First of all, the experts say thing. Is it untrue? As far as I know, it's just pure statistics, isn't it? Hasn't this study been reproduced?

That study dishonestly lumps divorced men in with with never married men to artificially lower the numbers for the "single" group so they can shill their marriage scam. That's before you get into the reverse causality and ignorance is bliss issues that other responses bring up. If "the experts" say something it's a dead giveaway that they're fraudulently trying to push people they hate into doing something that's against their best interest.

Also, is your goal in life purely to avoid suffering? Do you go outside? If so, why? Do you undergo any kind of painful experience such as exercise or work in oder to gain something later?

There's a huge difference between suffering for a later benefit and suffering for the sake of suffering. The former should be done if the cost/benefit analysis works out in your favor and the latter is just retarded. Marriage falls under the latter unless a man absolutely wants children, and even then he'd have to want them pretty bad for the the cost/benefit analysis works out in his favor. He'd be better off geomaxxing in that case to minimize his risk.

Regarding your view on women, exactly what do you mean by beta male? Are you a beta male, and as such are incapable of receiving the love of a woman?

I should probably use a less loaded term considering the connotations "beta" has, but I'm defining betas as the bottom 95% who have to offer prostitution style relationshits to get women instead being chosen for their looks. I also consider love to be unconditional, which is why I don't think they love bottom 95% men. A woman who throws a guy in the garbage the minute the gravy train slows down or ends never loved him to begin with. I'm not sold on the idea that women are capable of loving top 5 percenters either, but that's more complicated than their obvious exploitation of men that aren't the top of the top of the top.

First of all, the experts say thing. Is it untrue? As far as I know, it's just pure statistics, isn't it? Hasn't this study been reproduced?

That study dishonestly lumps divorced men in with with never married men to artificially lower the numbers for the "single" group so they can shill their marriage scam. That's before you get into the reverse causality and ignorance is bliss issues that other responses bring up. If "the experts" say something it's a dead giveaway that they're fraudulently trying to push people they hate into doing something that's against their best interest.

Also, is your goal in life purely to avoid suffering? Do you go outside? If so, why? Do you undergo any kind of painful experience such as exercise or work in oder to gain something later?

There's a huge difference between suffering for a later benefit and suffering for the sake of suffering. The former should be done if the cost/benefit analysis works out in your favor and the latter is just retarded. Marriage falls under the latter unless a man absolutely wants children, and even then he'd have to want them pretty bad for the the cost/benefit analysis works out in his favor. He'd be better off geomaxxing in that case to minimize his risk.

Regarding your view on women, exactly what do you mean by beta male? Are you a beta male, and as such are incapable of receiving the love of a woman?

I should probably use a less loaded term considering the connotations "beta" has, but I'm defining betas as the bottom 95% who have to offer prostitution style relationshits to get women instead being chosen for their looks. I also consider love to be unconditional, which is why I don't think they love bottom 95% men. A woman who throws a guy in the garbage the minute the gravy train slows down or ends never loved him to begin with. I'm not sold on the idea that women are capable of loving top 5 percenters either, but that's more complicated than their obvious exploitation of men aren't the top of the top of the top.

First of all, the experts say thing. Is it untrue? As far as I know, it's just pure statistics, isn't it? Hasn't this study been reproduced?

That study dishonestly lumps divorced men in with with never married men to artificially lower the numbers for the "single" group so they can shill their marriage scam. That's before you get into the reverse causality and ignorance is bliss issues that other responses bring up. If "the experts" say something it's a dead giveaway that they're fraudulently trying to push people they hate into doing something that's against their best interest.

Also, is your goal in life purely to avoid suffering? Do you go outside? If so, why? Do you undergo any kind of painful experience such as exercise or work in oder to gain something later?

There's a huge difference between suffering for a later benefit and suffering for the sake of suffering. The former should be done if the cost/benefit analysis works out in your favor and the latter is just retarded. Marriage falls under the latter unless a man absolutely wants children, and even he'd have to want them pretty bad for the the cost/benefit analysis works out in his favor. He'd be better off geomaxxing in that case to minimize his risk.

Regarding your view on women, exactly what do you mean by beta male? Are you a beta male, and as such are incapable of receiving the love of a woman?

I should probably use a less loaded term considering the connotations "beta" has, but I'm defining betas as the bottom 95% who have to offer prostitution style relationshits to get women instead being chosen for their looks. I also consider love to be unconditional, which is why I don't think they love bottom 95% men. A woman who throws a guy in the garbage the minute the gravy train slows down or ends never loved him to begin with. I'm not sold on the idea that women are capable of loving top 5 percenters either, but that's more complicated than their obvious exploitation of men aren't the top of the top of the top.

First of all, the experts say thing. Is it untrue? As far as I know, it's just pure statistics, isn't it? Hasn't this study been reproduced?

That study dishonestly lumps divorced men in with with never married men to artificially lower the numbers for the "single" group so they can shill their marriage scam. That's before you get into the reverse causality and ignorance is bliss issues that other responses bring up. If "the experts" say something it's a dead giveaway that they're fraudulently trying to push people they hate into doing something that's against their best interest.

Also, is your goal in life purely to avoid suffering? Do you go outside? If so, why? Do you undergo any kind of painful experience such as exercise or work in oder to gain something later?

There's a huge difference between suffering for a later benefit and suffering for the sake of suffering. The former should be done if the cost/benefit analysis works out in your favor and the latter is just retarded. Marriage falls under the latter unless a man absolutely wants children, and even he'd have to want them pretty bad for the the cost/benefit analysis works out in his favor. He'd be better off geomaxxing in that case to minimize his risk.

Regarding your view on women, exactly what do you mean by beta male? Are you a beta male, and as such are incapable of receiving the love of a woman?

I should probably use a less loaded term considering the connotations "beta" has, but I'm defining betas as the bottom 95% who have to offer prostitution style relationshits to get women instead being chosen for their looks. I also consider love to be unconditional, which is why I don't think they love bottom 95% men. A woman who throws a guy in the garbage the minute the gravy train ends never loved him to begin with. I'm not sold on the idea that women are capable of loving top 5 percenters either, but that's more complicated than their obvious exploitation of men aren't the top of the top of the top.