Women are at an all time high on drugs and suicide as well. Most of these women whore themselves out for pennies on OnlyFans with very few actually making a living from it. When you want to see the people that benefit from all this bullshit you need to look at their early life. I can list the families that benefit from opioid overdose, transsexual clinics, and organized pornography, but you would not listen.
He would rather reeeee about some normal women just walking down the street than actual big wigs who made BILLIONS.
In a way, he is the perfect useful idiot. He yelled at some guy here who talked about his family, called his wife names and said she was shitting out spawns. Meanwhile he defends the big names in politics, tech, bankers, etc. who actually have power.
You did talk about them being sent by Lithuania, hon. Don't even try.
One crazy bitch who dated some scummy lowlife guy. You act like upstanding citizens are being murdered by some Mata Hari, instead of trash meeting trash.
Also, we have about a gazillion examples of Muslim immigrants hurting random people, but you still deny that and claim they are no danger and every time they do shit, it's because Le Womynz.
At no point did I suggest they were spies or assassins. They are just violent women having their records hidden so that it's easier to move them.
The difference being that speaking out against Muslims gets you a seat in a right wing party while speaking out against women gets you sent to a counter-terrorism program.
It's funny that you get enraged when she bashes you and never when I do it much more forcefully. THE BASHING IS JUST A DRY RUN FOR SLITTING MY THROAT!
The difference being that speaking out against Muslims gets you a seat in a right wing party while speaking out against women gets you sent to a counter-terrorism program.
Cause Islam is an ideology and woman isn't. Also, if you have a problem with the violent gender... wait till you hear who commits more rapes, murders, etc.
It's true though. In the grand scheme of things, "OnlyFans thots making money" does not even register, and the fools who give them money deserve to be parted from it. I bet more women have had their lives ruined by OnlyFans than Men (HAHA, SERVES YOU RIGHT, WOMENS!)
Yet you claimed that female teachers in schools abuse boys in order to make OnlyFans thots rich. Cause you're batty.
Tell that to all the people who actually work for their money and see this scum making 20-30k a month while they're lucky to make a little more than that in a year.
I actually said they do it to make women rich in general. Even the OP of the post I linked implies a connection between men's low self-worth and women's wealth.
Same goes for all the 70000 Lil somethingsomething rappers and sportsball idiots organizing dogfights for the lulz.
Difference is? Other than the fact you hate women and make excuses for men.
At least they provide something resembling talent/effort.
Are you really telling me that a music career/being a sportsperson is equivalent to a woman getting her clothes off in front of a camera and pretending to care about broken men with no self worth?
I don't like the NFL, but I can acknowledge the training and effort that goes into being a pro.
Can't say the same about OnlyThots, who just strip in front of a mirror. The only thing they train in is psychological manipulation.
Aren't you making the same mistake Imp is? He sees a very small number of women benefiting, so women bad. You see another group benefiting, so they bad.
He wrote about specific families, while you are creating a strawman of his argument and using it to rush to their defense. If intentional, this is a great example of a pilpul, which touches on an actual reason why middle class jews outside of those specific families get hate.
Yes: you are doing this in your complaint. That is what I am saying.
You happen to also be blaming others for doing what you are doing. Man above says "families" and you immediately expand it to all jews to aid your rhetoric and provide the sense of having gotten the last word, which like I said, is referred to as a pilpul. Pilpul being an actual real life behavioral stereotype, just in case you would really rather talk about cultural hate toward everyday jews.
The difference: you can find plenty of women who oppose OF thots. You can’t say the same for Jews opposing Jewish Power. That’s why the Jewish ethnic demographic continually suffers for the crimes of their elite; pathological tribalism isn’t always a benefit, especially when it locks you into solidarity with degenerate sociopaths trying to control everyone.
Seriously, all of the “anti-semitism” turns into regular old anti-authoritarianism the moment that average Jews oppose their own elites. Plenty of room on this train for everyone.
At this time, there are around 170 million registered users on the platform, and this number is expected to increase.
For reference, OnlyFans reached 100 million users faster than Facebook did back when it started out, so this should be a testament to the future of OnlyFans and its users.
Women's predatory revenue stream is here to stay unless we stop it.
How many of those users are female creators, and how many of those creators are actually making those obscene amounts of money? That's what that person is referencing, as when you actually look into it, not even 1% of OF's female creators are making the obscene amounts you're angry at, but I do understand hating the idea of OF as a whole, irrespective of how much money the people on there make.
Even those making "low" amounts are still making $100+ a month from nothing. Women already have ridiculously easy lives without supplementary incomes to their undeserved high level jobs.
The entire concept is the purest form of women's vile view of what men should be to them.
Even those making "low" amounts are still making $100+ a month from nothing
That might be the average, but it's highly skewed by the high 'earners'. Most ruin their lives for close to nothing. You should be enthused, you're a misogynist after all.
Women already have ridiculously easy lives
I'd pick my physical safety over the "easy lives" of the womens.
I'd pick my physical safety over the "easy lives" of the womens.
Men are statistically more likely to be a victim of violence than any woman. Women are only more likely to be victims of certain forms of violence (like sexual assault). You've been tricked by the framing of statistics.
Men are statistically more likely to be a victim of violence than any woman
Cause they go looking for trouble. Nothing wrong with it, I do it myself, but women aren't exactly provoking fights in the middle of the streets. At least, not ones in which they themselves participate.
Women are only more likely to be victims of certain forms of violence (like sexual assault). You've been tricked by the framing of statistics.
I know full well what the statistics are. Let's assume for a moment that men are innocent victims. I also know that I have a fighting chance of defending myself. The average woman would be overpowered by a 13-year-old boy. I'd be quite scared to go outside if a 13-year-old boy could do literally whatever he wanted to me.
Source: reality. The number of people making any serious money on OF is tiny. Most just ruin their lives for nothing, which is why your GC friends hate it so much. You, on the other hand, are too stupid to see even that. Would get in the way of your professional victim complex.
There's literally millions of OnlyFans users.
And this in no way contradicts my point that a very small number of people benefit from it. So what's the median monthly revenue, eh?
Women's predatory revenue stream is here to stay unless we stop it.
Imagine thinking that it's OnlyFans that's the worst revenue stream today.
But you're screaming about 4 billion, which is less than what people spend on Christmas presents in Murica alone. Talking about First World problems. You are very much a feminist in outlook.
No need to respect men when it’s not needed to get the ultimate outcome with one
This is where the lies of modern western society come in. The ultimate outcome with a man, for a woman, isn’t sex - it’s a relationship. Any woman can get pumped and dumped by a chad. They’ve been told that this is empowering, but their hind brains know better. That’s why they suffer a slow but steady soul death as they fail to find an appropriate mate before crashing into the wall.
Modern society isn't helping men or women. You need to take a break from the internet for a few months dude. You've gone crazier over time posting here.
Giving women the vote and forcing them into the workplace has been bad for everyone. How do you follow that with "that's a lie to take more of our rights".
You aren't being logical, imp. You're acting like a woman. You need to get outside and exercise, and interact with humans off the screen.
Women can use it to find a new man to sleep with on demand with no effort, getting a dopamine hit akin to hard drugs. No need to respect men when its not needed to get the ultimate outcome with one.
This makes no sense. Women have always been able to get relatively attractive men to sleep with them. To suggest that they had to exert 'effort' for it, when men always make the first move in every culture, is quite laughable. It's the other way around: because men have Tinder, they feel less of a need to commit (which is what women want) to get what they really want.
Contrary to part 1, the men that get selected are of a very small set of men, and the men that don't get selected hear of the large like and match totals from one or two of their friends that have a few things in common; height, facial features, good hair.
So women have high standards even on Tinder? Good. Cause I see plenty of examples of terribly low standards.
Highly-confident men also do well by nature of their confidence being apparent in everything they do;
Not on Tinder...
obviously, that confidence is hard to build if one doesn't have it, and despite the whole "fake it til you make it" movement
Obviously. Confidence is mostly a thermometer of your accomplishments. Faking it doesn't make accomplishments any more than painting on the thermometer warms your home.
Yes, by going out and getting themselves noticed to a degree. Online dating has removed even that barrier, to which women only need to open an app and choose the top 1% of her hundreds of matches.
And then go on a date with someone who may stalk or kill you. And here in Europe, the men don't even pay for dinner. I'm exaggerating, of course, but I don't see why you think the position of women is more enviable.
Remember that it's men who want 'the night'. Women, generally, want a relationship. So you're using men getting what they want as proof that they're worse off. They really are no happier for it. Don't imagine a comparison with yourself, how happy you could be if you could get many hot women as an average guy (if you are).
You confuse "first move" with effort. Men need to break the ice, but you seem to assume a woman needs to do nothing in order to have ice he wants to break in the first place. Tinder requires a few selfies and pictures that can be doctored with filters.
Those things work both ways. What's easier for a guy who is not confident, to swipe or to approach a woman in real life?
If this is the case, then why are the numbers skewed in the favor of women by such a large margin? It can't be that a large majority of men don't meet the standards of all women, as you seem to be implying below.
I'm not sure what you are referring to. Why can it not be that a large majority of men on Tinder don't meet the standards of most women? Besides, you're going to get the best you can get. If you can get both an 8 and a 10, you'd got for the 10. Why blame women because men don't have standards?
Give me an example of some of those low standards.
Gosh man, whenever I see Americans talking about this, it's as if they're from a different planet. Cause I go out and see relatively OK females with the most grotesque specimens you can imagine. It is very rare that I see a good-looking guy or even just fit guy with an ugly girl. It may be that they're all wealthy or something (though they don't look like it), but I'm not living in Beverly Hills. It's just a normal European city.
Conversely, what are your standards for men? And are you willing to compromise if a man meets all but one of your standards?
Are you assuming that I am female, or do you think my takes are so out there that I must be a homosexual? (I'm not offended, it's funny.)
I think for me, as for most, there's a few sine qua non conditions and some nice to haves. My standards are definitely higher than for most women. Basically, do you make my life better? That is rarely the case.
No, they do on Tinder as well. It's an extreme confidence. We all have anecdotes of the goofy looking dude we know who slays on Tinder; he also tends to slay in real life too. It's really the one mutable skill on which men can improve that'll have a tangible benefit to their dating life; however, like the immutable aspects, only the best of the best will get selected given the middle-man of online dating.
Yeah, I don't think confidence is readily perceptible through online interactions. For example, I'd peg you just based on how you talk as a fairly confident guy, but I assume based on the contents of your comments that you do not consider yourself confident. So how could someone even tell?
We'll disagree here. A lot of the lack of confidence in the dating market is due to constant rejection, which happens to most men who aren't in the extremes of the intangibles.
It happens to everyone. For fun, just ask a so called 'Chad' how often he has been rejected. Unless he's a braggart, you're going to hear: quite a lot. It's like a guy who has sent job applications to two companies, both of them rejected, and thinks that a guy with a great job somehow had an imperial emissary arrive and offer him the job. No, unless he was very lucky, he tried a lot and got rejected a lot.
Despite career and perhaps even physical accomplishments, enough women hold to their extreme standards enough that they will still reject those men, and every rejection is a chip from the confidence block.
Honestly, if I had a magic wand, I'd have women raise their standards. I have encountered truly grotesque creatures, balding, fat, unintelligent, unclever, no money, no home, no social skills, land themselves a fair 5. At least get your man to lose some weight. Have some standards, because I don't want to have to look at that.
It'd be nice if men raised their standards as well. It is exaggerated that 'any woman can get any Chad', but the fact that men have no standards causes trouble for those considered less desirable. At least in the Tinder market. Obviously, no 'Chad' is going to go out with some fat abomination, so the 'less desirable' men will have to break her fall when she turns 30.
How much of this is urban legend versus something that actually happens?
Most such things are very rare. But it's the fear that cripples people. Regardless, just because men have so much more physical strength, it's the woman who is at a disadvantage in any situation. This is part of the reason, though by no means the only one, why women were so much more reluctant in that infamous "will you have sex with me" study.
Your assumption is that I'm looking at the position that women hold is one for which to be envious, which is a mistake. I much prefer the pursuit of women in a real life setting, and I think online dating has nullified that pursuit as the paradox of choice presented by hundreds of matches with zero effort on the part of the woman.
But whose fault is it that so many men are fine with just about any woman? Shouldn't they raise their standards, if we're going to engage in such futile lecturing?
It's not what's easier, but what works. Swiping is easier, but with no swipe back its an exercise in futility.
It's what works * the likelihood that you will do it. Any guy can swipe on 100 girls in a day. He's not going to hit on even 10 girls in a day, especially if he is so fragile. So it probably will work out for him, if he just keeps trying instead of sinking away in self-pity.
Hypergamy is a feature of women. Hypergamy in smaller groups of people makes sense, since it was gated to your physical area; you knew your competition, for all intents and purposes. Men are now competing against the best of the world.
I mean, if you just work that out, you'll see that it makes no sense. Even if the "best of the world" - who is it, the 20%? Let's be generous. 20%. Only 20% of women can simultaneously occupy that 20%. So there's 80% available at the very least.
Men also have some preferences, but you don't complain about that because you don't fall victim to it.
Your axiom that hypergamy is synonymous with standards is fallacious. The obvious issue, too, is that there are only so many 10s for all women. If women want to have their cake and eat it too, they need to understand that not all of them will get the relationship they so desire if they only take the best.
Well, yeah? You make it sound like this is not already happening.
That's odd. Occasionally I'll see the ugly dude with the hot girlfriend, but then I'll see his hyper-competence in something like BJJ or his job that answers why that happened. I also tend to see a picture of him back when dating started and he was way more in shape, or she ugly-ducklinged a bit. This is all anecdotal, of course, so who knows.
Just on balance, who is in better shape, men or women? I see far more fat men, even ignoring the fact that they do not take care of themselves. By definition, the average will be a woman who is more attractive than the man.
Or do you normally see relationships where the man is far more attractive? Almost cannot imagine it.
You're a woman.
Now I'm very interested how you came to that conclusion.
This coupled with a few good pictures tells a surprisingly good story. Text alone isn't enough, you're correct.
You can make good pictures, confident or not. In fact, if you are 'confident', you may think bad pictures are good pictures...
My buddy covers the immutable characteristics of a "Chad". He's also one of the rare ones that has women message him first on Tinder. I have asked him about rejection and he says he can remember all of them. That means, he's had so few of them that he can remember them.
But he has been rejected. If he really gets laid a lot, then he will also have a lot more rejections. Unless he simply waits to be approached. Or maybe he's the exception that proves the rule, who knows?
I get your argument, trust me, and I agree with the premise. No one should be graded on a curve just because a class of people doesn't meet the mark. If the natural curve of physical location and travel limitations has been abolished, then something's going to need to change.
Honestly, the decline of standards is one of the most worrisome things nowadays.
Why is your counter to women having standards high enough for 10% of men to eclipse, that men have no standards at all? That's quite the non-sequitur, seeing as even if men had no standards, only 10% of them would meet the standards of the women and the original problem still holds.
I'm not blaming men for having standards. I'm blaming them for having low standards. If men did not follow that worm between their legs, this whole issue would not even arise.
He'd have better luck approaching 2 girls in a day, let alone 10, let alone swiping on 100.
No one who's insecure approaches 730 girls in a year.
And those 80% all want the top 20% of men, and won't settle for less. Men, if having had dated a top tier woman.
I mean, 100% of men want a supermodel. But they do settle, as do women.
It also doesn't show in the numbers that men's preferences really affect normalized distribution of attractiveness. Why do you keep ignoring that factor, and instead focus on the motte-and-bailey of "preferences"?
I think all that is quite dubious, but even if it were true, most men aren't exactly in great shape. And the fact that (you say) they can hope to get a date with the best may dissuade them from 'settling'.
And therein lies the problem. If they can't get the best that they now reason they could get via a match on Tinder, then they won't settle for less. It's called "alpha-widowing".
I would not be surprised if this were a phenomenon, though I don't think it's as widespread as you claim. This may well be one of the reasons why marriages today do not succeed as often, since cohabitation and premarital relation are inversely correlated with marital success.
I won't ask where you live, but I would like to live there. God damn are bitches fat here.
Here as well, but less fat than the men, certanly on average, almost always in relationships.
It's odd enough to see a man date out of his league here that they made a movie about it, if that tells you anything. It's called "She's Out Of My League".
Here's why this is wrong: you consider 'league' to be just height, hair and looks. In reality, these probably matter least, except perhaps on Tinder. That is why the groteqsue beasts I mentioned earlier can get decent women.
You hold womanly opinions on abortion and dating. Also, I make extreme predictions online because who gives a shit if I'm wrong, we're both faggots on a message board. So you're a woman.
LOL. The funny thing is that women aren't that much more in favor of abortion than men. Dating, I don't know. Most important thing for me is looks. That's not womanly at all (though you may think it is).
Right, so its action oriented pictures that give off an air of confidence coupled with a good line of back-and-forth messaging. Not many average to below-average men can pull that off. The few that do are very rare.
But here I am confused. 'Average' and 'below-average' in what respect? Looks? I don't think it's related. Confidence? I assume they would find it much easier to message a girl than to come up with good lines in real life. I suspect all of this is just a problem of their own making.
Lets not get pedantic, now. A millionaire who dropped a quarter between the couch cushions has also lost money, right? Its a game of ratios vs outright rejections, and you know that.
Of course more attractive people have better ratios. But you made it sound like the 'good ones' never get rejected. I bet most get rejected more often than not. The difference is that they don't let that keep them down. The others pay altogether too much importance to 'rejection'. We're not meant for this world.
Right, and Impy is correct in this regard; men need to stop giving woman a tinker's damn until they themselves buck up, because average men going for fat fucks who think they're the prize is part of the problem. Now, I am speaking as an American, so remember that.
No, I think that problem is the same here. Of course, it's just evolution. Your genes do not care if the one you impregnate is skinny or fat. You may prefer skinny, because she's healthier, but it's no loss to you if she's fat vs. not having a kid.
Almost all of the stuff that you complain about is perfectly explicable in terms of socio-biology, and the mismatch between our environment and the legacy of our evolution.
Onlyfans ruins an entire generation, heck even the one before. Most men don't want slags. I wouldn't wanna date one half the world has seen naked because she had to whore herself out. At this point in time i say this is all their own fault, no sympathy from me. Even if you get together with such a woman doing sexual things like naked videos and pictures is already a big no no outside of the relationship, I doubt most relationships can survive onlyfans.
Well, and that's when men get depressed, less confident and either turn a simp or don't get together with women at all. Vicious cycle, I'd hope the person who made onlyfans gets tarred, feathered and thrown out of the county but I doubt that would do much..
Women are at an all time high on drugs and suicide as well. Most of these women whore themselves out for pennies on OnlyFans with very few actually making a living from it. When you want to see the people that benefit from all this bullshit you need to look at their early life. I can list the families that benefit from opioid overdose, transsexual clinics, and organized pornography, but you would not listen.
He would rather reeeee about some normal women just walking down the street than actual big wigs who made BILLIONS.
In a way, he is the perfect useful idiot. He yelled at some guy here who talked about his family, called his wife names and said she was shitting out spawns. Meanwhile he defends the big names in politics, tech, bankers, etc. who actually have power.
Why do you keep creating situations in your mind that never happened...
Or the Ukrainian female assassins sent by Lithuania after you will target me as well?
You're just making up insane shit now.
I said that Ukraine was covering up their violence rates so countries would take them, not as some secret assassin plan.
And we've already seen Ukrainian women get violent in the UK, so it looks like I was right.
You did talk about them being sent by Lithuania, hon. Don't even try.
One crazy bitch who dated some scummy lowlife guy. You act like upstanding citizens are being murdered by some Mata Hari, instead of trash meeting trash.
Also, we have about a gazillion examples of Muslim immigrants hurting random people, but you still deny that and claim they are no danger and every time they do shit, it's because Le Womynz.
Show the archive or shut the fuck up.
At no point did I suggest they were spies or assassins. They are just violent women having their records hidden so that it's easier to move them.
The difference being that speaking out against Muslims gets you a seat in a right wing party while speaking out against women gets you sent to a counter-terrorism program.
It's funny that you get enraged when she bashes you and never when I do it much more forcefully. THE BASHING IS JUST A DRY RUN FOR SLITTING MY THROAT!
Cause Islam is an ideology and woman isn't. Also, if you have a problem with the violent gender... wait till you hear who commits more rapes, murders, etc.
One woman got violent, so you were right about what exactly?
I get it, you're desperate to finally be right about something. But forget it, it's never going to happen.
It's true though. In the grand scheme of things, "OnlyFans thots making money" does not even register, and the fools who give them money deserve to be parted from it. I bet more women have had their lives ruined by OnlyFans than Men (HAHA, SERVES YOU RIGHT, WOMENS!)
Yet you claimed that female teachers in schools abuse boys in order to make OnlyFans thots rich. Cause you're batty.
Tell that to all the people who actually work for their money and see this scum making 20-30k a month while they're lucky to make a little more than that in a year.
I actually said they do it to make women rich in general. Even the OP of the post I linked implies a connection between men's low self-worth and women's wealth.
Same goes for all the 70000 Lil somethingsomething rappers and sportsball idiots organizing dogfights for the lulz.
Difference is? Other than the fact you hate women and make excuses for men.
At least they provide something resembling talent/effort.
Are you really telling me that a music career/being a sportsperson is equivalent to a woman getting her clothes off in front of a camera and pretending to care about broken men with no self worth?
I don't like the NFL, but I can acknowledge the training and effort that goes into being a pro.
Can't say the same about OnlyThots, who just strip in front of a mirror. The only thing they train in is psychological manipulation.
If you had any self-worth, you would not spent years of your life thinking about, posting about and complaining about women.
It's hilarious how incandescent you get about the women on OF and never about the men...
The ones who make real money from it are married to their behind-the-scenes manager/pimp.
Talk about deflection.
And no, they are not victims and I won't take you seriously if you make such a ridiculous claim.
Aren't you making the same mistake Imp is? He sees a very small number of women benefiting, so women bad. You see another group benefiting, so they bad.
He wrote about specific families, while you are creating a strawman of his argument and using it to rush to their defense. If intentional, this is a great example of a pilpul, which touches on an actual reason why middle class jews outside of those specific families get hate.
Cause people are too retarded to distinguish Rothschilds from Butcher Mordechai down the street?
Yes: you are doing this in your complaint. That is what I am saying.
You happen to also be blaming others for doing what you are doing. Man above says "families" and you immediately expand it to all jews to aid your rhetoric and provide the sense of having gotten the last word, which like I said, is referred to as a pilpul. Pilpul being an actual real life behavioral stereotype, just in case you would really rather talk about cultural hate toward everyday jews.
I'd say people who try to draw inordinate attention to the Jewishness of people they dislike and never those they like are the ones with an agenda.
You don't see me saying stuff like: Hey, some nice points by this JEWISH professor. Gosh, I sure am glad that there are JEWS to make these points.
You mean that they don't like any, or that this proves that they are not anti-Semitic?
The difference: you can find plenty of women who oppose OF thots. You can’t say the same for Jews opposing Jewish Power. That’s why the Jewish ethnic demographic continually suffers for the crimes of their elite; pathological tribalism isn’t always a benefit, especially when it locks you into solidarity with degenerate sociopaths trying to control everyone.
Seriously, all of the “anti-semitism” turns into regular old anti-authoritarianism the moment that average Jews oppose their own elites. Plenty of room on this train for everyone.
You really can't find many women who oppose them.
Hell, you can't find many women who are willing to condemn female criminals.
So you make up something called 'Jewish Power', which you don't even define, then bash Jews for not "opposing" it? What are they supposed to do?
I like how you assume lockstep adherence by people you don't even know.
Source : your ass
There's literally millions of OnlyFans users.
https://quantummarketer.com/onlyfans-statistics/
Women's predatory revenue stream is here to stay unless we stop it.
How many of those users are female creators, and how many of those creators are actually making those obscene amounts of money? That's what that person is referencing, as when you actually look into it, not even 1% of OF's female creators are making the obscene amounts you're angry at, but I do understand hating the idea of OF as a whole, irrespective of how much money the people on there make.
I'd guess something around 5-10% are creators.
Even those making "low" amounts are still making $100+ a month from nothing. Women already have ridiculously easy lives without supplementary incomes to their undeserved high level jobs.
The entire concept is the purest form of women's vile view of what men should be to them.
That might be the average, but it's highly skewed by the high 'earners'. Most ruin their lives for close to nothing. You should be enthused, you're a misogynist after all.
I'd pick my physical safety over the "easy lives" of the womens.
Men are statistically more likely to be a victim of violence than any woman. Women are only more likely to be victims of certain forms of violence (like sexual assault). You've been tricked by the framing of statistics.
Cause they go looking for trouble. Nothing wrong with it, I do it myself, but women aren't exactly provoking fights in the middle of the streets. At least, not ones in which they themselves participate.
I know full well what the statistics are. Let's assume for a moment that men are innocent victims. I also know that I have a fighting chance of defending myself. The average woman would be overpowered by a 13-year-old boy. I'd be quite scared to go outside if a 13-year-old boy could do literally whatever he wanted to me.
Source: reality. The number of people making any serious money on OF is tiny. Most just ruin their lives for nothing, which is why your GC friends hate it so much. You, on the other hand, are too stupid to see even that. Would get in the way of your professional victim complex.
And this in no way contradicts my point that a very small number of people benefit from it. So what's the median monthly revenue, eh?
Imagine thinking that it's OnlyFans that's the worst revenue stream today.
Worst legal one?
Didn't even mean illegal ones.
Hedge funds, banks, political corruption.
But you're screaming about 4 billion, which is less than what people spend on Christmas presents in Murica alone. Talking about First World problems. You are very much a feminist in outlook.
This is where the lies of modern western society come in. The ultimate outcome with a man, for a woman, isn’t sex - it’s a relationship. Any woman can get pumped and dumped by a chad. They’ve been told that this is empowering, but their hind brains know better. That’s why they suffer a slow but steady soul death as they fail to find an appropriate mate before crashing into the wall.
The ultimate outcome isn't a relationship either, it's access to his wealth.
Don't pretend they are victims, it's sickening.
Modern society isn't helping men or women. You need to take a break from the internet for a few months dude. You've gone crazier over time posting here.
Modern society is practically built bespoke for women.
Modern society has produced sad empty husks of women just as it has of men.
It just hasn't. Their self-reported misery is bullshit to make us give up more rights.
Giving women the vote and forcing them into the workplace has been bad for everyone. How do you follow that with "that's a lie to take more of our rights".
You aren't being logical, imp. You're acting like a woman. You need to get outside and exercise, and interact with humans off the screen.
Say, weren't you recently caught lying about Kyle Rittenhouse receiving a "huge settlement" in order to lie about his girlfriend being a gold-digger?
Just cause you're a miserable creature, doesn't mean everyone else has to be.
This makes no sense. Women have always been able to get relatively attractive men to sleep with them. To suggest that they had to exert 'effort' for it, when men always make the first move in every culture, is quite laughable. It's the other way around: because men have Tinder, they feel less of a need to commit (which is what women want) to get what they really want.
So women have high standards even on Tinder? Good. Cause I see plenty of examples of terribly low standards.
Not on Tinder...
Obviously. Confidence is mostly a thermometer of your accomplishments. Faking it doesn't make accomplishments any more than painting on the thermometer warms your home.
And then go on a date with someone who may stalk or kill you. And here in Europe, the men don't even pay for dinner. I'm exaggerating, of course, but I don't see why you think the position of women is more enviable.
Remember that it's men who want 'the night'. Women, generally, want a relationship. So you're using men getting what they want as proof that they're worse off. They really are no happier for it. Don't imagine a comparison with yourself, how happy you could be if you could get many hot women as an average guy (if you are).
Those things work both ways. What's easier for a guy who is not confident, to swipe or to approach a woman in real life?
I'm not sure what you are referring to. Why can it not be that a large majority of men on Tinder don't meet the standards of most women? Besides, you're going to get the best you can get. If you can get both an 8 and a 10, you'd got for the 10. Why blame women because men don't have standards?
Gosh man, whenever I see Americans talking about this, it's as if they're from a different planet. Cause I go out and see relatively OK females with the most grotesque specimens you can imagine. It is very rare that I see a good-looking guy or even just fit guy with an ugly girl. It may be that they're all wealthy or something (though they don't look like it), but I'm not living in Beverly Hills. It's just a normal European city.
Are you assuming that I am female, or do you think my takes are so out there that I must be a homosexual? (I'm not offended, it's funny.)
I think for me, as for most, there's a few sine qua non conditions and some nice to haves. My standards are definitely higher than for most women. Basically, do you make my life better? That is rarely the case.
Yeah, I don't think confidence is readily perceptible through online interactions. For example, I'd peg you just based on how you talk as a fairly confident guy, but I assume based on the contents of your comments that you do not consider yourself confident. So how could someone even tell?
It happens to everyone. For fun, just ask a so called 'Chad' how often he has been rejected. Unless he's a braggart, you're going to hear: quite a lot. It's like a guy who has sent job applications to two companies, both of them rejected, and thinks that a guy with a great job somehow had an imperial emissary arrive and offer him the job. No, unless he was very lucky, he tried a lot and got rejected a lot.
Honestly, if I had a magic wand, I'd have women raise their standards. I have encountered truly grotesque creatures, balding, fat, unintelligent, unclever, no money, no home, no social skills, land themselves a fair 5. At least get your man to lose some weight. Have some standards, because I don't want to have to look at that.
It'd be nice if men raised their standards as well. It is exaggerated that 'any woman can get any Chad', but the fact that men have no standards causes trouble for those considered less desirable. At least in the Tinder market. Obviously, no 'Chad' is going to go out with some fat abomination, so the 'less desirable' men will have to break her fall when she turns 30.
Most such things are very rare. But it's the fear that cripples people. Regardless, just because men have so much more physical strength, it's the woman who is at a disadvantage in any situation. This is part of the reason, though by no means the only one, why women were so much more reluctant in that infamous "will you have sex with me" study.
But whose fault is it that so many men are fine with just about any woman? Shouldn't they raise their standards, if we're going to engage in such futile lecturing?
It's what works * the likelihood that you will do it. Any guy can swipe on 100 girls in a day. He's not going to hit on even 10 girls in a day, especially if he is so fragile. So it probably will work out for him, if he just keeps trying instead of sinking away in self-pity.
I mean, if you just work that out, you'll see that it makes no sense. Even if the "best of the world" - who is it, the 20%? Let's be generous. 20%. Only 20% of women can simultaneously occupy that 20%. So there's 80% available at the very least.
Men also have some preferences, but you don't complain about that because you don't fall victim to it.
Well, yeah? You make it sound like this is not already happening.
Just on balance, who is in better shape, men or women? I see far more fat men, even ignoring the fact that they do not take care of themselves. By definition, the average will be a woman who is more attractive than the man.
Or do you normally see relationships where the man is far more attractive? Almost cannot imagine it.
Now I'm very interested how you came to that conclusion.
You can make good pictures, confident or not. In fact, if you are 'confident', you may think bad pictures are good pictures...
But he has been rejected. If he really gets laid a lot, then he will also have a lot more rejections. Unless he simply waits to be approached. Or maybe he's the exception that proves the rule, who knows?
Honestly, the decline of standards is one of the most worrisome things nowadays.
I'm not blaming men for having standards. I'm blaming them for having low standards. If men did not follow that worm between their legs, this whole issue would not even arise.
No one who's insecure approaches 730 girls in a year.
I mean, 100% of men want a supermodel. But they do settle, as do women.
I think all that is quite dubious, but even if it were true, most men aren't exactly in great shape. And the fact that (you say) they can hope to get a date with the best may dissuade them from 'settling'.
I would not be surprised if this were a phenomenon, though I don't think it's as widespread as you claim. This may well be one of the reasons why marriages today do not succeed as often, since cohabitation and premarital relation are inversely correlated with marital success.
Here as well, but less fat than the men, certanly on average, almost always in relationships.
Here's why this is wrong: you consider 'league' to be just height, hair and looks. In reality, these probably matter least, except perhaps on Tinder. That is why the groteqsue beasts I mentioned earlier can get decent women.
LOL. The funny thing is that women aren't that much more in favor of abortion than men. Dating, I don't know. Most important thing for me is looks. That's not womanly at all (though you may think it is).
But here I am confused. 'Average' and 'below-average' in what respect? Looks? I don't think it's related. Confidence? I assume they would find it much easier to message a girl than to come up with good lines in real life. I suspect all of this is just a problem of their own making.
Of course more attractive people have better ratios. But you made it sound like the 'good ones' never get rejected. I bet most get rejected more often than not. The difference is that they don't let that keep them down. The others pay altogether too much importance to 'rejection'. We're not meant for this world.
No, I think that problem is the same here. Of course, it's just evolution. Your genes do not care if the one you impregnate is skinny or fat. You may prefer skinny, because she's healthier, but it's no loss to you if she's fat vs. not having a kid.
Almost all of the stuff that you complain about is perfectly explicable in terms of socio-biology, and the mismatch between our environment and the legacy of our evolution.
Onlyfans ruins an entire generation, heck even the one before. Most men don't want slags. I wouldn't wanna date one half the world has seen naked because she had to whore herself out. At this point in time i say this is all their own fault, no sympathy from me. Even if you get together with such a woman doing sexual things like naked videos and pictures is already a big no no outside of the relationship, I doubt most relationships can survive onlyfans.
Well, and that's when men get depressed, less confident and either turn a simp or don't get together with women at all. Vicious cycle, I'd hope the person who made onlyfans gets tarred, feathered and thrown out of the county but I doubt that would do much..
Why would men get depressed, less confident and turn into a simp, because they refuse to accept an OF thot as a girlfriend?
If you reject her, you're saying you're better than her. That is not lack of confidence.
The pathological whining is inconsistent with the common sense recommendations.
Don't spend money on OF thots. No kidding?