Women exposed at 50+ dating site (Redonkulas.com)

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

narwhal wrote:

Second, the ‘survey’ did not ask why these women most interested in the widowed man.

Because it doesn’t need to. The answer is obvious.

I don’t know what she’s thinking.

Really? I do. How much time have you spent observing women?

At that age single men come in three flavors: committed bachelors, divorced, and widowers. Committed bachelors are useless to these women; if they haven’t given up their wealth to a woman by now they aren’t going to. Divorced men have already been financially raped by at least one woman, and so have little wealth remaining for another woman to claim. These women haven’t “had their full of dealing with ex-wives”; they just know they can’t get what the ex-wives have already taken. In many ways it’s a woman who takes up with a widower who has to deal with his former wife, because unlike a divorced man, a widower likely still has fond memories of his former wife, and so a new woman will always have to face being compared to her, possibly unfavorably. But since a former wife of a widower can’t take it with her when she dies, widowers have their finances intact. They are lucrative targets. That’s it. That’s the difference.

As always, it’s all about the money.

It really seems like we are throwing out motives that fit the narrative we want.

It’s not the narrative we want. It’s the narrative that gets played out time and time again without exceptions. They’re not AWALT because we want them to be. They’re AWALT because they literally ARE all like that. ALL of them.

[narwhalParticipant]

sidecar wrote:

Really? I do. How much time have you spent observing women?

I’ve spent very little time observing single women over 50. And you’re actually proving my point. You are basing your determination of female behavior on your own observations, not on the results of this test. If the test results themselves were enough to show women’s motivations, you wouldn’t be asking me how much I’ve observed women.

sidecar wrote:

At that age single men come in three flavors: committed bachelors, divorced, and widowers. Committed bachelors are useless to these women; if they haven’t given up their wealth to a woman by now they aren’t going to. Divorced men have already been financially raped by at least one woman, and so have little wealth remaining for another woman to claim. These women haven’t “had their full of dealing with ex-wives”; they just know they can’t get what the ex-wives have already taken. In many ways it’s a woman who takes up with a widower who has to deal with his former wife, because unlike a divorced man, a widower likely still has fond memories of his former wife, and so a new woman will always have to face being compared to her, possibly unfavorably. But since a former wife of a widower can’t take it with her when she dies, widowers have their finances intact. They are lucrative targets. That’s it. That’s the difference.

As always, it’s all about the money.

And that theory is perfectly logical and fits the data. But again, the data doesn’t prove the theory.

There are plenty of stats out there that do stand alone and provide proof. For example, the stats about 70% of women initiating divorce, women overwhelmingly receiving alimony, child support and primary care….all point to the fact that marriage is a very risky business for men. We also have stats that disprove the unequal wage lie, etc etc. In my mind that’s data that provides proof.

For me, it’s all rather irrelevant information anyway. When I get passed 50, my focus will be on retirement. A retired woman with no retirement savings and high potential for medical expenses is an anchor I wouldn’t want to take on, regardless of whether she’s a gold digger or not.

Ok. Then do it.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

narwhal wrote:

I’ve spent very little time observing single women over 50.

The age doesn’t matter. AWALT.

You are basing your determination of female behavior on your own observations, not on the results of this test.

No, I am basing my determination on female behavior on female behavior, not on my own observations. All women are like that whether I see it or not. And this test doesn’t matter for that. Do you need a test to tell you the sky is blue and grass is green?

And that theory is perfectly logical and fits the data. But again, the data doesn’t prove the theory.

It’s not a theory, just as how the sky being blue is not a theory. It’s how women are.

[narwhalParticipant]

sidecar wrote:

narwhal wrote:

I’ve spent very little time observing single women over 50.

The age doesn’t matter. AWALT.

Fine, not disagreeing with you on that. However, it’s irrelevant to what I was disagreeing with the OP about, and that’s whether or not the social experiment on a dating site proves AWALT.

sidecar wrote:

You are basing your determination of female behavior on your own observations, not on the results of this test.

No, I am basing my determination on female behavior on female behavior, not on my own observations. All women are like that whether I see it or not. And this test doesn’t matter for that. Do you need a test to tell you the sky is blue and grass is green?

No, I don’t. I can see the colors…I observe them. And again, it’s irrelevant. You seem to think I’m trying to make a argument for NAWALT. I am not.

I agree with you that this dating site test isn’t needed. I am not saying that the conclusions of experiment aren’t true, just the experiment itself (without any other outside knowledge) isn’t enough to prove the conclusions.

sidecar wrote:

And that theory is perfectly logical and fits the data. But again, the data doesn’t prove the theory.

It’s not a theory, just as how the sky being blue is not a theory. It’s how women are.

Whatever. Semantics as far as I’m concerned (regarding the meaning of the word theory). I am tempted to try and restate what I’m trying to say yet again, but it seems pointless.

Ok. Then do it.

[Cap285Participant 6007]

Every time I watch Popp, I learn something new.

I didn’t know that was a pay site. F~~~ing seriously? Pay for hags far on the wrong side of The Wall?

Fuck this planet.

[MichaelSpectator 544]

Are you serious? At a funeral for your wife? That’s like something out of a bad movie.

[VettenParticipant 110]

Stumbled on him 3-4 days ago on youtube. Informative videos. Gotta love the reason / logic and humor with a little math thrown in to absolutely drive the delusional bananas. Seems like a really genuine guy.

Boggles my mind how people are blind to reality especially when accompanied with statistical data yet still refuse to believe the truth.

[experiencedParticipant]

http://www.uplifting-love.com/2013/08/80-percent-of-divorces-are-filed-by.html

"It seems like there's times a body gets struck down so low, there ain't a power on earth that can ever bring him up again. Seems like something inside dies so he don't even want to get up again. But he does."

[the roadParticipant 3125]

This guy is fookin’ great. He’s such a smart ass too and I can imagine that p~~~ing off more than a few entitled C-bags.

#MANOUT

[Deadly RaverParticipant]

LMFAO!! He just got a new subscriber for that vid. Looks like I’ll be binging on that for a few hours.

Learn from the past, Control the present, and you will know the Future.

[Drink BeerParticipant 1]

I partially agree since Popp has not experimented using “blind” or “double blind” trials and has not considered the presence of “confounding” variables in his studies. However, my anecdotal experience exactly follows his research.

Popp is making an anecdotal point about the general trend of women who use hypergamy as a tool to increase assets without earning them. ie FREE Money share a little coochie and get paid more than professional hookers but with less stigma…until MGTOW. I have known about this motivation to seek Widowers. When I have a friend who is over 40 I tell them to fill out any employment application or other survey with Widower. When the little personnel clerk reads it she tells all the husband hunters on the payroll and they start hunting. Try your own experiment. I am not a PUA. I like to “target” married women by letting them target me. Most women married or not want to be IN CONTROL so a man who is widowed signals a man to be “changed”, “fixed” or dominated and added to their experience on their c~~~ carousel. They know that “widowers” are more controllable and have potentially more accessible assets compared to other men. As a new MGTOW I still allow women to seek me, but it must be on my terms. First I use an alias, and never let them know my real name, occupation, community or house. I have a friend who owns a rental car business and I get to use any car that I want depending on my goals. I use a nice hotel as a shack up location miles from my community. I have a friend who owns the hotel and we have an agreement, he helps me and I help him with my benefits from my occupation. I am self employed. In hundreds of trials I have learned—actually trained by women- that being a widower brings in the fish. Its like chumming when fishing. The fish swim in thinking that they are in control. What about pregnancy? Get tied. I made my genetic donations to society and probably have a hundred or so biological children for couples with fertility issues. Winning! It’s interesting how many times women have called me up ( I use “burner” (throw away) Android cell phones with different area codes ~ 6 weeks after we hook up to tell me that “I” am the Bio dad. The problem is I am shooting blanks. They keep trying to hang their pregnancy on a man who has assets but shoots blanks. This has happened maybe a dozen times AFTER I was tied. yes I was tested and am still shooting “blanks”. I like 95% of all of the Redonkulas videos.

Some MGTOW don’t like this, but if I and other men like me were not out here, the married women would be screwing someone else. Why not get some since there is so much free stuff available? At least I am D&D free and have been tied. Studies who that > 70% of married women have extra marital affairs, at least in my case, they aren’t likely to leave their hubbies for me since they don’t know who I am. I see it as a Win-Win. Their husbands may think something is going on and it is; with or without my involvement. As long as you wear a rain coat, you won’t have any problems. I never roost in their homes, only in my controlled space. A kid will not walk in on us, and it is a “safe” controlled environment. I never use the same room or Hotel and I am never on the official register. What about car license plates? I remove the front plate and cover the rear plate with a new paper plate. I have never been pulled over yet. I also remember she never gets to “forget” her personal items, cologne, soaps etc for them to be found by someone else. The hotel clean up crew gets them. When travelling I make the same arrangements. What if she looks into my wallet when I am sleeping or? Phoney identification is always there for her amusement. Using fake ID is not illegal unless FINANCIAL fraud is involved. I always pay cash for my costs, she can pay for hers—cash only. Credit cards leave a record. I also never allow photos. As soon as I see her taking photos with her smartphone I am gone. I get them so paranoid about location tracking and malware on Smartphones I teach them how to disconnect the battery. They are more paranoid of smartphones than one would expect. if they are a texting nut, that kills the “bait” me. NO texting is one of my rules. I don’t like drama. just fresh, wet slot C.

[Author]

Posts