Tyler Robinson

Yea I guess. It's a relief that all men don't think like Tate. In fact all the guys I dated don't think like him. And thank God he is banned, we don't need his voice.

But he is not just dating what he wants. Would have been completely fine if the issue remained to just that. He encourages young men to follow his dating patterns by spreading his ideology on dating. He is imposing his dating choices on all men making them believe that his dating choices should be universal. That's where the real problem is. It's a disadvantage to a lot of women who don't fit those standards and therefore unfair.

But you're supporting the stances of Andrew Tate.

@Devin you carefully want to pick and choose what's desirable for men yet not what's desirable for women. So you want women to be providers but if a woman who is not young enough wants to date, you don't want her to be considered attractive. So I see everything has to work out your way. Then we as a women didn't gain much through feminism. We are stuck with old dating patterns that objectify us but we shouldn't objectify men and we should make equal income So how is it fair and squared in our favor? It seems everything is only working out for you. Where's a woman's share in your arguments?

I never said otherwise. Even a woman can make money. But it doesn't absolve the man of his responsibilities. In fact feminism always encouraged women to make money. It's kinda ironic that you say I expect women to sit around and men to pay for them. I never said that. A feminist would never Want a man to be an atm machine but why would she marry a man who is unemployed and take up all the burden herself? Doesn't make any sense. So you mean to say that both men and women are equal in terms of income but not in terms of age? So you don't agree with old standards of patriarchy where women sat at home and men were providers yet you want old standards of marrying younger women. This is hypocritical. You want women to adhere to feminist ideals of equal income and responsibilities yet in terms of dating and attraction, you still want old styles to continue.

A woman is still fertile even if she is 29. These red pill Philosophies like young girls simply because they are attracted to them because they have created a toxic ideology around being attracted to such women. A woman can even look pretty at 29. So it's definitely objectifying because it focuses solely on looks and virginity. When a man is providing for family, it's about duty and responsibility rather than looks. Both partners have roles and duties. Not anymore. We still expect men to provide and women to raise but women Marry men at any age these days. You're talking about medieval ideals. No. There's a problem if he wants to marry a pretty virgin because it signifies that a woman is not has lost her worth. A man who cannot provide might have reasons to not be able to do so, perfectly understandable but I never said that he isn't worthy of being attracted so there was no objectification. He is still attractive. Yet if you told a woman that she is not attractive because she isn't young or virgin, that's a direct attack on her self esteem even if she is fertile and able to raise children. A reasonable counter argument against me in terms of objectification here would have been if I said - I'll only marry men taller than me. This looks similar to objectifying women based on appearance. A more reasonable argument against feminists and in the favor of the nature of male psychology would have been - a man doesn't want to date a 50 something woman due to fertility issues. That makes perfect sense because nobody is attracted to someone who is past their fertile age. But to consider a woman who has crossed her mid 20s as infertile is not only biologically incorrect but also utter rubbish. Because a woman is fertile for quite a long time. So it's ludicrous to have such dating standards. It's just based on hating women who are even slightly older and discriminating them on the basis of age. Almost considering them less of a woman and more like a piece of meat. It's based on patriarchal notions where something younger is simply considered more desirable simply because it was meant to be so. It's harmful to women's self esteem. It's not that women aren't objectifying. But that would include the height argument I stated above, not an argument over being a provider.

Fair point. But you're saying is a bit of a stretch. You're using extreme examples like cherry picking. The people with high IQ who are also annoying to deal with are actually a minority. Not everyone high IQ is irritating. Now I don't know about your experience so I can't speak for you. But from my personal experience, it was incredibly difficult for me to deal with low IQ people. They couldn't come up with creative ideas, they were also low on Eq, they couldn't handle technology, they couldn't have an intellectual conversation, they couldn't analyze a situation, they failed to apply logic, and what was consistent with these people is that they engaged in drama, nonsense, rambling, destructive criticism, gossip, finger pointing, character assassination, too much personal talk, labeling etc. Mostly gossip. Nothing productive would ever come about out of being associated with these people whether it was friendship or romance or even a casual encounter. Everything always ended in disaster. Just being around these people was extremely toxic overall. It was like wasting time with dumb people who have nothing better to offer I think high IQ has a lot of significance and it should be taken very seriously. I'm not talking about high IQ in terms of numbers, digits or test scores. You know someone is higher IQ than others when you talk to them. They generally add a lot of creative insights, ideas, their verbal communication is more complex, they can offer better solutions and they tend to make logical arguments. They also do well in life with regard to family, money, success etc. They basically have their life in order. What I found is that being around such people is a breeze, no drama, no stress and just generally cool people to hang out with, less toxicity and few bad experiences. Once again this is my personal experience, I can't speak for others.

Providing for someone only makes a considerate person not a machine. This is like saying that if I care for my future husband, then I must be his slave? What's so wrong with providing for your family? I never said that a woman cannot make money in the relationship. She can. But there's nothing wrong if she relies on her husband. And if the man is disabled, she can work. He doesn't become worthless. But there are basic expectations out of men and women. Women cares for her family whereas a man provides for it.

At this point I don't know what to say. I'm confused whether I should try psychedelics or not. I had nigh hopes. Kinda rethinking all of it. Mindfuck.

Every little word you say screams "I'm a controlling guy." You said you want someone who is submissive. Young. What has age go to do with love? Then you said she should be virgin. Is a woman if she is not a virgin? What you're saying almost borders on racism. It's very discriminatory. What if I told you I will only date men who are under 23 and who have never slept with a woman? That would sound ridiculous. It's obviously objectifying because it's like treating people like piece of meat. I did not say that a woman raising a child is sexist. Women must do what women can do and that involves raising children. But if they want to work of course they can.. Pretty reasonable? Now if I say men should be providers, there is nothing objectifying about it, because just like women have traditional roles, men too have roles assigned to them. What is a man going to do if the woman is supposed to be doing everything? And men don't provide only for their spouses etc, men are providing for their mothers/fathers too. Did your father tell you that you shouldn't be a provider? Your argument about men being providers is just out of place. It's not even relevant. Whereas everyone knows that younger women are attractive. But to think that a woman who hasn't even crossed her 30s shouldn't be thinking of dating is utterly ridiculous and yes objectifying because she isn't past her reproductive age, in fact that's the time that she can be a healthy mother, a lot of girls around 18 have barely any emotional maturity to be a mother because she knows nothing about the world or future. Most men who seek out women who are barely adult do so because these women are easily controlled. Why don't you say men should marry underage women? If nothing is toxic or wrong in your eyes. You make stupid arguments in the name of standards. Let's see you have a daughter and nobody dates her because she just turned 26 lol.

Nothing silly about wanting healthy standards for men. And women. Something incredibly toxic if a man thinks that a woman is not worth being with if she is not a virgin.

Toxic males galore.

@Carl-Richard meditation came first to me. But I really want to know about your experiences with people who do psychedelics. Why did you say they aren't spiritual? I really wanted clarity on this. And you must go in detail because I'm genuinely confusedx

He is a piece of shit and I'm not afraid to say it. There's nothing to gain from him other than toxic ideologies about women. I won't bend over backwards to cowards like him Also I won't appreciate any kind of advice from a man who is known for beating up women. That's shameful and gross. That's why he is banned. I hope he stays banned. He shouldn't be able to make money by spreading toxic ideologies on women. He is total trash.

Gross.

Those are not healthy standards though. Women wanting men to be providers is not objectification but just traditional gender roles, nothing wrong with it.

Because she said something like if she had crossed 25 she wouldn't consider herself date-worthy. Not only is that deluded, it's downright disturbing and extremely dangerous to a woman's self esteem. It's basically dumping your girlfriend or wife after a few years because now they are not attractive anymore. That's super cringe, deluded, nothing loving about it and just hateful misogynistic objectifying crap, only a guy who considers women as hookers would talk like that.

So Basically they are like a chemical therapist

This is nothing new. Like I said he offers nothing new that women wouldn't know. He is like a xerox copier, same old same old regurgitated nonsense as though he is some OG. He is not. He tries to sell old age tropes, I mean it was kinda expected to be honest.

Then I don't think I'll find them Old stuff is kinda hard to dig.

Dudeeeeeeeeeee, you just completely broke me. And I have been assuming for so long that psychedelics is all I needed for a breakthrough. I'm just 2 weeks shy from my first lsd trip. Oh God... What are you saying.

Don't bombard yourself with too many questions. Take it slow. Focus on what you can do in the moment. Our entire lives are existential crises.

Where did you find these lectures? On YouTube?

Healthy stage red is not toxic. Just because you want to integrate stage Red you should not follow someone like Andrew Tate. He is not even stage Red because he is all about show off. A true stage red doesn't brag of his power. Stage Red is just your strong healthy caveman who believes in being tough in life and is ready to defend himself when there is need to do so. Stage Red is protective of his girlfriend, not abusive. Stage Red lives life on his own terms and doesn't believe in being dictated. Stage Red turns opportunities into benefits.

@Devin can you tell me (and I'm being generous here) at least 4 things that you learned from Tate that you think women should know about men?