Obstinance_Works: It means you're a loser in how women define the word loser - which is the opposite of how functional civilisation defines the word loser.
Now the unemployed alcoholic badboy with charisma is how civilisation defines the loser, yet 10 women mates with him before 1 woman mates with the sensible accountant. This trash amongst men is a leader amongst women.
My theory is that women, being the mothers of life, are inbuilt by mother nature to have a population inhibitor. Civilisations naturally liberalise with age - they're born paternal and die maternal - and to stop civilisation from spreading too far and killing all the animals and trees women gain equality in late/decadent civilisation and begin undoing the culture, destroying all sense of organisation and responsibility and breeding the race into the ground - thereby halting civilisation's advance, saving the animals and trees, and returning humanity to the limited and primitive tribal existence of the eternal peasant.
That's an interesting theory. You seem like a nice guy.
I think women want relationships and connections, probably more so than men. They are in conflict however with the social pressure of improving career and being self sufficient (mostly a result of feminism) or having/giving it up to have a man.
Women naturally seek a status male but when they themselves seek those male characteristics, (their own status) internal conflict results in phrases like "i don't need a man but i want a man". That will permeate all their relationships with consistent and divisive doubt.
For most women brought up in western ideology this conflict is ingrained now and not many deal with it very well. What they end up with is a 'relative' successful career (feminism dictates that she doesn't get caught alone and unable to care for self) that just becomes 'things or stuff to her' but no man to settle her nurturing needs.
I don't think women are purposefully intent on undermining themselves or relationships; but they are somewhat unaware in the obvious cause affect nature of adopted feminist ideologies that do undermine male/female relationships.
This has also caused, in your words, so many men accepting beta (more feminine) roles which further feeds the female conflict that they must succeed in status rather than relationships.
It means she is not interested,,and probably you will not see much of her if at all in the future, had it said to me more then once,, its being called interesting is also,
Lets be friends,,, its all over when they say that, seriously i have been called a nice guy many times and yet had very few if any dates,,in fact i don't think i have had one date with a woman who has said that to me,, have also been called interesting a few times,,
To me it means "if I could gouge out my eyes with a rusty scissors so I'd never have to look at your ugly face I still wouldn't ride you but I'd gladly meet you for a coffee and humour.you about how there is a woman out there for you." Or "you'd make a great fay best friend."
Your a good friend, a nice guy, You remind me of my brother, but wait for it.......she would never be attracted to you if you were the last man on earth.
Your a pretty cool guy, hey you must workout, your place or mine
Accept it for what it is, a compliment. There are so many distasteful adjectives that could easily replace "nice", why second guess yourself into one of them?
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
Now the unemployed alcoholic badboy with charisma is how civilisation defines the loser, yet 10 women mates with him before 1 woman mates with the sensible accountant. This trash amongst men is a leader amongst women.
My theory is that women, being the mothers of life, are inbuilt by mother nature to have a population inhibitor. Civilisations naturally liberalise with age - they're born paternal and die maternal - and to stop civilisation from spreading too far and killing all the animals and trees women gain equality in late/decadent civilisation and begin undoing the culture, destroying all sense of organisation and responsibility and breeding the race into the ground - thereby halting civilisation's advance, saving the animals and trees, and returning humanity to the limited and primitive tribal existence of the eternal peasant.
That's an interesting theory. You seem like a nice guy.
I think women want relationships and connections, probably more so than men. They are in conflict however with the social pressure of improving career and being self sufficient (mostly a result of feminism) or having/giving it up to have a man.
Women naturally seek a status male but when they themselves seek those male characteristics, (their own status) internal conflict results in phrases like "i don't need a man but i want a man". That will permeate all their relationships with consistent and divisive doubt.
For most women brought up in western ideology this conflict is ingrained now and not many deal with it very well. What they end up with is a 'relative' successful career (feminism dictates that she doesn't get caught alone and unable to care for self) that just becomes 'things or stuff to her' but no man to settle her nurturing needs.
I don't think women are purposefully intent on undermining themselves or relationships; but they are somewhat unaware in the obvious cause affect nature of adopted feminist ideologies that do undermine male/female relationships.
This has also caused, in your words, so many men accepting beta (more feminine) roles which further feeds the female conflict that they must succeed in status rather than relationships.