Have you ever manipulated women for your own benefit?

[Zuberi TauParticipant 10606]

Trash bags have nothing that benefits me and manipulating them is a complete waste of time.

[Cheeky BastardParticipant 323]

Efficacy is not Ethicacy. If we stand for anything as MGTOW, we stand for anti-exploitation. If we forget that and exploit another we are hypocrites and we stand on nothing.

Sincerely
Cheeky Bastard
Neuroscience and technology

CEO Cheeky Industries Technology Fabricator

ABN 71 247 061 775

and
23 year gaming icon Cheeky Bastard

www.cheekyindustries.biz

cheeky.bastard@hotmail.com

https://www.facebook.com/CheekyIndustries

[Anonymous 3]

Cheeky Bastard wrote:

Efficacy is not Ethicacy. If we stand for anything as MGTOW, we stand for anti-exploitation. If we forget that and exploit another we are hypocrites and we stand on nothing.

That’s true. It would be indeed hypocritical for MGTOW to point out and condemn the destructive aspects of female nature only to employ the same tactics on females.

Although, like I said, I cannot really fault guys who do that because it would still be considered in retaliation. Say, if somebody comes up to you and punches you in the face. While, I don’t really condone any violence, I cannot blame you if you do decide to whoop his candy ass. It would be different had you been the one who perpetrated the assault.

7/10 who is disguised as a 10/10 with makeup and fakery, is the same as a fake rich player who is actually a janitor.

It’s all just a ridiculous, rigged game in the end. Better not bother with it at all.

[HitmanParticipant]

not sure how far statute of limitations goes for various , er , things… i plead the 5th ..lots and lots of … pleading the 5th ! F~~~ THEM HOES !

[Cheeky BastardParticipant 323]

Personally I am 39 now so my sex drive is much lower than what I was 29. I would avoid places where such women congregate. If you need by necessity then the following moral dilemma arises.

If you perpetrate that deception then you are most certainly at fault. So I will illustrate this philosophical conundrum with the following scenario.

Of course if you were to dress with a Rolex and a $3000 Italian suit you would be doing exactly the same thing as putting on a bit of makeup and a dress.

Ultimately psychology tells us that we all put our best foot forward when integrating with other human beings. You don’t turn up to a legal hearing in clothes you stole from a homeless person.

So I would not fault somebody addressing nicely to go to a club. We both also know the better we dress the more likely we are to get invited into most establishments. If I needed to get into somewhere that has dress code I would dress in a way that is most likely to get me into an establishment as fast as possible.

So this is where the rationalisation and confirmation bias is in that argument above. In such a scenario both men and women dress according to their environment. This nullifies the argument. True deception would start with the male as soon as he lied about his job. That is no longer an even playing field.

We both know men and women are motivated under the same mental conditions as each other. The only thing that differs is the stimulus. To break this down men are looking youthful appearance and women the look of the money in its simplest form.

Anything greater than this is a lie and you have just become what you despise.

Sincerely
Cheeky Bastard
Neuroscience and technology

CEO Cheeky Industries Technology Fabricator

ABN 71 247 061 775

and
23 year gaming icon Cheeky Bastard

www.cheekyindustries.biz

cheeky.bastard@hotmail.com

https://www.facebook.com/CheekyIndustries

[Anonymous 3]

I agree to a certain extent.

I do think however, women view such dress codes as an excuse to display the makeup, fancy clothes and accessories, rather than entering into it with the intention of meeting what requirements are. Something like water proof makeup for going to the swimming pool comes to mind. I don’t think one can make the same dress code argument here for such makeup, yet they still do it.

The game has effectively rigged due to this, because ultimately, the responsibility is always on the male’s court. If you approach, it’s your fault for being superficial and shallow for not accepting her true 7/10 looks. If you do accept, you are ripped off. You can’t question her makeup because one, they have the dress code excuse, two it’s mean/politically incorrect/sexist/whatever, three you risk getting taken care of by gynocracy enforcers. If you lie, it’s still your fault for being manipulative. It’s a lose-lose situation for men.

Does it make it right though? It certainly does not. But at the same time, seeing that women have manipulated the entire atmosphere for their own benefit, I’m not so sure. It’s still not right though. I’m hesitant to call it wrong. Perhaps my thinking is flawed, will certainly spend more time thinking about this.

[Cheeky BastardParticipant 323]

For the basis of this to be correct you would have to do reject or philosophy from the 1500s onwards it is not a bad thing to bring this into question is the only way that any kind of scientific philosophy to evolve. But ultimately just because you don’t put as much hard work into looking as good as often as women do is “fallacy of composition”.

But if women expects to be treated better by ‘right’ of entitlement due to belief that she is better other people and rejects people by the same standard it is a different matter. It is called “Sumptuary law” revivification which is a belief in entitlement by looks, position and belongings then I it as a whole different matter. This individual gets everything they deserve, and can be treated as they treat others to clubs come off. But to determine this you must interact with them or observe them for extended period of time. I believe any man giving her a taste of her own medicine is blameless.

Sincerely
Cheeky Bastard
Neuroscience and technology

CEO Cheeky Industries Technology Fabricator

ABN 71 247 061 775

and
23 year gaming icon Cheeky Bastard

www.cheekyindustries.biz

cheeky.bastard@hotmail.com

https://www.facebook.com/CheekyIndustries

[AngularParticipant 114]

Cheeky Bastard wrote:

For the basis of this to be correct you would have to do reject or philosophy from the 1500s onwards it is not a bad thing to bring this into question is the only way that any kind of scientific philosophy to evolve. But ultimately just because you don’t put as much hard work into looking as good as often as women do is “fallacy of composition”.
But if women expects to be treated better by ‘right’ of entitlement due to belief that she is better other people and rejects people by the same standard it is a different matter. It is called “Sumptuary law” revivification which is a belief in entitlement by looks, position and belongings then I it as a whole different matter. This individual gets everything they deserve, and can be treated as they treat others to clubs come off. But to determine this you must interact with them or observe them for extended period of time. I believe any man giving her a taste of her own medicine is blameless.

You aware brah???

[Cheeky BastardParticipant 323]

What do you mean by that?

Sincerely
Cheeky Bastard
Neuroscience and technology

CEO Cheeky Industries Technology Fabricator

ABN 71 247 061 775

and
23 year gaming icon Cheeky Bastard

www.cheekyindustries.biz

cheeky.bastard@hotmail.com

https://www.facebook.com/CheekyIndustries

[CatsPawParticipant 423]

I would not say I screwed them over but Manipulated?
I lost count years ago.

[Author]

Posts