+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22
  1. #1
    NotConvinced
    Guest

    Few questions for you guys

    Hello, been observing your lifestyle(s) since before Nacho nuked his old rig.

    I regularly lurk here and over at mgtowhq.

    Can't say I'm a mgtow really, but I'm certainly not the other end of the spectrum (what you call 'blue pill') either.

    I'm a 29 year old man fwiw.


    So, here's some questions (feel free to call me a troll if you wish):


    1) How do you deal with female family members, and does becoming aware of female nature change how you view them?

    2) Did Nacho have a point about getting tied up in the terminology (esp the various 'pills' and comparing sexual-social dynamics of humans to the 'alpha' and 'beta' roles of various members of the animal kingdom)?

    3) Humans are social animals, so could there not be long-term mental health detriments to limiting interactions with half the human population? (Serious question. I realise I may come across as trollish at this point.)

    4) Do mgtow put too much emphasis on sex when it comes to the dynamics between men and women? Again, I may sound trollish, but I personally have an issue with the idea of not being allowed to some sort of emotional connection with a women (not saying I'm emotionally dependent on women, just I may want the option at some point).


    That's all I can think of for now.

  2. #2
    Moderator Chairborne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    2,285
    Reputation
    7420
    Type
    Bachelor

    Re: Few questions for you guys

    1. It certainly changes how I view my mom (no sisters) and female cousins. I see the evolutionary-psychological undercurrent in the decisions they make and the rationalizations they rely upon. In fairness, my mom is pretty clear-headed, but even she has the tint of the tens of thousands of years of evolutionary psych in her thought patterns.

    2. Can't comment, was never on the previous board.

    3. It's possible, but I think there are greater mental health issues that come from operating on a false premise and being continually disappointed / betrayed. If you're not a shut-in or a misanthrope, having deep personal connections with male friends, and relatives of both sexes is certainly a likelihood. So I don't see it as a terribly dangerous course to not have romantic relationships in one's life - at least compared to the alternative of the damage that comes from betrayal and disappointment.

    4. I do think we focus a lot on sex, but to be honest - living into our senior years is a recent phenomenon. Similarly, our distant ancestors were procreating as soon as they were pubescent. So the default state of humankind is to be constantly trying to reproduce for the overwhelming majority of our lives. It's fundamental to us, and a major factor in influencing how we behave.

    THAT SAID: I think you're making a bit of a simplistic judgment about MGTOW. You made the statement
    not being allowed to have some sort of emotional connection with a woman.
    I've bolded the most interesting bit. MGTOW's are allowed to do whatever they want. There's no MGTOW rulebook. We have a member who's married and cares about his wife, but he doesn't bend to her will (Mikediver). I have female Friends with Benefits (FWB) whom I enjoy, and other MGTOWs date. Others swear off women completely.

    Pretty much, the guidelines (NOT RULES!) are: Don't marry, don't cohabitate, don't reproduce.
    Last edited by Chairborne; September 9, 2014 at 10:07 PM.
    Who's Chairborne? Office worker & Army Reservist, into electronic music, drummer in a jam band, table-top RPGs, bicycling, X-country skiing, biathlon & marksmanship, TV-free for 15 years.

  3. #3

    Re: Few questions for you guys

    Quote Originally Posted by NotConvinced View Post
    Hello, been observing your lifestyle(s) since before Nacho nuked his old rig.

    I regularly lurk here and over at mgtowhq.

    Can't say I'm a mgtow really, but I'm certainly not the other end of the spectrum (what you call 'blue pill') either.

    I'm a 29 year old man fwiw.
    There are different levels of MGTOW:

    http://www.goingyourownway.com/mgtow...9079/#post9079


    1) How do you deal with female family members, and does becoming aware of female nature change how you view them?
    It depends on the individual, including what your personality is like, your relationship with different family members, etc. Which isn't really any different to the rest of the lifestyle choices each MGHOW may make, it isn't one size fits all.

    For me, I am openly cynical about everything, I also have a dark sense of humour. What I mean by this is I can 'hide in plain sight' when it comes to 'controversial' (redpill) opinions, as it were. My family is blue pill but not aggressively so, they also respect my opinion on any topic so I don't have trouble discussing these issues. Now obviously the tone is a lot different to these forums, I'm not dropping the words twat and cunt every five seconds, more of a neutral observer tone. I also don't try to convince anyone, just make suggestions as to why they can't see the whole picture. In short I don't walk around telling people I am GMOW, neither friends not family, and I don't think it is necessary to living the life you want to live, or even to conveying your opinions on these topics. The label itself is not what counts.

    Does it change the way I relate to women in my family? TBH not really, I have never been one to take shit from people, or allow myself to be exploited. As a result, they never give me any trouble for my opinions or lifestyle choices. I can only speak for myself but in the immediate sense I still enjoy the company of women, I find their irrationality and feminine 'thinking' amusing (within reason). Sure it is frustrating at times and can be a bit of a love/hate relationship, especially with some of their poorer decisions/behaviour.

    It helps to be able to laugh at the absurdity of it all, something I love about the topics on this forum and the brutally funny deconstructed translations of women's 'logic'. At least for family members though, I guess I am lucky enough that it isn't out of control, I don't suffer at their hands, nor do I have to go around cleaning up their mess. I realise it isn't this way for a lot of men though. Which is a very significant point to contemplate, one that would steer any rational man firmly in the direction of MGTOW.

    I see some of the relationship dynamics a little bit more clearly than before (between cousins and their partners, etc.) but I was always very cynical and aware of people who might be called 'phonies' before discovering redpill and MGTOW theory. I just didn't have the terminology to articulate it. Never do I interfere in other people's relationships, it's none of my business. They are good enough to show me the same courtesy (I am only MGTOW level 2 FWIW, and around your age).

    All that being said, it really is up to the individual. Some have redpill parents (very rare), some have complete and utter blue pill families, including pressure to marry and so on. Some grew up with single mothers and no father figure. Some grew up in abusive environments. You would have to decide based on their views and their personalities, and also your own, how much you are willing to introduce them to MGTOW philosophy. I would argue it isn't necessary and best to keep the truth to yourself, so long as no one is bothering you. A little bit of 'redpilled behaviour' to keep the women in your family in line doesn't hurt if you weren't doing this before though.

    I really feel for the men who have exploitative or unstable relationships with family members, since this forces their hand in their dealings. It is a bit hard to refuse to be treated with disrespect if you don't feel comfortable asserting your lifestyle choices openly, thus refusing to engage on terms that may be damaging to you. Just know that expressing explicit MGTOW views is probably never going to convince anyone in such situations, and if your family doesn't respect that you are different to them and demands an explanation, you may be best served by limiting your engagement with them based on your conditions (including refusing to justify yourself to them). I recognise this can be a difficult path to take. Unfortunately family is no guarantee of anything in this life. (Ever heard the phrase 'sperm is thicker than blood'?)

    2) Did Nacho have a point about getting tied up in the terminology (esp the various 'pills' and comparing sexual-social dynamics of humans to the 'alpha' and 'beta' roles of various members of the animal kingdom)?
    Certainly it is more complex than a black and white binary of alpha/beta and bluepill/redpill. Think of the terminology as short hand. The nuances and subtle delineations of classification cannot possibly be articulated in every discussion/post. So in order to get the point across you employ a shortcut. Remember also that when talking in general terms it is necessary for sweeping generalisations to discuss any topic from a general point of view at all. And the outliers and unique differences will always remain - the general points don't rule that out. Again for me, the tone and language of this forum is not something that translates into my every day life. That's no different to anything though, it would be just as absurd to walk around with a strict liberal/neo-con view of people and base all your concrete interactions on this analytic dichotomy, it would cripple your thinking and communication.

    3) Humans are social animals, so could there not be long-term mental health detriments to limiting interactions with half the human population? (Serious question. I realise I may come across as trollish at this point.)
    Once again it depends. I would argue that no, there is no guarantee of long-term mental health detriments. That being said, look at the increasing amount of dissatisfied men around you, some of whom appear terminally incapable of ever following a stricter policy of avoiding interaction with women. What makes it problematic is not so much that they can't disengage - you can't avoid it completely anyway - it's rather that they are consistently mistreated or disrespected, even in the simplest of exchanges. These are the men who will drop out of society in a destructive manner, without being able to support themselves properly. The men who will become the next Elliot Rodgers. These men are the men who find it impossible to internalise the lessons of redpill and MGTOW thinking. These are the unconscious victims of a system that disenfranchises and punishes men who are deemed to be 'not up to standard' by society (read; women).

    The causes for this may be myriad, the tragedy is really that they cannot break their psychological dependence on the existing order. I would argue that it is certainly possible to live a relatively happy and productive life as a full blown blue piller - so long as you meet all the standards demanded of you. Some would argue the latter is rare, the point is it is possible to live in ignorance, so long as it is tolerable from the perspective of your understanding (note I didn't say it is bliss either). The problem truly arises when men are shafted consistently and they don't understand why. This is the perfect way to build an army of malcontents who could become dangerous for all of us, including MGTOW, since they have nothing to lose and no clue how to change their outlook. That's when destructive or at the least anti-social behaviour becomes their only foreseeable choice. Something no one wants to endure - MGHOW or bluepiller, man or woman. These are the men who desperately need MGTOW thinking.

    I'll answer your fourth question later.
    Last edited by Bricklayer; September 10, 2014 at 9:35 AM.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Devil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    East Coast, USA
    Posts
    519
    Reputation
    3179

    Re: Few questions for you guys

    Quote Originally Posted by NotConvinced View Post
    So, here's some questions (feel free to call me a troll if you wish):
    Troll. Just kidding.

    1) How do you deal with female family members, and does becoming aware of female nature change how you view them?
    On a day by day basis, my friend. And yes, it does change how I look at them. However, I don't hold it against them any more than I hold it against a wolf that it hunts and eats rabbits. They treat me well, I treat them well. Same goes for everyone else I meet and I'd like to think that everyone here operates roughly the same way.

    2) Did Nacho have a point about getting tied up in the terminology (esp the various 'pills' and comparing sexual-social dynamics of humans to the 'alpha' and 'beta' roles of various members of the animal kingdom)?
    Don't know! I was more than fashionably late to that party, so I couldn't tell you. I only just found out about this forum back in March and everyone here has been pretty good to me. And we only really deal with red and blue pills to keep with the Matrix comparison. Some people like to mention a purple option, a mixing of the two. But as Bricklayer said, it's merely shorthand so that everyone understands at a glance what we're saying at any particular point.

    3) Humans are social animals, so could there not be long-term mental health detriments to limiting interactions with half the human population? (Serious question. I realise I may come across as trollish at this point.)
    Not really, I mean you're just asking some sensible questions. It's not like you're saying we're all HE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED (...Elliot Roger). Anyway! Is evolution of a social and mental manner completely off the table? Could we not be the X-Men (dibs on the Gambit powers), the next step in human consciousness?! Okay, probably not because a lot of us aren't going to pass on our genes by choice. We will pass on an entire school of knowledge and experience to the next generation, though, and that's something that transcends genetics. After all, is that not the point of procreation in the first place? A chance to pass on your knowledge? Oh, and a serious question for you now: do you watch the news? Keep up with current events at all? Because if you did, you'd see that it's not mere sensationalism we hold up as examples of diseased female nature. Women are becoming increasingly more toxic. Divorces run rampant, men kill themselves over not seeing their children, women try to get pregnant in spite of a man's wishes, paternity fraud that the courts willingly uphold by throwing genetic evidence out...the list goes on and on. We don't say it's better to avoid women for our health--wait, no, we totally do. But that's kind of the point. We've come to the conclusion that it's actually healthier in the long run to avoid that level of intimacy with the opposite sex because in increasing numbers, they are literally becoming poisonous.

    4) Do mgtow put too much emphasis on sex when it comes to the dynamics between men and women? Again, I may sound trollish, but I personally have an issue with the idea of not being allowed to some sort of emotional connection with a women (not saying I'm emotionally dependent on women, just I may want the option at some point).
    Isn't that the whole reason men and women exist with the physiological differences they have? Peg D goes to Slot C, except when family is involved in which case, gross. And by all means, pursue your emotional connections with women. Nobody here is saying that you can't do that, you can have all the options you want. Even the option of being emotionally dependent on a woman (your words). That's the whole purpose of going your OWN way. Your way isn't going to be identical to my way. Especially not now that you've said that, holy shit. I'll just be inside this bullet and blast proof shelter while you go get emotionally involved with a woman. No, really, I'll be right behind you. Pinky swear.

    That's all I can think of for now.
    Well, thank you for expressing an opposing opinion in a calm, rational fashion. No sarcasm, no witty banter, I'm dead serious. You should see some of the hate we get.

  5. #5
    Super Moderator Mr Wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    4,901
    Reputation
    23602
    Type
    Neutral

    Re: Few questions for you guys

    Quote Originally Posted by NotConvinced View Post
    1) How do you deal with female family members, and does becoming aware of female nature change how you view them?
    Pass.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotConvinced View Post
    2) Did Nacho have a point about getting tied up in the terminology (esp the various 'pills' and comparing sexual-social dynamics of humans to the 'alpha' and 'beta' roles of various members of the animal kingdom)?
    Yes. Humans are not pack animals where only the dominant couple breeds. The terminology is useful up to a point.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotConvinced View Post
    3) Humans are social animals, so could there not be long-term mental health detriments to limiting interactions with half the human population? (Serious question. I realise I may come across as trollish at this point.)
    Maybe. What excellent reason to fix the laws. Of course, you only see it as good reason to fix the laws if you care about the mental health of men. We can talk about having a mentally healthy attitude and outlook when the ladies finally put down the gun.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotConvinced View Post
    4) Do mgtow put too much emphasis on sex when it comes to the dynamics between men and women? Again, I may sound trollish, but I personally have an issue with the idea of not being allowed to some sort of emotional connection with a women (not saying I'm emotionally dependent on women, just I may want the option at some point).
    No. The dynamic between men and women is almost entirely about sex. When sex is finally out of the picture due to age or whatever, there's not much there to discuss.

  6. #6
    Senior Member O.G.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    362
    Reputation
    3675
    Type
    Sigma Male

    Re: Few questions for you guys

    I think many people miss the whole K.I.S.S. concept to MGTOW. In my eyes it means only one thing. I get to define my own path in life. I go my own way. It just so happens that my way parallels many other men's way world wide. Funny how that is.

    I define my own path in broad strokes.

    1. I'm very aware that most of what society has told me regarding women, marriage, government, and my work place is bullshit.

    2. That there is nothing wrong with putting my own self interests first. No matter what shaming comes my way.

    3. Since I alone am responsible for my actions, I get to pick the how, when why and where of what I do or won't do.

    Nothing more or less. I am not a member of a movement in my eyes. I have no grand plan to change society. I merely live to have the best possible life for myself. This often puts me at odds with what society says is right. I could care less. When I go to bed at night I sleep sound. I know in my heart I've been productive and made time to relax and have fun as well. It really is that simple for me.

    I have a woman in my life I love and respect. For now we do not live together. I just never forget she does not act, think, or respond the way I do to life. However now I do have a much better understanding why. I have no more Disney fair tale illusions about women. I see them for what they are. It has actually improved my relations with women. I now realize and have experienced first hand how horrible many of them can be.

    It truly is my way or the highway for all things in my life. I am a gentleman at all times. I take responsibility for my choices. I think before I act or speak. So far that's been working real well for me.
    "People are always angry at anyone who chooses very individual standards for his life; because of the extraordinary treatment which that man grants to himself, they feel degraded, like ordinary beings."
    - Nietzsche


  7. #7
    NotConvinced
    Guest

    Re: Few questions for you guys

    Thanks for the replies. Makes a lot of sense.


    Devil said:
    Oh, and a serious question for you now: do you watch the news? Keep up with current events at all? Because if you did, you'd see that it's not mere sensationalism we hold up as examples of diseased female nature.

    I don't watch much TV (not a big fan of the mainstream media), but I do glance over the headlines on Google news.

    Female nature is what it is, seemingly being amplified by the fruits of modern society.

    As for men, it really is beyond me why the bulk of them seem to want to cater to every gripe or whim of women.

    It can't just be about sex, there's other ways of getting that. For a long time I thought men and women were complimentary (by nature) but the default male attitude is seemingly to keep women happy at all costs. This is bad for both genders in my opinion.

  8. #8
    Moderator Thomas Covenant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Freeedoooom!
    Posts
    1,964
    Reputation
    6794
    Type
    Neutral

    Re: Few questions for you guys

    1) How do you deal with female family members, and does becoming aware of female nature change how you view them?
    Family members? My view has changed a little. Acquaintances and colleagues, quite a bit more, but it's all good. The more you understand about someone the better you can get along with them. Understanding women in general helps you get along with individual women. It also helps that as a MGTOW, they have nothing I want so there is no "pressure". My expectations are now appropriately set, so I feel a lot better most of the time and I think if I am more positive, I get along with people better. I don't mind the "friendzone" one bit. Just as long as I get my lunch bought for me every now and again too!

    2) Did Nacho have a point about getting tied up in the terminology (esp the various 'pills' and comparing sexual-social dynamics of humans to the 'alpha' and 'beta' roles of various members of the animal kingdom)?
    He did, but not much of a point. I find the terminology extremely useful. The fact that we are not organised in any way but can agree common definitions is a good thing.

    3) Humans are social animals, so could there not be long-term mental health detriments to limiting interactions with half the human population? (Serious question. I realise I may come across as trollish at this point.)
    I don't limit the number of interactions, just the depth. As a blue pill, I would occasionally think about more than talking to a woman I liked. Now I don't. I still have the same colleagues and relatives and get along with them better than ever before.


    4) Do mgtow put too much emphasis on sex when it comes to the dynamics between men and women? Again, I may sound trollish, but I personally have an issue with the idea of not being allowed to some sort of emotional connection with a women (not saying I'm emotionally dependent on women, just I may want the option at some point).
    That might be something that you could fit to PUAs a lot more snugly. MGTOWs by definition do not define their self worth by how many women they can get. I don't think you need to be a MGTOW to realise that our culture seems to suggest that shagging birds = success and that this is very unhealthy.
    I work in financial planning. I am interested in metal (all kinds), miniature painting and PC gaming. I live in Scotland.

  9. #9

    Re: Few questions for you guys

    Quote Originally Posted by NotConvinced View Post
    4) Do mgtow put too much emphasis on sex when it comes to the dynamics between men and women? Again, I may sound trollish, but I personally have an issue with the idea of not being allowed to some sort of emotional connection with a women (not saying I'm emotionally dependent on women, just I may want the option at some point).
    No. Completely non-sexual relations between men and women are subject to the same dynamics as those between men. Factors such as status and power still play a role, but exempt desire (at least on the man's side) and there is no imbalance beyond what also appears between men.

    Enter desire, so comes with it an inherent imbalance. Burden of consent. Everything is dictated by this ultimate say. Whoever has ultimate say in sexual terms in a relationship, has the ability to dictate terms (since without sex, it isn't a sexual relationship - thus irrelevant in the debate about relationships between the sexes). When you also factor in that men have higher sex drives, this becomes especially problematic.

    Now a lot can be said of the various behavioural mechanisms that influence and manipulate the power dynamic between men and women. You can argue that the one who holds power is the one with the least interest. Be that sexual or otherwise (even this inherently poses a problem for your idea of an emotional connection, unless you are with a woman who desires you more than you do her - which I would argue precludes the type of connection you are aiming for). The difficulty here is then how you interpret the manner in which most men and most women behave in their relationships. It is possible to argue that men can have the upper hand at this level if they behave in a certain manner.

    Yet almost all theory that makes this claim insists on the necessity of divided desire and multiple options (plate theory etc.). Most men are simply incapable of achieving this. In fact if you subscribe to any form of LMS theory, even if you include personality/behaviour as a fourth determinant in this, it is still inherent in the premise that there can only ever be a limited amount winners and many more losers. Since men's naturally higher sex drives and women's naturally higher amount of sexual options necessitates this counter measure in order to achieve even a balance, you can see what this means for the average man (i.e. the majority).

    All of the above still leaves out a further aspect which compounds the average man's predicament in our society. Anti-male laws. Let's say that you are in a long term relationship with a woman, you have a child together, are married, or perhaps only live together (I realise cohabitation laws don't apply everywhere - this isn't an effective counter argument against the general point). So in this situation the idea is that the inherent imbalance of the burden of consent is no longer a factor. Everything from 'I've got a headache', to rape accusations, to the idea of marital rape, etc. say otherwise.

    That's not to mention the anti-male bias in assault cases, or pretty much any area of legal dispute between a man and a woman in a relationship. In addition to this, you have all the punitive laws dealing with asset division, spousal support, child support, etc. So now you have two factors entirely outside of your control, both of which hold the ultimate say in your relationship. Yes, it isn't as simple as that, but the dual burden/privilege combination of consent and dissolution with prizes/punishment are enough to turn the average man and the average woman into a dysfunctional pairing.

    The only ultimate power a man has in the sexual market place is to not participate. If you play the game at all, you immediately place yourself in a position of disadvantage. Even large scale withdrawal from the SMP by men can't unbalance (or rebalance) the dynamic between the sexes. The entire paradigm necessarily creates the imbalance I described above. Only mass withdrawal, probably well past majority levels, will lead to change, and likely not strictly due to SMP withdrawal, it will probably have to be accompanied by economic and general social withdrawal. Until the majority of women find themselves in the position of the average man today or worse, there cannot be any shift in the dynamics between the sexes.

    Now you say that you want an emotional connection with a woman. The problem here is if it is a sexual relationship, you cannot ignore the inherent imbalances. This even extends to the emotional realm, since women have more options here than men too. Not to mention that the manner in which men love is different to that of women. This question of yours is essentially a covert dismissal of Briffault's law (and with it the burden of consent as strictly feminine, inherent imbalance in sexual drive, anti-male laws, etc.) and it also ignores hypergamy as a reality.

    Assuming you aren't baiting with your formulation about 'not being allowed' to form an emotional connection with women, I can actually see how you reached this conclusion. It isn't that you aren't allowed, it's that the different manner in which men and women feel and express love on an emotional level for one another necessitates men to modify what they were told was acceptable growing up. If you were to simply give in to all the blue pill mantras about love and act them out as in a Disney fantasy, either the woman will run, exploit you for all you are worth, you are with a woman far below your own general level of desirability, or you found a unicorn.

    The 'not being allowed' factor is simply your interpretation of a reprogramming to understand that what mainstream society tells men is appropriate as a form of expression (and the amount), will get you precisely nowhere. If you feel that this precludes you from giving yourself fully to a woman, giving in to your true emotions, then you are insisting on acting out a fantasy for fantasy's sake. It is not reality and no matter how hard you try it will lead you to dire problems with women if you choose to pursue it. Of course if you want to do it, go for it. If you are genuine about your level of lurking though, I find it hard to imagine you are ignorant of the potential (likely) consequences of this course of action.

    For you or any other lurkers who aren't convinced by this, consider this alternative explanation. Let's assume you think men and women are the same (equal). Despite this belief, you will also understand that no two individuals are the same. So too will the balance of desire between two subjects never be the same. Love isn't a fiction because the redpill says it is, it is a fiction because the bluepill account of what constitutes love is relationally impossible (i.e. a perfect desire equilibrium created by a mythical unity of pure immediacy). You cannot ever fully know the other, mediation is always already present.

    As such, a subject must objectify (render external) their desire in order for it to be grasped at all. In other words, you cannot know what it is like for someone to love you subjectively (which is the only way they experience their love). Thus the question of extent alone is enough to render the bluepill philosophy of love already highly problematic, without even factoring in inherent gender differences, or analysing the current SMP, the current legal climate, etc.

  10. #10
    NotConvinced
    Guest

    Re: Few questions for you guys

    Thank you for the detailed explanation, Bricklayer.


    I think I need to clear something up about my "emotional connection" comment, because I think I phrased that badly.

    I wasn't even thinking about my desires toward women when I made the comment, because it was more to do with the social restrictions I see as being put in place.

    "Limiting our personalisation with women" I guess would be more appropriate. Someone mentioned it is more of a PUA mold I was referencing, which is probably more apt, when I am in the mindset that I just don't like the idea of being ruled by sex in any shape or form. Even if all this means treating women with something other than contempt or just not relegating them to 'pump n dump'.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bricklayer View Post
    If you are genuine about your level of lurking though, I find it hard to imagine you are ignorant of the potential (likely) consequences of this course of action.

    I'm not. I probably know most of what you know.

    For me, hypergamy and especially Briffault's law are set in stone.


    Thanks to your sites, marriage and babies are completely a no-go for me. They're my two only life rules.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    377
    Reputation
    1428
    Type
    Bachelor

    Re: Few questions for you guys

    1) Accepting red pill truths was a process that took time for me, I'm very skeptical especially when a statement is counters everything I believed before that fact. I think it’s healthy you are not convinced right away. But eventually, and I do mean eventually, it changed the way I viewed my mother and other women close to me. It also changed the way I viewed the men closest to me, my father, my brother, my childhood friends. Every single one of them views their drive for female approval as one the primary drives (if not the primary) drive in their existence. My mother to an extent is also working for female approval as she is always showing her kids off like some trophy when her friends are around. I never understood that behavior, but now I do.

    I start to understand how animalistic we still are in how we operate as a species, and while it may not be the nicest image of society, it is true. I like truth because it makes you understand the world a bit better and I would choose this truth over a lie every single day. In a weird way, I’m even glad that I have a better understanding of the people close to me. I have no trouble discussing these new insights with them, just like me, they think it is thought-provoking and they like to analyze and think.

    2) As someone who studies the English language, I should respond to this. People generally start to invent certain terms when the description with the vocabulary they know is either too long or isn’t adequate to describe the idea appropriately. One could argue that the word ‘love’ has been redefined over and over again (in modern romantic movies, novels and so forth) because no one knew exactly what the term was originally created for, that is a normal word where we got caught up in, as a society; “en masse” as the French would say. I do not see this happening with the MGTOW vocabulary yet as they are usually defined in the same manner. Also, the invented vocabulary seems to be used and understood in the same way by most people who use it (which is still in line with the definitions online and understandable for new members). Some people can off course still get caught up in the language, but that could basically happen with every noun or verb that means something complex and it’s not something I see every day on this forum.

    3) Simple answer: I don’t know. Most MGTOW still interact with women at least as friends, so I don’t know if there’s anyone here who really can give an answer to that question from their own experience. Most members here seem pretty happy with their lifestyle. It is off course up to you how you choose to deal with the knowledge of the red pill. If you don’t want to limit your interactions with women don’t do it because someone on the internet says you should.

    4) I understand what you mean with an emotional connection, and I can relate to your problem of not being allowed to have an “emotional connection” or “intimacy” with a woman. For me that was always the most important reason why I interacted with them as a blue piller in the first place. You seem reasonably intelligent, so I hope you understand the concept of advertisement. There is a campaign in our everyday culture to make you value the feeling you understand as “love”, “emotional connection” and “intimacy” more than you would without all those references in songs, movies and all those other people around you talking about it.

    Secondly, your body starts to make oxytocin when you regularly receive hugs and other signals of affection from a female. So while some people think they have a “magic connection”, they actually are simply enjoying those hormones which get rarely released for the average male. If they get rarely released they have more importance, and then you have the cultural campaign and all of a sudden the promise of this very special oxytocin hormone starts to regulate all your behavior, and that’s no good, to want a hormone release at all costs.

    While I realize this, I still enjoy my oxytocin every now and then when I date. Why? Well because it makes me feel good, but I do not give that feeling any importance that it doesn’t have.

    I suggest you do whatever you like with the answers you got here. There must be some pearls of wisdom amongst these lengthy responses. Think, analyze and adjust your lifestyle when you think it will help you. Good luck!

  12. #12
    Moderator Chairborne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    2,285
    Reputation
    7420
    Type
    Bachelor

    Re: Few questions for you guys

    Quote Originally Posted by NotConvinced View Post
    For me, hypergamy and especially Briffault's law are set in stone.


    Thanks to your sites, marriage and babies are completely a no-go for me. They're my two only life rules.
    You're welcome to register as a user in that case - because honestly, you're pretty much going your own way as I see it. But if you choose not to - that's cool too.
    Who's Chairborne? Office worker & Army Reservist, into electronic music, drummer in a jam band, table-top RPGs, bicycling, X-country skiing, biathlon & marksmanship, TV-free for 15 years.

  13. #13

    Re: Few questions for you guys

    Quote Originally Posted by NotConvinced View Post

    1) How do you deal with female family members, and does becoming aware of female nature change how you view them?
    Well, in my youth I always wondered why my mother kept up with the shit my father served her.
    Now, years later i know that she preferred to live with an abusive Alpha than getting her shit together or even settle for a boring Beta male.

    And it never was, is or will be her fault when she tells her story of victimhood (Stefan Molyneux has made some very accurate points about that behavior)

    Yes, it did change my point of view and now I can preemptively engage women in my private and work-field which leads to quite interesting situations when I just do not play along with female manipulation techniques and completely throw them of their scripts they played all life long.

    Actually this seems to make me very, very interesting for women of all ages.

    Example ?

    I am also running my companies ERP system, from the SQL roots up to the the last piece of paper leaving a printer.
    Which is kinda handy to begin with as I do not have to rely on external services when I want to change workflows in the not so small company.

    One women complained that her issue with the occasional misprints of customer bills (end-sum kinda cut off) is not resolved, this all in the typical female passive-agressive way that for me is now so easy to spot but she has no example print-out at hand to show me.

    I knew that the problem is solved (as I did it myself weeks ago when i could spare some time) so i knew that there is no issue to begin with.

    What would a blue-piller say ?
    "Oh, I will look into that on the spot" .... and entering the vicious circle of female demands that can never be fulfilled with more and more nagging as this would give her "power" (at least in her hamster-mind)

    What did I say, starting with a loud laugh ?
    "Come on, fool somebody else, the issue is solved, I know that, you know that. Just because you are moody today ( I could clearly spot that) does not give you the right to waste my time."

    Result ?
    Two ultra-sweet personal emails the same day spreading praise and all of that just because I threw her off her script and triggered her submission.



    Quote Originally Posted by NotConvinced View Post
    2) Did Nacho have a point about getting tied up in the terminology (esp the various 'pills' and comparing sexual-social dynamics of humans to the 'alpha' and 'beta' roles of various members of the animal kingdom)?
    Humans are animals and in large groups there is no real difference in group dynamics between humans and for example mice.
    Read "Of men and mice" as a starter.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotConvinced View Post
    3) Humans are social animals, so could there not be long-term mental health detriments to limiting interactions with half the human population? (Serious question. I realise I may come across as trollish at this point.)
    Does not compute.
    What you and mainstream psychology consider "limiting interactions" is actually a remnant of the strong collectivist movements we had in the past that ruled our lives basically since the French Revolution came up with new collectivist ideas of "brotherhood" or "nation state"
    Collectivism had it`s terrible peaks with National-Socialism and Communism where "being an outsider" was actually life-threatening.
    Since then it is crumbling which many people (mostly leftist) do not like as it takes away their control of society by peer- or group pressure.

    All the shaming language spilling towards groups that do not integrate into "society" (nerds, loners, can not get laid, ..) is basically just an attempt to create preferable behavior and joining the (easy led) herd.

    Just take a good look where all these statements come from .. and their political background.

    Actually people are not "that" social with other people until economical pressure forces them.
    That is why, the more chances a society offers, the more "rude" interactions become, this also is directly dependent on population size too as the human brain has a limit of people it can deal with (ap. 150 people)

    There is a reason rural people are "nice" while city folks appear "rude" to outsiders.



    Quote Originally Posted by NotConvinced View Post
    4) Do mgtow put too much emphasis on sex when it comes to the dynamics between men and women? Again, I may sound trollish, but I personally have an issue with the idea of not being allowed to some sort of emotional connection with a women (not saying I'm emotionally dependent on women, just I may want the option at some point).
    That's all I can think of for now.
    Nah.

    Honestly, except for when my DNA spots other DNA that seems to fit pretty well, a process that is not conscious to begin with, sex is not even in my mind anymore when talking to women.

  14. #14
    Senior Member GabrielKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    604
    Reputation
    2514

    Re: Few questions for you guys

    So....after you got a couple of responses, what is your conclusion?

    I will be honest: Some of the stuff you wrote sounds like someone who wants to make MGTOWs look bad or make them question their decision. Or maybe you are just a troll. ("Humans are social animals, so could there not be long-term mental health detriments to limiting interactions with half the human population? Do mgtow put too much emphasis on sex when it comes to the dynamics between men and women?")

    MGTOW is a pretty simple concept: We do not let women run our lives. Some of us have sexual relationships with women, some like to pick up women from time to time, some have female friends. I have two female friends. MGTOWs do not necessarily avoid all contact with women. But we are very cautious of the risks that are involved.

    There is no fixed set of rules by being a MGTOW. It is more about your state of mind: Do you give women a high value in your life? Are you aware of what is going on between men and women in general? Or are you just closing your eyes, pretending that there is no problem?

    If you want to, you can have sex with women as much as you like. You can have female friends. But as a MGTOW you are very aware of the dynamics between men and women and you engage in a relationship with a woman (whatever that relationship might be) only on YOUR terms.

    Maybe you should read more here in the forum and find out, what drives MGTOWs and what their lives look like. We talk about our hobbies and interests, our plans for the future or about traveling the world. The main focus of a MGTOW man is to make HIS life worth living and to work for his benefits. Not for the benefit of a woman.

  15. #15

    Re: Few questions for you guys

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil View Post
    Troll. Just kidding.



    On a day by day basis, my friend. And yes, it does change how I look at them. However, I don't hold it against them any more than I hold it against a wolf that it hunts and eats rabbits. They treat me well, I treat them well. Same goes for everyone else I meet and I'd like to think that everyone here operates roughly the same way.



    Don't know! I was more than fashionably late to that party, so I couldn't tell you. I only just found out about this forum back in March and everyone here has been pretty good to me. And we only really deal with red and blue pills to keep with the Matrix comparison. Some people like to mention a purple option, a mixing of the two. But as Bricklayer said, it's merely shorthand so that everyone understands at a glance what we're saying at any particular point.



    Not really, I mean you're just asking some sensible questions. It's not like you're saying we're all HE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED (...Elliot Roger). Anyway! Is evolution of a social and mental manner completely off the table? Could we not be the X-Men (dibs on the Gambit powers), the next step in human consciousness?! Okay, probably not because a lot of us aren't going to pass on our genes by choice. We will pass on an entire school of knowledge and experience to the next generation, though, and that's something that transcends genetics. After all, is that not the point of procreation in the first place? A chance to pass on your knowledge? Oh, and a serious question for you now: do you watch the news? Keep up with current events at all? Because if you did, you'd see that it's not mere sensationalism we hold up as examples of diseased female nature. Women are becoming increasingly more toxic. Divorces run rampant, men kill themselves over not seeing their children, women try to get pregnant in spite of a man's wishes, paternity fraud that the courts willingly uphold by throwing genetic evidence out...the list goes on and on. We don't say it's better to avoid women for our health--wait, no, we totally do. But that's kind of the point. We've come to the conclusion that it's actually healthier in the long run to avoid that level of intimacy with the opposite sex because in increasing numbers, they are literally becoming poisonous.



    Isn't that the whole reason men and women exist with the physiological differences they have? Peg D goes to Slot C, except when family is involved in which case, gross. And by all means, pursue your emotional connections with women. Nobody here is saying that you can't do that, you can have all the options you want. Even the option of being emotionally dependent on a woman (your words). That's the whole purpose of going your OWN way. Your way isn't going to be identical to my way. Especially not now that you've said that, holy shit. I'll just be inside this bullet and blast proof shelter while you go get emotionally involved with a woman. No, really, I'll be right behind you. Pinky swear.



    Well, thank you for expressing an opposing opinion in a calm, rational fashion. No sarcasm, no witty banter, I'm dead serious. You should see some of the hate we get.
    Oh - re the family embargo - that's been countermanded...

    Apparently a mum and daughter have started a lesbian relationship - think it was in the Daily Mail today..

  16. #16
    Senior Member Insidious_Sid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    3,117
    Reputation
    27140
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Few questions for you guys

    1. I have a mother-son relationship with my mother. It's not a pair-bond relationship, as that would be Oedipal in nature. MGTOW or GMOW or GYOW simply means "I go my own way, and I define what that is." It does not mean avoid any and all contact with women. That is only one (extreme) way to go about it. For me, I plan to be isolated from women financially and not live with them. What I *DO* with women, vocationally and recreationally and socially, is open for internal discussion - with me, in my own head. Until such time others are invited to that discussion, discussion is futile. And irrelevant.

    2. "ALpha" and "Beta" and other "sexual market" terms are really irrelevant for a person not in the market for a sexual / pair-bond relationship. My belief is that women have socially constructed *and* biologically hardwired instincts to make them go after men who have a) good genes and b) talent for dragging resources back to the cave. Since I a) don't want to reproduce and b) don't want to be a resource or a host for a human parasite, I could care less if people think I am alpha, beta, omega or theta or zeta. Or any other greek letter. Or roman numeral. Or any cuss word. It's really irrelevant.

    3. Half of the human population? Well, to take that literally I interact with a very small percentage of the living 7 billion human beings on the planet as it is. To take your comment less literally, to play along, I don't plan to stop interacting with women. See #1. I can work with women, order stuff from them, hire them, fire them, deliver stuff to them, go to meetings with them. I just don't plan to a) live with one or b) marry one or c) support one or d) make any new people except for the ones I already made. That's really it for me - that's my definition for right now. Plus, I won't be coerced into changing my thinking by one, except in the (rare) case the female in question actually recommends something that I deem to be in my best interests. Avoiding women completely is to have... fear of them. To be vulnerable to them. Women are highly reactive. I am like nitrogen, a noble gas. I can float around all these reactive and toxic "chemicals" and pick and choose what I hear, what I ponder, and ultimately what I want to do. You can interact with people without letting them control you, can't you? If you can't, maybe "at home" is the best place for someone like that - the world would be a very dangerous place. There are people out there with agendas of their own who don't really know or want or care what is best for you! Right?

    4. This is a good question. There is obvious irony in MGTOWs even talking about women. I am doing it because you are asking MGTOWs questions about women. I think many men have "relationship status" and "sex frequency" very high, if not at the top, of their list of major life concerns. I am *so* very fortunate because since my divorce last year, and a short period of wanting a rebound, I am strangely *FREE* of wanting sex or romance or dating or the company of a woman in a romantic setting. I get urges, biological, but it's not 'libidinal' - a craving for intimacy or touch. It's a craving to simply release the physical pressure that builds up in the groin area. The process, you know it well, it happens in the shower 2 or 3 times per month and, like urination, it's an itch that is scratched and only bothers me from the time I notice it to the time of my next shower. Maybe 12 hours per month? This is 12 out of 480 (waking) hours of a month, or 2.5% of the time. If I delay scratching the itch, the release of the itch becomes more pleasurable. Just like holding your pee makes for a more enjoyable release later. Do I miss women? I have to say that since entering the realm of the real, and leaving the blue-pill matrix, the allure of the 'snuggly woman' is so so overpowered by the reality of what "taking one into your house" entails, that's it's really a non-issue for me. If anything, it's quite liberating. Like I said back at MMSL: I also find elephants fascinating - but that doesn't mean I want one in my house.

    PS - Some people say "MGTOWs can't talk about women without proving they are hypocrites and loser who are really obsessed with women". I say I can talk about what I want. I can "quit" something, then talk about why I quit and how it's changed my life. Why not? I talk what I want to talk about. Most (99%) of the rebuttle I have seen MGTOWs get online is ad-hominem attack from people who seem to have an inherent hate-on for ALL men. So why worry about what they think about a subset of men? I won't go why I think these people (certain type of woman especially) hates men that much here, but I have my theories.
    Last edited by Insidious_Sid; September 23, 2014 at 10:13 PM.

  17. #17

    Re: Few questions for you guys

    1. I am fully open with my family members some examples, the mom with the little boy tends to simply be quiet or nod when I end up talking to the little guy about the troubles he has already started to face specially with girls at 9 years old, the others well we argue or disagree but they are family so I can and will set that aside when needed.

    2. not sure who Nacho is as for the various "pills" they server their purpose for the men taking them and that is all that is important, as for alpha and beta I am personally unsure where that really is since I have come to the conclusion that all men are simply different levels of alpha and because of that I have always preferred to say that some one got "out alpha'd".

    3. don't think this has ever been declared a hermit lifestyle, just an eyes wide open lifestyle, and as for limiting those interactions it seems to be that it is far more likely to have POSITIVE mental health effects, since as we know women are off their rocker and I do firmly believe a TV character got it right when he said, son you don't want to understand women.. women understand women and they hate each other.

    4. Don't think mgtow do that so much as the detractors, mgtow simply respond with things along the lines of "cheaper and safer to just buy it from a pro" as for emotional connection I am sure you will find that the only emotional connection a women is willing to share with you is her ability to manipulate you emotionally... the one thing I have learned over the years is they DO NOT CARE about your feelings except for how your feelings impact THIER lives.
    True happiness is only found within, to seek it elsewhere will result in failure.

  18. #18

    Re: Few questions for you guys

    Quote Originally Posted by NotConvinced View Post
    Hello, been observing your lifestyle(s) since before Nacho nuked his old rig.

    I regularly lurk here and over at mgtowhq.

    Can't say I'm a mgtow really, but I'm certainly not the other end of the spectrum (what you call 'blue pill') either.

    I'm a 29 year old man fwiw.


    So, here's some questions (feel free to call me a troll if you wish):


    1) How do you deal with female family members, and does becoming aware of female nature change how you view them?

    Avoid them and yes very much so.

    Quote Originally Posted by NotConvinced View Post
    2) Did Nacho have a point about getting tied up in the terminology (esp the various 'pills' and comparing sexual-social dynamics of humans to the 'alpha' and 'beta' roles of various members of the animal kingdom)?
    He did and he didn't. His concern was warranted because too many people get caught up in minutia of terminology rather than the actual topics. OTOH, we gotta have a common terminology in order to communicate our thoughts successfully without spending an eternity clarifying already defined concepts.


    Quote Originally Posted by NotConvinced View Post
    3) Humans are social animals, so could there not be long-term mental health detriments to limiting interactions with half the human population? (Serious question. I realise I may come across as trollish at this point.)
    MGTOW doesn't mean becoming a recluse. Buddist monks are MGTOW but still live quite socially within their structure. MGTOW simply means being smarter about the true nature of women and living with your eyes open about how society really works.


    Quote Originally Posted by NotConvinced View Post
    4) Do mgtow put too much emphasis on sex when it comes to the dynamics between men and women? Again, I may sound trollish, but I personally have an issue with the idea of not being allowed to some sort of emotional connection with a women (not saying I'm emotionally dependent on women, just I may want the option at some point).
    Why are most* living things arranged into a male and female? Reproduction and the sharing of the reproductive duties. It is in a human being's nature and instincts to reproduce. So, why shouldn't men put an emphasis on it? Don't women? Have you ever seen the women's section of a magazine rack?


    *most - most - most - NOT all.
    Last edited by GT66; October 11, 2014 at 1:12 AM.

  19. #19
    Senior Member Malinois's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Hellinois, USA
    Posts
    746
    Reputation
    3896
    Type
    GhostY-BacheloR

    Re: Few questions for you guys

    NotConvinced of what exactly?

    MGTOW: Means I live my life the way I want...

    It's that simple.

    For a lot of us, it was women that lead us here. I was taught my entire life that I needed a woman in my life to make me happy. That is a lie. The patterns and signs I saw trying to please my family and friends by searching for "The One" just wasn't adding up. It helped me realize that I don't need a woman to be happy and that any man that thinks he does believes the lie.

    It doesn't stop with women though. This applies to much of what life throws at you. Are you more inclined to do what is "expected" of you, or are solid enough of an individual to make that decision for yourself, on your terms, without having to explain your decision, or your decision making process, to anyone?

    Do you define you, or do you let others define you?

    How can you not be convinced of that?

    When I was in high school, I remember my psychology teacher having a discussion on Sigmond Freud. She stated that his perspective was that all of our (human) decisions were based on sex, the lack of sex, or the desire for sex. Sex was the drive for Mankind, according to his studies. She asked that if we agreed, to raise or hand. I believe she was prepping us for a test at the time. Well, she noticed I didn't raise my hand and asked me what I thought. She was probably trying to call me out as being a non-participant but, I responded in debate: "I do disagree." Everyone put their hands down and turned towards me, probably waiting for me to make a fool out of myself. I followed up with: " I think that people do what makes them happy, and sex makes some people happy. It's all about what makes you happy."

    Little did I know then, how wise my words were but, I knew I was right. I had seemingly just shot down Sigmond Freud's entire legacy with one statement. And, today, I believe Freud was simply projecting his own desires onto his subjects and came to the conclusion that reflects that.

    Another response, that may answer a couple of your questions...

    About two years ago I made a decision to stop celebrating all of the non-sense holidays that require me to spend my hard earned money on someone else:

    Christmas: How many REAL Christians even celebrate this holiday? That's what it is about right? Celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ. I read years ago, and even recently the Pope himself doubts Jesus's birthday was even in the month of December. What it has become now, is almost a mockery of what it was supposed to symbolize. I'm taking a stand by opting out of the BS routine of buying Hallmark cards, and gifts for people as if THEY are the one's to be celebrated...

    Same goes for birthdays: Who freaking cares?! Sure I might use it as an excuse to visit someone, but the only people that should be celebrating this day are the kids-to an extent, and the elderly-as survivors of this brutal life. For me it's just another day, I usually work the entire day through without telling anyone...

    How about Mothers Day, Fathers Day, Valentines Day, and anniversaries: I appreciate my parents in their own special way...all year round...No need to do what the media commercials tell me to...I make my Mother laugh, and I just bought my Dad a boat...Mind your fucking business! I'll tell Cupid where to stick his superfical arrows and I.m sure the current divorce rates explain why everyone's faking being happy at so-and-so's 20th anniversary...She'll probably milk him for another year...

    If you want to get right down to it, I sure as hell don't care about keeping up with the Jones, and I'd rather not perpetuate a lifestyle that paints the picture that I do...

    You see all of those white picket fences and smiling couples out and about? It's all a lie. People that don't have the guts to even tell themselves the truth. Marriage is slavery to that lie, and having children are the insurance... I don't want any part of it...

    Some people think acting happy is normal. I think they are just lying to themselves. I prefer truth.

    GYOW
    Last edited by Malinois; November 17, 2014 at 1:01 AM. Reason: missed a couple of words...

  20. #20
    Senior Member Eiji's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Sector 001, Earth, UCAS, Ohio Valley region
    Posts
    2,522
    Reputation
    3785
    Type
    pragmatist

    Re: Few questions for you guys

    Quote Originally Posted by NotConvinced View Post
    1) How do you deal with female family members, and does becoming aware of female nature change how you view them?
    well.... I usually dont start anything with my sister.... I let her start any convos...

    Quote Originally Posted by NotConvinced View Post
    2) Did Nacho have a point about getting tied up in the terminology (esp the various 'pills' and comparing sexual-social dynamics of humans to the 'alpha' and 'beta' roles of various members of the animal kingdom)?
    I wouldnt be all that sure..... I'm more of a "delta minus" than a "beta"

    Quote Originally Posted by NotConvinced View Post
    3) Humans are social animals, so could there not be long-term mental health detriments to limiting interactions with half the human population?
    well... thats hard to answer.... since I was one who was "banished" from the species from a very young age... (around second grade...)

    Quote Originally Posted by NotConvinced View Post
    4) Do mgtow put too much emphasis on sex when it comes to the dynamics between men and women? Again, I may sound trollish, but I personally have an issue with the idea of not being allowed to some sort of emotional connection with a women.
    I wouldn't know how to answer that..... my "maleness" has been held against me for about as long as I can remember, and I was never "welcome" or "wanted" when it came to women, so... go figure.
    Last edited by Eiji; July 19, 2016 at 9:11 PM.
    "I live in freedom, under my own flag." - Captain Harlock

    "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke

    "Who's the more foolish? The Fool? Or the Fool who follows him?" - Obi-wan "Ben" Kenobi

    "In servitutem redigi non recuso" - Latin (translates to "I refuse to be dominated.")


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 32
    Last Post: November 18, 2014, 8:13 AM
  2. What's up guys?
    By TheIllusiveMan in forum New Member Intros
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 20, 2014, 12:38 AM
  3. Hello guys
    By Hobbitnutz in forum New Member Intros
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: March 8, 2014, 10:08 PM
  4. The Fundamental Questions
    By Darth Sin in forum Lounge
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 21, 2014, 12:00 AM

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •