Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Disappointed in Shoe0nHead

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mifune
    started a topic Disappointed in Shoe0nHead

    Disappointed in Shoe0nHead



    This is Shoe0nHead's latest video. I've got beef.

    But let's start with the stuff that's not in dispute. Nobody is entitled to a romantic or sexual relationship with anyone else. Men and women both have a responsibility to avoid the "friend zone". I don't think anyone's going to argue against that. But there's an undercurrent of something really devious. in this video. I'm not sure if it's only how shallow it is in some ways, or if maybe there's something more malicious.

    So let's go through this:

    [1:29] - But the truth is Elliot (Rodger) was just a psychopath....and he was also a "Nice Guy"
    I wasn't sure why this bothered me at first. What she's doing here is somewhat subtle, maybe because it's close to the beginning of the video. What she's doing here is taking a very isolated, low percentage thing, psycho guys who do violence toward women, and linking every man who expresses frustration with rejection and lack of sexual success. Heard of Social Proof? Well this is its ugly cousin. Because that one guy one time both expressed his anger/frustration and also shot a bunch of people (most of whom were male by the way) we need to treat every man who's frustrated by his lack of success as though he's a psycho-murderer too. Never mind that there are literally millions of frustrated dudes out there who have never and will never lash out this way.

    [1:34] - So what is a "Nice Guy". A "Nice Guy" is not a nice guy. A "Nice Guy" thinks that being nice should automatically grant him all the bagina or peen that he wants.
    I'd be interested to meet a person who fits this definition. I don't believe they exist....or at least are very few and far between. What she really means is that a "Nice Guy" is a guy who pursues a friendly relationship before announcing his romantic desire, and then is in anyway visually disappointed or frustrated when he gets shot down. Women don't smear men with the quoted "Nice Guy" label if they climb back in the friend-box and shut the fuck up. It's only the ones who push or completely withdraw that get smeared. Serve the feminine imperative or we'll attempt to shame you!

    Nobody thinks that being nice entitles you to sex with any specific person. Nobody thinks "I was nice to June so she's obligated to fuck me" (okay, probably almost nobody thinks that). But what does happen is people think that they're entitled to find love and have sex somewhere and with someone. If a guy acts a little disappointed or angry, it's not really fair to put that on one specific girl, but it's not about that one specific girl. It's the frustration of being rejected not just by her, but the girl before her, and the girl before her and the girl before her.

    It leaves me with a disturbed feeling. How can June, and the majority of women have such startling little empathy for men that they have to present the ability to feel an completely reasonable human emotion, disappointment / frustration as though it's some kind of character flaw that deserves to be labelled and derided?

    [1:59] - You can't just insert the nice tokens and get sex in return.
    This is especially annoying. I heard this exact same thing from a douchey male feminist in a youtube video 2 years ago. Nobody thinks this. They're literally just upset that they're getting rejected. I'm disappointed to hear Shoe quote it. Karen Straughn said it best in one of her videos. "If men felt entitled to women's bodies, why would they work so damned heard to try to earn access to them?"

    [2:05] - Women especially.....I should know, I've been one for 26 years.
    If you're 26 years old you've been an adult woman for 8 years or less. Unless we're considering 8 year old girls women now, and I for one don't want to open the door where that leads. Maybe I'm just being snide here, but it sounds like she's trying to make an appeal to authority while misrepresenting her experience to gain additional authority.

    [2:16] - Being simply "nice" is not going to do much for you. You need something else. What are your hobbies? What are your interests? Do you play an instrument? Are you funny? So you gotta bring something more to the table than just basic-ass niceness.
    This statement is completely true, but also completely disingenuous. Guys who use the foolish "friends first" or "i'll show her how great I am" dating strategy are usually not one-trick nice-ponies. They have hobbies and friends and family and a job and interests and many of them are probably funny too. They simply don't have what the specific girl they're trying to get with wants. Maybe it's looks or money or status or just some vague thing she'll call "chemistry" but the fact of the matter is that she's not interested in his specific set of interests, hobbies, family and friends.

    But just because she's not interested in the combination of hobbies and interests and humor that he has, doesn't mean he doesn't have them. It's absurd to present the idea that any man who's disappointed by the amount of rejection he's faced has nothing going on but "niceness".

    [3:04] - But anyway. Some socially awkward guys confuse confidence with being an asshole..........Women confuse being an asshole with confidence.
    Sure, but the part you're leaving out here is that many women also confuse gentleness, kindness, compassion, and consideration with weakness and a lack of confidence.

    [3:34] - Now I have dealt with "Nice Guy Rage" before.
    Here she tells a story about a guy who bought her expensive gifts and then tried to guilt her when she didn't return his affections. That's manipulative and it's an asshole. What about that is nice? But "Nice Guy Rage"? If she thinks a little bit of guilting is rage than she'd be reduced to a quivering pile in the corner if she ever actually saw rage. The rage of men who've been constantly shamed and rejected isn't usually unleashed on women.....they usually reserve that for themselves and it's usually done in private.

    [7:23] - And don't lie to yourself. You're not being turned down just for being nice. There are plenty of other reasons you're likeable.
    This is really fucking weird and out of place. She just got done talking about the "friendzone". Which in it's most innocent form is just two people who actually like each other and one is romantically interested and one isn't. Somehow she makes not returning romantic feelings into "you're not likable". So which is it going to be? How can you simultaneously claim that it's completely reasonable to really appreciate someone's friendship while not being attracted to them sexually, but then turn around and say that not being interested in them sexually means that they were innately unlikable to begin with? Why would you value the friendship of someone who's unlikable?

    I don't know. This video really disappointed me. I had hoped Shoe was deeper than this. But it seems when it comes down to it, things that inconvenience women or require them to simply be firm about their boundaries are much more serious problems than the things that men fucking kill themselves over. It can't be that no women have empathy for men or you wouldn't have Karen Straughns and Diana Davisons. But that's two. Two out of 3.5+ Billion is pretty fucking depressing.

  • Manalysis
    replied
    Originally posted by christo930 View Post
    I think the friend zone is illustrated very well in the movie The Last American Virgin. The girl in the movie is very well aware that this guy has a crush on her and allows him to sell his shit to help her out and leads him on to believe that a romantic relationship is going to occur or is in some way already occurring.
    These woman are aware that these guys are doing stuff they would not do if they were not romantically interested and they encourage this behavior. This behavior is despicable.
    Yes. Despicable and manipulative. "Friend zone" is too nice a label for that.

    M

    Leave a comment:


  • christo930
    replied
    This term "friend zone" is rather unclear. Feminists and their ilk say it's unfair for a guy to complain about the friend-zone and so on. But I have always thought of the friend zone as something a bit more sinister. To me, the term describes women using men. Obviously, men need to be on the lookout for this stuff, but it doesn't excuse what the women do, in much the way that women are ultimately responsible for their own safety without so-called victim-blaming.

    I think the friend zone is illustrated very well in the movie The Last American Virgin. The girl in the movie is very well aware that this guy has a crush on her and allows him to sell his shit to help her out and leads him on to believe that a romantic relationship is going to occur or is in some way already occurring.

    These woman are aware that these guys are doing stuff they would not do if they were not romantically interested and they encourage this behavior. This behavior is despicable.

    Women know when a guy is interested in them as more than a friend. They should, if they have any character, not accept gifts or special favors. I've had friends call me in the middle of the night broke down somewhere and I felt it was my responsibility as a friend to go get them. It was NOT my responsibility to pay for their towing or the repair of their car or whatever. I think most sensible people know the difference. Women who pretend to not know that a guy is romantically interested while getting favors or gifts that are outside of the norms of friendship or who encourage this behavior are utterly despicable and are not in any way, shape or form, a victim.

    Leave a comment:


  • dubs
    replied


    The main crime I see being committed is taking a term of self-loathing by timid guys and making it all about "women."

    It's like, "Oh you can't get a date to save your life? That's nothing. Some guy bought me an iPhone X and pressured me to sleep with him."

    As if feeling pressured to sleep with a man who bought you gifts is in the same league with feeling shunned by society.

    Fall strictly into the category of "It's all about us."

    It's all about women, everything is about them, every issue, every behavior, everything that happens in life is about "but what about the women."

    If you don't want to marry then you're "bitter."

    If you think marriage laws are unfair then you're "cynical."

    Everything in life is about how it impacts women.

    Feminism = "Women, women, women" fuck what it does to you, that's your problem.

    You wanna blow your brains out? Tough shit, I broke a nail, and that's way more important.

    Nevermind that women have been using manipulative "nice girl" tactics since time immemorial to pressure guys into marrying them and committing financial suicide.

    Let's talk about "nice guys" instead because that's the real problem.

    The holy vag didn't get everything %100 its way, so the world must stop and correct this problem.

    Her feelings override your need to breathe.

    She should never in any way feel uncomfortable, unwanted, inconvenienced, and men more or less don't exist other than robots that maintain the power grid.

    We're not "people" to most women and that's the crux of the red pill.

    Leave a comment:


  • Manalysis
    replied
    Originally posted by Mifune View Post
    I am saying that phrase as a unique thing exists solely for that purpose. I see videos for it that are at least five years old and over those five years it's moved from almost exclusively feminist circles to being in a more mainstream way.
    I'm not sure that I agree ... in a sort of yes/no way.
    AFAIK the trope itself sprang out of Spencerism (Darwin applied to people), way before feminism went mainstream, declaring that 'Nice guys finish last', or "Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser", implying that it no longer matters _how_ you win, as long as you win; i.e. from now on, it's only the stupid ones who follow the rules - which takes us to the final position:
    "The end justifies the means". Which is, frankly, at least debatable, at least in the version "any end justifies any means".
    BTW, I know this _must_ be true, since females never have ideas of their own, they merely adapt men's already produced thinking.
    Wrt. to feminists in particular, their theory production consists in finding some trope and asking "But what about teh vagina?", and hey presto: Feminist Theory.

    History aside, I think KS is making my point:
    The version of the "nice guy" deplored in the dating scene can be a manipulative asshole, who tries "love bombing" themselves into girls' beds.
    The nice "nice guy" is, IMO, a totally different creature, namely a totally naive, miles-from-the-red-pill kid who still believes in all that society (mom, sisters, teachers, teenage girls, magazines...) tell him that women are like and women want .... 'a nice guy with a sense of humour' ... and is trying to live up to that; in vain, of course.
    The bad nice guy can be 'cured' by a ding on the head + some therapy against narcissism.
    The good nice guy can be cured by Maxx-style PUA education + a handfull of red pills.
    Not the same animal at all.

    Women admire men which other men acknowledge as a leader of men. They like the "generals"; with falling SMV, they can settle for a colonel or a captain.
    No wonder they 'dis-admire' men which other men despise as the lowest rung of follower, the "privates" of the sexual army.


    I also see comments all over youtube and twitter calling men who raise any MRA or MGTOW talking points "bitter' ....
    Always wondere what the definition of 'bitter' is.
    Can anyone unravel for me what psychological states are hidden behind that label?
    A first look has merely revealed disappointment, hurt and anger, which I think are more often than not legitimate, i.e. celebrated if a women feels them.
    I've begun to suspect that it is merely a pejorative that serves to de-legitimize men's feelings; at least under the "x applied to vagina" model.
    But ... is it a thing in itself?
    Anyone met some feller where 'bitter' was a stand-alone, identifiable emotion of its own?

    I take that twisting of logic as an affront to reason itself.
    Cool. Wanna start a club?

    If anything calling Elliot Rodger a "nice guy" proves my point about the term being a pejorative. It's saying that timid guys deserve to be denigrated because they're the kind of guys who would shoot a bunch of people...And honestly, I probably wouldn't rant about it except for my concern about timid "nice guys" that are already close to the edge blowing their brains out because this is the message that really cemented in their mind that they were just born un-fuckable and there's no hope to be found.
    I agree that this seems an extra, cruel fourth wave twist.

    Ultimately I find it upsetting that an ostensibly anit-feminist youtuber would buy-in wholesale to a term coined by feminists that exists solely to denigrate passive or timid guys.
    AFAICS she struggles to make the distinction between the two types above.

    M

    Leave a comment:


  • Mifune
    replied
    Maybe Karen Straughn can make my point better than I can:



    I'm not saying Shoe0nHead is necessarily intentionally denigrating men who are "nice", but I am saying that phrase as a unique thing exists solely for that purpose. I see videos for it that are at least five years old and over those five years it's moved from almost exclusively feminist circles to being in a more mainstream way. I also see comments all over youtube and twitter calling men who raise any MRA or MGTOW talking points "bitter, pathetic nice guys' or some variation thereof.

    It's not that I take the Elliot Rodger thing personally, it's that I take that twisting of logic as an affront to reason itself. It's exactly the same as saying the Tea Party is a racist movement or all Trump supporters are racist. All you have to do is find a single member of the group that's racist and then say "See, told you". But correlation does not imply a causal relationship and even when the correlation is strong. And these people use the flimsiest correlations to justify their claims of causality.

    If anything calling Elliot Rodger a "nice guy" proves my point about the term being a pejorative. It's saying that timid guys deserve to be denigrated because they're the kind of guys who would shoot a bunch of people...And honestly, I probably wouldn't rant about it except for my concern about timid "nice guys" that are already close to the edge blowing their brains out because this is the message that really cemented in their mind that they were just born un-fuckable and there's no hope to be found.

    Ultimately I find it upsetting that an ostensibly anit-feminist youtuber would buy-in wholesale to a term coined by feminists that exists solely to denigrate passive or timid guys.

    Leave a comment:


  • oldblueeyes
    replied
    I don't listen to young women. I'm 50.

    Leave a comment:


  • dubs
    replied

    I did not perceive any "nice guys are garbage" message from the video, I think rather Mifune that you are taking it personally, especially the part about sticking Elliott Rodger with a "nice guy" label. ER was not simply "undesirable" or being "too nice." His autism made him unable to feel like he was part of the human tribe, that he was "one of us" and his solution was to give us "normies" our comeuppance for not including him in our reindeer games. In autism vernacular he was a "warlock" taking revenge on the "normies" whom he peceived were torturing him socially. This notion is extremely common among certain online communities, but rarely acted upon to such a degree. This bears no resemblance to "Nice Guys" in any way, shape or form other than the universal desire to fit in.

    We can chalk that up to female solipsism, women always "fit in" someone will always make room. As you well know, the "male experience" doesn't work that way, boys and men are well and truly shunned unless they fit into very neat and tightly controlled set of boxes, male alienation, loneliness and having no support structure or anyone to talk to is endemic.

    That being said, I think the remainder of the video focuses on solutions and what one can do differently, which contradicts the idea that "Nice Guys" are human garbage with bad genes.

    Entitlement - It's not about having or not having entitlement but what kind of entitlement you have. You should feel entitled to exist, to put yourself out there, to be assertive and to think of yourself as a member of the human tribe with every right to participate in life, love, civic discourse and petition others to have your needs met. You should not feel an entitlement to other people's bodies or time, I should not even need to mention this except for the harmful meme that insists that "some men feel entitled to women's bodies" which is bullshit, I never met any man that felt entitled to a woman's body, but I've met loads of women who feel that "undesirable" men shouldn't feel entitled to be part of humanity.

    Friendzone - is commonly thought of as "unrequited love" where A wants a sexual relationship with B, but B just wants to be friends. This form is extremely common and harmless. The more insidious form is where B knows that A wants a sexual relationship, realizes there's little chance of that happening, but continues being "friends" with A, parking him in a holding pattern with 5 other "beta orbiters" while getting plowed by Chad Thundercock and then using A as an emotional tampon when Chad doesn't call. There are various reasons why women do this, it's usually not what you think. Many times women feel they are genuinely doing you a favor, it's like "You're not up to my usual standards, but I'm feeling generous so I'll let you take me out, buy me dinner and feel like a real man by being seen with me." I repeat, she genuinely thinks she's doing you a solid, and even more shockingly there are good, bonafide reasons where sometimes being a "beta orbiter" isn't a bad thing IE it lets you practice your dating skills, your personal skills, without the pressure to "hurry up and marry me" and you can date other women on the side, it's a nice ego booster to have multiple dating options, even if you're not her prime choice, she's not your prime choice either. And finally, girls like this are usually good "wingmen" who give you social proof to meet other girls, their friends, their sisters friends, etc. Bottom line, being in the "friendzone" can actually be a goldmine. But most guys aren't at that level of the game, don't have the experience, all they know is "I like this chick and keep taking her out but she won't even kiss me on the lips." A harmful meme is that you can either be a woman's friend or her lover but not both, that's not true. It's like if you lend your friend alot of money, you need to keep your friendship and your "business" relationship seperate and sometimes one can strain the other. Well in that same way you can be friends and lovers but need to keep the "lover" relationship seperate. For example let's say you are friends with a woman, you're comfortable with it, but she has romantic asperations, she wants to get married and have a baby, so even tho you're good friends, you're not meeting her romantic needs. If you want to be friends AND lovers you have to put on different hats, you're not going to arouse her with knock-knock jokes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mifune
    replied
    Dubs,

    I'm not disagreeing with anything you're saying here. I tried to make it clear in my original post that some things I think we universally agree upon. Like men have a responsibility to themselves to avoid or extricate themselves from the "friendzone".

    The guys being labeled "nice guys' aren't hard-core calculated manipulators. They're timid guys who don't have the courage to approach directly. Are they misguided? Sure. Do they need to hear why being direct is better. Almost certainly. But they don't need to be stuck with a negative label and treated like they're inherently bad. They don't need to be told that desiring sex or desiring a relationship means that they're some kind of selfish asshole who thinks they're entitled to one.

    And the "Nice Guys" label isn't there to help guys realize the error of their ways, it's to shame those guys for being undesirable in the first place. That's why she labels Eilliot Rodger a "Nice Guy". It doesn't tell them that they're misguided and need to fix a few things, it tells them that they're garbage, it tells them that they should know better than to even try. And all over the internet and on twitter "nice guys' with quotes or a tm symbol is being used specifically as a pejorative. Wait, you tried to be friends with a girl first before trying to fuck her and you're disappointed that she put you in her friend box? Well you're just a bitter "nice guy" who'll probably do a mass shooting any day now".

    As you say:

    Originally posted by dubs
    Sexuality is serious business.

    It's literally life and death.
    Millions of frustrated guys don't do anything violent to anyone. And most of the ones who do end up doing something violent are doing it only to themselves.

    Men shouldn't be measuring their worth by women. But that doesn't change the biological fact that being consistently rejected for sex (reproduction) sends a message on a biological level that your genes aren't worth continuing, that you aren't worth continuing. I doubt most guys think of it this consciously, .but I think it's one of the factors that lead at-risk guys to suicide.

    Which is probably why she hedges this video at the beginning and again at the end. "It's just my opinion, don't be too hard on me" sets the stage because on some level maybe she realizes that she's saying the right things but for the completely wrong reasons. And then at the end "Please don't kill yourself, I'll be very sad if you kill yourself" is because on some level she knows that she's directing shame and not compassionate advice at at-risk young men. Young men who's constant dating failures have lead them to believe that there's something fundamentally wrong with them don't need a 9 minute video telling them that there's something fundamentally wrong with them.

    I'm sure you can see the difference, Dubs. You managed to write an entire post here, with good advice and information for men who are struggling without ever once saying or implying that those men are garbage or shit or deserve some kind of negative label. I appreciate that. I just think that "Nice Guys' label is the exact opposite. It's not trying to help anyone so much as trying to pile-on guys who are already struggling.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mifune
    replied
    Originally posted by Manalysis View Post

    Seriously? I think it's almost unfair to expect that much from someone barely out of their teens; and a girl at that.
    She's entertaining, in the way that simply watching a woman doing stuff is, and provides pockets of sorely needed cognitive dissonance relief (i.e. she agrees with us).
    Eliminate these two factors, and there ain't much there; philosophy-wise, of course, or as a pundit of any kind. I'm sure she's a nice person, personally.
    Meh, 26 isn't THAT young. You're right though, I probably expected too much. What I consider a lack of empathy is my biggest disappointment, but following closely is hearing someone who makes largely anti-feminist anit-sjw videos directly quoting in a completely serious way feminist talking points that I heard over 2 years ago.

    Some people just want to get to know someone before they decide if they're interested in a sexual / romantic relationship. Are these people manipulators for not saying at the outset that they're attracted to the other person?

    Leave a comment:


  • Manalysis
    replied
    Originally posted by Mifune View Post
    Here she tells a story about a guy who bought her expensive gifts and then tried to guilt her when she didn't return his affections. That's manipulative and it's an asshole. What about that is nice?
    I think that's more or less the whole point the wimins are trying to make here. Manipulation can work, and so it should surprise no one that men hunting for a lay sometimes may try to use manipulation to get some. That was, IIRC, the whole beef with the mythical "New Man", the sensitive massage-and-tie-dye dude of the seventies; which was a whole generation of men trying to do the Nice Guy thing to women. In their defense, they only tried to do what the wimins told them they wanted; another data point supporting the tenet that one should never take dating advice from the wimins.
    Not to shame all men, though: I think that rather few men are trying to outwit the wimins in the sheets department; and not every manipulator manipulates consciously. I suspect most of them do it because it worked once or twice, hence they think this is how it is done, and so it has simply become their MO.

    This video really disappointed me. I had hoped Shoe was deeper than this.
    Seriously? I think it's almost unfair to expect that much from someone barely out of their teens; and a girl at that.
    She's entertaining, in the way that simply watching a woman doing stuff is, and provides pockets of sorely needed cognitive dissonance relief (i.e. she agrees with us).
    Eliminate these two factors, and there ain't much there; philosophy-wise, of course, or as a pundit of any kind. I'm sure she's a nice person, personally.

    Two out of 3.5+ Billion is pretty fucking depressing.
    Yes. No point in waiting around at the door there. Another way has to be found.

    M

    Leave a comment:


  • dubs
    replied

    Sexuality is serious business.

    It's literally life and death.

    Being nice has nothing to do with your biological worth as a male specimen. In fact it can be a detriment if you're perceived as "too nice." It means you're not strong enough, your kids won't be strong enough to survive in a harsh world that is often "not nice."

    A "nice guy" is like someone who shows up to buy a used car, they bring you coffee and bagels, compliment your house, asks to see photos of your children, says you have a nice dress, but when the asking price is mentioned they're $2000 short.

    They're using "nice" to make up for a deficiency in real value.

    Everyone should be polite to each other as a default.

    This has nothing to do with whether you have enough money to buy the car.

    Whether you have enough sexual value in trade for another person's sexual value.

    Nice <-------------------------------> Sexual Value

    The fact that she took a few hours to make this video is "empathy."

    She's trying to tell you how it is.

    How human sexuality works.

    Unrequited love is a normal and natural aspect of sexual relations.

    Frustration also to an extent is normal and natural.

    It should drive you to figure out what you're "missing" rather than to argue with the seller about why they won't sell to you.

    I will tell you what you're "missing."

    What you're missing is the understanding that you're not the sex-applicant and she's not the sex-employer.

    In other words you're supplicating to women, trying to figure what hoops you have to jump thru in order to be "allowed" to fuck them.

    Rather you should be increasing your own value and trading sexual value AS HER SEXUAL EQUAL.

    In other words it's not about whether you have what it takes to fuck her.

    Enough money/looks/nice-guy points.

    It's more like "Would I date myself? Would I want to be in a relationship with me?"

    If you wouldn't date yourself then why would she.

    If you wouldn't want to spend 5 hours in a room alone with yourself, then why would she.

    A certain amount of self-love is necessary before anyone else can love you back.

    She's telling you all of this in her video.

    Maybe she doesn't have the self-awareness to tell you everything.

    Most people can't see their own flaws.

    But she's genuinely trying to help you.

    High quality people are usually win/win.

    They don't just want what's good for themselves, they want other people to have success in life and love too.

    They want to see other people happy.

    That's why she's telling you to cut out the "nice guy" stuff and focus more on having actual value.

    When I say value

    Most guys automatically think "make lots of money" or born with good looks.

    And that's definitely valuable.

    But SMV is more etherial than that.

    For example a guy who went from broke to upper-middle-class is more sexually valuable than a guy who went from being born with $100 mil to having $110 mil.

    And a guy who went from fugly and socially inept to "socially acceptable" is more valuable than a guy who was born looking like a movie star.

    Because that's real value.

    Beating the odds.

    Winning at life.

    Overcoming adversity.

    Women sleep with winners, not guys who were born at the finish line.

    "Confidence" usually means you know what you're doing, where you're going, you know the ins and outs, and that means she feels safe having kids with you.

    You're not just stumbling thru life trying to figure out which way is up.

    That's solid SMV right there.

    Unsuccessful men "chase" women.

    Successful men chase success.

    Women chase successful men.

    It's not your job to tick her boxes to get in her pants, no woman should be that important to you.

    You should be out winning at life and letting women fall into your lap.

    Letting them compete for you.

    Cherry picking only the finest women.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X