What was meant but what was said by him?

What was meant but what was said by him?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchimerism
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16084184
youtube.com/watch?v=LQ6WXvBvwWE&feature=youtu.be
huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/more-sexual-partners-unhappy-marriage_n_5698440.html
i.imgur.com/DnMjpl3.jpg
psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201304/the-lingering-psychological-effects-multiple-sex-partners
twitter.com/AnonBabble

he's gay

It hits home for him since his wife (I assumed this cuck is married) probably told him about her 10 former boyfriends (tho not her 20 one night stands).

He is like the living avatar of the nerdy cuck stereotype. Massive self-esteem issues which he alleviates through virtue signalling, dragging down more masculine men and intellectual snobbery.

>comparing the most intimate thing you can do with someone with eating cereals

Eating cheerios or the cheerios having 48 men creampied in it beforehand and rinsed off before he consumes it are two entirely different things.

The more you think about this analogy the less it makes sense.

It only works because tumblrinas dont think at all.

>"Also, it's such a weird thing to care about. Like imagine if I started eating Cheerios for breakfast, would Cheerios be like, "I'm the 48th cereal you've tried eating?! I don't feel special!"

If you've tried 48 cereals before trying Cheerios, what are the odds you're going to stop with Cheerios? If you've fucked 48 guys before getting with your partner, what are the odds your partner will be the last person you fuck?

Imagine eating out of the same cereal box that 40 other men have stuck their hands into and pulled some out.
That'd be fucking gross wouldnt it?

Really makes you wonder if he's ever had sex

not if they wore gloves

The last panel is what he doesn't understand. Cheerios really doesn't give a shit about your feelings. Of course some used up whore genuinely likes me. I'm lovable and she's not.

He puts semen on his cheerios instead of milk.

if the gloves were covered in various bodily fluids?

it was a metaphor dumbo, but I guess you can't exactly be subtle on this site.
Let me try again

GLOVES=CONDOMS

yes, thank you, i realize that you inbred mongoloid of a truckstop-guzzler. its a stupid fucking metaphor.

the problem is rarely if they have had a gloved dick or ungloved dick in them, but instead how many they have had. regardless of condom or not, if someone sucks twenty dicks in a night, theyre a whore with the accompanying problems.

>trying 48 cereals before cheerios

Lol

> Somebody with empty enough a life that they fill it with cereal eating
> Willing to eat any sugary rubbish
> Probably had their most passionate breakfasts with wild, naughty cereals
> Always going to miss them even if they've now decided for their health to have cheerios
> Will probably have a cheat day if they keep it up at all

Imo the worst part is psychological.

In most situations the guy will:

1) Pay for most things
2) Self-censor
3) Be faithful
4) Give up long-term potential and risk taking
5) Be micromanaged
6) Buy into Disney romance
7) Put up with boring female interests

And imagine then finding out that not only has your princess been with four times as many partners, but she actually lusts more after a more alpha guy than you. That you are basically just a wallet and a teddy that she barely sees in any sexual way, and that she respects and lusts after the guys who are the polar opposite of you. That some other guys got what you put years into for free, and they got the real deal instead of the illusion. Its deceit and betrayal on the most fundamental level. Its like selling your family member's kidneys when they are in a coma.

>inbred mongoloid of a truckstop-guzzler

kek.
You're an idiot user, but at least your insults are glorious

My teenage sister has a boner for him and now it makes sense.

The sad part is my dad read his books for her and liked them.

Rip.

>Muh Redpill
>Muh MGTOW

>48th cereal

holy fuck I've never noticed that part, what a hilariously specific number... it obviously has some major significance to him, eating away at him whenever he works up the nerve to ask his wife to fool around and she gives a half assed excuse so he frets to himself that hey i'm actually the luckiest guy of all since those other 47 don't get to bone her anymore *gulp* i hope

you fail to explain why im an idiot. ask any of these faggots here, theyre all going to say that an un-gloved dick is a bad thing for their future person of interest, but theyd much rather have one guy without a condom than a hundred with.

you seem to assume that there is some sort of safety measure against being a whore after sucking plenty of dicks. there is not. condom or not, the woman becomes toxic.

>woman becomes toxic
wew
mgtow much?

He looks like that rothschild pussy faggot guy who got cucked by the nigger.

nah. if a guy sucked a hundred dicks he'd become toxic too, if he hadnt been from the start, just like women. it is merely that women do it more often, and that it is women we are talking about.

not that i dont see that youre a sliding faggot.

If by MGTOW you mean not getting laid, then no.

Also nothing wrong with being in a partnership if you're the patriarch and you're doing it for the family and don't expect unconditional love.

why?

why what?

Why should I take a guy who writes edgy """""""""books""""""""""""""""" for preteens seriously?

why do they become toxic

I find it strange. His entire readerbase consists of middle and highschool girls who've never once had sex.

Wtf i love numales now

it also depends on the reason for the persons behaviour, but it is usually because 1) they give in to their pleasures too much, like those who are obese or addicts, although in the case of sex, it is usually a mental pleasure that makes them keep going at it. feeling appreciated and protected, daring yet safe, and so on. makes one go ever onward in search for more of the same.

or 2) their ego becomes inflated, along with other psychological phenomena, probaly due to the great accept of such actions there is nowadays, resulting in what is stereotypically seen as a typical woman on Sup Forums.

as for the reasons for these things, no one can say for sure as it is beyond the scope of current science. mayhaps its because we are not supposed to be polygamous in nature. regardless of the reason, 99/100 people who sleep around as much as the lmaocheerioguys find acceptable, will end up as what i call toxic. but, as i said earlier, it does depend on the reason. if one sleeps around because of abuse of trauma, recovering from the trauma usually results in one's stop to whore oneself out, ensuring that you can still be ''saved'' from your selfdestructive ways.

ok.
What are the studies that back up your hypothesis?

it is hardly a hypothesis. just like its a fact that black people in america commit a great amount of crime relative to their numbers, it cant be said that its a fact they do it because of their genes, or because of their wealth (or lack thereoff.) the only undeniable facts are that they commit too much crime.

if you are asking for links or some shit, google it yourself or ask in a Sup Forums hate women thread. doesnt really matter to me. you could even go outside (shocking, i know) and inquire yourself.

not that it matters. i doubt that you read what i typed, and regardless youre just here to slide or annoy.

Also eating cereals doesn't tend to destabilize marriages unlike promiscuity.

>What microchimerism is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchimerism
>There's male microchimerism in females without sons: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16084184

Answer is: because I want my kids to have genetic material exclusively from their parents, not from some nigger she banged at a college party

>not here to educate you!!
>go read more pol!!
wew.

do you get paid for this or is it just a guilty pleasure? i am not here to educate you, or anyone else. i merely gave my opinion, and my reasoning. if you dont believe it or have a problem with it, then go find out more about it. i even specified that it doesnt have to be on Sup Forums.

I really liked his world history series. Nothing else really though.

>88988066

There's that study where more life-time partners leads to more depression, less marital stability and marital self-rated bliss.

I mean its a pretty well founded psychological effect called the contrast effect, that when intermixed stimuli are presented (stable partners and casual sex), that the ability to discriminate between them becomes more pronounced, and increases with exposure. So if you're some 5/10 chick and bang a few 9/10 guys, will you ever see a 5/10 guy the same way again? Not likely, humans are smarter than that.

The higher the quantity the more chances her relationship quality standards are low

If your reasoning doesn't have evidence then your position sucks

and I wish I got paid to disagree with retards on the internet

k.
give me a source

pretending to be retarded, i see. there is no absolute proof for the existence of god, and there is no absolute proof for the lack of god. therefore the only ''good'' position would be admitting that you dont know, and yet im sure that you would agree that atheism is the way.

with that in mind, there is proof for my position, merely not undeniable proof, just like with everything.

>food analogy
not exclusive to Sup Forums

The Cleveland Show had a better example. I don't have the picture but it went something like what would you rather have? A can of unopened Coke or one that had seven penises in it?

...

no. atheism is stupid.
just like your position.
Give me proof for either and I'll admit you're right

I don't know man,
When I finished off my girlfriend's box of cookie crisp she was proper pissed.

>greeny boy doesnt think that double standards exist

Contrast effect:

Search ; "Perceptual learning in contrast discrimination: The effect of contrast uncertainty"

by Y. Adini; Amos Wilkonsky; Roni Haspel; Misha Tsodyks; Dov Sagi


Data on marriage success and promiscuity:

I can't link the webpages, but search "marriage success and number of partners" and look at e.g. this video:

youtube.com/watch?v=LQ6WXvBvwWE&feature=youtu.be

ok, but then it applies to men having sex with women too

he knows they exist, he's saying they shouldn't

Cucks know their existence is shameful, this is just their coping mechanism.

i could give you proof, and since you refuse to do anything yourself, i will. the reason why i (and most people on Sup Forums) arent happy to supply you with a flood of links, is because that you are as likely to say ''that guy is a racist, has a bad record, included an insult in his statement, does not have people universally agreeing with him'' etc, as you are likely to merely quit the thread after being supplied with ''proof.''

with that in mind, here:

huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/21/more-sexual-partners-unhappy-marriage_n_5698440.html

huffpo is a liberal cesspit, so it might be right up your alley. in case it isnt, here is a bunch more:

i.imgur.com/DnMjpl3.jpg

psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201304/the-lingering-psychological-effects-multiple-sex-partners

took me some thirty seconds by googling ''more sexual partners bad.'' the point is, like this user demonstrates that there is plenty of proof, all easy to find, but that you dont care for proof. you are merely here to annoy.

Yep the data indicates that it is about the same (slightly weaker effect than for women). However studies also show that the average guy has fewer partners than the average woman, which is caused by women sleeping with only the most attractive guys (relative to themselves) when they have casual sex. So in effect the average guy has less of an opportunity to become 'toxic' than the average woman.

...

This really only applies to women who have already have children, born or not, with not referring to aborted/miscarried fetuses.

Well,the first thing to point out is that his cereal view doesnt compare with real life,but ill debate it anyways
He sais the cereal thing from the perspective of the eater which would be the woman and the cereals are the men,except that unlike cereals YOU CAN go back to previous partners and stay with them instead of changing them like socks
Also,the cereal isnt going to get any STDs either,BECAUSE ITS DEAD

False equivalency is a favourite tactic for retards

REMINDER:
>He's willing to eat a cereal that had 48 dicks in in it