Sluthate.com

[Positron]

These guys *do* realize that just because you're in a hot girl's line of vision as she walks past you doesn't mean she's actually looking at you, right?

These guys are manlets; you can't see them without a microscope.

 

[Simplicity111]

At this point it'd be justifiable for OmegaKV to have his own thread. I mean mrz (another pedophile from Sluthate) got an active before he was banned, and this guy is probably even more entertaining than mrz because he does other things on Sluthate besides just post porn.

Besides, he STILL lurks this thread a lot.

 

[AnOminous]

These guys are manlets; you can't see them without a microscope.

Well, that only applies to certain parts of them. Their neckbeards and man boobs are clearly visible.

 

[DuskEngine]

Once again, it should be repeated that omega is currently a PhD candidate. He must be in a very quantitative field because his verbal reasoning ability is dogshit.

A lot of these people seem to be getting advanced degrees in technical fields despite barely being able to string together a sentence, yeah.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Once again, it should be repeated that omega is currently a PhD candidate. He must be in a very quantitative field because his verbal reasoning ability is dogshit.

A lot of these people seem to be getting advanced degrees in technical fields despite barely being able to string together a sentence, yeah.

Overall engineers have a tendency to believe in bizarre ideas and be more right-wing than other persons with advanced degrees. Also the sluthaters probably chose engineering because they didn't have the verbal reasoning necessary for other fields.
http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2007/11/11/the-salem-hypothesis-explained/

I do not intend to offend any kiwi engineers. All the engineers I personally know are decent people who have the ability to string together sentences well.

 

[Shidoshi]

So much jelly LoL!

 

[Positron]

Ha ha their admin Queen Emily is a "low-T gay-faced twink" Leelah Alcorn wannabe.

 

[Hi I Am From Page 6]

Or even their armpits

Omegakv confirmed for armpit fetishist. Parents, cover up your little girls' underarms.

Next time I see any of my male friends, I swear I will give them a huge blowjob hug just for being nothing like Sluthate users.

 

[supdup]

I thought this was interesting and relevent. This article blows a lot of the SH/love-shy/manosphere theory about attraction to shreds. Uniqueness outweighs LMS.

http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2014/06/building-attraction-which-matters-more-looks-personality/

Main article being reverenced:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/opinion/sunday/so-youre-not-desirable.html

For one of our studies, we recruited 129 heterosexual individuals across several small undergraduate classes. These individuals indicated, at both the beginning and the end of the semester, the extent to which the opposite-sex students in their class possessed a set of desirable qualities. We found that consensus dropped and uniqueness increased as these students got to know one another over time. After three months, uniqueness dominated consensus for all desirable qualities: attractiveness, vitality, warmth, potential for success and even the ability to provide a satisfying romantic relationship.

 

[DuskEngine]

ehhhh

I don't like it when the sluthaters point out those dark triad studies and get downvoted, for example, but one opposing piece of research 'blows them to shreds'

The New York Times and Doctor Nerdlove are going to talk about studies which reinforce their views, and Sluthaters will discuss literature that confirms theirs. That's just how it is.

 

[DrChristianTroy]

ehhhh

I don't like it when the sluthaters point out those dark triad studies and get downvoted, for example, but one opposing piece of research 'blows them to shreds'

The New York Times and Doctor Nerdlove are going to talk about studies which reinforce their views, and Sluthaters will discuss literature that confirms theirs. That's just how it is.

Difference is their studies are done by busters on YouTube and Blogspot posts.

 

[DuskEngine]

Difference is their studies are done by busters on YouTube and Blogspot posts.

Not really, no.

 

[DrChristianTroy]

Someone feels the need to defend his MRA brothers. Have you considered the people in those articles are just as, if not more, wack than the people that tout them as proof? Just tossing that out there.

 

[MarineTrainedTard]

Accepting the "women are attracted to the Dark Triad" stuff at face value, the sluthaters take it to the natural autistic extreme of "All women are only attracted to sociopaths, no woman is ever attracted to a person who doesn't demonstrate Dark Triad traits."

So it's yet another way for them to absolve themselves of any personal shortcomings.

 

[DuskEngine]

Accepting the "women are attracted to the Dark Triad" stuff at face value, the sluthaters take it to the natural autistic extreme of "All women are only attracted to sociopaths, no woman is ever attracted to a person who doesn't demonstrate Dark Triad traits."

So it's yet another way for them to absolve themselves of any personal shortcomings.

Oh, yeah. The whole ideology they build around it is way off the mark and is overly simplistic. I'm just pointing out that the soft sciences are soft enough that you can just handwave away any research that fails to confirm your biases, as the Sluthaters will no doubt do with that NYT study.

Someone feels the need to defend his MRA brothers. Have you considered the people in those articles are just as, if not more, wack than the people that tout them as proof? Just tossing that out there.

If you're going to call actual scientific literature wack, that's for peer review. Never mind the fact that lot of stuff that makes it into print is super specious anyway.

 

[SU 390]

I thought this was interesting and relevent. This article blows a lot of the SH/love-shy/manosphere theory about attraction to shreds. Uniqueness outweighs LMS.

http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2014/06/building-attraction-which-matters-more-looks-personality/

Main article being reverenced:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/opinion/sunday/so-youre-not-desirable.html

For one of our studies, we recruited 129 heterosexual individuals across several small undergraduate classes. These individuals indicated, at both the beginning and the end of the semester, the extent to which the opposite-sex students in their class possessed a set of desirable qualities. We found that consensus dropped and uniqueness increased as these students got to know one another over time. After three months, uniqueness dominated consensus for all desirable qualities: attractiveness, vitality, warmth, potential for success and even the ability to provide a satisfying romantic relationship.

From the DrNerdlove article:

VigilanteNighthawk

I'm a bit fed up with these types of articles. They don't help, and do only more harm than good. It's more a matter of tone than content, but any real message. What you should be telling people is to respect themselves for who they are, and to look for someone who will do the same in return. That bit is in there, but you *really* have to read in between the lines to get at it. On the surface, however, this article comes more across as more as "You aren't good enough, so you have to get confidence like those guys who use women over there. Wait? What do you mean telling you that you aren't good enough because you lack confidence isn't going to help?"

Here is the actual problem: Nice Guys @reg; need to understand that women aren't the only one's who chose. The man has to chose the woman, as well, and that goes far beyond simply thinking she's pretty, funny, cute, etc. There are a lot of qualities she'll lack that you will want or need that she'll lack, and there are a lot things about her you ultimately won't like. There is someone out there who will love you for who you are, but you have to respect yourself enough to and develop enough self knowledge to first wade through the women who, however great they may otherwise be, aren't going to be right for you.

Instead, your post ultimately makes the "nice guy" worse. You've just confirmed that he's broken because, once again, he's failed to meet whatever standard society or nature has set. Telling someone who lacks confidence and then having a comments section filled with dumping on the very person you are trying to help will accomplish nothing.

 

[supdup]

ehhhh

I don't like it when the sluthaters point out those dark triad studies and get downvoted, for example, but one opposing piece of research 'blows them to shreds'

Poor choice of words on my part.

The New York Times and Doctor Nerdlove are going to talk about studies which reinforce their views, and Sluthaters will discuss literature that confirms theirs. That's just how it is.

True. But I've rarely seen anything of theirs that isn't pseudo-science. This study was at least published in a respected scientific journal.

Not really, no.

What's interesting is those articles confirm the one I posted.

"The more humble among us can take heart in knowing that despite these initial advantages, narcissists’ popularity tends to decline over time." ... "When it comes to long-term relationships, either in fiction or reality, most people shy away from those with dark personality traits."

"This survey (N¼ 224) found that characteristics collectively known as the Dark Triad (i.e.
narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism) were correlated with various dimensions
of short-term mating but not long-term mating."

What the article I posted was saying that uniqueness gets you well past the short-term.

This also confirms a common argument against the SH/LS crowd, that personality does play a role in attractiveness.

"A meta-analysis (N > 1000) reveals a small but reliable positive narcissism–attractiveness correlation that approaches the largest known personality–attractiveness correlations."

 

[autisticdragonkin]

What's interesting is those articles confirm the one I posted.

"The more humble among us can take heart in knowing that despite these initial advantages, narcissists’ popularity tends to decline over time." ... "When it comes to long-term relationships, either in fiction or reality, most people shy away from those with dark personality traits."

"This survey (N¼ 224) found that characteristics collectively known as the Dark Triad (i.e.
narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism) were correlated with various dimensions
of short-term mating but not long-term mating."

What the article I posted was saying that uniqueness gets you well past the short-term.

This also confirms a common argument against the SH/LS crowd, that personality does play a role in attractiveness.

"A meta-analysis (N > 1000) reveals a small but reliable positive narcissism–attractiveness correlation that approaches the largest known personality–attractiveness correlations."

well sluthaters don't care about long term mating, only betas need long term mating

 

[MarineTrainedTard]

well sluthaters don't care about long term mating, only betas need long term mating

This. Remember, they have this cognitive dissonance where they want to bang as many hot chicks as possible and discard them but also want to have children and families because reproduction is the only purpose in life. OK, those may be different subcamps of sluthaters but that's the general gestalt I get from them.

 

[DuskEngine]

What's interesting is those articles confirm the one I posted.

Yeah, this is where all the weird ideological assumptions come into play because they assume that anyone who wants a meaningful long-term relationship is a cucked AMOGGed beta bluepill copecel dickstand provider while also being painfully insecure about how they will only be worthy as men if they're living in a Norman Rockwell painting by the time they're 30. The contradictions are astounding.