What "no one is entitled to anything" really implies.

Share your experiences with the opposite sex. Suggest ways to improve your success. Analyze the behavior of females in real life and online. Rant and rave about females. Show the importance of looks pertaining to attracting females and other social situations. Discuss aesthetics and the science of attractiveness. Exchange health, nutrition and looksmaxing tips.

When you have a girl who is rich, spoiled, beautiful, and then an ugly guy complains about being rejected she replies with "NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO SHIT, STOP THINKING THAT IT'S RIGHT THAT YOU GET WHAT YOU WANT JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT IT". ... fucking lol.
That's easy for someone who has been given a lot to say, even though in their private moments of existence THEY probably want to be entitled. And they can probably do it because if they are have it all stacies, they can get what they want.
Basically it's a stance used to let the powerful get away with entitlement, low key. And to let the weak not have the same permissions they grant themselves, because they feel they're inferior and have lesser resources.



you are not entitled/allowed to do/have x do you understand that

You are not entitled to anything, only Chad is.
"The world is just fine the way it is. You're the problem. Not us."

Women will get offended if a sub-8 male thinks he is entitled to casual sex.

If a sub-8 male says "wanna bang" women will get mad.

Having casual sex from a sub-8 male is degrading to women because women will feel that no sub-8 male is willing to be in a serious relationship with them.

Sub-8 males could only ask women to date, not to have casual sex, or else women could get offended.

That's why sexual harsassment is viewed by feminists as male privilege. They do not want sub-8 males to feel that they have the privilege of casual sex.

That is why women get mad only when a sub-8 male calls a woman a slut. When Chad calls a woman a slut, it is not perceived as negatively, if at all. Chads are assumed to be nonjudgmental and they are assumed to be "in the know" that all women are sluts anyway and that slutting it up with Chads is just a phase that women go through when they are single between boyfriends.

Image

If a sub-8 male calls a woman a slut it would be within the definition of "sexual harassment" and women will get offended.



Dissection time.

Women will get offended if a sub-8 male thinks he is entitled to casual sex.

If a sub-8 male says "wanna bang" women will get mad.

Having casual sex from a sub-8 male is degrading to women because women will feel that no sub-8 male is willing to be in a serious relationship with them.
It's degrading because of an implication many of them will not fully understand, but most will feel. That because a sub 8 guy wants to fuck, and not to really invest then it seems like she's not worth his 100%. Women want to feel that men are willing to betaknight for her. That's the thing. The very fact women love to see cucks for her implies that they want a hierarchy of mankind, and do not see people as equal. Because they only feel pleased when they are a higher life form amongst lower thirsty lifeforms.

Sub-8 males could only ask women to date, not to have casual sex, or else women could get offended.
Yes because they want men to feel like they're getting the time of their life. They want men to feel like they are the ones who are willing to go over their 100% investment to keep the girl, where the girl only gives 100% if he's lucky. Where the guy is the qualifier, and the girl is the callously catered one. Women all want to be the callously catered one, and then get the guy who has the most distinct value. The female bio-programmed desire is extremely narcissistic.

That's why I laugh when women are so DESPERATELY desiring of luxuriance, and it's try hard. yet they pose themselves as if they get it frequently. A lot of guys aren't willing to go over 100% for her investment, so why in the fuck should she feel she's above and desired amongst so many people? Why should she act privileged to selection when they don't even have a big choosing-pool? Have as choosy of a character as elite as what would benefit you. If you need society to have humility to tolerate you, then have it. If you have society's elite criticism take favor in you then be elite.

That's why sexual harsassment is viewed by feminists as male privilege. They do not want sub-8 males to feel that they have the privilege of casual sex.
Casual sex isn't sexual harassment. But yes they don't want who they feel as undeserving from their primal sense of judgment to have anything of value in their life.

That is why women get mad only when a sub-8 male calls a woman a slut. Chads are assumed to be nonjudgmental and are they are assumed to be "in the know" that all women are sluts anyway and that slutting it up with Chads is just a phase that women go through when they are single between boyfriends.
Yes, there is a halo effect assumed by chads who they predict have been top dog and thus get the right contexts in what they call. Something absurd from an incel can be charming and amusing to a girl if he's chad. Though it could be just their hypergamic primal neurocircuitry rewiring itself to gain the most power. Hypergamic judgment-adaption, HJA, is something making halo effect the most vital thing in all attraction. Makes us all entirely materialistic. Nothing is set in a girl above hypergamy, power hungry genetic harvesting, and self elevation on all hierarchies the primality/ selfish nature of mankind prioritizes.

Eugeniker wrote:
3D Face Analysis wrote:That is why women get mad only when a sub-8 male calls a woman a slut. When Chad calls a woman a slut, it is not perceived as negatively, if at all. Chads are assumed to be nonjudgmental and they are assumed to be "in the know" that all women are sluts anyway and that slutting it up with Chads is just a phase that women go through when they are single between boyfriends.

Image


Yes, there is a halo effect assumed by chads who they predict have been top dog and thus get the right contexts in what they call. Something absurd from an incel can be charming and amusing to a girl if he's chad.


Image

Eugeniker wrote:
Sub-8 males could only ask women to date, not to have casual sex, or else women could get offended.
Yes because they want men to feel like they're getting the time of their life. They want men to feel like they are the ones who are willing to go over their 100% investment to keep the girl, where the girl only gives 100% if he's lucky. Where the guy is the qualifier, and the girl is the callously catered one. Women all want to be the callously catered one, and then get the guy who has the most distinct value. The female bio-programmed desire is extremely narcissistic.

That's why I laugh when women are so DESPERATELY desiring of luxuriance, and it's try hard. yet they pose themselves as if they get it frequently. A lot of guys aren't willing to go over 100% for her investment, so why in the fuck should she feel she's above and desired amongst so many people? Why should she act privileged to selection when they don't even have a big choosing-pool? Have as choosy of a character as elite as what would benefit you. If you need society to have humility to tolerate you, then have it. If you have society's elite criticism take favor in you then be elite.


In other words, women don't want to be thought as "cheap."



If a woman has no-strings-attached sex with a sub-8 male, she's "cheap", she's "easy", she's a "slut", she has "low self-worth", etc.

But if a woman has no-strings attached sex with an 8+ male, she's not any of the above.

On social media, there are actually posts stating that women are not sluts if they have no-strings-attached sex with 8+ men; they are only sluts if they have no-strings-attached sex with betas or incels.

It is like economics. If she could give out free sex to anyone, then her value decreases. If she only gives out free sex to just the top few men, her value does not decease that much.

Same thing with the revenge porn hysteria. In 2014, some actresses were upset that their nudes were leaked. Even though in the movies they were in, they were seen naked. The actresses want people to pay for their nudes. If their nudes were available for free, their value goes down and are seen as cheap.

The word "slut" has now came to mean "cheap" or "easy".

Women have changed the meaning of the word to suit their needs...

It's why average women send nudes to my 8/10 Chad sock accounts but not beta 5/10 average joe's. They get highly offended when average joe asks, even though these women are average themselves. The thirst and sheer numbers of males makes a slim average female believe she is actress-tier in rank.

They don't want low value man masturbating over them. Its the same with actresses. Its the same with underage teenage girls and the insane cp laws. They are "victimized over and over again" when some low value males look at their nudes. It disgusts them that some 50yo, 2/10 hillbilly neckbeard retard is wanking over them. ITS ALL ABOUT THE EGO of these girls/women BEING DENTED. They are limiting their main resource - sex (and all they can give in terms of value) only to the elite tier males.
Image

It's why average women send nudes to my 8/10 Chad sock accounts but not beta 5/10 average joe's. They get highly offended when average joe asks, even though these women are average themselves.
Indeed makes no sense for them to criticize their own team. Shows that they think wome nare netitled ot more because htey think they're getting reparations for being tyrannized by men over hte centuries.

The thirst and sheer numbers of males makes a slim average female believe she is actress-tier in rank.
Sort of.

They don't want low value man masturbating over them. Its the same with actresses. Its the same with underage teenage girls and the insane cp laws. They are "victimized over and over again" when some low value males look at their nudes. It disgusts them that some 50yo, 2/10 hillbilly neckbeard retard is wanking over them. ITS ALL ABOUT THE EGO of these girls/women BEING DENTED. They are limiting their main resource - sex (and all they can give in terms of value) only to the elite tier males.
People only make friendships for ego. Hoping to get the person of your heart and soul is an illusion from egotistical tunnelvisioning. In reality, the thing we seek puts so many people in the incel issue. Because people only feel whole/ happy with people who fulfills their ego.

But this whole thing about how people only want what their ego is enjoyed with CASCADES into disselection/ no one getting any love/ love coming at a price.
Humanity chooses to be egotistical/ snooty in their selections at the expense of society being communal. It's the whole point of why PSL exists. People want takeaways, and they don't want communality/ a higher sense of spiritual connectivity in life.
People don't want to bridge their mind to people's hearts. People do not really mind the state of how things affect people spiritually. They mind the logistics that separate people from power.

Any foolish notions that as a child, you wanted love, needed the wakeup call.

On social media, there are actually posts stating that women are not sluts if they have no-strings-attached sex with 8+ men; they are only sluts if they have no-strings-attached sex with betas or incels.
When it's in reality the opposite. Because out of all the possible people she oculd choose from, and how rare 8+ is, then it is only natural she gravitated/ acclimated to the chad for his looks. For anyone with a good set of personalities is common, and chad typically wanna fuck women by the dozen. But if a girl is monogamously pursuing the chad, then it's definitely because of his looks. It's the only defining thing about him in terms of rarity. It shows that she went out of her way for superficial substances.
Yes, the fact that it's rare also is how it is.
Slut is used to describe shallow female character, or low standards and high sex giveaway.

It is like economics. If she could give out free sex to anyone, then her value decreases. If she only gives out free sex to just the top few men, her value does not decease that much.
increase the quality without disspitating the value the saying goes.

Same thing with the revenge porn hysteria. In 2014, some actresses were upset that their nudes were leaked. Even though in the movies they were in, they were seen naked. The actresses want people to pay for their nudes. If their nudes were available for free, their value goes down and are seen as cheap.
lol

Women have changed the meaning of the word to suit their needs...
Needsuiting the meaning of things is all people do. Words mean nothing. They are allusions to the truth, or just go-tos that are used to fill in the context they are meant/ wanting to use so that if fulfills an agenda.

we should apply total social darwinism then,no one is entitled to anything except for the ruling elites
__________________
Life is a whore, just pay your dues and fuck her hard

Iced Earth wrote:we should apply total social darwinism then,no one is entitled to anything except for the ruling elites
And they're not getting it because they're entitled. But because they simply can.
Social darwinism gives for the sake of recognizing certain people can take better than you can, and so you let the natural world take its course.
The jewish perversions of this really are inspiring sometimes. I used to be a social darwinist. but when I realized my own narcissism would never let me want another to rule over me, say if I got older, then I'll just be something else.

Mewtant wrote:They don't want low value man masturbating over them. Its the same with actresses. Its the same with underage teenage girls and the insane cp laws. They are "victimized over and over again" when some low value males look at their nudes. It disgusts them that some 50yo, 2/10 hillbilly neckbeard retard is wanking over them. ITS ALL ABOUT THE EGO of these girls/women BEING DENTED. They are limiting their main resource - sex (and all they can give in terms of value) only to the elite tier males.


Eugeniker wrote:
It is like economics. If she could give out free sex to anyone, then her value decreases. If she only gives out free sex to just the top few men, her value does not decease that much.
increase the quality without disspitating the value the saying goes.


A lot of women think it's "disrespectful" if a man thinks that they could have no-strings-attached (NSA) sex with a woman. For example:

Marie wrote:NSA:

Usually men want this and it means

"hey I don't want to be your man, I don't want to take you out on dates, or try to win you over…. No no no I just want to use you like a fuck toy and bang you whenever I'm feeling horny just as long as it takes to find a real girl that I actually like and want to date. But you'll do for now because I know that you're easy and you don't respect yourself and you're a fun hookup. "

I mean of course they don't say that but that's what they are feeling.

They don't care about you and sex is just sex to them. It's completely meaningless and will leave a women feeling crazy afterwards.

I mean…. unless you're okay with having meaningless sex.

Anyone man wants a NSA relationship is a scumbag and you shouldn't want them inside your body anyway. I mean think about how intimate that is. You really want to give it away to someone that doesn't even have the respect to win your love?

https://w ww.quora. com/What-does-it-mean-when-someone-says-no-strings-attached/answer/Marie-473


Women think that it's the man's job to "win a woman over" by taking her out on dates (dates are essentially beta providing)... otherwise he's an entitled disrespectful scumbag and he views her to be "easy" and have "no self-respect".

Not willing to provide for women = he's an entitled scumbag = bad personality.

Red pill: Your personality is judged by your willingness to beta provide.

Take a look at this:

Image

A lot of MGTOWers are fooled by this quote by her. MGTOWers are relieved and say "oh, this proves that not all women are shit." (See this link: reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/93kst9/proof_all_women_arent_shit_s/)

But she is half-lying.

This is because "treating me well", to her, actually means "taking me out on dates". To take her out on dates, you NEED to spend your money and time on her, which is essentially beta providing.

She requires you to "treat her well" by driving her around in your car, taking her for trips, taking her to restaurants, and paying for her food.

She defends that it is not about money. Anyone, no matter how rich or poor (barring extreme poverty) are able to afford her for food. "If you are think you are too poor to pay her, then just go to a cheaper restaurant," she says. "Do not use lack of money as an excuse not to pay. Anyone who cares about me enough will be able to pay."

It's an obfuscated way for her to deny that spending his time and money does not matter to her.

Again, your personality is judged by your willingness to beta provide.

Not willing to provide for women = bad personality = he's not "treating me well"

Having casual sex = not willing to take me on dates = not willing to provide for me = he views me as "easy" = he is a disrespectful scumbag

Women DO want sub8 men to beta provide for them. Women like obfuscate this fact by twisting her own words. Women will even shift the blame onto men by calling these men "disrespectful scumbags" if these men think they could have casual sex with women without providing for women, all to cover the fact that women DO want sub8 men to beta provide.

3D Face Analysis wrote:
Mewtant wrote:They don't want low value man masturbating over them. Its the same with actresses. Its the same with underage teenage girls and the insane cp laws. They are "victimized over and over again" when some low value males look at their nudes. It disgusts them that some 50yo, 2/10 hillbilly neckbeard retard is wanking over them. ITS ALL ABOUT THE EGO of these girls/women BEING DENTED. They are limiting their main resource - sex (and all they can give in terms of value) only to the elite tier males.


Eugeniker wrote:increase the quality without disspitating the value the saying goes.


A lot of women think it's "disrespectful" if a man thinks that they could have no-strings-attached (NSA) sex with a woman. For example:

Marie wrote:NSA:

Usually men want this and it means

"hey I don't want to be your man, I don't want to take you out on dates, or try to win you over…. No no no I just want to use you like a fuck toy and bang you whenever I'm feeling horny just as long as it takes to find a real girl that I actually like and want to date. But you'll do for now because I know that you're easy and you don't respect yourself and you're a fun hookup. "

I mean of course they don't say that but that's what they are feeling.

They don't care about you and sex is just sex to them. It's completely meaningless and will leave a women feeling crazy afterwards.

I mean…. unless you're okay with having meaningless sex.

Anyone man wants a NSA relationship is a scumbag and you shouldn't want them inside your body anyway. I mean think about how intimate that is. You really want to give it away to someone that doesn't even have the respect to win your love?

https://w ww.quora. com/What-does-it-mean-when-someone-says-no-strings-attached/answer/Marie-473


Women think that it's the man's job to "win a woman over" by taking her out on dates (dates are essentially beta providing)... otherwise he's an entitled disrespectful scumbag and he views her to be "easy" and have "no self-respect".

Not willing to provide for women = he's an entitled scumbag = bad personality.

Red pill: Your personality is judged by your willingness to beta provide.

Take a look at this:

Image

A lot of MGTOWers are fooled by this quote by her. MGTOWers are relieved and say "oh, this proves that not all women are shit." (See this link: reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/93kst9/proof_all_women_arent_shit_s/)

But she is half-lying.

Women DO want sub8 men to beta provide for them. Women like obfuscate this fact by twisting her own words. Women will even shift the blame onto men by calling these men "disrespectful scumbags" if these men think they could have casual sex with women without providing for women, all to cover the fact that women DO want sub8 men to beta provide.
Women create an entire litany/ system of narrative on behalf of htem that are pure half truths. That by WORDS indicate their behavior, but the words must converge with them having an underlying context which can't really contrast their dark/ depraved/ sneaky slut behavior.
They do this so that they're not technically lying, and they don't ahve to remember anyhting with half truths.

Eugeniker wrote:
On social media, there are actually posts stating that women are not sluts if they have no-strings-attached sex with 8+ men; they are only sluts if they have no-strings-attached sex with betas or incels.
When it's in reality the opposite. Because out of all the possible people she oculd choose from, and how rare 8+ is, then it is only natural she gravitated/ acclimated to the chad for his looks. For anyone with a good set of personalities is common, and chad typically wanna fuck women by the dozen. But if a girl is monogamously pursuing the chad, then it's definitely because of his looks. It's the only defining thing about him in terms of rarity. It shows that she went out of her way for superficial substances.
Yes, the fact that it's rare also is how it is.
Slut is used to describe shallow female character, or low standards and high sex giveaway.

It is like economics. If she could give out free sex to anyone, then her value decreases. If she only gives out free sex to just the top few men, her value does not decease that much.
increase the quality without disspitating the value the saying goes.

Same thing with the revenge porn hysteria. In 2014, some actresses were upset that their nudes were leaked. Even though in the movies they were in, they were seen naked. The actresses want people to pay for their nudes. If their nudes were available for free, their value goes down and are seen as cheap.
lol


I encountered a really great example of a woman feeling traumatized because her ex-boyfriend wanted casual sex from her:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSzQMY7xCr0

The story: On YouTube there was a video of a former couple explaining why they broke up from a six-year relationship. In the last year they opened up their relationship, they are not in an "official relationship" anymore, the woman was hooking up with other people. One day when they were chatting on Skype, the man said something which made the woman felt "slut-shamed" by him, and she felt judged and angry and she ended up hooking up with one of his friends as revenge. The man felt upset that she hooked up with one of his friends. They then had a heated argument and finally ended all physical contact from each other.

At 6:00 in the video, they were discussing a Skype conversation they had after they opened up their relationship.

Woman wrote:It really fucked the way I saw myself sexually because it really felt that you didn't really want to date me you just wanna hook up with me and so then it made me feel that's all I was good for was that, you know. It really messed me up, it really messed me up how I dated after...and just so done by the person that was so unconditionally in love for four years prior like really messed me up and it really had a lasting effect on me and I still am.

Man wrote:I'm sorry.

Woman wrote:Well, I paid you back. [By hooking up with one of his friends.]


Presumably he said something on Skype that he wanted casual sex from her, and that made her feel like a "slut" (in the sense of primitive and low moral character).

None of the comments in that video referred to the conversation. In fact, the commenters are confused whether they were in a relationship or after they broke up when she hooked up with his friend. Some comments call the man as an "asshole" and that was the reason they broke up. But in reality, the only time she mentioned that he was an "asshole" during the last year, AFTER they opened up their relationship (they are not in an "official relationship" anymore)! He is an "asshole" because she thought he only wanted casual sex from her, AFTER they opened up their relationship! This made the woman feel "ashamed". Sub-8 men should "date" and beta provide for women even if the woman is hooking up with other men, or women will be "offended", "ashamed", and "judged", etc.

But if a Chad said he wanted casual sex from her, she might react differently, because she knows that Chads are "non-judgmental" of sluts. That's why she said:

Woman wrote:It really fucked the way I saw myself sexually because it really felt that you didn't really want to date me you just wanna hook up with me and so then it made me feel that's all I was good for was that, you know. It really messed me up, it really messed me up how I dated after...and just so done by the person that was so unconditionally in love for four years prior like really messed me up and it really had a lasting effect on me and I still am.

If women in general don’t need sub 7/ sub 8 men – that proves they never needed us before. Men were only good for resources and passing on their genetics. Would this not prove most women are whores?

I would also like to add – a woman's only leverage over a man is when he loves her and becomes her lapdog slave. Outside of this your leverage is welfare, the court system, student loans, credit cards, and corporate wage slavery with an egalitarian aspect.

All of these systems are from artificial central planning and fiat money. Artificial. None are found in nature. None are found in true libertarian free market or wild west capitalism. The West exploits labor from other nations with a system too complex for you to understand. America is the only place where an economically useless person can mortgage a small house for $700,000, get a luxery car loan, student loans, credit cards, welfare – and someone else has to pay. Either here or overseas – nothing is free. Nothing.

Without the fiat money system and the temporary Western Zionist alliance forcing up this house of cards at the point of a gun- none of this would exist. You would not have the option not to need a man.

It’s simply against the laws of nature for an unemployed women, aged 35, with one kid from a Chad, to live in $700,000 house and drive a Range Rover, while she gorges herself on Starbucks and Tinder swipes – paying for everything with borrowed money.

If you knew anything about history you’d know what goes around comes around and this cannot last.

Natures laws will eventually return.

high iq thread
Image

i'm an 18 year old virgin i cant breath chew or sleep i have constant head aches i'm bullied by my family i'm ugly as fuck and everybody would be happier if i ate a bullet

Niggerjoshua, your "suck dick first, ask questions later" mentality is really showing.

The laws of nature always return within the nakedness of mankind's influence.
Image

Image

“I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”
― Charles Darwin

"A prevention of the faculty and opportunity to procreate on the part of the physically degenerate and mentally sick, over the period of only six hundred years, would not only free humanity from an immeasurable misfortune, but would lead to a recovery which today seems scarcely conceivable."
― Adolf Hitler

"The way of nature has always been to slay the hindmost, and there is still no other way, unless we can prevent those who would become the hindmost being born. It is in the sterilization of failures, and not in the selection of successes for breeding, that the possibility of an improvement of the human stock lies."
― H. G. Wells

"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind....Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
― U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Buck v. Bell, 1927

mashallah niggejoshua
lets share 144 virgin pussy with each other and by that i mean double penetrating each one of them
my dick wont get sore because i will be in heaven

Return to Shitty Advice

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 93 guests