Friendly Little Competition

>>34179329
Because it's gay reddit shit

>>34179390
>Ad-homs
Ok, we're 0/1 so far but let's keep trying.

do whatever you want with your own life but MGTOW is a coping mechanism for guys who want a good woman but know they aren't good enough themselves so pretend not bothering is some epic political protest

>>34179437
This is a more well-disguised ad-hom but still an ad-hom. 0/2.
Cmon, guys, really sell me your POV here. Dig deep.

>>34179412
I wasn't playing on hard mode

>>34179479
I am, and I'm the one you're supposed to be convincing. Try harder.

>needs internet philosophy to live life
>pls no ad homos guys

idk do whatver you want buddy

Just throwing this out there: don't completely base your views toward women on what you read on the internet. If you talk with them IRL and they're still trash, fair game though

>>34179495
no one here is gonna convince you whether or not you want to pursue a relationship. this is something you should determine on your own

>>34179576
This is the entire point of the thread. Participate or leave. Do you actually think I'm going to make a decision on the basis of some strangers on 4chan? Of course not. This is just a stimulating exercise.

The real question is why do you want to do that?

The problem with this groups is that it's the definition of selection bias.

You only hear the opinion of men who have been burned or joined because they just couldn't get laid.

You don't hear the men in happy and long term relationships on the Internet.

How many of the men in this group joined it based on their own logical and well thought decisions and not because they heard internet horror stories or they didn't Objectively vet their relationship and got burned?

I know you said no ad homs, but literally every picture I see of guys that are part of this are either overweight, underweight poor hygiene, poor self awareness, and even straight out wearing fedoras.

You should make a choice based on your own research and experiences, not based on the bitter or extreme experiences of others.

>>34179564
This is the first actual argument of the thread, thank you

>>34179329
You should go mgtow so that you can put 100% of your focus and energy into activities that will be more lucrative and satisfying in the long run. Assuming you've already had some decent sex and the mystery and lament of not knowing great sex won't eat away at you in the long run.

>>34179601
at least i participated mom

>>34179611
But I don't see how being a robot precludes one from thinking rationally about this topic, so this is still an ad-hom. If anything this board is pretty split on the MGTOW issue and most posters are still interested in some type of relationship.
>>34179633
This is the most common pro-MGTOW argument I've seen and it's a pretty good one. But I've also heard the argument that a steady relationship fulfills emotional needs and thereby helps you achieve your goals.

my first thought is that there are more options available than either doing or not doing MGTOW.

Presumably you'd take up MGTOW if you thought it would be benecial to you. So if you can identify behaviours having to do with the pursuit of women/status that are making life hard for you, then deciding to swear off those things and focus on something else ought to be desirable.

But there are other desirable options. You might still pursue a relationship and worldly goals, but adjust your attitude to avoid disappointment when you don't get exactly what you want.

You could have gone your whole life without ever labelling a certain set of behaviours as "MGTOW," and still pursued/avoided any of those behaviours, based on whatever is going to be best for you.

You should absolutely go your own way, everyone should. MGTOW aren't actually going their own way. Avoid labels and identity politics. Just do whatever you like. Don't worry about what you're doing or what your lifestyle should be classified as. Concern yourself first and foremost with your longterm wellbeing.

>>34179699
If you need a woman to help regulate your emotions then you already dun goofed

>>34179717
>>34179713
This is a fairly common argument, that going one's own way shouldn't really have a label attached to it. I'd agree that MGTOW/not MGTOW is a false dichotomy so I guess what I'm really asking is whether relationships pass a standard cost-benefit analysis, in your opinions.

>>34179780
And if so, to what extent: long term and short term? Short term only? Etc.

>>34179759
How so? Why is being emotionally dependent on someone (to an extent) a bad thing? Seems to me that most people have a great number of things they're emotionally dependent on.

>>34179471

I'm genuinely not interested in relationships and have never been in one, I'm just telling you the truth, its fox and the grapes: the ideology and will make you feel worse since you're only looking into this shit in the first place because you want a relationship

Most of the arguments I've been getting are being directed at the MGTOW community rather than the MGTOW ideology. Reminder that the two are not mutually inclusive. One can go his own way without becoming a stereotypical MGHOW, so arguments should be directed at whether or not being in a relationship in modern society is a net positive.

>>34179699

It's not an ad hom for me to say that the majority of self proclaimed MGTOW are bitter losers, it is a factual observation.

My actual argument was in asking you why you want to become a self proclaimed member.

Are you doing it because you are also one of the bitter losers?

Are you even in a relationship or have ever been in one? Have you even had sex before?

You'll say that these questions are ad homs, but if you haven't even had any experience with women, like 80% of MGTOW, then how can you even call it "going your own way" when it's just more of you being alone.

>>34179814
It's a bad thing because it makes your emotional stability contingent upon the whims of another. Peep the success rate of relationships. You could just learn to be stable and happy on your own, no further female validation needed.

>>34179908
>>34179884
Post related. You're making a lot of inaccurate assumptions.

>>34179884

what is the MGTOW ideology? women are going to fuck you over? well if you're an american man they are onto something however you can still employ judge of character and not date a golddigger

ultra illegal top secret cheat code for life since this is far too dificult for most people: just date a girl who's parents aren't divorced

>>34179908
I've had my fair share of experience with women, so that argument doesn't work either.

>>34179936

You are askimg why you should or shouldn't join this community and these are very real criticisms of the community

The ideology and the community go hand in hand

You don't join ISIS and then claim you're not a terrorist.

>>34179962

That wasn't meant as a personal attack.

You keep missing the point.

>>34179960
MGTOW doesn't take issue with individual women as much as it does with the modern system of how dating/marriage works. That said, point taken; so you think it's possible to forge a successful relationship if you find a woman with good character, so the system itself isn't broken to you.

>>34179780
I think that's a loaded question.

Relationships can serve many different purposes and accomplish many different things. If you're asking whether you should take a blanket approach to reject all meaningful interaction, then my answer is no. Of course not.

You should seek to lead a meaningful life on your own terms. No matter what you should try to be happy, accomplished, and successful on your own terms. You should not need a romantic relationship to feel any of these things. But you shouldn't just reject companionship if it comes from the opposite sex.

Women are just people. Some you will like, some you won't like. Some you may feel romantic attraction to. Most you probably won't feel any such thing for. Just evaluate everyone on an individual and objective basis. Human interaction isn't a zero sum game and shouldn't be considered transactionally.

Adaptability is a trait of successful people. If you adopt some blanket rule to dictate how you live your life, then you're sacrificing one of the biggest strengths of the human brain.

>>34180005
>The ideology and community go hand in hand
Not necessarily. The whole point of MGTOW is that there are almost no defined rules outside of a lack of engagement in relationships. One need not interact with or even exhibit similar traits as other MGTOW to be a true MGHOW.

>>34180012
>>34180040

What exactly are you arguing here then?

>>34180036
Point taken. The point of MGTOW is that the blanket approach is justified and necessary because dating culture is so screwed, if I understand it right. You're saying that's an overgeneralization.

>>34180053
I'm not arguing, I'm asking whether our current dating social climate warrants going MGTOW. You're thinking of MGTOW as joining some organized "community" that doesn't really exist in the real world. I'm talking about ideological orientation toward the idea of relationships, and whether modern society makes relationships a foolish exercise.

>>34180120
I mean, the entire point of MGTOW is that it isn't a community, so that's sort of a false premise.

>>34179329
Whats fair in life doesnt matter because life isnt meant to be fair. The truth is if you dont have children you are an evolutionary failure and your genes will die out. You have one goal in life and if you fail it you are worthless. Donate sperm and have children.

>>34180082
Yes, based on my experience, observation, and general reasoning I think that's an inaccurate overgeneralization. I don't think it's hard to understand why that overgeneralization exists. It can be extremely comforting to people who are very distressed by where they are in life and may fit very well with their own experiences. It moves the onus for their situation entirely away from them and obviates any need to try to realize hard truths about themselves. That makes it a very seductive view point, but doesn't suggest that it's a correct one.

Even if your experience was totally different from mine, my approach still seems like a best practice. I don't see any harm or risk in evaluating each unique situation as exactly that: a unique situation.

>>34180120

The objective answer to your question is no

Saying that dating culture being screwed up is a made up spook.

Saying dating culture is screwed is code for just crying that Chad gets everything

Like minded people go to forums to support each other, so it is a community.

>>34180012

I'd say a 50% divorce rate is a pretty fucking broken system but that doesn't mean you can't employ a system of your own to get a favorable outcome, actually makes it easier since so many people are so fucked in the head you've statistically got an easier time weeding out and appealing to a quality woman

>>34180187
This is where my thinking tends to lie (still OP). I find MGTOW arguments attractive and a lot of what they say I find really applicable to modern society, but at the end of the day I don't think the culture is so unworkable that every man who enters into it is doomed to be unhappy. I probably won't go MGTOW anytime soon but I'm definitely more cautious about the idea of relationships than a lot of people are.

>>34180245
That said, though, community and support are not integral parts of MGTOW ideology. If you want to reframe my question as "Is relationship culture viable for the modern man" or something similar, feel free.

>>34180252

Dude, stop listening to this garbage in this thread.

Just don't marry the first girl that gives you a bj, take a few years to actually date her and judge her personality, and make sure you're someone a girl would actually want to date.

No one gives a fuck if you follow the beliefs of a bunch of wizards

Don't waste your life drinking the kool aid that some brony created.

>>34180277

You're arguing semantics

Again, your only information is selection bias.

Don't see too many guys with 10/20/30/40 year marriages frequenting the forums to give rebuttals

Sorry, guys, I have some work to so I have to take off. Overall both sides advanced some cogent points. Overall, though, I think the anti-MGTOW side wins the day. MGTOW seems to be a blanket rejection of the very idea of relationships, but happy relationships exist in modern society and are still possible. However, the pro-MGTOW side is right in that modern dating contains structural flaws and risks that warrant caution. I'd advise the anti-MGTOW side to refrain from confusing ideology from community. Whatever mental image of MGTOW you've conjured has no intrinsic value, as MGTOW itself is partially a rejection of community and celebration of individualism. Thanks for your participation and good night.

>>34180363
Still an ad-hom. You don't need to have been in a relationship to argue against MGTOW and vice-versa. Anecdotal evidence isn't very valuable to begin with.

MGTOW is the path out of degeneracy
It isn't the "redpill", but its a step in the right direction.

Young men who go to clubs, drink, going from relationship to relationship become disillusioned with the dehumanising, shallow nature of modern culture, so they become swear off serious relationships and resolve to become pick up artists and have one night stands.

When they realize the dangers of promiscuity, like STD's, false rape allegations, pregnancy scares, etc as well as the financial cost of seducing women, they swear off women altogether and become MGTOW.

They spend they time improving themselves, but still indulge in lustful acts like masturbating to extreme pornography.

However, they begin to realize that pornography is cultivating lust in their minds, which they can't fulfill, so they give up sexuality altogether and practice chastity.

Finally, after realizing the benefits of a chaste life, realizing the joys of family life, and understanding what it means to truly have a connection, they find God, join a religious community, marry a chaste woman and live a traditional life.

This is the path that all men should go down.
I'm sure there is a similar path for women.

>>34180443

Pointing out your fallacy is not an ad hom.

Guys who are kissless and handholdless calling themselves MGTOW are not doing anything other than theory crafting with vagie and overgeneralized statements about dating and women.

You're still missing the point and keep assuming me calling them losers is an insult, it's not, it's the factual truth.

File: anime battles.jpg (51KB, 540x513px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 540x513px

>>34180443
>if someone doesnt agree with me it's an ad-hom

He's attacking your argument and it's sources not you.

>>34180639

how are you going to realize the joys of family life living a chaste life

>>34180826

It might seem like a paradox to many people, but seeing the world with a less lust filled mind makes you appreciate relationships without sex, including appreciating the idea of close friendships, spouses and parental relationships.

When you have sex on the brain, its hard to appreciate relationships that don't solely offer cheap thrills

File: 1480778120737101646.jpg (30KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 250x250px

because think about the fact that you fail at something wich all OUR ancestors managed to succed, having sex and children

if you go mgtow and die lonely anyway where do you think everyone goes? thats right to the jews, so you lose even more

>>34180982

I thought that was normal but I guess normies are actually abnormal now adays