Tell me more about Chad?

[Buller100Participant 2189]

Anonymous wrote:

Super-Chad swooped in and snagged the woman I had been dating for two years. I was actually looking at Blood Diamonds with her being the blue pill fool I was. I made way more money than he did too plus no drug/alcohol addictions or DV issues on my part. My clean criminal record did not help me either.

He mooched off of her for 20 years until she hit The Wall and dumped her. He still controls her too. Any blue piller that tries to get with her now is playing with fire. She was smoking hot pre-Wall and actually turned down MDs for this yard boy after they got divorced for the first time.

Players are not necessarily Chads. Chad operates at a higher dimension. They are blue pill as hell too.

Yes, Chads can reform as my prison stent one did.

Yes they are blue pill as hell, the biggest Chad in my school has been married 3 times he lost his job a year ago so she left him, I saw him crying on FB about being alone then he let slip he had no work.

That must be like hitting the wall or worse for a Chad, I would wager a few end up with drugs or booze addictions or top themselves.

Has to be a comedown from hell, where did that come from ???

[FermatParticipant 3478]

Anonymous wrote:

My perspective is that once a woman has been around the block err the c~~~ carousel, the definition of Chad evolves. Chad then is any man who is using her for sex and has no intention of being in a relationship (and she subconsciously is fully aware of this). She is perhaps recovering from emotional scars, is going through some phase but the essence of what I am trying to say is that a man who is emotionally void or is indifferent to her existence as a human being beyond a hole to get some friction on – is the Chad.

Women love being emotionally ignored. The physical turn on I guess comes from the primal anxiety/uncertainty and the female brain copes with it by sleeping with the man who gives her the anxieties to subvert the ‘threat’.

(Work in progress theory)

F~~~ theory. Sounds to me like straight up law.

I have discovered a truly remarkable list of reasons why women are not necessary for a happy life, but alas this margin is too small to contain it.

[RASmanParticipant 1994]

Chads make the babies, blue pillers $$$upport their babies and feel lucky for the honor of a life-time of getting to do so: paying for food, clothing, education, housing, braces; then being told by the brats “You’re NOT MY DADDY!”

[VarunParticipant 2981]

Anonymous wrote:

My advice to any younger MGTOWs. If you ever think you meet a NAWALT, make sure your Chad friend is the very first friend of yours she meets. Then, kick back and watch her.

I will try that out sometimes. I had a good Chad friend at high school. Take this, he was actually a bit over-weight (no kidding) and chicks were still swooning over him. One minute they’d say “He’s so rude” and the next minute, they’d be drooling all over him.

He has even more chicks now that his father left him and his brother his million-dollar newspaper company.

So yeah, maybe Chads ARE freaks of nature. Good freaks, bad freaks, I don’t know. I am indifferent towards them.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[ComputernerdParticipant 465]

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t think it’s possible to become a Chad. Chads are just born that way. Personally, I think most of them are sociopaths of some sort. I’ve known four over the years.

I could tell the difference between Chad’s, manginas, and white knights even when I was a kid. I hated being around all those types of men. They just p~~~ed me off. I knew a few in college and they were just morons. You have to be a sociopathic dumbass to be a Chad.

[AncientwisdomParticipant 6089]

F~~~ the image of the artificial prototype man that’s been constructed, namely – ‘Chad’.

I’ve expressed this here before, and received negative feedback, nonetheless, I hold my same views.

The notion of ‘Chad’ is a construct. How can we reconcile the notion that:

1. Women are eternally doomed to: fickle-mindedness, ephemeral/transient feelings, jealousy – and I’m referring to even being jealous that a man is good looking and gets pussy easily;

AND, that:

2. There is this ONE type of man that exists that just effortlessly gets pussy, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

The idea to me is a farce.

Yes, I’ve seen the Tinder “experiment” where the “male model” says whatever the f~~~ he wants to try and get pussy, and the girls give him their #; that doesn’t mean they f~~~ed him. We all know from experience, a chick could be down to f~~~ like a rabbit, but ONE wrong look in the eye; ONE wrong comment in PERSON (not online); ONE wrong month of the year you were born in – “oh your an AQUARIUS!?..This WON’T work!”…Ad infinitum. The chick will turn on you like a f~~~ing cat.

I don’t buy into the concept, because it’s a construct created to explain phenomena that doesn’t exist, namely – some guys get pussy night and day, 7 days a week. Every chick is throwing themselves at him. It simply doesn’t happen.

Are there some men that have a physically universal appeal to women? Yes, but this notion of a “chad” is tantamount to the notion of a unicorn/NAWALT to the 10th degree, because women are entirely governed by their emotions, which are – fickle, transient, and ephemeral. They turn on a f~~~ing dime.

Men are the opposite. We are visually stimulated, and once the little head takes over – all the blood flows from the big head to the little head – we could give no f~~~s. Women are NOT like that in ANY way; we can all attest to that from the sum total of our collective individual experiences.

I’m strong against this notion of “chad THUNDER C~~~” because I think it’s detrimental to men’s psyche. It creates this fictionalized universe in which some men are getting pussy, 24/7, 365 a year, irrespective of what they do; and that is simply not the case.

The notion is detrimental to every mans psyche. It’s a form of reductio ad absurdum – reduction to absurdity, in an attempt to explain a situation by giving an extreme example/blanket statements.

Reductio ad absurdum has it’s proper usage/utility; but not in this case IMO, and CERTAINLY not on a MGTOW site; which is why I’m so passionately against it, and surprised men use it as a common phrase on this site.

Just my 2 cents.

Resident cynic.

[sidecarParticipant 35860]

Ancientwisdom wrote:

2. There is this ONE type of man that exists that just effortlessly gets pussy, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

But there isn’t one type of Chad. They come in all sorts.

[AncientwisdomParticipant 6089]

sidecar wrote:

Ancientwisdom wrote:

2. There is this ONE type of man that exists that just effortlessly gets pussy, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

But there isn’t one type of Chad. They come in all sorts.

Then lets streamline this process/do away with the artificial construct and call ‘him’: Sophisticated Scott, Calm Chris, Tough Tony, etc, etc.

My point is – it’s detrimental to men and especially MGTOW men, to construct the fictitious notion that there is ONE single embodiment of a man that EVERY chick is throwing her panties at and literally f~~~ing all the time.

It simply doesn’t happen. They might all get wet and WANT to f~~~ a certain type of man, but the actual f~~~ing doesn’t take place because women are fickle as f~~~, and change their minds on a dime.

Resident cynic.

[sidecarParticipant 35860]

Ancientwisdom wrote:

My point is – it’s detrimental to men and especially MGTOW men,

Why? How is it detrimental?

to construct the fictitious notion

This thread has enough examples from various members to show that Chad is hardly fictitious.

that there is ONE single embodiment of a man

But I just pointed out that there are many many different types of Chad, not a “single embodiment”.

that EVERY chick is throwing her panties at and literally f~~~ing all the time.

But that’s not what Chad represents at all. Chad is simply the sort of man for whom sex comes effortlessly. Trust me, such men do, in fact, exist. That’s not the same thing as literally f~~~ing all women all the time. When would he have the time to get s~~~ done?

They might all get wet and WANT to f~~~ a certain type of man, but the actual f~~~ing doesn’t take place because women are fickle as f~~~, and change their minds on a dime.

That’s not been my experience. My personal observation is that if a woman decides she wants to f~~~ you, she’ll hold on to that notion. That decision comes from a very primitive part of her brain, and it does not change its mind easily.

I suspect this “fickleness” you talk about comes from a woman not actually wanting to f~~~, but more just wanting to pretend she wants to f~~~ to see how much she can whore herself for. “Changing her mind” is a petty stratagem to drive up the price.

[LurchParticipant 3872]

A bit off topic, but I must be a mutant variant of the Chad which I’ve deemed the Lurch (Hence my avatar).

I’m 6’4″, solid build and since loosing 80lbs (from 320lbs down to 240lbs) I’ve gained a “strong man” type physic, where by your not Mr Universe cut, but carry a lot of muscle.

Where by a Chad can make a woman’s panties wet, from just being in their presence, I intimidate the s~~~ out of them. I see the look every day, that one where they look up, as women are all short to me, their eyes widen, look of shock to the point I’ve seen some of the more timid women go white, they get all squirmish and scurry away as fast as they can. Typically blurting out “Sorry” as they dive for cover.

So when you’re a Lurch, is easy to be MGTOW. Women are too afraid to approach. Chad’s might be the Lion of the jungle, but I’m the 13,000 lbs African Elephant, that’s going to trample the crap out of you if you don’t get out of my way.

Blue-Pill Virgin: Women hate me! That's what it is.
MGTOW Man: Hate them back; it works for me.

[DorkShitParticipant 4353]

Ancientwisdom wrote:

My point is – it’s detrimental to men and especially MGTOW men, to construct the fictitious notion that there is ONE single embodiment of a man that EVERY chick is throwing her panties at and literally f~~~ing all the time.

I see a flaw in your theory. His name was Elvis Presley.

Just one example

Peace brothers

[Author]

Posts