistently as they do.
Good points, but it’s probably my fault for engaging with women to begin with on here.
Then again, if they spout things that are patently false, people need to put them right. Catch-22. What was that you said about banning?
I agree with most of this. yes single women spend more b/c it is only them they have to provide for.
My philosophy is that women who are single but still want to marry and have kids, should definitley get all the expensive things they want before kids and marriage b/c once the kids come a long a woman should be much more frugal and should be spending more money on funding her kids education and recreational activities that are helping them grow as people/individuals.
Unless a woman marries extremely wealthy she would definitely have to toe down the buying of expensive items like handbags and purses. But not SKINCARE!
How about just “stop buying crap and save that money so they can spend it on something useful like their kids’ education when the time comes”? That mysterious concept known as “sanity”.
@Neecy
Single women are the biggest spending group. Single men are right close behind them. Do you know when women start spending again? When they become empty nesters. Their years as mothers raising kids are very lean when it comes to spending. Most of the money they spend is on the kids, not on luxuries. I think if they devoted more to the health of their marriage, as opposed to throwing all their energies into the kids (and that includes financial energies as well), many marriages could be saved. A man also needs attention, and when a woman looks horrid because she is wearing jumpsuits and flip-flops all day long gaining weight and running after the kids it doesn’t exactly get his juices going. Couples like this are doomed. Who wants to be in that kind of a relationship? No one, yet most people end up trapped in it. A woman’s beauty and good looks are major factors of a happy marriage because of how men are biologically wired.
@Entitled DOS user
It’s quite unrealistic to expect people to have discipline years before something is due. Most people are not wired like this, including men. Therefore, don’t expect women to be much more restrained. It’s a fact that singles spend a lot more than married people. It’s also common sensical why married couples spend less, much less on luxury items and more on necessities.
It’s quite unrealistic to expect people to have discipline years before something is due
This is so true of both genders. We make our incoming airmen take money management classes when they come into the service on active duty, because most kids that age have no idea how to manage their finances. I’ve seen girls spend hundreds on ridiculous purses, and boys spend thousands on gaming equipment. Hell, my roommate’s boyfriend in college was ten grand in debt by graduation because he couldn’t stop buying clothes.
These days, personal financial irresponsibility more about an attitude of entitlement amongst my generation – where we all think we should be able to buy whatever we want, on credit, with no consequences – than any overarching gender issue.
Of course, both men and women spend money like crazies. It’s not only the ailment of the fair sex. Yet, over here you can’t point out the truth or you’ll get pounded over the head and get ransacked verbally….haha.
LOL! Did you notice how much I got attacked by so many irrational angry men who refuse to acknowledge men spend money just as much as women do and for stupid stuff as well?
I don’t understand, is acknowledging the fact that men spend money in irrational ways so threatening to these weak beta men? Admitting your weaknesses makes one strong emotionally, just like disciplining yourself makes you stronger as well. Both are missing these days.
The problem is that women spend an egregious amount on fashion thinking it will exact them an end that it will not. This doesn’t apply in the same way for men as sex differences exist. So insisting on conflating the two are an indication of your refusal or inability to accept this truth.
Maybe you didn’t read what I said above, single women have a right to spend their money any way they see fit – they earned it and they have a right to spend it. If they think it will help them look attractive to men, for me it’s a worthy endeavor. Just like I’m not judgmental of men needing to spend money on their toys. At least women are doing it for men, men are doing it for themselves. Yet, do you see how pathetic and utterly needy women are? Pity them, but don’t disparage them on everything they do, because most of the time they can’t help it. As I said in one of my comments above: “women like to spend money on their looks because it’s the way of women to spend money on their looks. “
As for married women, I think the husband should be less stringy and more open to the idea of his wife beautifying herself for him. Most of you trash women because they let their looks go after they get married, so why not be thrilled when your wife is the opposite? Again, you can’t have it both ways. Have a hot wife and expect her not to spend any money on that. A woman’s beauty and good looks are major factors of a happy marriage because of how men are biologically wired.
By looks, I think they’re referring to body and not some crap you can wear.
The primary means of maintaining a healthy, sexy body is eating with moderation, which actually saves money when you come to think of it.
You’re also writing as if women ever wear what they buy.
Damn right.
Cuntlily,
Stop rationalizing yourself being a gold-digging whore. I love gold-digging whores, especially that I qualify as rich. They tend to be hot, I just don’t commit to them because they’re usually histrionic and BPD.
BTW, woman up and show us a bikini pic. If you’re too old, show us your daughters’ bikini pics. Or you can just send everything and we will sort things out.
Dickhead,
I like you better when you’re silent.
As for my tits, didn’t I post you a pic?
I don’t particularly like you even when you’re silent. But I would fuck you if you’re hot enough.
PS: Discovery Channel pics don’t count.
I like the big strong silent type. Stay that way if we’re going to have a chance in hell. Meanwhile, I’ll get you somethin’ more to your liking.
Stay that way if we’re going to have a chance in hell.
O how they tell on themselves.
“O how they tell on themselves.”
It’s a joke stupid.
It has nothing to do with me and what I like. The only thing I hate is stingy men and whiners, ‘cause it’s not alpha. I have said this time and again on this thread.
I said nothing more about my preferences.
The joke is how you tell on yourself, woman.
You still don’t understand, I wasn’t telling anything on myself. I was joking with anon who can’t stand me but still wants to fuck me. I was baiting him, lightly.
It worked, he kept his silence.
Take a cue from him.
And the joke indicates how sure you are he wants to fuck you, the significance of that hypothetical, and your utter inability to assess the real sexual dynamic.
“Take a cue from” this, you minor irritant.
Say what you will, woman. But no one can shut me up.
King A might nuke you from orbit if you keep pulling the tail of the dragon like that, but I suspect he won’t be able to shut you up either. Only H can, but he has a history of being very patient with overstepping obnoxious cunts.
I assure you you’re one of them. But weirdly enough, I don’t hate you. I really wish you could shut your cock-gobbling hole once and for all, but I don’t hate you.
I want to correct a misunderstanding though. I do not want to fuck you without certain conditions. Submit a bikini pic for more details.
Ok, let’s get this straight because none of you understand joking or flirting.
I hate revealing things about myself, but I will in the interest of clarity.
I am a big flirt in real life. Here on the blog I like to stick to business.
However, sometimes I do come across a comment that’s amusing or funny, as Anon’s comments usually are, so I play along with him. Since we can’t see each other’s faces and body langue, it’s hard not to misunderstand at times.
When he told me he wants to fuck me because he likes gold-digging whores, I told him I like the strong silent type. I was playing on what I told him earlier, that I liked him better when he is silent. That’s all. Enter Matt who misconstrues everything to suit his purposes and that’s where we are – finding ourselves in another argument.
@matt – there is no joke here that concerns you. It was an exchange between me and Anon. We said nothing about it further until you showed up. Obviously, you like to provoke and then blame me for “provoking the easily provoked.” Remember these words? From your last outrageous comment? Now whom is irritating whom?
@Anon – I won’t shut up when I am being attacked. All I have to do is post one comement and all of a sudden all hell breaks loose. Most of the time I don’t attack anyone first. I defend myself, which makes many of you angry, I suppose, and the back and forth go on and on.
As far as shutting you up, I didn’t say that. I said you kept your silence, that implies you can un-silence yourself at any time, as no one is making you do anything.
And I didn’t say you hated me, I said you can’t stand me.
So much misunderstanding when it’s the written word we use to communicate.
As far as fucking, it’s unnecessary to say you want to see me first before you fuck me, that goes without saying. LOL! But, you didn’t take me seriously did you? I was only playing.
Well, being thin and staying beautiful is the number one beauty issue that women need to focus on, more important than clothes. However, remember that clothes are a great motivator, as well as lot’s of male attention. But, what’s the sense in buying hot clothes if you don’t have the figure to wear them? That’s why fat women buy jewelry or accessories , not much clothes. In most of my discussion I wasn’t really referring to buying accessories because that doesn’t really help marriages. That’s just spending money for the sake of spending.
Pay attention to the point I was trying to make: A guy shouldn’t be stingy over his wife’s spending money that maintain her beauty, because on the other hand, if she looked bad he’d stop being attracted to her and the marriage will disintegrate anyway, so he needs to stop presenting her with the a catch 22. Unfortunately, there are certain men who think that a woman doesn’t need anything to help her maintain her beauty, and that after she serves him and the kids from dawn to dusk she can still look sexy and hot for his enjoyment. Really? How utterly childish. Childish and stingy, but not alpha.
Hm, I dunno.
What about men who buy expensive sports cars? Does that really help them get laid that much? There are for sure SOME girls who would go wild for it. But I believe heartiste has already explained why it isn’t often that helpful – for one, they see you as a provider instead of a fling, for another, many girls are equally into cheaper things like old trucks because they’re “manly” or whatever. That seems to be a case of men buying things ostensibly to get laid, but that will really only help them with men or to get ltr interest and games, and the only uninterested womans mind it will change is a low qualityoe like a gold digger.
Stuff like purses and manicures aren’t that different are they? I have known a few men who wouldn’t date a woman without a nice purse AND a french manicure, but these were lower quality men imo, rich but lower quality – porn obsessed men (thus the French manicures) who were obsessed with wealth and status in a needy way that excluded them from having true alpha confidence. But other than some lower quality men, these accessories mean more to women than they do to most men.
I do happen to think clothes (like actual dresses and stuff not your accessories) play a big part in how attractive and well put together a man sees a woman. It’s part of the beauty and femininity they require to wear flattering, beautiful, classy clothes. And for thin women, expensive clothes can be kinda required because they tend not to carry our sizes in cheap stores. Trust me, a man can tell a difference between the ill fitting potato sack of a “size 0″ (really size 4) I’d get at Macy’s and the fitted, classy true size zero that shows off my figure but costs more.
Personally, I think laughing at this comment is fair game because it’s a stupid comment. But, I do think it’s silly when men in general laugh at women for caring about clothing or for how much they spend on it.
1. I will never understand why women gushing over clothes or blowing two hundred dollars on new shoes is any sillier than men who talk about their cars as if they’re their mistresses or spend at least two hundred on prettier looking headlights or rims for their car. We all like displaying status and expressing our personal aesthetic tastes in some way, we just do it a little differently.
2. Men, and specifically, men here, certainly seem to appreciate and expect our beauty. There may never be a need to spend 2k on a pair of shoes, and I’m not saying there aren’t a lot of shopaholics who overdo it, but a woman in a dress costing more than, say, 80-100, generally seems to get more (positive*) attention than that same woman in the cutest discount dress she could find at Good Will. There’s no reason flattering clothes should cost more – they don’t require more fabric, though sometimes I suppose they require more tailoring or a more expensive fabric, but that varies – but they do. Probably because nobody but the most status obsessed would buy the expensive stuff if the cheap stuff looked just as good – women might want it, but married women’s husbands probably wouldn’t allow it.
You also may think I’m joking, but despite how much magazines and tv cater to our look, lower priced stores just don’t cater to thin women. Sorta thin women, sure. But it’s really hard to find lower than a size 4 in most american stores. If they stock a size 0-2, it’s in the expensive department where a pair of jeans costs you a hundred dollars. If they stock 0-2 in their cheap department, they’re not true 0s or 2s. They’re marked 0 but in reality, they’re made for your average size 4 or so and marked lower to flatter the feminine ego. Sure, you can shop in the skinny junior’s section, but it’s pretty hard to find classy clothes there.
It’s so stupid because size 0 should cost less, it uses less fabric than a size 10 after all! But it’s a lot harder to find in cheap stores because it’s so uncommon in our country now that fat is the norm.
*When I say positive, I’m not just talking about quantity or quality of men approaching us, but the manner of their approach. It’s generally easier in more expensive store to find clothes that make one look ladylike and put together and worth having on your arm rather than cheap and easy.
I don’t know where you’re shopping, but I’ve found that most stores (outside of Kmart and Walmart) are full of smaller-sized clothing. As a size 6 I often find myself staring at size 0, 2 and 4 clothing at my favorite stores. Maybe it just has to do with different locales…
Fat chicks are still fat even in expensive clothes. Believe it or not, men can see this.
Fatties, stop wasting your money.
Fat chix don’t buy clothes. They buy lots of accessories though. Hand bags and Jewelry being their number one item of splurging. Women with nice figures love designer clothes and shoes, no doubt about it.
I agree with most of what you said but just one thing needs clarification.
“It’s so stupid because size 0 should cost less, it uses less fabric than a size 10 after all! But it’s a lot harder to find in cheap stores because it’s so uncommon in our country now that fat is the norm.”
No, you don’t understand how the fashion business works. For designer clothes (which use the even numbers from 0-14) you pay the average it costs to manufacture one of these garments. You’re not paying what that particular size-garment you’re buying costs to manufacture. So the average cots of that garment is based on what a size 8 would cost to manufacture. That’s why buyers of a size 0 and buyers of size 14 pay the same. It makes it easier to run a fashion line where you’re not manufacturing a few garments by hand and can assign each one a more accurate price.
The only place this is a little bit different is at Wal-Mart, which always looks for ways to keep prices down. So the new trend at WalMart is to charge you the same for all sizes (they don’t have designer sizes, which are even numbers 0-14, just S, M, L) but to charge you extra for XL, XXL, XXXL, etc. Notice, only WalMart has such huge sizes, for both men and women. It’s terrible to be this huge, but I digress.
“But it’s really hard to find lower than a size 4 in most american stores. If they stock a size 0-2, it’s in the expensive department where a pair of jeans costs you a hundred dollars. If they stock 0-2 in their cheap department, they’re not true 0s or 2s.”
I agree with this, since even-sizes are reserved for designer or couture. S, M, L, is reserved for clothing that don’t cost as much to manufacture as it costs less to design them; they are based on standard cuts of one size fits all. Once you have to make cuts for specific human bodies based on sizes, you need a designer to make a pattern and the fabric is cut according to that design. Before mass production in China, this used to cost a fortune. Now that we can produce in China it made designer clothing much more affordable, but still much more expensive than the Wal-Mart S, M, L sizes.
If you go to specialty stores or high-end department stores like Nordstrom, all their high-end clothing is designer sizes 0-14. They also have S, M, L but you’ll see it’s less expensive than the designer sizes. However, if you have a great figure you can also mix and match your wardrobe with Junior sizes. High-end junior clothing is less expensive than designer clothing but it’s very well made and figure flattering. Odd-sizes, 1-13, are reserved for junior sizes. Except, you really have to be fit to wear juniors because it’s made for teenage girls and they don’t yet have much body fat. So if you are a true size 2 in designer, you’d a be size 3 or 5 in juniors depending on the cut and your hips width. I love junior sizes and I mix and match my wardrobe with it. Especially jeans, you can’t get low cuts and better fit than junior names. Tight t-shirts too.
My only insight into expensive women:
Why buy when you can rent.
Why rent when you can just stop being a faggot?
>scroll through comments on CH for first time
>Neecy errywhere
>Delete from bookmarks
I knew that article on the fat chick getting her mental illness on was a bad sign, but goddamn, this lot…
After browsing a few comments pages, I quickly started recognizing the giant-walls-of-text and avatars associated with a few typical female (MY FEELINGS ARE IMPORTANT VALIDATE THEM PLZ) posters. My eyes start just sliding over them – it’s like my brain has a built-in spam filter.
Ditto.
This post is giving me nightmares about my ex. Perennially 17 grand in credit card debt and mortgaged to the nines. Yet another reason no man will have her, and she continues in her relentless march toward spinsterhood.
Young women with massive debt is very common and is yet another reason marriage rates have dropped off a cliff. You’d have to be mad to take that on. Prada handbags = the extinction of the white race.
Isn’t MK out of style? I thought it was going the way of coach- items with the brand splattered all over the outside are a bit declasse. Here in Miami, Coach and to a lesser extent MK and LV are becoming the brands of black women and lower class Hispanics.
I am partial to Marc Jacobs, although I have never spent more than $30 on a purse.
I’m partial to my purse from Macy’s. lol I bought it two years ago and it has served me well.
I guess I’m not quite beyond redemption because I have no idea who Michael Kors is.
Handbags, huh? Strangely enough one of my favorite images, the one that summarizes modern life so succinctly, is of a handbag of sorts: http://c300221.r21.cf1.rackcdn.com/granta-magazine-cover-sex-issue-michael-salu-1341070586_b.jpg
Thanks, Granta (issue 110).
It’s always depressing when women get into a conversation. I just keep thinking: “Is this all there is to women?” No wonder previously women were considered fit only for reproduction and raising children. They say Cleopatra was very intelligent, highly educated, conversant in multiple languages, and very aware of her times. No wonder men found her entrancing. A pretty face grows old in about three weeks.
BTW, speaking of expensive women, did you see what Berlusconi just got touched for in alimony. 2.5 million Euros per month.
Naturally most women will not be at all indignant. That might be a good litmus test if you are thinking of getting married.
Any fool who thinks free sex is a good deal should consider what this is costing him. Wish I knew what Woods paid. And, the players who are always on the prowl looking for a score. Time is money.
Happy New Year. It’s might be a tough one.
“A pretty face grows old in about three weeks.”
Well, now I am confused. Didn’t you guys say the only thing that matters in women is how they look? Now all of sudden it’s not enough? So maybe some women have it right that beauty isn’t enough to catch a man?
Bottom line is you guys are not happy with anything – not a pretty woman and not a smart women. You want it all, but even then you’ll find something to whine about. Whines are no alphas. I’m starting to tune you out.
Yes, a woman’s value is placed primarily on her looks in terms of sexual value. However, when speaking of long term value, good looks alone are onviously not enough to endear someone to you for any significant amount of time, personal qualities must come into play. “Looks attract him, personality keeps him.”
But of course, you already knew this, no? You’re being deliberately obtuse. It’s become clear you’re a rather unpleasant and miserable woman. Perhaps your attitude is more to blame for your discontent/failure in your personal life and not these men on this site who simply hold up the mirror to you.
LOL! Hilarious! Who’s really miserable here? Who complains about the opposite sex at every opportunity?
You see, the difference between me and you is I don’t complain about men, I accept them the way they are. You, on the other hand, all you guys do is bitterly complain about women, even when you idiots do the same exact thing the women do. Unlike you, I am pro men as well as pro women, but I’m also pro men and women bonding and getting together, not trashing and using each other.
All your complaining makes you bitter miserable human beings, and the only reason you’re fuming at the mouth is because I put you on the spot and I force you to admit the truth about yourselves and your bullshit and double standards. Throwing sour grapes, much? I’ll say.
You accept men as they are, except the ones on this blog … you sweet hamster, you!
Heh, heh… exactly… like I said, the cunt started out as a joke, but has become a farce.
She claims we here are the “bitter miserable human beings” who are “fuming at the mouth”… as she types yet another one of her interminable diatribes.
Now, we all know that self-awareness is no distaff forte… but Lawdy, Miss Claudy, she’s taken the lack thereof to heretofore unimagined heights.
Ha Ha……Look who is talking about the hamster. And guess what? It appeals to that loser with his own gigantic loose hamster, Eliot.
Idiot, the men on this blog complaining against women at every turn is not the normal state of men. Men were not made to complain and bitch against women 24/7. Men were made to hunt and catch women. So you’re right, I don’t accept the men on this blog who bitch and complain. I laugh at them.
Try rationalizing to someone else, not me. Your brand of logic doesn’t work.
I like a girl who turns me on, is down to earth, feminine, has good nurturing instincts, and a sense of personal pride in her figure. I’m willing to hold up my end of a marriage contract but in today’s world I haven’t found one I can trust.
That’s 30 million a year, 300 mil on 10 years. Compared to his multi-billion empire, it’s a fair deal. A divorced woman doesn’t deserve half the assets by any stretch of (masculine) logic, but she deseves something especially if she didn’t cheat.
However, I’m sure that Italy is under feminazi laws, like all other western countries. Berlusconi most probably escaped financial rape because he was smart enough to put his money in trusts.
Yeah, every time I get fired from my job at SomeBigCorp, I think it’s just reasonable that I walk away with 30 mil a year. They can afford it, right?
There was once a man who had three girlfriends, all blonde, but did not know which one to marry. To help him pick, he decided to give each $5,000 each to see how they spend it.
The first goes to town on makeup, jewellery, new clothes, manicure, pedicure hair the whole works, then goes to the man and says:
– I spent the money to look nice for you because I love you so much!
The second went out and bought new golf clubs, a CD player, a TV and hi-fi speakers and gave them to the man and said:
– I bought these gifts for you because I love you so much!
The third takes the $5000 and invests it in stocks, doubles the money, returns the man his $5,000 and reinvests the rest. She says to him:
– I invested the money for our future because I love you so much!
He thought much about how the women spent the money and eventually decided to marry the one with the biggest boobs!
[…] feminist notches on your bedpost. This is because most girls in the big blue population sinks of SWPL-Land are feminists of one stripe or another. You can’t swing an Emperor Deluxe condom without […]
i am not sure how to interpret this. i wear a michael kors watch because chicks dig it. does that make me alpha or beta or just a fucking shallow moron?
[…] feminist notches on your bedpost. This is because most girls in the big blue population sinks of SWPL-Land are feminists of one stripe or another. You can’t swing an Emperor Deluxe condom without hitting […]
[…] feminist notches on your bedpost. This is because most girls in the big blue population sinks of SWPL-Land are feminists of one stripe or another. You can’t swing an Emperor Deluxe condom without […]