I have no sympathy for women. Men are stupid. Women, it seems like, are even more so. If women are serious about finding a good partner, why don’t they study men and their characteristics? Many of our traits are visible to the naked eye. The hand, the body type, and especially the face. They all say something about a men. Some men are not to be married because they just don’t have the love for the opposite sex and children. If women are serious about these things, why don’t they put some work into it? See why i don’t sympathize with women? I know i sound like an old fart but actually pretty young. LOL.
Neither gender has a monopoly on stupidity.
Even better, I get my life tips from this guy:
Women who do are being called “too picky”
Edupristine? Is that you?
His ugly mug probably doesn’t stop him at all. Look at Howard Stern who is a more successful version of Tim and also butt ugly. Loud + aggressive + semi-famous = win.
I can’t think of worse combination
You’re in the minority among women then but there are far worse than that.
Tips on women, I suppose this is the product of a fatherless generation.
+1
I’ve had the good fortune of being around a lot of attractive quality women in my life (friends and otherwise) and I can’t think of any of them that chased people under this description. There’s a broad set of trashy girls that chase a broad set of trashy guys and that’s great but its also frequently misrepresented as an outsized majority due to the combined loudness and obnoxiousness of the group. There are normal, quality very attractive couples everywhere, they just slip beneath the public radar as a minority because they aren’t behaving like 5 year olds seeking attention.
“Availability bias is a human cognitive bias that causes people to overestimate the probability of events associated with memorable or vivid occurrences. Because memorable events are further magnified by coverage in the media, the bias is compounded on the societal level. Two prominent examples would be estimations of how likely plane accidents are to occur and how often children are abducted. Both events are quite rare, but the vast majority of the population believes that they are more common than they are and behaves accordingly.”
I’ve found that the main flaw with the whole PUA scene and the mid to late 30’s single Manhattanites in general is a survivorship (failureship) bias. Married couples typically move out of the city or run in different scenes so those still dating say “based on everyone I see (homogeneous group) this is what women want” but its really “this is what women still single in their mid to late 30’s and gold diggers want” and “this is what men want” but its really, “this is what career driven narcisists want” which is typical for narcisists to think that they can speak for an entire gender.
I know very few single men in their mid 30’s that won’t tell you they’d love to meet the ideal mate after a few drinks and no women that won’t do the same. Hell even George Clooney succumed to tying the knot. So just consider the source when ass clowns like a radio shock jock or the PUA’s in the photos above start dishing out advice from their position of grandeur, it’s sad for everyone when the circus clowns begin to take their own act seriously.
^ +1. Well said.
Good points, BS.
I also disagree with the often-unstated assumption of the PUA community (and similar attitudes) that the only point of interacting with women is to get laid. I have no issue with the fact that getting laid is a great motivator to interact and that there’s nothing wrong with men wanting some, but it should be a mutually enjoyable experience, both while it’s happening and while either party is remembering it. Getting laid through trickery or lies, where the woman is clearly going to feel “played” at the end just seems like the strategy of a loser.
Personally, I find most women a lot more interesting to talk to and listen to than most men anyway. Perhaps this is because I could care less about sports teams and how many beers someone downed one time.
Are you pulling a Bruce Jenner?
(Also, I don’t believe “could care less” is what you meant to say. That implies you care on some level and could, in fact, care less than you do currently. You meant to say you “couldn’t care less” meaning you don’t care at all.)
Chiefs > Beer > Getting Laid > talking to the opposite sex about anything
Bruce Jenner? No, I like having testes and have plans to exercise them explosively for years to come.
And yes, “could care less” vs “couldn’t care less.” The hobgoblin of little minds.
I’m not going to defend the PUA community because I think wearing fuzzy hats and popping your shirt color to get laid is ridiculous but Leykis and Stern would not be considered part of that group. They are in the “I’m better than you and don’t give a shit about what you think and will demean you” group with regards to women, which is totally different. The fact that neither of them are really better than anyone (look at that dude lol) and yet have had success with this approach is pretty incredible if you look at it from a neutral observer’s perspective.
I know a lot of people will struggle to accept this but there is a big market among women for that sort of dominant / crass / aggressive type of behavior. You will always get further with a woman by acting in your own self interest than you will acting in hers. Our species is very strange like. You don’t have to like it but the thing about reality is that it’s true whether you like it or not.
Again, see my first of the two posts about trashy people. I have no doubt that acting like a selfish peice of shit can help you get with a selfish peice of shit. Assuming one thing / approach works for an entire gender is stupid. You’re better than that. Not to mention your analysis of Stern as a person is way off by all accounts unless you’re still living in the 90’s.
“Leykis is single and has no children. He is an atheist, although reared as a Catholic. He has been married and divorced four times, which he unabashedly proclaims on-air regularly. Leykis has also boasted that he has paid for at least four abortions.” WINNING!
And his prior wives aren’t even that attractive after some google searching. Man, if only I could be a misogynistic 58 year old semi-famous obnoxious slob who’s single with four abortions under my large belt. Where’s that advice of his again?
Howard Stern is on a different level. He has the very rare ability to be an outstanding interviewer. All that means is he’s great at making people comfortable and gets them to open in ways the interviewee normally never would. That’s why he has otherwise “good girl celebrities” on there talking about their sex toy collection.
Marc Maron, David Letterman, and Stephen Colbert are the only other three great interviewers I can think of off the top of my head. Obviously they each have their own style and objectives, but you can see it when you watch (or listen) to them.
If we’re talking about off-air, Stern is a recluse (much like the other three listed above). He’s severely introverted and massively insecure. He married his first wife well before he was famous and regularly credits being with her to a momentary lapse in her judgement. As for his second wife, she was a semi-regular on the show and had known him for years. He didn’t bag Beth Ostrosky by being loud, aggressive, or (amazingly) famous; that last part certainly helped to put them in the same circles though.
I agree with this. I was about to post that the similarities between Stern and Leykis are none other than that they both are radio personalities. Stern for all intensive purposes is known as being an introspective and genuine guy outside his show. In his personal life he advocates meditation and is into photography. He’s even been called an “oustpoken feminist”.
^Hey, if it gets Carmen Electra to ride the sybian, people can call HS anything they want.
(For those that have no idea what I’m talking about, google “carmen electra sybian” on your phone, in private mode.)