>>42570 >Post women which aren't generically attractive.
There now follows a public service announcement from the BBC.
Watch out, Trannies about.
Speculate before you masturbate and investigate before you copulate.
>>42763 Is your reaction to it really that strong? It's just a very lopsided pair of tits, I fail to see what's upsetting about it. In Anthony Beevor's The Battle For Spain he quotes from a journalist's diary who, during the siege of Madrid, rounded a corner to see a dog eating the brains out of a soldier who'd had his skull blown off. I was eating a cheese sandwich while I read that and I had to set it aside immediately after I read that. If the OP image was something along those lines I could see your point, but the wonky boobs? Well, let me say I pray you never find yourself on the frontlines of a bitter civil war because you are not prepared for it, especially if the opposing side have risen in support of Free the Nipple.
>>42587 I've had those wonky tits blocked by using adblock for so long. I only ever see them when browsing the site on mobile now. Of course now /x/42587 is basically a guilty would thread as well.
>>42764 If only her wonky tits were the worst of it lad. She's masculine enough to look like she should be singing for Simply Red, and something about her inexplicably pulling on her pubes is really perverse and disturbing.
>>42942 See, I prefer a nice crossdresser to a trans. Drag has become passé and probably the wrong word but I'd rather fuck dominate a bloke in a crude wig and dress than the alternative. If Rome wouldn't call it homo then it's no homo.
I'd post another example but 99% of them are 40 year old blokes.
>>42943 In antiquity you would be considered more of a poof for licking a minge than fucking a man.
I prefer crossdressers to bonafide trannies as well. Gender bending is hotter when they don't cheat with drugs or surgeries and can blur the lines between gender instead of fully hopping across.
Have we been taken over by devout Catholics or something? That's two posts in a row with no apparent element of guilt. Have a look at the image in OP, then have a good long think about what you've done.
>>43126 I followed that link and a lot of the videos have titles where she sounds like she wants me to be her friend. This warms me and makes me feel very sentimental. Is this a legitimate fetish? I didn't think women ever did this sort of thing, because making videos where you pretend to be lonely are guaranteed to bring axe-wielding the-bad-kind-of-simps after you.
Obviously she doesn't actually want people turning up outside her house or whatever, but it's totally normal for people to be turned on by the idea of being someone else's wank fantasy. Most people who post a handful of amateur clips to a tube site are doing it solely because they get off on it. The parasocial internet thing of feeling a connection with a stranger cuts both ways, there's a fantasy being played out on both sides of the camera.
Young women often complain about unwanted attention from men staring and leering, but older women often feel invisible when that attention starts to fade. Nobody likes being wolf-whistled by a builder, but there's a certain sadness in feeling that you no longer attract that sort of attention. Being the random target of someone else's indiscriminate horniness is just gross and violating, but having the power to make someone else horny is a tremendous thrill. Wiggling your arse about on Xhamster is a relatively safe, anonymous way of flirting with that dichotomy.
Slight tangent, but men often get this dynamic badly wrong because of a lack of empathy and self-reflection. It's scary to see yourself through someone else's eyes.
>>43128 >men often get this dynamic badly wrong because of a lack of empathy and self-reflection.
I guess that's true, but it goes both ways. Women have no interest in how I feel either a lot of the time. I'm willing to guess from your post that you're an actual real-life woman, so please do bear this in mind. They're not going to chat me up, so I have to approach them. I rarely do, so I just get ignored. It's a miserable life apart from all the utterly fantastic wanking I successfully achieve.
That's all well and good, but if women (generally speaking) want to have it both ways, then it really also stands to reason they're going to have to take the good with the bad. Life in general is a lot like that. There's very few situations where you get to have your cake and eat it consequence free.
>Women have no interest in how I feel either a lot of the time. I'm willing to guess from your post that you're an actual real-life woman, so please do bear this in mind.
I'm not a woman, just a pervert with more brains than looks.
Women aren't bothered about the feelings of some random bloke they've never met, but then neither is anyone else. The Tinderfication of dating means that a lot of men do get ignored a lot, but women get inboxes full of dick pics and rape threats, which is hardly an improvement. Men fear being humiliated, but women fear being murdered.
I don't want to turn this into /emo/ or a Guardian thinkpiece, but women don't owe you sex. An ugly woman will only ever be an ugly woman, but an ugly man can be charismatic or funny or rich. Women spend an inordinate amount of time and money on making themselves look beautiful; if you spend half as much effort learning how to make women feel validated, you'll be fighting them off with a stick.
Ehh, I'd object on the principle that this verges onto cynical PUA manipulation tactics almost really, if you follow it to the logical extreme. But at the same time you're not entirely wrong. It's just that you're making crass generalisations and invoking truisms from the other side of the fence than they are usually seen.
What you are espousing is essentially a very up to date version of the Nice Guy thing fisherfolk used to complain endlessly about; you know, in the before times before we'd invented chronic masturbators and nobody had even heard of tumblr yet. The pendulum swings ever back and forth.
Ugly women can be charismatic and rich, and besides that, men are exceedingly more likely to lower their standards for an ugly bird than the other way around. Women have more to offer than their beauty, there's more to getting in their pants than giving them narcissistic supply, and you haven't cracked the key to success with women until you learn to genuinely respect them as other individual human beings with exactly the same potential for flaws and failings as men.
>>43132 >Women have more to offer than their beauty, there's more to getting in their pants than giving them narcissistic supply, and you haven't cracked the key to success with women until you learn to genuinely respect them as other individual human beings with exactly the same potential for flaws and failings as men.
This statement is a lie.
>>43132 The reason Nice Guy is a thing is because they aren't actually nice, slowlad. They are nice up to a point, and then when they don't get what they want the mask slips and they become just another abuser or harasser. Women are wary of self-professed Nice Guys because they have seen it all before.
A woman saying "I didn't find him attractive at first, but he really made me laugh" is common enough to be cliche. I have literally never heard the gender-swapped equivalent. A woman being won over by a man's charm is profoundly different from a man settling for a woman he doesn't really fancy out of desperation.
>and you haven't cracked the key to success with women until you learn to genuinely respect them as other individual human beings with exactly the same potential for flaws and failings as men
I don't particularly respect anyone, male or female. We're all just bald apes, helplessly clinging to a dirty rock that's spinning through the infinite void of space. We're all narcissistic and needy and hopelessly deluded. My outward personality has all the authenticity of a push-up bra, but so does everyone else's. If you actually said exactly what you were thinking and feeling, you'd get punched in the mouth several times a day. We're all presenting a version of ourselves that we think is socially acceptable; I just choose to cultivate a version of myself that's informed by the emotional needs and desires of women.
You can call it manipulative if you like, but I don't see it that way. Nice guys fail because their game is obvious, which goes back to my original point of "men often get this dynamic badly wrong because of a lack of empathy and self-reflection". They aren't actually offering anything of value and their "niceness" doesn't make anyone feel better about themselves, just slightly grossed out.
My outward persona is self-possessed and slightly aloof, which is fundamentally genuine; I'm perfectly content with my own company and I don't place much value on the opinions of other people. I am entirely comfortable sitting alone and in silence on the periphery of things. Some people perceive that as arrogant or misanthropic, which doesn't really bother me because it isn't really untrue.
When I ask people how they are, they usually take it as a genuine question and give a genuine answer, because it's obvious that I'm not particularly inclined to make small talk. I generally exude the aura of a man who just wants to be left alone, so my time and attention counts for something. If I give you a compliment, it's clearly about you.
Sure, I might want to fuck you, but that's all I want. I'm not looking for validation, I'm not trying to prove my worth as a man, I'm not looking for a woman to fix me. If you don't want to fuck me, I'm not going to take it as an insult against my masculinity or as proof that I'm the pathetic worm that I always knew I was. That's what's really repellent about chronic masturbators - the self-pity.
Yeah, so what you're saying is you're a "Nice Guy" except you think you're better at it than the others. Beyond that you just sound very enlightened, and are doing a lot of projection. I can't be bothered detailing the myriad ways in which your worldview is inaccurate, because you'll probably grow out if it in your own, with any luck.
Make no mistake I'm pretty much a complete misanthrope myself, so it's not like I think humans are all amazing pure souls full of joy and wonder, but nevertheless your assessment of people being as shallow as you seem to believe is mistaken, presumably because you just haven't met enough of them or actually bothered to really and truly begin to understand any of them.
>>43138 I don't know; I'm on his side really. He never said he was Nice; in fact, he said almost the exact opposite. And I didn't get the impression from his post that he has any sadness in his own life regarding romance, and he honestly came across like he treats women as humans and doesn't hate them, which puts him above at least a couple of our regular posters. His advice, really, is to stop trying so hard because desperation is not sexy. It's absolutely true that when I was younger, two of the tiny handful of women I thought fancied me were the best friends of women I was madly and obsessively in love with. I never understood why that happened, but it's an unmistakable trend in my life.
Your advice is that I should make women feel validated. The consensus among my female friends is that I am pretty capable of this, but it doesn't really benefit me romantically due to other problems. I am, arguably, one of those Nice Guys: when I meet a woman, I respect her too much to put her in the awkward position of having to reject me. I would never be so selfish. I recognise that she isn't interested and I don't push it. Of course, this means I come across as borderline asexual when I'm not coming across as a desperately sobbing charity case. So it's not their fault they don't offer themselves up to me. If you want me to take an interest in women as people, I can assure you that I do, as friends, and it doesn't really solve my problems. The other poster's advice is to just not be lonely and pathetic any more, which isn't necessarily the fix I'm after, but it's undeniably more accurate and better advice.
At least, it is for me. Part of the trouble with these things is that we've all struggled in one way or another, and people love to say what helped them, even though it's no help at all for someone else. So, just like I do with women, I will fully respect your decision if you choose to ignore my points.
You say that I think people are "shallow"; I say that people all have a basic set of Maslowian needs that are easy to identify and fulfil if you aren't preoccupied with your own needs. You say that I'm a manipulative nice guy; I say that you should make a conscious effort to sort yourself out and be the kind of person who can give unconditionally because you don't need anything in return, or at least the kind of person who understands their needs well enough to be candid about them.
Most of the apparent complexity and difficulty of relationships is just the fact that we don't engage honestly, because we invest far more effort in shielding our vulnerabilities than actually addressing them. We're playing poker when we could be playing snap, not just because we're too scared to let anyone see our cards but because we're too scared to even look at our own cards. Sincerely figuring yourself out isn't very difficult in a purely practical sense, but it's incredibly painful and the prospect is sufficiently frightening that most people would rather do anything else and will believe anything that allows them to avoid it.
I'd like to dig deeper, but there's not really a great deal I can add if you aren't inclined to actually say why you think I'm wrong.
>I am, arguably, one of those Nice Guys: when I meet a woman, I respect her too much to put her in the awkward position of having to reject me. I would never be so selfish. I recognise that she isn't interested and I don't push it.
I don't think you're being honest with that assessment. It's not that you respect her too much, because you're still half-trying to get into her knickers. You call it respect, but it's really just a defence mechanism against shame. If you actually respected her and respected yourself, you'd be willing to say "I fancy you, but if you don't fancy me then we're still cool" and she'd believe you. You aren't putting her in a position where she doesn't have to reject you, you're putting yourself in a position where you don't have to suffer rejection.
You don't want to make a move and you don't want to move on, because the limbo of not knowing is more comfortable; you aren't actually fulfilled by it, but at least you have the comfort of being able to imagine what could be. When you interact with her, the thoughts that preoccupy you aren't thoughts about her, they're thoughts about yourself. She isn't really involved, she's just a prop in your own psychodrama and on some level she's fully aware of it. If she thought that you were only interested in her for sex, that would actually be an improvement, because there's at least a possibility that she would be excited by that. You want to fuck her, but only as a means to an end - it's not the sex you really want, it's the validation.
>The other poster's advice is to just not be lonely and pathetic any more, which isn't necessarily the fix I'm after, but it's undeniably more accurate and better advice.
If you're going to be lonely, then you can at least not be pathetic about it. Loneliness is self-perpetuating, mostly because we're so scared of anyone finding out that we're lonely. We do silly and self-defeating things because of the shame, because we don't even want to admit to ourselves that we're lonely. If you can start admitting to yourself and others that you feel lonely, it gradually becomes less shameful and moves towards being a value-neutral need like hunger or thirst or fatigue.
Once that shame has started to dissipate, you can start to examine what you're feeling without being blinded by the intensity of it. You can start to see that "lonely" is bundled up with a bunch of other negative emotions, mainly clustered around a sense of inferiority and inadequacy. "Loneliness" is a pull towards others, but it is just as often a push away from having to spend time with your own thoughts. The fear of rejection isn't really the fear of hearing the word "no", it's the fear of having your negative self-beliefs confirmed by someone else. That is, of course, completely irrational - "I don't fancy you" doesn't in any way imply "you are a worthless toad who no-one could ever want" - but it's hard to see the difference when you're consumed by shame.
The approval of others can temporarily assuage those feelings, but it's a temporary and fickle salve. It's no substitute for the sustained and concentrated work of self-forgiveness, self-compassion and self-acceptance. Sitting with your negative thoughts and beliefs and observing them without judgement is painful, but it's the good kind of pain that comes after a long run, it's the kind of pain that is a stimulus for growth. Pushing those thoughts away is temporarily more comfortable, but it only gives them an undeserved power.
Remind me to never say "I don't want to turn this into /emo/", because it's a jinx.
Well, if you put it like that it sounds better, but the way you described your thoughts in the other post or two sounded a lot more cynical.
Overall my perspective is that when anyone starts spouting out advice about "what women want" (or the reverse, for that matter) it's usually based on a few very reductive stereotypes that reflect their own limited experience with a certain kind of woman (or man) that they have repeatedly been attracted to. In reality everyone really is different, they grew up in different circumstances, experienced different things, went through different ordeals- They may share a lot of similarities but if you take a one size fits all approach you are doomed to failure.
When it comes to the talk of "respecting women", what has me rolling my eyes is how many lads always assume that means being gentlemanly and chivalrous, in a way that I'm sure a lot of modern birds probably find patronising and instinctively off-putting. Of course some of them probably love it too, again, no good stereotyping, but the point is you have to approach how they like to be treated from a neutral stance and figure it out on a case by case basis. When I say "respect", I merely mean treating them with the acknowledgement that they are a sentient individual with their own internal life (there's a fancy word for that right? I can't think of it), not just an NPC you have to play the persuasion mini-game or bribe with enough gold to figure out. Don't be overly charitable with them just because they've got a vagina, because you are only deceiving yourself in the end that they're any less capable of being a horrible cunt than you are.
In other words don't be a simp. It's a horrible 4channer chronic-adjacent word, but it describes the way a lot of lads treat lasses very well. I think it's just as bad being a simp as it is being a raging PUA misogynist whatever. Two sides of the same coin if you ask me, except one of them likes to pretend it has the moral high ground.
>>43142 When we all bravely admitted that we would anyway, with any of these women, and we wouldn't feel guilty at any point if only they would speak to me.
>>43141 In psychology, the acknowledgement that other people have their own thoughts just like you do is called the theory of mind.
I don't think we're necessarily miles apart, but my perspective is that a certain level of sangfroid detachment is a prerequisite for not being a simp or a PUA. "Nice guys" aren't actually trying to be nice, they're trying to be perceived as nice. PUAs are less interested in women than they are in proving themselves to other men.
When we fail to engage with people as they really are, it's almost always because we're preoccupied with our own insecurities and neuroses; it's not that we blindly overlook people for who they are, but that we're actively engaged in a process of using them as a mirror in which to see the version of ourselves we'd like to see. It's not that we're trying to impress or manipulate someone, but that we're using them as a means of telling our own story. We don't really want to be with them, we want to be the kind of person who can win them. Seeing the other is inseparable from letting go of the self; learning to tell stories in which you are the main character and I play the supporting role.
Guilt is knowing that you've done wrong; shame is the fear of what other people might think. Admitting guilt is an antidote to shame. In that light, I offer this digital image of Liz Truss's vacant eyes and enticing gob. Fancying her makes me feel a bit like a nonce, which is a frankly terrifying indictment of someone who will almost certainly be our next prime minister.
