[supertimor]

I think you should listen to Robocat here.

There are plenty of “nerdy”, average/unattractive, and/or “non-white” men etc, etc who have meaningful relationships with women, and some of these women are even smart and/or beautiful. I know a number of these relationships myself and the common denominator that I see between all of them is that there is respect between both parties.

I just want to quote a couple of things you’ve posted.

>Millions of modern educated women seem to be engaging in casual sex with a relatively small number of highly-attractive-looking hyper-sexual men (who probably sleep with someone every night "spinning plates" so to speak).

> …the top 20% and especially the top 5% live like one of the Sultans of the Ottoman Empire, with women ready to deliver themselves to their door for intimacy.

> But the so-called "Chad cock carouse|" has taken such a sheer number of women out of marriage and dating market, that millions of amazing men are left single, sexless, and unable to marry…

>These are the sorts of high quality men that many of these sexually-liberated women “claim they want”…

> ("Chad") men (many who are low income or professionally-unsuccessful) end up having harems of 3 to 5 women, hence massively shrinking the number of women available.

>Why would women do this, rather that have a deep loving relationship with a man who can give her 100% of himself to her (and build a family with that guy)? I have no idea. It certainly isn't a good thing.

> But then you've got millions of these women who priories the dopamine or serotonin (or oxytocin or whatever) hit of sleeping with various Chads, and the end result is the breakdown of families, and the future of civil society.

Even with all the absolutes and exaggerated claims in your statements, the biggest issue I see in your posts is the way you talk about women.

Look at the words you use. “Claim to want”, “why would women do this”, “millions of these women who priories the dopamine or serotonin [to have sex] with various Chads… result[ing in]… the breakdown of families, and the future of civil society,” “harems of women,” “shrinking the number of women available,” “with women ready to deliver themselves to their door for intimacy.”

Your words paint women as irrational, fickle and emotional beings who cannot reason and don’t know what’s best for them or the world. You talk about them as if they are livestock and or toddlers, not fully-grown autonomous human beings. You’re post screams of the stereotypes that women have been fighting against throughout history.

Talking about women this way is not going to help you form meaningful relationships with them. Women are individuals. They are people. They have their own individual wants and needs, that may or may not match up with your own. Some might, others won’t. Because, again, women are individuals.

If you’re getting to know a woman, and you bring up even a fraction of what you’ve written here, it’s very possible she’s not going to bother to try and get to know you further; even if you do have other great attributes. Because she probably doesn’t want to be treated like a stereotype or a child.