Dedicated to exposing all the women who complain about wanting a "good man", to show women's poor dating behavior and unreasonable standards while offering little to no value themselves.
- Main Forums
- What's Hot
- TRP.RED
- Tribe Forums
- TheRedPill
- Tribe Management
- Create New Tribe
- Manage My Tribes
- Find New Tribes
- Recent News
-
-
GimmeTheUsual Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
I'm purposefully avoiding someone because she's pregnant and the baby-daddy is a total loser.
I'm pretty sure the only reason she talked to me is to line up some kind of provider, which I won't do, but she knows I have resources -- so probably in her head thinks she can swing that branch if needed.
I know that once the kid pops out, her desire for a walking ATM will intensify.
OPPTRP 1y ago
i dont expect much at all lol
Justanaverageguy 1y ago
Says a lot about her standards for picking men lol
Justanaverageguy 1y ago
Let me tell y’all a story I lived through. When I was in my 20’s I knew this girl who had a kid, I always liked her but she friendzoned me hard but she wouldn’t let me walk away. If I tried she’d track me down, always. She’s always tell me about her ex baby daddy who supposedly hadn’t seen his kid in like 5 years, he was “running the streets” as she put it. Come to find out she still kept in touch with this guy and one day he popped back in her life, I know this because I had the unfortunate pleasure of meeting the guy when I was at a concert with her and she said “you’re about to meet my baby daddy hope you don’t mind”. Well ever since then they smoothed things over and he’s father of the year, she tells me we can’t be friends anymore because I cause too much drama for her and I am not a good friend (thank God she got rid of me!). So I had my freedom. Well the baby daddy doesn’t last more than a year before he’s gone again and guess who tries to come back and re-friendzone me. Yeah, you guessed it. Don’t mess around with women with kids and baby daddy’s. That was my one and only experience and I learned a hard lesson, the baby daddy can always come back with open arms no matter what he’s done or how much time has passed.
winteryknight WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
Good story. Hopefully men will learn from the story rather than having to have the experience.
lurkerhasarisen A Strategist Among Tacticians 1y ago
Dude... that's rough, but as we frequently say around here:
There's not a guy here who hasn't been put through a wringer by some woman, but another saying that seems apropos here is:
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 1y ago
My theory: Being a "nice guy gentlemen" is something women are taught to take for granted. Men are supposed to be that, at a minimum, so women needn't value it. It's like getting an empty plate or bucket: they want "something" in the bucket: Good looking, "fun", or exceptionally rich.
What the women might do if build-a-chad doesn't appear is take the stuff they want and try to "fix" the bad boy afterwards. If it's so easy for "nice guys" to be "nice", she can just train a bad boy to be nice, yes? If she squeezes out a kid with him, and this is a good thing in a way, she'll try to make it work (albeit she doesn't know how.)
So that's why they let their baby daddies back: They want to try to fix him (again) and that's better than trying to make a bad boy out of a friend.
Impressive-Cricket-8 Founding member of FapGPT 1y ago
Of course she does: her magical vagina. She needs nothing else but to spread her legs to the current bad boy to turn him into a perfect partner. What? It hasn't worked so far? That's only because they haven't done it enough times - the next session will surely convert him.
hornetsfalcons12 Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
Myron Gaines literally talked about this during a F&F live recently (I think it was put on by Valuetainment). Men prefer to be “simped” on by women because for us, it’s not something to take for granted. We actually appreciate when our woman cooks for us, does the laundry, gets us tickets to the show that we wanted to see. Women just get this by default, so there’s nothing that’s special about it. Hell, in many cases, they don’t even like it, because it’s what “nice guys” with ulterior motives have done in order to have sex with them.
It’s why being an Andrew Tate-style sigma works. Women appreciate when you treat them good conditional on them treating you good. If they’re acting apathetic and you’re burning through money and time to “win them back”, that just makes them lose respect for you. Just like a child would lose respect for their parent if they caved to every demand whenever the child threw a tantrum.
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 1y ago
Isn't this more of a "FriendZone Fiona"?
kevin32 Ambassador for NiceGuys™ 1y ago
More like Bailout in the Making. The "and maybe" suggests more than friends. She's saying "I want friends but hoping for something more if the guy is more respectful than my ex."
Justanaverageguy 1y ago
Yes but it’s also a reminder that single moms will always try to get back with the baby daddy no matter how much time has passed or what he did.
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 1y ago Stickied
Obviously, dude. My comment was about the flair.
@Kevin32 flaired this "bailout", but she doesn't mention needing provision. In fact, she even says "not looking for a baby daddy just friends".
"FriendZone Fiona" would have been the better flair.
Check out the WAATGM flair guide, most of which Kevin wrote.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
I very much doubt that her version of 'friend' would be the same as what you and I would call friends.
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 1y ago
Gee, ya think?
[deleted]
Typo-MAGAshiv asshole. giga-shitlord. worst mod EVAR. 1y ago Stickied
Dude, read the flair guide.
Mundane_Worldliness7 Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
At some point, it will be acceptable in the mainstream to openly criticize the mate choices of single women. Eventually, the survival of our society will depend on it.
GimmeTheUsual Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
God I hope to be alive when that time comes.
It would be so fucking glorious. Also telling fat bitches to check their lofty attitude would be even better.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
It would be a massive leap forward if we weren't forced to pay for the offspring of thugz / gangstaz + ghetto slutz. If we didn't have to pay for them through taxes, then I really wouldn't care what they got up to.
Mundane_Worldliness7 Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
I’m in favor of removing subsidies, I think it would actually help most people. However, there would be a lag and the women in question and their children would still cause us a ton of trouble.
NotaBene Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
Me too, and I agree, but until they do I'm gonna stay right here below the poverty level and collect free money. I have absolutely zero incentive to work harder just for them to steal it.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
they are already causing us a ton of trouble. Have you seen the streets of SFC, seattle, portland recently? The issue is that they are breeding. All pest control experts know that traps and poison are only a temporary solution - the fix for pest control is to remove the source of food. Then they stop reproducing.
Mundane_Worldliness7 Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
When the subsidies were removed, the level of trouble would (temporarily) shoot up. I’d expect Brazil levels of violence initially. So much of our trouble revolves around: 1. The poor mate choices of single women and 2. The complete inability of single black women to raise boys.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
The level of violence would be self righting - they mostly kill each other, which would reduce the drain on society.
The central problem is one which I would classify as a 'doom loop' problem, and its this - the bottom 10% of society has a much higher reproductive rate than the top 10% of society. The bottom 10% are the chronically unemployed, the criminal class and those that cannot speak the language of the country they are in, the illiterate and unskilled. they are breeding like rabbits, but the top 10% hardly have any children, or at the very least are well below replacement rates.
It should be the other way around, the top 10% should be having 10 kids each, because they can afford them. You tend to produce what you are - doctors tend to create kids that end up being doctors - (maybe a different profession, but you know what I mean) And criminals create more criminals. The media would have you believe that kids can 'turn their lives around' but these are all exceptions, not the norm. You are your surroundings. 99% of people don't escape their origins, whether good or bad.
The only solution now is to remove the 'source of food' for the pests, so that they don't outbreed the productive class. The alternative is absolute decline within 2 generations.
There are some problems which are just problems - they are self righting. But there are other problems which are 'doom loop problems', they feed on themselves and have an 'unstable equilibrium'. The issue of the 'unproductive class' having a much higher reproductive rate than the productive class is a doom loop problem.
Mundane_Worldliness7 Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
Well, I’m black, so I’d get blowback. Frankly, our whole society would initially get blowback without a drastic increase in law enforcement.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
not sure what you mean mundane? what has being black got to do with it?
fskfsk 1y ago
The bottom 10% also ALMOST ALL VOTE DEMOCRAT, which is why the Democrats are encouraging to overbreed and even import more via illegal immigration. The Democrats have been promising unlimited welfare and unlimited violent crime with no consequences. It's been a winning strategy for them.
Even if you're 100x more educated than everyone else, you still get just one vote. Unless you have Soros-level money, you have no realistic way to influence politics and steer it in a better direction.
hornetsfalcons12 Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
It’s amazing how Democrats have such control over the poles. Hyper wealthy and educated areas are democratic strongholds. So are the most dilapidated dumps. It’s been a winning strategy to essentially make a class of dependents that will always support the elite, but you have to wonder how long that’ll last. It’ll be like other banana republics, where the elite runs out of middle and upper middle class residents to extort and the dependent class will start to get agitated from less freebies.
fskfsk 1y ago
Welfare can only be supported by people who actually work for a living. But you can really stretch things thin before it breaks.
I.e., you have people working 50 hours a week and wondering why they can barely afford their mortgage or rent. That's because all their surplus labor is being extracted to support welfare, taxes, and other foolishness.
Also, the beneficiaries of welfare aren't so much the people getting benefits. You also have a an army of welfare bureaucrats who get to earn a decent middle class living even though they don't produce anything. In many cases, the welfare bureaucracy costs more than the actual welfare benefits.
The magic economics fairy doesn't pay all those DEI officers. Other people are getting less if resources are being wasted on foolishness.
GimmeTheUsual Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
If I were king for a day, I'd make it so anyone getting money from the govt gives up their right to vote on anything to do with such programs.
Or just make it simpler and say no vote at all, whichever is easier. Would make it an incentive to not use that shit.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
THat is such an excellent idea - the second version is better, where you just remove their vote. They can have benefits OR a vote, but not both. It would work on so many levels. It would stop politicians bribing voters to vote for more handouts.
The more I think about this, the more sense it makes. Excellent idea.
And if you ever did need some help, say if you needed unemployment for a while, its no real hardship to give up your vote. Ditto if you were a student and needed some income support while studying.
GimmeTheUsual Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
That's the thing - its up front. If you want to get govt largesse, well, you're going to be a sub-citizen for a while.
And frankly, it would be a good way to prevent perpetual abuse of the system in the first place, which is precisely why it will never be enacted.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
you know what gimme, I wouldn't even put any judgement on it. I dont' think we should judge people if they need welfare. You and I might be unemployed one day. I just don't think that you should be able to have the vote AND welfare at the same time, because of the very obvious conflict of interest.
Your idea is genius if you think it through, its even more genius that you orginally thought! Because most critics of your idea would say - 'this won't work, because everyone will take the welfare rather than the right to vote, because voting is just not giving me that much utility anyway, so why not take the welfare?' So you mean hardly anyone will vote? If nobody votes, then at least one person will take the vote, and they will likely be rich, and if there is only one voter, they will decide the policy themselves....which will be to reduce welfare payments. Which means that fewer people will take welfare.
The beauty of this system is that it will be self righting - welfare payments will never get too high because the people that vote will make sure that it doesn't. Its a stunningly elegant solution.
GimmeTheUsual Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
Fair, the original proposal was a bit messier than just "Get gov money? No voting for you."
And you are correct, its simply to stop the endless loop where people vote for more free money. I hope one day it actually happens.
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
I think you have addressed the central point that will cause ALL democracies to fail. Its the conflict of interest and the tragedy of the commons all rolled into one.
How would you address corporate welfare? Because the big development over the last 20 years is the ramping up of corporate welfare. Which means huge subsidies (overt and covert) for the least efficient actors (the biggest corporates).
GimmeTheUsual Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
Good point, and I don't have an immediate answer.
Perhaps something along the same lines that penalizes a corp if they suck at the govt teat, but as you know this is a highly lucrative channel so.... good luck there I guess.
whytehorse2021 Jr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
I knew a dude in Bangkok that fucked a pregnant prostitute. Weird...
Lone_Ranger Sr. Hamster Analyst 1y ago
I'm not looking for anything .......AND YOU SHALL RECEIVE IT IN ABUNDANCE!
No-Stress-Cat 1y ago
Baby daddy treated her like the ho she was, and she didn't like it. Women don't like to be treated like the hos they are. They will bow down to a man who takes authority over them though.
Justanaverageguy 1y ago
I disagree, they like it. The problem is having a kid is fucking expensive and Chadrone wasn’t helping foot the bills because they never do. So suddenly her priorities change and fun sex gets put on the back burner in favor of some extra income to help out with Chadrone Jr. If they didn’t like being treated like the low class trash they are, they wouldn’t be with those type guys in the first place. You don’t see me down at the local biker bar hitting up biker chicks do you? Ofcourse not.
No-Stress-Cat 1y ago
Excellent point.