Do nice guys finish last

[Tukraq]

Not true, mid twenties is the new early twenties even white girls who age faster don’t get married early.

People are getting married in their early thirties in America and other developed countries

The truth is they won’t be getting married at all their is no reason for a gaalo to get married so they don’t just f*ck buddies and baby mamas the new generation of guys are seeing what happened to bezos and Blake griffin and looking twice most of these women would get married if given the choice but they aren’t they we’ll be married to their many cats as they grow old

 

[Emily]

The truth is they won’t be getting married at all their is no reason for a gaalo to get married so they don’t just f*ck buddies and baby mamas the new generation of guys are seeing what happened to bezos and Blake griffin and looking twice most of these women would get married if given the choice but they aren’t they we’ll be married to their many cats as they grow old

Dude both men and women are getting married late. Only poor people who grew up in ghetto neighborhoods end up baby mamas and baby daddies.
Educated, well established people settle down when they are financially ready. Jeff Bezos fucked it up but then again if it wasn’t for her he wouldn’t have succeeded. The whole amazon thing was her idea...she basically owned him..even though he fucked it up he still respects and cares about her.

Chill with the sexism. There are more men than women in America. There are plenty of single men who are ready to settle but they just don’t have the means to take care of a family and women don’t want to mess with broke niggas.

 

[Tukraq]

Dude both men and women are getting married late. Only poor people who grew up in ghetto neighborhoods end up baby mamas and baby daddies.
Educated, well established people settle down when they are financially ready. Jeff Bezos fucked it up but the again if it wasn’t for her he wouldn’t have succeeded. The whole amazon thing was her idea...she basically owned him..even though he fucked it up he still respects and cares about her.

Chill with the sexism. There are more men than women in America. There are plenty of single men who are ready to settle but they just don’t have the means to take care of a family and women don’t want to mess with broke niggas.

I’m not talking about me but these non Muslims have no reason to get married when their girl friends do what a wife would do, it’s just stupidly putting money on the line. Marriage is about the wife anyways not the husband, which is why men don’t like to commit and as America becomes more morally atheistic or Christian only in name there will be no reason for marriage unless it’s just some dumb guy

 

[Emily]

I’m not talking about me but these non Muslims have no reason to get married when their girl friends do what a wife would do, it’s just stupidly putting money on the line. Marriage is about the wife anyways not the husband, which is why men don’t like to commit and as America becomes more morally atheistic or Christian only in name there will be no reason for marriage unless it’s just some dumb guy

Marriage has a lot of perks such ass tax benefits, insurance discounts and also spousal inheritance. People get married for those benefits not so much for religion.
I know so many atheists who have gotten married. Couples who live together usually get married.

 

[Tukraq]

Marriage has a lot of perks such ass tax benefits, insurance discounts and also spousal inheritance. People get married for those benefits not so much for religion these days.
I know so many atheists who have gotten married. Couples who live together usually get married.

Yeah maybe some tax deductions but for the risk of half your wealth if she cheats on you the wants a divorce the reason those atheist couples got married is because the girl pushed for it and got him to commit, guys don’t really care because he doesn’t get anything he wouldn’t with a girlfriend it’s for the women’s benefit not men, basically marriage in the west is a dying institution on its last legs

 

[Sophisticate]

It's an honor for me as well I'll be sure to cherish it, thank you

Hmm, yh, I can kinda understand that-- would you attribute it more to biological/evolutionary reasons though or to psychological/emotional reasons? If both, which do you think has more influence?

Mistreatment of employees on top of their supposed satanic practices and the degenerate brainwashing of children via subliminals, associated with their brand??

Do you like being called that?

I would say it was more of a psychological/behavioral shift rather than one that was purely biological. Men are adapted for sperm competition. And both sexes were at one point promiscuous. Parental certainty was guaranteed among the mother but not for the father. Such a shame that only a few men were able to successfully reproduce with a lot of females. Luckily monogamy balanced the playing field. Just ask @Apollo.

The transition towards pair-bonding and female faithfulness likely came about from wanting better provisioning through investment in offspring via food and protection from males. There was also a shift in sexual competition between males for mates to competition to be better providers and for better mates.


So, a man that invested in a single female, protected and provided for her would better ensure his children (were his through mate guarding) and could ensure the survival of his offspring.

Meanwhile, a rolling stone might increase his genetic spread but could face his spawn being killed by rival males, suffering malnutrition or being eaten by predators.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[Tukraq]

Do you like being called that?

I would say it was more of a psychological/behavioral shift rather than one that was purely biological. Men are adapted for sperm competition. And both sexes were at one point promiscuous. Parental certainty was guaranteed among the mother but not for the father. Such a shame that only a few men were able to successfully reproduce with a lot of females. Luckily monogamy balanced the playing field.

The transition towards pair-bonding and female faithfulness likely came about from wanting better provisioning through investment in offspring via food and protection from males. There was also a shift in sexual competition between males for mates to competition to be better providers and for better mates.


So, a man that invested in a single female, protected and provided for her would better ensure his children (were his through mate guarding) and could ensure the survival of his offspring.

Meanwhile, a rolling stone might increase his genetic spread but could face his spawn being killed by rival males, suffering malnutrition or being eaten by predators.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Monogamy didn’t really win anything when 80 percent of women only want 20 percent of men, maybe in the past they the settled with nice guys in their 30s but now even nice guys don’t want to settle with leftovers at a very big risk of losing all there wealth, causing the death of institutionalized marriage so really a small percentage of men still end up sleeping with all the women

 

[Sophisticate]

Monogamy didn’t really win anything when 80 percent of women only want 20 percent of men, maybe in the past they the settled with nice guys in their 30s but now even nice guys don’t want to settle with leftovers at a very big risk of losing all there wealth, causing the death of institutionalized marriage so really a small percentage of men still end up sleeping with all the women

Who they want and what they end up with are two separate things. Are you a redpiller? And are we talking about western women here? :siilaanyolaugh:

 

[Tukraq]

Who they want and what they end up with are two separate things. Are you a redpiller? And are we talking about western women here? :siilaanyolaugh:

Yes I’m talking about western cadan women, I’m not a redpiller manshallah are women don’t think like this other than knowles

 

[Emily]

Yeah maybe some tax deductions but for the risk of half your wealth if she cheats on you the wants a divorce the reason those atheist couples got married is because the girl pushed for it and got him to commit, guys don’t really care because he doesn’t get anything he wouldn’t with a girlfriend it’s for the women’s benefit not men, basically marriage in the west is a dying institution on its last legs

Jeez! How old are you ?
There is something called prenup..no one is fucking gonna get away with your god damn money.
Nah the guys were pushing for it. My girls weren’t even ready to settle down. It seems like you have issues with women. Is there something you wanna share

 

[Tukraq]

Jeez! How old are you ?
There is something called prenup..no one is fucking gonna get away with your god damn money.
Nah the guys were pushing for it. My girls weren’t even ready to settle down. It seems like you have issues with women. Is there something you wanna share

I was rejected coldly yesterday by a habesha named Emily

 

[Sophisticate]

Yes I’m talking about western cadan women, I’m not a redpiller manshallah are women don’t think like this other than knowles

Thanks for the appreciation.

 

[TooMacaan]

Do you like being called that?

I would say it was more of a psychological/behavioral shift rather than one that was purely biological. Men are adapted for sperm competition. And both sexes were at one point promiscuous. Parental certainty was guaranteed among the mother but not for the father. Such a shame that only a few men were able to successfully reproduce with a lot of females. Luckily monogamy balanced the playing field. Just ask @Apollo.

Naah lol, I was just messing about/being silly...but humor isn't exactly my forte, soz

True true, men often placed value on quantity whereas the women sought quality for the most part. So I guess those evolutionary [survival & reproduction] habits/strategies ended up leaving a mark on our psychological/behavioral tendencies. It's not as drastic or as animalistically driven anymore, but explains why some of those priorities still remain even to this day. Why is it a shame? It largely succeeded in making sure that only the fittest could survive (and guarantee themselves a legacy, via their offspring, in the process). Just nature merely taking its course(...Jk). And yh, Monogamy allowed more opportunities for those men who might've been overlooked but I think it also resulted in women settling for guys they're not truly interested in simply for the "beta bux" and also bc of societal pressure to fulfill their roles. Thus, from an individual standpoint, I'm not sure it did much favors for either party beyond meeting those 'basic' needs (...mainly bc it was "limited options" monogamy rather than the freely selected kind, imo). The 'top' men had to settle for less quantity (but the men on the bottom' were provided a chance), while the women had to settle for less 'quality' (but didn't have to share resources or affection). It was the best thing for the family unit and, in turn, the health and wellbeing of the community at large however.

The transition towards pair-bonding and female faithfulness likely came about from wanting better provisioning through investment in offspring via food and protection from males. There was also a shift in sexual competition between males for mates to competition to be better providers and for better mates.


So, a man that invested in a single female, protected and provided for her would better ensure his children (were his through mate guarding) and could ensure the survival of his offspring.

Meanwhile, a rolling stone might increase his genetic spread but could face his spawn being killed by rival males, suffering malnutrition or being eaten by predators.

Yh, the investment stuff makes sense as a prime motivator for the shift.
Do you think pair-bonding is possible between spouses who don't have children together? And, are so called "beta" [provider] males the more ideal choice for their [likely] higher pair-bonding capabilities?

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[Sophisticate]

Naah lol, I was just messing about/being silly...but humor isn't exactly my forte, soz

True true, men often placed value on quantity whereas the women sought quality for the most part. So I guess those evolutionary [survival & reproduction] habits/strategies ended up leaving a mark on our psychological/behavioral tendencies. It's not as drastic or as animalistically driven anymore, but explains why some of those priorities still remain even to this day. Why is it a shame? It largely succeeded in making sure that only the fittest could survive (and guarantee themselves a legacy, via their offspring, in the process). Just nature merely taking its course(...Jk). And yh, Monogamy allowed more opportunities for those men who might've been overlooked but I think it also resulted in women settling for guys they're not truly interested in simply for the "beta bux" and also bc of societal pressure to fulfill their roles. Thus, from an individual standpoint, I'm not sure it did much favors for either party beyond meeting those 'basic' needs (...mainly bc it was "limited options" monogamy rather than the freely selected kind, imo). The 'top' men had to settle for less quantity (but the men on the bottom' were provided a chance), while the women had to settle for less 'quality' (but didn't have to share resources or affection). It was the best thing for the family unit and, in turn, the health and wellbeing of the community at large however.


Yh, the investment stuff makes sense as a prime motivator for the shift.
Do you think pair-bonding is possible between spouses who don't have children together? And, are so called "beta" [provider] males the more ideal choice for their [likely] higher pair-bonding capabilities?

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Why hello TooMacaan, :siilaanyolaugh:


Where did you go? And where is your accomplice, Monsieur El Padrone?

You sound awfully red pill now. Top men could also be supplanted by the hordes of lower-ranking males, I mean they could always conspire against the higher ranking men and shuffle up the dynamics. Perhaps, it was better for all parties that women started caring more for reliability along with the provision of resources for the future of their offspring, as opposed to looks and a man's place in the dominance hierarchy. Is beta bux, that undesirable? There is nothing stopping him from learning the art of charisma or taking full advantage of a gym membership as he can afford it (today). I've watched enough mewing videos to see that weak chins aren't a permanent disposition. Haha, maybe not in every case but I'm sure something can be remedied. Do you think there's any money to be made helping these types? Hmmm......

Do you think pair-bonding is possible between spouses who don't have children together? And, are so-called "beta" [provider] males the more ideal choice for their [likely] higher pair-bonding capabilities?

Pair-bonding is possible among spouses without children. As long as they are on the same page. I should stress that marital attrition (divorce) is higher among childless couples.

In hunter-gatherer communities unions were only long enough until a child could walk several miles, collect their own food and feed themselves independently. This is in line with the modern-day marital length which is roughly 7 years.

What is needed is greater financial entanglements and that comes from having multiple dependent children. The siring of a boy also protects against divorce (a little longer). Keep in mind this could be career injurious for a woman so it has its drawbacks.

Beta males are an ideal choice for pair bonding capabilities as they are more agreeable which helps with negotiation and compromise which can keep a union together. And if not a Beta at least a domesticated Alpha/Sigma unaware of their worth.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[Azirah Anonymous]

Yeah sxb. It's my cousin, I'm shaydaan. But this guys miskiin proper, never been with a girl before. Don't know how to advice him :siilaanyolaugh:

28 and never dated someone before?? Omg miskeen somali boys still exist

He is blessed and Allah has protected him, first off tell him that dating is not the answers. Dating, pre martial relationships is such a waste of time. Is he practising?

His intentions should be made clear from the start. Skip the gushy mushy talk and ask important questions. If she tries to avoid the questions or feels like he's going to fast, just dip.
Some girls and boys just date for the sake of dating. It's like hobby for them.

In Sha Allah he will find the one! And waryaada don't make fun him.

 

[Zakaria Hussein]

28 and never dated someone before?? Omg miskeen somali boys still exist

He is blessed and Allah has protected him, first off tell him that dating is not the answers. Dating, pre martial relationships is such a waste of time. Is he practising?

His intentions should be made clear from the start. Skip the gushy mushy talk and ask important questions. If she tries to avoid the questions or feels like he's going to fast, just dip.
Some girls and boys just date for the sake of dating. It's like hobby for them.

In Sha Allah he will find the one! And waryaada don't make fun him.

Lol walahi yes never been on a date. He's always kind of guy to keep themselves bussy with other things. I know another somali guy like him. They were brought up to wait till marraige.

I suggested he should speak to girls just for fun and a social sense. But if he's serious with marraige, just ask family and friends to introduce him to a decent xalimo.

Instead of proposing to random strangers :siilaanyolaugh: on the second date.

 

[TooMacaan]

Why hello TooMacaan, :siilaanyolaugh:


Where did you go? And where is your accomplice, Monsieur El Padrone?

You sound awfully red pill now. Top men could also be supplanted by the hordes of lower-ranking males, I mean they could always conspire against the higher ranking men and shuffle up the dynamics. Perhaps, it was better for all parties that women started caring more for reliability along with the provision of resources for the future of their offspring, as opposed to looks and a man's place in the dominance hierarchy. Is beta bux, that undesirable? There is nothing stopping him from learning the art of charisma or taking full advantage of a gym membership as he can afford it (today). I've watched enough mewing videos to see that weak chins aren't a permanent disposition. Haha, maybe not in every case but I'm sure something can be remedied. Do you think there's any money to be made helping these types? Hmmm......

Ello,

Heh -.-', I was in a self-induced purgatory of sorts. Not sure what happened to the Great Padrone, I know he got hit with the ban hammer a looong time back (..following an incident where a former member complained about receiving lewd pics when she hit up his DMs). An unfortunate case of curiosity gone wrong tbh. He was a misunderstood fella believe or not-- good hearted at the core, & a valuable member of the [already short-staffed] Love Dungeon; hope he makes a return someday.

Red pill is so 2 decades ago, I traded it for the blackpill sometime in '17 and have never looked back. Evolutionary psych & biological reductionism is da way. Oh they've already done it; the industrial revolution and age of tech is the best thing to have happened to so called "betas"... many men who're flourishing in the West today probably could've never survived a week in the brutish 'old world'. Are they undesirable? Well, it's not so much that there's shortage of women willing to marry them, but more so that some of these women are craving little something else on the side. Plus, it must be a crappy feeling to live with-- if I was a "beta" guy, I wouldn't want a woman to settle for me just for my resources or bc I'm the safe choice. I agree with the gym membership & even the incel techniques, idk if charisma can be learned tho..(where they be having charisma classes @ ...asking for a fwend *jaynerd* *browtf*...)

Pair-bonding is possible among spouses without children. As long as they are on the same page. I should stress that marital attrition (divorce) is higher among childless couples.

In hunter-gatherer communities unions were only long enough until a child could walk several miles, collect their own food and feed themselves independently. This is in line with the modern-day marital length which is roughly 7 years.

What is needed is greater financial entanglements and that comes from having multiple dependent children. The siring of a boy also protects against divorce (a little longer). Keep in mind this could be career injurious for a woman so it has its drawbacks.

Beta males are an ideal choice for pair bonding capabilities as they are more agreeable which helps with negotiation and compromise which can keep a union together. And if not a Beta at least a domesticated Alpha/Sigma unaware of their worth.

Damn just 7 years?? Ahh wtf is even point of childless pair-bonding if it's more likely to end in divorce ...Imagine getting married solely for the sake of companionship, wasting 7 years worth of your time [& "prime"]-- only to end up divorced ...and with no kids to show for it, at that ! It's even worse nowadays because the avg. life expectancy is ~80y/o so it's gonna hit harder. I wouldn't even be able to settle for cat lady status because I'm scared of really dislike cats. Greater financial entanglements just to keep the marriage afloat, I don't doubt it works but, gosh that sounds so miserable. Yh, true about the drawbacks, it's a risky choice to make...women mosdef. have the short end of the stick here, imo.

Lmaoo at 'domesticated AlphaOmega/Sigma unaware of their worth' xD Sounds kinda evil, but also...

 

[Ferrari]

He shouldnt be desperate.

But no nice dudes always lose.
Scientifically proven fact.

Get your cousin how to be an asshole for dummies book asap.

 

[RICH]

He needs to be happy cause now he knows what kind of girl he was dealing with. The fact that he didn’t hear anything from her after mentioning marriage, means that she wasn’t serious. This doesn’t mean he’s a nice guy.

It’s not more than normal to make it very clear from the start that you talk with a purpose and not to play around.