I'm MGTOW AMA

I'm MGTOW AMA

Are you MGTOW?

Are you AMA?

Who hurt you, user?

I'll ask you the same thing I ask any ''mgtow'' fag.
If tomorrow somehow you found the PERFECT woman for you, her having literally 100% of things you wanted (whatever those are) and she's fully into you and fell in love with you and everything.

Would you still be mgtow?

Yes, because one exception is not worth abandoning an entire philosophy.

why did you decide being gay was a valid life choice?

Ok thanks.

do you suck dick?

MGTOW is about abandoning women in relationships; not about no longer being attracted to them.

>MGTOW aims towards worsening the situation instead of fixing it
Even white sharia lords are superior than you useful idiots.

cuck

Useful idiots?

arent you the ambitious little retard, their philosophy is fervently against the mentality of most women in relationships, what fixture do you propose? One of them would have to change completely, and neither are up for it.

How much time do you spend on r/incel?

why should any guy be MGTOW?

What will be your last words when you kill yourself after realizing you wasted your youth fixating on your hatred for women?

You must be very young if you think having sex is difficult.

The perfect woman doesn't exist. Every person has to give up things when meeting someone.

Moron.

God damn.
The low testosterone white knighting super beta males are out in force today.
"You have to like woman, all woman are wonderful"

Go fuck yourselves.

No, I just know the sort of person who becomes MGTOW. If you were getting tons of sex, you wouldn't be so angry about the process of getting it.

Because they're in a system that favors the opposite gender and discriminates against them for having a penis. But most importantly, because they have nothing to gain in this present gynocentric culture.

I'm past my youth.

You do realize sex and relationships aren't mutually exclusive, right? Its interesting you say you know the sort of person who becomes mgtow and then draw a conclusion that doesn't even work because of their beliefs, they still fuck women they just dont enter official relationships. Do you believe there are zero human females just looking for sex sometimes?

When did you decide you were a faggot?

How do I go about this? I don't think I'll ever be able to settle down with a woman. I'm in a ltr right now.

Protip: the only guys who are getting fucked over by the current system are the ones who aren't smart enough to be able to abuse it for their own gain.

>I just know the sort of person who becomes MGTOW
You probably don't. You might be surprised by the kind of people who choose MGTOW.

Go on

Goddamn all the faggots are out today. Just because you can't get laid for free does not mean that all women are worthless

No, I believe there are zero human females just looking for sex with the sort of angry neckbeards who embrace dumbass "philosophies" like MGTOW.

I'm not. You're the losers whose mothers put you on pedestals and refuse to accept your lot in life.

These men you talk about are the ones steering all feminists to hate us and try to take control of the system.
Good job faggots.
Also, check out Entrepreneurs In Cars on YouTube for ideas.

How can you be in a long term relationship if you're unable to settle down?

Skype spouse.

Oh, then going MGTOW should be easy for you.

Nah, I'm getting laid. I don't need to join you lot in the basement.

How can they put us on pedestals but not accept us? Seriously, the majority of MGTOWs are middle aged men who are past the whole mother thing.

This. Why do you never see successful people going MGTOW? Why do celebrities and athletes and high-powered business types all seem to get married? Do you MGTOW fags honestly think you're smarter than them, or could it be that you're just angry faggots who blame women for your own inadequacies?

Don't get me wrong, I'm no white knight, but you dipshits have it wrong. It's not a woman thing, it's a people thing. People in general suck, not women specifically.

I'm not living in a basement, and MGTOW has nothing to do with not getting laid, a fact that most people seem unable to understand.

No, we understand just fine, we just don't agree with you. You say it's not about not getting laid, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

>Why do you never see successful people going MGTOW?
Do you expect people to walk up to you and announce that their MGTOW?
>Why do celebrities and athletes and high-powered business types all seem to get married?
Because they can't afford the controversy that's associated with it.

>people with more money than god couldn't afford to be outed as MGTOW
>this level of delusion

You niggas crack me up

I have no interest in talking to you about sex, but MGTOW is not against having it with women. They're simply choosing for themselves to avoid attachment with any particular woman.

Hollywood is controlled by feminism.

And I'm saying that the sort of people this "philosophy" attracts aren't getting laid regardless of their views on relationships.

Uh huh. Sure. I suppose Wall Street, the entire private sector, and politics are too. Couldn't possibly be that successful people have no trouble getting women so they aren't angry at them all the time. Nope. Must be a massive conspiracy.

How would you know that, and would that be relevant? It could be that we're not even in the same country, so why would we have any assumptions about one another?

Because again, people who don't have problems getting laid aren't this angry about women withholding it from them. People wouldn't complain about not having food to eat if they weren't hungry.

I'm as angry at white knights as I am any female.

>I suppose Wall Street, the entire private sector, and politics are too.
These three things couldn't possible intersect, right?

So, men and women can't have sex with one another and end up, later on, hating each other?

It should've been:

"yes because women change both with age and circumstances and if / when I got her pregnant and thought I was happy with my little family unit, she'd change and become far more virulent and ruthless while no longer offering the same things she once did, because she'd know full well that she didn't have to anymore, because she had me by the balls"

which is what happens in every marriage, no matter how "in love" you are with your perfect partner.

women eventually always fuck their part of the deal off. especially when kids are involved. at first, they seem wonderful because they're all about you. but once you invest enough in them they know they've got you by the balls and no longer need to invest in you as much. and this occurs even more when they have children. they have even less of a desire to invest in you, and transfer the energy that was once yours into the children. while also simultaneously expecting you to invest in both them and your children equally.

women are inherently selfish and evil. they just manage to wear a pretty mask that makes you overlook this fact.

To some degree, this is a generational thing.

There is little to no necessity for social cohesion anymore. Because there is little to no necessity for community. And for the most part, this is because of an increase in state intervention generally speaking. Society has become rather isolationist, untrusting, people generally dislike each other even when they appear to feel the contrary.

It used to be that society dictated subtly but also not so subtly that relationships had to survive, that they had to last ,and had to be based on certain practical, real life, non-romantic things. Because the purpose of them was for the continuation of the species with things like moral values, traditions and culture being passed on. All of this has gone out of the window now, so all there is, is "me me me."

Relationships are all about the self now. And eventually, relationships die down, they become pretty unadventurous, boring, sometimes even seem taxing. And because of the generational shift in attitudes towards them. This makes it so people see no need to stay in them because they no longer serve the individual in question. So they project their self-entitlement and frustration on their significant other and vice versa, until they ultimately leave to find someone who better suits their needs.

So yes, men and women can't have sex without eventually hating each other. Becuase the purpose for having sex has been corrupted, and thus, so has the outright purpose for relationships.

You're right it should have been. I've witnessed this unfold for a few families and I know that this is the present situation between the genders.
>once you invest enough in them they know they've got you by the balls and no longer need to invest in you as much
Very true, but people will continue to deny this because they're distracted with the whole sexual part of the "relationship."
>women are inherently selfish and evil. they just manage to wear a pretty mask that makes you overlook this fact.
Definitely. It becomes willful ignorance on the part of men when they "overlook" all of this.

I would argue that successful people at some point had a lot of trouble with the opposite sex and their success with them and that's why they became successful.

More often than not, success, and the aspirations that lead up to it come with a desire to be attractive to the opposite sex. And that desire to be attractive to the opposite sex leading to such aspirations for success undoubtably come from a place of overcompensation for the fact that one was at some point, undesirable.

Yes. There is such an emphasis on sex rather than family today because the gatekeepers of sex are women (and the gatekeepers of the family are men). And if you put the emphasis on sex, you give them all of the power. Whereas it used to be that sex was neither the priority or even the objective. It was all about the friendship / relationship and creating a stable bond. Hence why people used to have chaperones or whatever they were called, when they'd go on first, second or even third dates. It was so they wouldn't get carried away and have sex so soon if there was major chemistry.

>the purpose for having sex has been corrupted, and thus, so has the outright purpose for relationships.
Yes, the only reason people have sex these days, aside from pleasure obviously, is strictly egotistic reasons and to enhance their status.

>Hence why people used to have chaperones or whatever they were called, when they'd go on first, second or even third dates. It was so they wouldn't get carried away and have sex so soon if there was major chemistry.
True, and this obviously wouldn't work nowadays. To be honest, I see no plausible explanation for how societies became so prurient in the first place. I think over time people got to where they had an overwhelming amount of time on their hands or something.

Yes. I find it quite interesting and funny when people like a few commenters above automatically attribute MGTOW with people not having sex. As if that's a bad thing.

I'd say having sex for the wrong reasons is worse than not having sex to be honest. Or even aspiring to have sex. It leads to lots of different issues both physically and psychologically. Not having sex is the lesser of two evils a lot of the time.

However, that being said. I'm not sure the rates at which people have sex should go down in the west as white european birth rates are already dwindling. (It's interesting how most MGTOW men are white, considering current-day cultural trends e.g. cuck threads, blacked threads, the pushing of bi-racial couples via the media - I've noticed how a hell of a lot of advertisements here in the UK show them for example). So it could be that to some degree this whole gender dynamic we see at play today has been pushed intentionally to essentially socially sterilise the white race. Just a theory.

I've read before now that it tends to happen after a few generations of peace in a civilisation. The culture in question becomes pretty hedonistic because it's too "comfortable", and as a result self-destructs because its survival mechanisms are completely out of whack due to no sense of impending doom. Which ties back into what I was saying earlier about no necessity for community. So I think what we're beginning to see is just that. Western society self-destructing because it has little to no survival mechanisms in place due to too much comfort over time. And little to no responsibility except for that of individual responsibility to self.

Know how I know you're gay?

>It leads to lots of different issues both physically and psychologically.
Physically for sure, but probably psychologically as well.
>However, that being said. I'm not sure the rates at which people have sex should go down in the west as white european birth rates are already dwindling.
It shouldn't go down for the sake of our species, and it's for this reason MGTOWs, such as myself, are for constant procreation. I'm not completely European but I favor their cultures over other territories and bloodlines; however, I don't think race is the issue, especially in technological times. Culture, yes; race, no.

I've heard that theory and there is a lot of truth to it, but you would think that after a long period of peace and comfort, people would become fixated on many things other than sex, and that it wouldn't become their main preoccupation. But I completely agree that Western society is in the process of annihilating itself.

Well think about it like this. When sex becomes a simple pass-time. Something that's easy to acquire. That goes against millions of years of evolution. Because it's never naturally been a pass-time or anything close. It's been a necessity that's needed to be respected to a degree because it's the only way the race can survive. And divering from that evolutionary path will only cause massive psychological imbalance as well as open us up to risks we wouldn't ordinarily be open to. It'll also massively imbalance and destabilise relationships in general which will furher proliferate that imbalance throughout society.

And yeah I used to think like that. Until I learned about the IQ differences between people of different cultures and races and how interbreeding with lower IQ races can actually lower the IQ of a higher IQ bloodline. White european countries have the highest density of average to high IQs, roughly from 120-150. Most of whom are white european. The general IQ of the west will drop massively over the next few generations if WE birth rates continue to drop and interbreeding between WE's and people of other races continues. Awfully convenient for the state. Eventually we'll have a general populace with a much lower IQ. And with much lower IQ comes much lower living standards, complacency, heightened aggression and so on and so forth. Not only will that populace be more easily controlled and appeased, but it'll give the state much more justification to gain more control due to the heightened aggression. So yeah I believe this is the whole point of mass immigration and the influencing of the west into taking on a hedonistic lifestyle and destabilising relationships as a result. And it's probably the only reason we've had some kind of peace for so long.

There most likely are genetic consequences to miscegenation, but the thing is it has already occurred. And something people often forget is that white people are the most mixed group of all. "White" is not a race but only a skin characteristic associated with numerous groups of people and races. True "racial purity" was declining over a hundred years ago and, most likely, for much longer. Particularly in America, mixture has already taken place, although most Americans continue to deny it. It makes more sense to focus on things we actually can control, such as culture, instead of obsessing over ethnicity.