would only be with a girl who is more like a pet than anything else. Females with education, jobs/careers, driving, money access in general … I don’t think that is how life was meant to be

Seriously? Isn’t better, instead of having a woman as a pet, get an ACTUAL pet? Besides, don’t you worry, women think the same as you, that’s why they are taking gender studies courses instead of courses that would actually pay something when they graduate. Of course, that would require effort, but, like you, they probably think women SHOULDN’T do that.  And that’s why they are DEMANDING MEN to do everything for them. The ones that realized you attract more bees with honey then vinegar are the ones you probably want.  Hence the “women against feminism” where women want their little slaves back, so they can have all the comforts of modern society with little to no effort. All they would have to do is stroke a men’s ego and voila’, they have their house, kids and money.

I don’t know about you, but I think that is a real sad state of affairs. But if you like to be a working drone, go for it. There are a few women out there willing to put a leash around your neck.

I, myself, prefer to be free.

That being said, welcome, I guess.

I am a provider by nature.  I provide what I choose to provide — not what I’m told to provide.  But I would only provide for a girl who needs provision.  All these girls who can go to school and get degrees and make money on their own, do not need my provision, and therefore will never get it, and will never get me.

As for why I don’t “just get a real pet,” I think it’s obvious; girls are attractive and emotionally satisfying and I would love to be with one — though I would not marry–, IF THEY ACT PROPERLY AND KNOW THEIR POSITION.  Perhaps that makes me a non-MGTOW, I’m not sure on the definition.  The hard (impossible) part is finding an actual good one.  If a girl recognizes that she is innately inferior, submits, and follows all of my rules, then what is left to dislike?  Don’t get me wrong, I f~~~ing hate women — not just “because they are women,” but because they don’t stay in their place.  I suppose the sanity of what I’m saying, perhaps, hinges upon whether one believes that a truly submissive, obedient female exists.

All these girls who can go to school and get degrees and make money on their own, do not need my provision, and therefore will never get it, and will never get me.

No girl, or better yet, no WOMAN should NEED your, or ANY MEN’S provision. They should be able to provide for THEMSELVES, to carry their own weight. Only then relationships between men and women would be somehow worthy and have a deeper meaning. Even if both parties agreed on one side being the provider while the other is the “submissive” (I would call it “aristocracy), this should be a CHOICE, not IMPOSED, which in a sense is what you are proposing and in a sense it is what is happening. Why you think the gender gap myth persists? Women still have the mentality of being “taken care off”, just that this time ALL MEN should take care of ALL WOMEN. And this is exactly the mentality YOU are showing here.

King wrote:

The hard (impossible) part is finding an actual good one. If a girl recognizes that she is innately inferior, submits, and follows all of my rules, then what is left to dislike?

Well, and here we have the NAWALT argument. Except that your version is almost like the slave version of the NAWALT. What is left to dislike? How about the fact that what you have there is more of a DOLL than a human being, that would be a start. Besides, this sounds more like a slave master to me, and EXACLY what feminists paint men to be.

King wrote:

Don’t get me wrong, I f~~~ing hate women — not just “because they are women,” but because they don’t stay in their place

Yeah, I believe you. Only someone that HATES women would want to see them like this.

King wrote:

I suppose the sanity of what I’m saying, perhaps, hinges upon whether one believes that a truly submissive, obedient female exists.

The sanity of what you are saying depends on what one defines as sane. Subjugating another human being because of their gender is not what I consider sane. Your speech towards women is the same as the speech feminists have towards men. Worse, is that, in this little delusion of yours, you believe to be one on top, when in reality you are the slaving away your life so your “woman” can have their life free from any ACTUAL WORK.

As for being a “provider by nature”, well, guess what, so was I. But I like to think that my value and potential as human is greater then of being a tool for women. And I think women should aim higher then the fantasy that they all are helpless damsel in distress they pretend to be (and that you seem to INDULGE).

I really don’t like SLAVE MASTERS, so I guess we will not get along.

MGTOW basics:  no co-habitation, no-marriage, no gold-digging apologists tolerated. (unless you are already married, no new engagements tho).

MGTOW rabbit hole can go pretty deep.  Abstinence for some, ghosting for others. (I am practicing abstinence, in the process of expatriation).

Hang out if you are interested, see ya on the forums.

Oh dear …… sigh …… I just can’t …… be …… oh never mind.

Thank you.

I thought it was just me… 🙂

1) Men and women are completely equal and should be treated completely equally, the good stuff and the bad stuff for both genders. (Where Kan stands)

2) Men are superior, and women should be submissive and have little power or influence in the world and in life, but they should be taken care of and protected. (Where I stand)

I think either concept is “even” (accurate or morally correct is a different story) in its own way, but the only severely f~~~ed up part is that the modern world is trying to mix the two schools, giving the advantage to women from BOTH sides of the fence, which is why there is a major problem causing the need and desire for M to GTOW.