Who you are Vs. Who you HAVE to be with Independent Women

[Anonymous 22]

Joey Brooks wrote:

Funny how some of the Forum users, none of whom have ever met me, can tell I am a Tuna from the little information I have put out here, yet when a REAL LIVE WOMAN is right in front of them they can’t see s~~~. Isn’t that the focus of this place? You got FOOLED in love? Yet you know all sorts of stuff about some random dude after a few dozen posts on the Internet. Hilarious. So happy I found this place.

If you were as observant around women perhaps this Forum would not even exist?

What’s your reason for being here? Are you a man going his own way?

[Pedal, run, rowParticipant]

Joey Brooks wrote:

So for you guys who are determined to change NOTHING for a good woman, you won’t have any worries because you won’t keep one for long.

LOL!

I kept my good woman for 16 years, and then found out she wasn’t exactly the genuine article. If you know what I mean, but thanks for the kind advice bro.

Now I wish to god some other man had kept her, and I had learned MGTOW before I married.

What do you think this is the Eharmony discussion board? Take that s~~~ to Reddit Redpill where all the manginas clamor on and on about how to keep their good women. This is MGTOW.

Don’t forget bro, never drop frame… don’t want her to see you for who you really are, beyond your PUA game.

[Elric GreenstoneParticipant 1637]

Elric Greenstone wrote:

Your mileage may vary. Your experience, and your marriage, is so goddamn far from any possible mainstream as to be valueless as an example, and irrelevant for pretty much anyone else on Earth.

I am now quoting myself. How meta.

I am wrong. You in fact do have a traditional marriage. Very traditional. You simply have the female role in that marriage, and your wife has the male role. That’s why you read as tuna to so many of us. You have a tuna role inside the relationship, and are defending that role as being awesome. I can’t argue with that. Much of MGTOW, in fact, has as a central thesis that women in traditional relationships had an awesome gig and were fools to leave it.

Thank you, in a bizarre and surreal way, for proving our point. Being a chick in a traditional, 1950s relationship, was in fact quite awesome for the chick. Feminists largely are and were . . . with a very, very, very few exceptions who generally just led the life they wanted anyway . . . ugly chicks who couldn’t land this fantastic gig (kept pet), and were angry about it.

"You can either love women, or understand women. You can't do both. Because once you understand women, you realize that there is really nothing to love."

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Why are people still responding to this Joey Whatshername?

Obvious Tuna is Obvious.

[Author]

Posts