u mad? :crackup:Boilermaker said:Some selfish fvck didn't help a woman in distress, and two kids died by drowning
She says the movie looks dumb; you suddenly agree. She tests you with a little attitude; you apologize for nothing.
You think you're being easy to get along with. She reads something else entirely: a man with no edges. Nothing to hold on to. No friction, no tension, no reason to wonder what he really thinks.
The "22 Rules" taught me to push back — playfully, calmly, without needing her approval. Strange things happened after that.
u mad? :crackup:Boilermaker said:Some selfish fvck didn't help a woman in distress, and two kids died by drowning
Most guys accidentally kill attraction before they even speak. They assume they need a bigger bank account, a better physique, or smoother lines. They miss the point.
Female desire operates on a specific set of psychological triggers. Break them, and you're invisible. Follow them, and you become magnetic.
I learned this the hard way. Years of freezing up. Getting friend-zoned. Watching other guys walk away with the girl I wanted. Then I discovered a set of 22 simple rules that rewired my entire approach.
This post right here is exactly why she made that video the OP posted. You're taking the position he's a selfish **** for not putting his life on the line to help the woman who is really the one at fault for the kids dying. This is pretty horrible of you to make the guy the bad guy by not placing blame squarely where it belongs--on the woman--and by expecting, yes EXPECTING, men to be subservient to women.Boilermaker said:Whatever happened to good old common sense? Some selfish fvck didn't help a woman in distress, and two kids died by drowning while they could have been sipping hot chocolate in a warm living room enjoying the storm, rather than drowning in it. And we are discussing how "the white American male is going down the sh!t hole" here starting from this story?
You guys need to relax. Go out with your wives. Have a glass of wine, settle down, don't be mad
Is Danger following this discussion? What's his take?
I agree that next of kin is a primary focus, however, as much as I will always advance my own love of Europe and European history, culture and bloodlines, I would help any fellow man, woman or child in distress.... we are all human....im gonna take a beta whack for that, but the instinct (however much Burroughs tries his Nietchze-istic superman ideals) is to preserve human life. This is not just through philosophy/religeous ideals, we have evolved this way.Jitterbug said:I thought you'd never bring that up. In your manly DNA, as coded by nature and evolution, you would only provide protection to women related to you by blood or women you're banging and thus carrying or caring for your children. You would never provide protection to women you're not related to, not currently banging and especially not women with children sired by a male stranger. Your natural manly masculinity would in fact urge you to spear them in the guts so your own children would have more foods to eat and less competition for resources, survival and mating when they grow up. Your nature as a man would've done a lot worse than what this man did and you are condemning him for. You (and our ancestors) did not survive and spread the genes this far by being kind & nice, I'm afraid.
The noble gesture (caring for unknown women and children) is born of civilization, not nature. And it is only heroic and chivalric if it is not a duty and not expected of men. If you're expected to sacrifice yourself for strangers, you're being treated as a slave.
You've said it a hundred times. Maybe a thousand. And every time you say it, you train your brain to freeze the next time she walks into the room.
Leagues are a myth invented by guys who are scared of women.
She's a person. She has bad breath in the morning. She picks songs she can't sing in the shower. She overthinks her own texts.
Walk over. Say something. The league dissolves the second you open your mouth.
Your way off on this one mate, the "selfless disposable man at all costs" theme is exactly the type spoonfed bullsh!t burroughs is exposing. That sh!t only flew and was valid when men actually had the rewards of the past to counter being disposable as opposed to modern day contempt. Your obviously invested with the whole "your all just puzzies" rebuttal to save face but you really should watch that youtube clip and try to think outside the box.TonyBaloney said:Now get back to knitting you bunch of big girls blouses.
And burroughs, dont ever try and advise the board about masculinity anymore.
Think you manginas are just scared of death.....better to burn out than fade away.
You've replayed it a hundred times. She stood three feet away, scrolling her phone. You had an opening. You composed the perfect line — after she was gone.
For all you know, she's married now. To some guy who said something. Anything.
Openers are cheap. Almost any sentence works when it's delivered within three seconds. The expensive part is the standing there, drafting and deleting, while the window quietly closes.
The "22 Rules" stripped out my hesitation. What to open with, how to keep it alive, and the one habit that costs guys more women than anything else: waiting for perfect.
Most guys accidentally kill attraction before they even speak. They assume they need a bigger bank account, a better physique, or smoother lines. They miss the point.
Female desire operates on a specific set of psychological triggers. Break them, and you're invisible. Follow them, and you become magnetic.
I learned this the hard way. Years of freezing up. Getting friend-zoned. Watching other guys walk away with the girl I wanted. Then I discovered a set of 22 simple rules that rewired my entire approach.
Where do you live exacly ? Are you married ?While you are on the net spewing hostility, burroughs... other men, men you like to insult, are probably in bed with women who love them, living the way humans were meant to -- with families, friends, security, and happiness. When you think about that... does your philosophy feel superior -- or empty?
i lol'edBurroughs said:Boilermaker u mad? :crackup:
You're the biggest biyach here everyone knows that
now go away and let grown folks talk.
Not for me, maybe "some guys" but I just short-term girls "who likes" me, knowing all along that I'd never marry her, I'd never have her for much longer than a year, because I already see her flaws. I just use her for sex. Now, if I meet an Old World woman, who "likes" and I can Seee knows to keep her mouth shut, knows the traditional old world placement for women as "helpers" not an inbetween helper/leader and definitely not The leader in/of my life. No, that's My job traditionally. It will Never work over the long haul, a woman leading my life, telling ME what to do. I can't have that, even if she's a 10, and the sex is top notch. Over the long haul, if she "likes me" I must see from the get-go that she's uninitiated/unstamped or imprinted with today's American societal thoughts on today's woman's role, which is to somehow lead.backbreaker said:then they will meet a girl who likes them and forgot all of it beucase she's different. it's like everyone hates congress but no one hates their congressman.
Forget the cash, the cars, and the chiseled jawlines. Female desire operates on a completely different frequency. Primal. Subconscious. Triggers that bypass her logic and hit her on a gut level. Most guys are totally blind to them.
I know because I was one of them. The overthinking. The paralysis. The silent drive home kicking yourself for freezing up. Watching average guys walk away with the girl while you stood there stuck in your own head.
Then I decoded the psychology behind what actually makes women tick. 22 hard rules. Subtle behavioral shifts that rewired my entire reality. The anxiety evaporated. Women started leaning in. Investing. Chasing.