Is Tate right about age 25+ women?

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, StarStruck said:

No thanks.

No, I insist.

Edited February 15, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Kshantivadin]

10 minutes ago, StarStruck said:

The stats aren't lying.

The stats  u mean whatever data managed to latch onto our emotions enough to become a relevant cherry pick misinterpreted information 

[Kshantivadin]

15 minutes ago, StarStruck said:

Divorce rates is a good thing? Do you hear yourself? I don't get why one would marry to divorce. This sounds like SD green indoctrination. Why would anybody get married then? To get stripped of half of your assets and be fucked in the ass by SD green bureaucracy? Can't make this shit up.  The stats aren't lying.

Please, have the humility to consider that your centre of current state of development might actually be orange. Which is tremendous news because if you really wanna be yellow that way you will become such in no time 

[Devin]

4 hours ago, zurew said:

Saying that sounds strange after you sourced multiple studies to sell a point, and  you actually made multiple arguments in favour of conservatives (when it comes to marriage) and by that making it sound like thats the preferable path for a person if he/she will want to get married down the road. You used those studies to strengthen your point further(because you thought that they are reliable) and now it seems that you don't care anymore or you want to abandon those studies.

I was just agreeing that the study's 'result' is not sufficient research or reasoning to base life choices on. I posted the evidence to show that the post-modernist take is not the end-all be-all, conservatism is not for everyone, just like post-modernism isn't.

 

4 hours ago, zurew said:

If you agree with my conclusion then talking about other variables isn't relevant, it is only relevant if you disagree. If you actually disagree, then please elaborate.

Well you take a very narrow perspective in my opinion, the conservatives being with less partners may actually be contributing to happiness not "skewing the numbers" superficially. And lower standards is not necessarily a bad thing, all that matters is happiness. 

Edited February 16, 2023 by Devin

[Devin]

3 hours ago, Stovo said:

I didn't suggest he should date older, but nice strawman. He wouldn't be capable of that. 

These views are indeed immature, there's no getting away from that. 

Saying if he dates young women that they'll leave him when they get older is suggesting what then if not to date older? Don't date anyone? And you called Tate viewers the incels, hilarious.

 

5 hours ago, Stovo said:

She would have left the OP well before she hits 35.

At some point she's going to want men, not boys.

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Devin

[Devin]

4 hours ago, something_else said:

If you go to great lengths to present your marriage as perfect to your traditionalist community, you’re going to lie in a survey about it too. Hell, most of those married couples probably took the survey together so they are hardly going to answer truthfully.

Honestly same goes for all marriages. But the fact that traditional marriages value being seen as put together and stable to their community, even when they’re not, will have a particularly big influence here.

Traditionalist culture brainwashes you to ignore faults in your marriage and shove them to the back of your mind “for the community” 

LOL, then how do you measure happiness? What do you suspect is the unhappy parts in their life? They live EXACTLY the lives they've always wanted to live, post-modernists don't even live in a world that they want to live in, let alone their lives.

Edited February 15, 2023 by Devin

[zurew]

10 hours ago, StarStruck said:

I'm not looking at it from an ideological point of view.

You absolutely are. If you wouldn't be looking at it from an ideologically driven view, then you wouldn't have given an extremely biased analysis and take that is only in favour of stage blue and is against stage green at the same time. All your points so far could be made by a regular conservative stage blue guy.

10 hours ago, StarStruck said:

I'm just looking at how things are while you are just throwing temper tantrums and SD green hissy fits because you are not getting my points.

You claimed to be stage yellow multiple times now in this thread, which is hilarious because no stage yellow would try to virtue signal that "I am stage yellow guys, I hope you see that, do you guys see that, I am stage yellow, hey guys don't forget, that I am stage yellow, right guys? I hope you all agree", also its hilarious, because your whole analysis on this topic is to boil down all complexity to one variable and to one party, how is that tier 2?

Show us where is you tier 2 analysis , show us how could your analysis be differentiated from a simple stage orange analysis that is filled with biases that are against and resistant to stage green? 

 

You haven't made any arguments or points yet,  you just stated your conclusions without making any backing arguments for your conclusions.

You said you know the "stats" and "facts but you haven't brought any stats yet. You seem to not understand that throwing stats around without knowing the context doesn't mean anything and you have demonstrated that multiple times now. You seem to also not understand that a stat is not = to a study where people who know how to contextualize statistical numbers will create a hypothesis from those numbers not just a random joe like you who think he can just conflate correlation with causation and can just imagine a causal chain between the numbers to get his biased conclusion without any rigorousity.

You had nothing to refute or to say about the points I made about potential negative things that could come up in marriage, with a super young conservative girl. 

10 hours ago, StarStruck said:

It is just that with this tinder climate where dick is a commodity and other toxic SD green influences it is hard to find such a girl. A girl has to have a strong character not to be influenced by SD toxic green that is reining right now.

Its interesting that now you talk about tinder, when earlier in this thread you said ,that you want to find a marriage material who could be the mother of your future child. Why the hell would anyone want to search for a serious relationship on tinder? Do you really think that using tinder you will find a really conservative stage blue girl? This "point" of yours is equivalent to saying "I went to a strip bar, I saw a lof of slutty women, therefore all or most women are slutty".

Why would you correlate all toxic and slutty women who are on tinder with only stage green women? If you are selecting from a group of people that are statistically much more likely to look for only casual sex, then you shouldn't be surprised when you get a women "who is dicked up" to use your insecure terms.

The other interesting thing is that while you claim to be yellow, you throw the label "toxic" around like a tier 1 person would, not realising that things that could be considered toxic for some could be a + in the bag for others (another point indiciating that you are just stage orange, with biases against green).

 

Also its interesting that this discussion now has to be about green vs blue, when there is much more nuance that could be talked about, if you wouldn't be so focused on SD and on giving incredibly biased takes.

Edited February 16, 2023 by zurew

[zurew]

9 hours ago, Devin said:

Well you take a very narrow perspective in my opinion, the conservatives being with less partners may actually be contributing to happiness not "skewing the numbers" superficially. And lower standards is not necessarily a bad thing, all that matters is happiness.

it felt like that the variable of happiness was used and was just a proxy to demonstrate that a conservative relationship is often times higher quality than a progressive/stage green relationship. Its easy to maintain a relationship, if you only need to focus on a few variables. I think if you have a scenario where more variables are at play and they can still maintain their relationship , now thats impressive, because there is a much higher bar there.

 

 

The problem is again if you have no or one partner before your ideal partner is that you have no perspective about whats a good or a bad relationship. I don't think you could exclude or ignore that point when it comes to making your point about less partners will directly contribute to more happiness (I would be interested how you would build up that point or how you would refute my point). My problem with this is that to actually make this point you would have to imply that being ignorant is actually a good thing, but is it?

For example if there is a scale of happiness from 1-100 and there is a conservative person who is only familiar with happiness at the level of 10 and thinks thats the highest, do you think thats actually trumps a stage green person with more experience who has a happiness level of 25 who is aware that his/her relationship could still be much better?

 

One other things that could skew the numbers is that when it comes to conservative marriage, they are probably much more likely to have kids ( and kids often times correlated with having meaning in your life ). Having kids and only or highly focusing on the kids (while ignoring all other relationship problems) is phenomena that happens very often, especially among conservative people. So it would be interesting to see a comparison between conservative and progressive marriages where they only take into account marriages where they have kids or where they only take into account scenarios where neither of them have kids. 

 

One other study that would be interesting to see ( I don't know how one would conduct this study ), where they would somehow measure how honest conservative vs progessive people are about their lifes and specifically about their relationships, specifically regarding to happiness. Arguments here could be made why there are probably more dynamics at play to incentivise stage blue people to lie more. Every study regarding this relationship happiness issue, that was brough up so far has to assume that everyone is 100% honest with their reporting.

 

9 hours ago, Devin said:

They live EXACTLY the lives they've always wanted to live

How do you know that for sure,from the studies that you linked?

Its not impossible to imagine that they would  consciously or unconsciously lie about it, when the optics about their relationship is probably one of the most important thing to them in order to maintain their image and place in their community. Who do you think have more to lose, a couple who is not in a community  or a couple who is constantly monitored by a community and has to hit certain standards in that community all the time?

 

 

Some people here talking about traumas is also an interesting one, when we know that when it comes to stage green thats where people start to get more open about themselves and start to go to a therapist and actually starting their healing journey and start to get honest. Now, directly not saying or talking about your traumas when you are stage blue does not mean at all that you are okay or that you have no trumas at all.  

In fact often times the the complete opposite is the case. We know that shaming is one of the biggest tools often times used by stage blue people to socially push and navigate and punish their own people. One other tactic stage blue people effectively use is to repress things. Shame + repression are the two biggest tools highly collerated with stage blue,  so to say that they have a highground when it comes to traumas I think is a flawed point.

Edited February 16, 2023 by zurew

[Space]

@Emerald Hey Emerald, only just noticed you're back on the forum. Welcome back!  

[StarStruck]

@zurew @Kshantivadin

What you guys don’t get is that it is not shameful to be on the lower SD stages.  

I in fact already admitted I’m working on my SD blue and orange stages. That is why I’m studying Andrew Tate and other specimen. While you guys shame him and name him, that is why you guys will be stuck at your current stage which is probably orange-green. 

Judgementalism is why you are stuck where you are stuck. If you weren’t that thick headed and learned lessons from SD red-blue-orange + hard work, you would have a fair chance of developing some yellow. I already said there is a lot of value in SD blue; it is stabilizing force for lower SD states + good foundation to build to progressive states upon. 

There are some deep lessons to be learned from Andrew Tate but you will never gain these lessons because you guys think in black and white, can’t separate toxicity from the golden nuggets. If I told you these lessons it would probably go over your guys head anyway.

Edited February 16, 2023 by StarStruck

[something_else]

11 hours ago, StarStruck said:

Divorce rates is a good thing? Do you hear yourself? I don't get why one would marry to divorce. This sounds like SD green indoctrination. Why would anybody get married then? To get stripped of half of your assets and be fucked in the ass by SD green bureaucracy? Can't make this shit up.  The stats aren't lying.

Sorry, I don't think you understood my point. Maybe I didn't explain it well so I'll try again:

Most marriages are crap. They start out good, but they deteriorate into a toxic mess that would be better for both parties if they divorced. In stage blue cultures this is very tough because the community oriented nature of the stage means that they can't really divorce out of fear of judgement from whatever stage blue institutions they belong to. Most stage blue institutions essentially disallow or highly discourage divorce. However orange/green culture cares far less, and allows divorce in these situations.

Quote

SD green bureaucracy

A lot of the bureaucracy that makes divorce so messy and biased is actually coming from stage blue which assumes that women are always better at raising kids, and that a man must always support his housewife.

Quote

SD toxic green

I've only ever heard you say negative things about green. In fact, you seem to me to be a quite a negative person overall. And you also seem to me to be more egoic than most other people on the forum who likely all put themselves around green/orange with a smidge of yellow. To me it seems like you are framing yourself as yellow because you want to classify your own stance and opinions as above those of others, not because you are truly neutral and holistic in your analysis of situations.

These are simply my impressions. Maybe I'm wrong and my puny tier 1 brain can't understand your gigabrain tier 2 thinking. I suspect that is what you will tell yourself reading this. But personally, I think you still have a lot of growth to do (as do almost all of us on this forum) before you can start calling yourself truly tier 2. I'm saying this hoping maybe it helps you to stop sounding less of an arrogant dickhead, because that's sort of the impression you are giving off to others right now and it doesn't benefit you at all.

Edited February 16, 2023 by something_else

[StarStruck]

@something_else fair enough. Some guys are trolling and I got carried away.

Edited February 16, 2023 by StarStruck

[koops]

Is pretty simple the misconcectpion.

Tate stuff is a logical reaction to unhealthy Green (masculine, crazy, promiscuous western women)

So Blue is idealized, and now guys want the unicorn: Serbian 20 year old virgin, who lives on a farm, no social media and will wake you up everyday with a bj an a healthy breakfast. Ahh and wants 7 kids.
And she still will be femenine and loyal even if you move to LA.
Oh, and she still has to have sex with you even if she lost attraction for you.

LOL

Then you have all theses guys talking about high standards in women.

 

The misconception is believing that Green is this:

 

And believing blue is this:

 

Yes, of course everyone prefers a healthy blue, than a toxic Green. Every fucking day of the week.

 

But what about a healthy integrated Green women?

Check out this couple. That is what I consider HEALTHY Green:

 

The thing is: Will a HEALTHY Green woman (with blue and orange integrated) date you?

Thats the question.

 

 

 

 

[Devin]

1 hour ago, koops said:

But what about a healthy integrated Green women?

Check out this couple. That is what I consider HEALTHY Green:

 

The thing is: Will a HEALTHY Green woman (with blue and orange integrated) date you?

Thats the question.

I'd say she's mostly orange, barely any green, bleach blonde, bleached teeth, name brand brand new everything, travelling youtube channel exploiting and tourizing other cultures. Orange works too.

Edited February 16, 2023 by Devin

[Devin]

4 hours ago, zurew said:

How do you know that for sure,from the studies that you linked?

Its not impossible to imagine that they would  consciously or unconsciously lie about it, when the optics about their relationship is probably one of the most important thing to them in order to maintain their image and place in their community. Who do you think have more to lose, a couple who is not in a community  or a couple who is constantly monitored by a community and has to hit certain standards in that community all the time?

 

 

Some people here talking about traumas is also an interesting one, when we know that when it comes to stage green thats where people start to get more open about themselves and start to go to a therapist and actually starting their healing journey and start to get honest. Now, directly not saying or talking about your traumas when you are stage blue does not mean at all that you are okay or that you have no trumas at all.  

In fact often times the the complete opposite is the case. We know that shaming is one of the biggest tools often times used by stage blue people to socially push and navigate and punish their own people. One other tactic stage blue people effectively use is to repress things. Shame + repression are the two biggest tools highly collerated with stage blue,  so to say that they have a highground when it comes to traumas I think is a flawed point.

First off my point is not actually that they're happier, just that post modernists aren't happier.

I spend time with the different groups and see these nuances myself, I'm just posting a study because it's more reputable than my anecdotal evidence. Traditionalists are often very happy with life, many are not though; traditionalism is not an end-all be-all either, but in terms of a spouse for a developed man, unless you can find an actual integrated woman then traditionalist is the next best thing in my view.

The problem with the "trauma" is that the goal post will always move until you reach 'enlightenment', in terms of happiness; being satisfied with what is, accepting 'imperfection' is all that matters.

 

4 hours ago, zurew said:

it felt like that the variable of happiness was used and was just a proxy to demonstrate that a conservative relationship is often times higher quality than a progressive/stage green relationship. Its easy to maintain a relationship, if you only need to focus on a few variables. I think if you have a scenario where more variables are at play and they can still maintain their relationship , now thats impressive, because there is a much higher bar there.

 

 

The problem is again if you have no or one partner before your ideal partner is that you have no perspective about whats a good or a bad relationship. I don't think you could exclude or ignore that point when it comes to making your point about less partners will directly contribute to more happiness (I would be interested how you would build up that point or how you would refute my point). My problem with this is that to actually make this point you would have to imply that being ignorant is actually a good thing, but is it?

For example if there is a scale of happiness from 1-100 and there is a conservative person who is only familiar with happiness at the level of 10 and thinks thats the highest, do you think thats actually trumps a stage green person with more experience who has a happiness level of 25 who is aware that his/her relationship could still be much better?

 

One other things that could skew the numbers is that when it comes to conservative marriage, they are probably much more likely to have kids ( and kids often times correlated with having meaning in your life ). Having kids and only or highly focusing on the kids (while ignoring all other relationship problems) is phenomena that happens very often, especially among conservative people. So it would be interesting to see a comparison between conservative and progressive marriages where they only take into account marriages where they have kids or where they only take into account scenarios where neither of them have kids. 

 

One other study that would be interesting to see ( I don't know how one would conduct this study ), where they would somehow measure how honest conservative vs progessive people are about their lifes and specifically about their relationships, specifically regarding to happiness. Arguments here could be made why there are probably more dynamics at play to incentivise stage blue people to lie more. Every study regarding this relationship happiness issue, that was brough up so far has to assume that everyone is 100% honest with their reporting.

I think happiness is much more simple, I disagree with the unknown level of happiness, I think that's more unknown realms of life, more flavors of life, but that doesn't mean happier, this applies to more partners as well.

 

Edited February 16, 2023 by Devin

[Byun Sean]

3 hours ago, StarStruck said:

@zurew @Kshantivadin

What you guys don’t get is that it is not shameful to be on the lower SD stages.  

I in fact already admitted I’m working on my SD blue and orange stages. That is why I’m studying Andrew Tate and other specimen. While you guys shame him and name him, that is why you guys will be stuck at your current stage which is probably orange-green. 

Judgementalism is why you are stuck where you are stuck. If you weren’t that thick headed and learned lessons from SD red-blue-orange + hard work, you would have a fair chance of developing some yellow. I already said there is a lot of value in SD blue; it is stabilizing force for lower SD states + good foundation to build to progressive states upon. 

There are some deep lessons to be learned from Andrew Tate but you will never gain these lessons because you guys think in black and white, can’t separate toxicity from the golden nuggets. If I told you these lessons it would probably go over your guys head anyway.

Dude if u dig a little deeper on tate he actually seems more red than orange or blue lol.

He's a smooth talker but when he slips, you can see his inner manchild reveal itself through the front of fake male bravado.

He's also self snitched to being a criminal soooooooooo...

[Emerald]

7 hours ago, Space said:

@Emerald Hey Emerald, only just noticed you're back on the forum. Welcome back!  

Hi ? Good to see you!

[Bobby_2021]

Take it from my experience.

Dating harcore blue girls is a pain in the ass. 

They are usually rigid and have extremely low openness to new experiences. They cannot give you the "experience" you want. Silly status games are a bonus. Managing her drama is too taxing on you. And dragging you into her own religious baggage.

The plus side is that she will be willing to submit to whatever you say when you are with her. 

Note that rigidity in thoughts and emotions is not exclusive to blue girls. Green girls have plenty of un integrated blue shadow. And these women have not genuinely evolved to green, in the sense that they have no experience in the below stages.

They grew up in a privileged household, mostly in a city, hoed out throughout their 20's, never made any money, nor the discipline to run a household, living off of daddy's money. This is your typical "Green"  girl. Basically an accumulation of loads of baggage. 

I would prefer a mildly orange submissive feminine girl who grew up in a blue household and had to face some struggles growing up, and didn't hoe out in her youth and accepts me as the leader in the relationship.

It means that she was tired of blue dogmatism, evolved to orange on her own, and we together can work on green and beyond.

Avoid women with baggage.

This is medical and financial advice.

Science and statistics are on the internet for you to verify. 

[something_else]

16 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

They grew up in a privileged household, mostly in a city, hoed out throughout their 20's, never made any money, nor the discipline to run a household, living off of daddy's money. This is your typical "Green"  girl. Basically an accumulation of loads of baggage. 

 

That's heavily, heavily stereotyped.

16 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

I would prefer a mildly orange submissive feminine girl who grew up in a blue household and had to face some struggles growing up, and didn't hoe out in her youth and accepts me as the leader in the relationship.

 

Does it not seem like a red flag to you that you compulsively need a girl to be completely submissive to you in a relationship? I would say sustainable, healthy and developed relationships are more about both partners learning to exist as equals rather than the man needing to dominate the girl in day-to-day life.

Yea, girls like a guy who can lead and succeed out in the world, and being able to lead a girl is great for initial phases building attraction, but beyond that, I would not say this compulsive idea that you need a girl to be submissive to your every whim all the time is not coming from a healthy place within you.

 

[Lila9]

19 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

I would prefer a mildly orange submissive feminine girl

What do you mean by submissive? Someone who's following your orders like a solider in a battleground as if you are some veteran general? What is feminine about it? That's humilating af.

How do you call the movie you are living in? I want to watch it too. I have to understand how monkeys think and operate because there are too many.