Report aired's Profile

Statistics

Anime Stats
Days: 73.8
Mean Score: 7.18
  • Total Entries212
  • Rewatched0
  • Episodes4,410
Anime History Last Anime Updates
Burn the Witch
Burn the Witch
Dec 24, 2020 10:15 AM
Plan to Watch · Scored -
Seihou Bukyou Outlaw Star
Seihou Bukyou Outlaw Star
Dec 14, 2020 5:15 PM
Plan to Watch · Scored -
Casshern Sins
Casshern Sins
Dec 14, 2020 2:58 PM
Watching 1/24 · Scored -
Manga Stats
Days: 33.3
Mean Score: 8.25
  • Total Entries154
  • Reread0
  • Chapters5,988
  • Volumes309
Manga History Last Manga Updates
Berserk: Shinen no Kami 2
Berserk: Shinen no Kami 2
Feb 26, 9:50 AM
Completed 1/1 · Scored -
Freesia
Freesia
Jan 9, 11:25 PM
Reading 22/84 · Scored -
Believers
Believers
Jan 3, 6:40 PM
Reading 8/22 · Scored -

Favorites

Anime (8)
Manga (6)

All Comments (141) Comments

Would you like to post a comment? Please login or sign up first!
Gabwar81 Oct 20, 4:15 PM
Just reaching out to let you know that I'm not gay. I'm just deeply closeted
Hikona Oct 19, 1:08 PM
Have a Good Day

SemillaMinoria May 12, 11:30 AM
Oh wow she would have been way too much to put up with longterm for sure lol.

Sounds a bit like the girls in this post I made.

_Nemrod_ May 3, 12:32 PM
Yes, we are very similar. Maybe too much !!!
See you on the forums amigo 😎
_Nemrod_ May 1, 8:45 AM
Even Robert Greene will tell you the Art of Seduction is one of his worst books. It's a general consensus for fans of any of his works. I've read the 48 laws and the Laws of Human Nature. Both are 10x more useful than the art of seduction when it comes to women.

I doubt that Greene would use the word "worst" to qualify one of his best sellers.

As far as I can recall, Greene's book "The Art of Seduction" is made for men who have not significant problems seducing women and in turn they want to explore the psychology that exists in seduction. It is not uncommon for this book to be less popular than others of the same author, as it is not made for beginners.

In any case, I never said that "The Art of Seduction" was one of the best I have read, but rather pointed it out as one of the first seduction books that I read -in your language- for not being outdated in its references, since the principles that his author shows there are applicable to any culture or time.

And funny that you have mentioned books like "The 48 Laws of Power" and "The Laws of Human Nature" in the context of this discussion, because you reinforce my point with it, since the essence of its content is also applicable for any time or culture. Why? Again, because the human nature to which seduction applies is always the same.

In the end, each reader evaluates a book according to his own experience.

Look dude...dumb = sexy.

Here in MAL are many more people who can be classified as dumb than as intelligent or cultured. Does that mean they sexy? Of course not!

I don't doubt that a dumb person can be a good seducer, but that does not change the fact that the best seducers (like Casanova) tend to be very intelligent and cultured people.

If you talk to any girls the way you're talking to me it'll automatically dry up their pussy

hahaha
Who says that I talk like that to a hot girl that I want to seduce?
Hello, hello! ... I'm not talking to that hot girl right now but to a man with whom I had an intellectual disagreement.

I mean, one thing is how Richelieu spoke to a beautiful woman and quite another is how he spoke to a man with whom he had an argument that demands reasoning and logic.

Only a fool would want to seduce a girl using the "cold intellect" that I use to discuss

I'm 21 and can tag more girls in a week than you do in a year dude.

haha silly... even a man who often pays for sex has much more sexual "partners" than one who prefers a lot of sex with moderately stable partners.

Just because someone's seeking validation doesn't mean they aren't tagging a bunch of girls.

Seeking validation from others is a trait that denotes great and deep insecurity. Any psychologist can confirm this for you.

Nothing makes me doubt your credibility as much as your urgent need to feel validated and recognized.

You're entire reply reeks of insecurity.

Please don't place your mirror on my words. Thanks.


The problem is you're catering your game to appear a certain way, instead of actually being the player girls desire.

Buddy, if you feel better about yourself believing that, then go ahead and believe that.

_Nemrod_ Apr 29, 2:43 PM
I'm not a mind reader. I don't think Casanova or the other dude could outline it as simply as I did and make it that easy to understand. Big words fool little people. I could sit here and talk a bunch of gibberish in order to seem more educated, or I could make it simple and get my point across.

It is not a question of being a mind reader but of using common sense. 

Everything you said about gaining the girl's trust, lowering her guard, manipulating her, etc ... is something that any womanizer in South America and the world knows. It is something very standard in seduction books as well as blogs in the Manosphere. It is something that psychologists and couples therapists know. It is something that Catholic priests warn virgin and married women of their Church about. It's something experienced women know. It is something attacked by many feminists. 

Also, you knew that I am a womanizer influenced by seducers like Casanova and Richelieu. And one who likes a challenge.

And despite all that, you tried to "reveal" those things to me as if they were not obvious in my comment on the low guard of women. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you look doing that?

If instead of trying to convince me that you are a "top guy", you focused on the content we are talking about, you would not have made a mistake as silly like that


By the way, I see you lost again, because it is not in something said by Casanova where we had the disagreement, but in the way of understanding the challenge that a woman represents for the seducer in relation to the resistance that she has to be seduced, since while you see them as the same thing, I see a lot of difference between both.

A disagreement in the way of understanding two things of different nature (erotic challenge and resistance to seduction) is something that can only be resolved quickly through a solid refutation that clearly distinguishes one from the other through precise and adequate language. And that's what I did!

What you call "a bunch of gibberish in order to seem more educated," is actually the minimum that was required to adequately refute you without giving you any option for a valid reply. It is the minimum that would be required for old users like Peaceful_Critic to accept that I am proving my point.

Funny to see that the kind of argument that for others is almost a compliment, for you is almost an insult 😂


Why would someone waste time studying the moral customs of past centuries when I could study the past 10-15 years and get into the mind of a modern, hot girl? You see where I'm going with this?

What the hell!!

When did I say that I did not study the girls of the last 10 or 15 years? Since when is the nature of modern woman different from the nature of the woman of yesteryear? Why do you imply that I studied  the moral customs of women of yesteryear with the main objective of seducing women today?

Again, you are not focused on the content we are talking about.

Let's see..

I was clear when I said that most modern women are not a challenge for me because they lack convictions subordinate to an ideal. And I would not say that if my experience with them did not fully demonstrate it to me. In this context I said that I would rather seduce a woman who represents a challenge to me than one who does not, hence I have studied seducers specialists in difficult prey, as indeed were Casanova and Richelieu. It is worth mentioning that I never said that they were the only ones who influenced me, much less that I had not studied modern women, but simply mentioned them as my favorites in terms of challenge.

I could hardly have a predilection for the authors of seduction books of the last decade, since they are not specialized in hunting genuinely challenging women, but in hunting women who only usually represent a challenge for those men who were devoid of typically masculine traits such as confidence, strength, detachment towards woman and reasonable dominance over her... due to the rise of harmful elements like radical feminism, the absence of the father figure, the demasculinization of society and gender ideology.

Anglo-Americans in their 20s are much more affected by these harmful elements than South Americans in their 30s, hence the Mannosphere and the Red pill are far better known to the first ones than to the second ones. In other words, many things that were very necessary and useful for you, probably were not for me.

Now, just as it is logical and consistent that lovers of chastity and conjugal fidelity have as references giants of virtue such as Joseph of Egypt, Susanna (Book of Daniel) or Agnes of Rome, it is also the one that lovers of erotic challenges have as references to great seducers like Casanova, Cleopatra or Richelieu. Such logic and consistency is due to the fact that the differences of time and culture can modify the form and manifestation of things but never their essence and nature.

The book "The Art of Seduction" written by Robert Greene was one of the first seduction books that I read more than a decade ago (when you were just a child). He teaches about this art taking as reference historical seducers such as Cleopatra and Casanova. Can we say that the content of his book is outdated due to these references? No, because the human nature to which the art of seduction is applied is the same at all times.

Catholic moralists and couples therapists have written a variety of books that take as reference to virtuous people on matters of marital fidelity. Are they out of date? Not because the human nature to which the art of fidelity is applied is the same yesterday and today.

As is evident, there is much more similarity between two women from different times who represent an erotic challenge than between two from the same time who differ from each other because of it. 

That said, I will say that knowing about the virtuous habits of the loyal women of yesteryear is not something that really serves to sleep with the modern woman, but rather to know how to identify the few current women who have the ability to be faithful and loyal wives. And it is evident that you do not know how to identify them.

In any case, the only reason why I spoke of the fidelity habits of the women of yesteryear, is because it served as an example to refute against that lie that you are a specialist in seducing women of high resistance. Hell, not even Casanova proved to be able to defeat the convictions of a woman who had all her defenses in place!



 It avoids something called "buyers' remorse" which I'm sure you're familiar with.

hahaha
That's something you would like, but no



knew a one dude who ended up reading so much he went blind. Shit was nuts.

Do you know that the best seducers in history were quite intelligent and cultured people, right?

Hmmm
If you ask me, I'll tell you that I currently spend 20-30 minutes a day learning constructive things. That's less than half the time I spend exercising my body. It is a short time, but if you multiply it over years and years, you end up becoming a really cultured person.

The mind is like the muscles, if it is not exercised, it loses shape and atrophies.

I don't know much about Roosh V, but what I've seen of him so far tells me that this ex-womanizer was not only very skilled with women, but is very cultured. 

That balance of mind and strength I have also seen in influencers such as the Spanish Mario Luna(1) and Rod Montana(2)





No, the problem here is not that I read a lot or understand the things that I know, but that you do not read anything and do not fully understand the things that you think you know.



Look, I can tell you're entire ego is based around you're "intelligence" and it's pretty fucking big so I know you get laid a little bit. Nowhere near a top guy though.

Buddy, feel free to believe what you want. I mean, it's not me here who seeks validation or recognition from strangers based on my success with women, but you. And you do it in a very hilarious way, because not only do you constantly brag about being a "top guy" in a context where you cannot give conclusive proof of it (such as the testimony of trusted people who speak for you) but that you get to the ridiculously implausible when you claim that you were going to marry the daughter of a billionaire listed by fucking Forbes magazine :v

As I understand it, you were not always successful with women and that had you very frustrated. That's what you meant when you said: «I've honestly been thinking about making my own book/website/youtube channel or something. There's so many guys out there that don't have a dad or the opportunity to learn this stuff. I used to be that guy man». Such frustration seems to be the reason why you care a lot that others see you as a "top guy".

In my case, I have no attachment for being recognized as a Don Juan. If I did, all I would have to do is go back to that university lifestyle where I was unfaithful to my partners with a new woman every week. And it would be easy to do so, because not only do I continue to enjoy the attributes that I had back then, but now I have elements that a man doesn't have when he's in his early 20s.

I also did not have that attachment in the past, at least not in a significant way, since it was not the desire for fame that really motivated my actions at that time, but a tyrannical arrogance that consumed me. 

When i decided to change, not only did I lose all motivation to be a tyrannical seducer with women, but it dramatically diminished my desire to sleep with as many attractive women as possible.

I am currently a womanizer, yes, but a laudable one. One that is limited to enjoying the delight of feminine nature. One who is faithful to his partners to the extent that they prove to be worthy of that fidelity. One who deliberately only has a few spicy adventures in the brief times of being single.

If it depended on me, I would not change partners every 5 months or 2 years, but would form a family with a woman who, in addition to being compatible with me, is worthy of solid trust and genuine love. I haven't met someone like that again, so...

Sorry, but I'm the type of person with that you can boast of being a "top guy".

By the way, I have to say that to some extent you are correct when you point out that I am arrogant. And I add that I am not only arrogant on an intellectual level, but in several of the aspects in which I stand out. But unlike you, I don't usually allow my arrogance to lower my guard, either by swanking things that I can't prove; or pretending to teach things to others without first knowing what they ignore; or not recognizing when I am in error; or not paying attention to the strengths and weaknesses of those who interact with me.



A bit off topic here, but you mentioned the word "manipulation". I guess it could be looked at that way. But I'm manipulating people into doing something that's good for them

In reality, there is no manipulation that is morally good; however, there is certainly a lot of difference between a manipulation of gray tones and a really unfair one.

Now, it was you who brought up the subject of manipulation when you said: «It's honestly some pretty sick stuff here, but the secrets of manipulation come in handy when ya want to get laid.». Those words seem to contradict what you say about manipulating "for the good of the girl." In any case, I suspect that in your manipulation there is not even 10% of the degree of iniquity that there was in the one I used years ago.


-----

Well, I have spent a little over 45 minutes on this message. That is not funny when I see that most of what I have written is, on the one hand, refutations of silly errors originated in your inattention; and on the other, things you are supposed to know. I could have made a good forum post with that time....Maybe next time I should trolling you (?) 🤔


_Nemrod_ Apr 19, 4:30 AM
Everything you're saying about building trust with the girl, let her guard down, isolating her and even manipulating her; are things I've done for years (although I currently have codes that keep me from doing really unfair things). Now, even though I haven't talked about it, I made you understand that I knew about all that when I said I studied manipulative seducers like Casanova and Richelieu because I enjoy erotic challenges... And yet you mention these obviousities as if they weren't implied in my comment about the low guard of the modern women? You look very clueless buddy.

Hmmm
This time I'll use less informal language.
Let's see..

Resisting temptation (instinct, emotion, impulse, suggestive ideas, etc...) means to stand firm or in opposition to it. Such resistance is an operation of the will and its success depends mainly on virtuous habits that make it effective. From this it is understood that it is not the temptation that determines the quality (high or low?) of the resistance that is opposed to it but those virtuous habits.

The temptation cannot determine the quality of the resistance of the one who rejects it because it is somewhat oblivious to the nature of such resistance. The temptation simply reveals or measure the quality of the resistance based on the victory or defeat it obtains over it.

If temptation does not determine the quality of resistance that is opposed to it, much less what people or situations that cause temptation (such as seducer or isolation) do, because these are even more oblivious to the resistance than temptation itself.

You're judging the quality of a woman's seduction resistance based on the hunter's activity or skill, and that's your mistake. Just because a woman poses a challenge to the seducer (due situational difficulty he has in tempting her) does not mean that she has high resistance to temptation.


Now, if the erotic temptation is characterized by having a sticky nature, resistance to it is to reject and move away from the occasions or people who provoke it. it is understood then that the people most resistant to erotic temptation are those who voluntarily stay as far away from their sources as possible, both physically and mentally.

If you study the moral customs practiced in the past centuries, you will realize that attractive women who remained faithful to their virginity or their husbands, did so in large part, because they had the habit of avoiding people or occasions potentially dangerous to their convictions (attractive men, frequent interaction, intimate conversations, flirting, isolation, dark places, dances, etc...). Such a habit was considered essential to avoid seriously jeopardizing one's convictions. It should be noted that most of these women, at best, had only intermediate resistance to erotic temptations.

Attractive women of our time who have the conviction to maintain their virginity or fidelity to their partners, in most cases, do not possess those virtuous habits of the women of yesteryear. And what does it mean that? It means having their guard down; tending to expose themselves to dangers that seem harmless; being very prone to doing things that weaken willpower; being very inclined to play with fire.

Such indefension is the case of that Christian virgin girl who agrees to drink wine in her boyfriend's apartment and just with him; or that married woman who thinks that friendship with a co-worker who attracts her a lot is harmless; or that woman who agrees to dance with me in a little-lit place despite her conviction not to sleep with someone she doesn't love. In all these cases, the hunter is not lowering those basic defenses that prevent him from preparing his traps and debilitators (those defenses were never there), but those offered by a prey in a state of progressive weakening, that is, the least solid and effective.

It is clear then that having a smaller window for opportunity with a woman with convictions means that she is on low guard because she does not have those habits that keep her away from people and situations that are a source of erotic temptations.

Women who are close to having a high resistance to erotic temptations, in addition to voluntarily possessing those habits that keep them physically away from sources of such temptations, they have virtues that significantly diminish the suggestive power of these, like diligence (contrary to laziness), modesty (contrary to vanity) and temperance (contrary to gluttony). And yes, having a really high resistance to erotic temptations implies even more things.

Women that you think have high resistance to seduction are actually a long way from having it, because they haven't even acquired the habits that keep temptation at bay. Not to mention the last girl you deflowered, because she proved she didn't even have a serious conviction to keep that virginity for someone who really loves her haha


Said all this, you can accept my refutation or you can reject it and ignore it, but keep in mind that any serious couples therapist will agree with what I have said here.


By the way, treating the girl/woman as if I were her "daddy" flows very naturally after 30 :v
incel Apr 15, 3:53 PM
my true identity.cannot be revela.ed
_Nemrod_ Apr 15, 1:24 PM
Thanks for sharing your experience.
It does not seem like one in which you have been forced to be very distant and cold so that the girl does not lose the attraction to you. And if it was, you don't seem to hate it.

I recently came across an old post from a blogger named Roosh Valizadeh about the kinds of experiences I'm interested in reading.
https://www.rooshv.com/women-in-their-prime-prefer-sex-with-damaged-men

----------
Now, regarding the experience you share, I will tell you that the girl you deflowered is far from being someone of high resistance in my book, since she lacked not only the necessary virtues to protect her virginity, but also the conviction to reserve it in favor of a higher ideal. I see her just like the typical "good girl" who is sold as someone who has a "romantic" value far greater than she actually has.

Even so, the level of "resistance" she offered you can be considered a challenge worthy of a good spicy adventure, so good job man 🏆


It's not always about high resistance dude. It's about the window. A high resistance girl simply has a smaller window for opportunity. If you're maintaining a masculine frame and acting like a "father"...they'll keep coming back. I'll literally even say to them "you have my permission to suck this dick". Sometimes that's all they ever wanted to hear lol. Let them know you really like them and then just leave it be. Contact at MOST 2 times a week, 3 times every 10 days. Ignore any messages until you feel like fucking them.

Again, that is not high resistance for me. Nor would it be for the people of past centuries.

Having a smaller window for opportunity with a woman means that she is off guard or playing with fire. She doesn't avoid occasions that jeopardize her resolve. Now can such a woman be considered as a challenge? If it is difficult to get her, yes, but that does not mean that her resistance is really high.

That said, I don't see a smaller window for oportunity in most of what you mention, but a bigger one. A girl who agrees to be fucked after I give her permission to suck my dick is not a respectable challenge because her resistance does not come from a serious conviction but from her shyness and lack of trust. Nor is that girl a challenge who accepts that I fuck her after I ignored her messages and calls for weeks because she clearly has very low self-esteem (easy prey). In both cases we are talking about girls who spread their legs easily.


What's been turning me on lately is turning out virgins.

I have a predilection for virgin girls/women, so I understand that you like them a lot. Naturally I take much more delight in the virginity of a woman fit to be a partner than in the one of a spicy adventuress.


Are you familiar with the concept of "killer instinct"?

Yes I am. I call it "instinto seductor" 😎

I work in sales so maybe you could learn a thing or two here.

haha
I do not know buddy. Tell me something about women that I don't know. Surprise me :v

In general, the only new thing that I usually learn from men of other cultures regarding these topics; they are very specific things regarding the women of their respective nations. And this is useful when you travel to these nations, since certain things that arouse sexual attraction in the average of women of some cultures, do not do so in the average of others. For example, suggesting that you totally ignore a woman for weeks until you feel like fucking her again is something very standard in the Anglosphere due to the fame that Anglo women have for being attracted to men who treat them like trash. But would such a suggestion work in nations like Italy, France, Poland, or Denmark? In most of the cases, no.

I've honestly been thinking about making my own book/website/youtube channel or something. There's so many guys out there that don't have a dad or the opportunity to learn this stuff. I used to be that guy man. When I talk about this shit all the time I genuinely just want to help guys.

If it is something you are passionate about... then do it.
_Nemrod_ Apr 13, 11:58 AM
Let's see

There are things that should not be believed when these are said on the internet, especially when the sender of the message does not realize how implausible he sounds, regardless of whether what he says is true or not.

Look, when you marry the daughter of a billionaire, you not only marry her but also her powerful family. And the powerful do not usually accept as a new member of their family circle a man who will never have their status. From this it is understood that if a middle class man - who uses his common sense - had plans to marry the daughter of a billionaire, he would not say it on a website where he does not show his real identity, because no one would believe him unless he shares irrefutable proofs.

That you are more attractive than a very rich girl does not tell me anything: First, because it is not the woman who by nature has a marked visual weakness due to the physical beauty of the opposite sex, but the man; And second because it is much less difficult for a very rich girl to have much more attractive partners than her, than for a very good looking man from middle class marry the daughter of a billionaire.

So it is not necessary that you send me pictures that "prove" the existence of your ex-girls, since unlike what happens with the fact of having marriage plans with the daughter of a man listed by Forbes Magazine (:v), sleep with a variety of women is something credible.

On the other hand, there are many vain men who have the audacity to disguise paid prostitutes as partners to exaggerate their list of conquests and thus gain fame among other men, so sharing the pictures you offer would not be enough to convince me in case I doubt your talent with women. But hey, don't worry, because -for the moment- my doubts do not reach that much.

In short, I don't think that girl's father is really a billionaire but I can still believe that you are indeed a womanizer.

It is very likely that some users of MAL do not believe you at all, so they could be the right ones for you to convince them with your pictures; however, I think you know that publishing personal pictures here is something that has the power to limit what convenient to say in public.


-----
While I think it's beneficial to study some of the greats....the courting process is a lot different now than it was in the day. In America....you can literally go up to a girl and bring her to your car in 30 minutes. I know guys that have fucked girls they just met in under an hour. Those are always the easiest ones to keep too. Don't know if Casanova or Richelieu ever did that.

It is obvious that the courtship process is a lot different now than it was more than a century ago.

Such difference is mainly due to the fact that now there are no longer the spiritual, moral and religious barriers that defended the "romantic" attractiveness of women.

The contemporary womanizer would be seen as an amateur in the times of Casanova and Richelieu because he is not trained to break down the barriers that protected the women of those times. On the contrary, these two would devastate everything in their path if they were revived from the dead right now due to the enormous ease with which modern women spread their legs.

For a Hispanic man of Italian descent - like me - it is usually easy to take a pretty blonde to bed after having danced "latin music" with her for about 15 or 30 minutes at a disco in Poland or Estonia. That certainly feels great, but ... it's not challenging.

I find it much more exciting to seduce a woman of appearance 7 who refuses to have relations with someone she does not love than to do it with a woman of appearance 10 who does not have those convictions, because it is the difficulty of hunting what really fuels my desire. I feel very identified with the mythical Don Juan in this regard.

Casanova and Richelieu specialized in seducing women who offer good resistance, hence I find it useful and fun to learn from them.

-----

It comes down to a few things.
1. Coolness(swag)
2. Social Freedom
3. Looks
4. Money(not required for getting laid but helps with retention)
5. Social Skills

Those are just the fundamentals and I can go even further in depth if your interested.

Haha
Thanks for the offer but it is not necessary. Except for certain details applicable to the Anglo woman, I highly doubt that you will tell me anything relevant I really do not know about those points.

But I gladly agree to read something brief about an experience in which you may have been forced to be very distant and cold with a partner in order to prevent her from losing her attraction to you and abandoning you. Haha yes, lately I am interested in knowing anecdotes of men who have had as partners girls with daddy issues :v
_Nemrod_ Apr 11, 4:20 AM
Hmmm
You just said something that makes me doubt your word a lot.

Here:
but I knew she had a ton of money and her dad owned a LARGE tech company. I'm talking this girl had like a 5k a month allowance on top of what she was getting from her job.

Owning a large tech company sounds like a billionaire man (someone with over a billion dollars). That's more than just being very wealthy.

So were you going to marry the daughter of such a guy without him threatens to disinherit her or something like that? Hmmm

I mean, it is not impossible that what you say is true but it sounds very implausible. It's one thing to be attractive enough to attract a variety of women and quite another is ... what you say.

On the other hand, 5k a month allowance is little money for the daughter of a billionaire. I know people who get more from less wealthy parents.

All this is very suspicious ... but it's none of my business.

-------
In any case, I will briefly answer your question.

What kind of Philosophy/history have you looked into has had the most impact on your relationships with women?

In terms of history I have learned from several high-level seducers, such as Casanova and Richelieu. Understanding how they hunted their prey provides great advantages for someone who knows about psychology.

In terms of philosophy, the Greek classics have helped me distinguish the objective from the subjective, especially when it comes to morality. This has no direct and intimate relationship with the art of seduction, but it helps you to distinguish with relative speed and detail a woman who is what she appears to be from another who doesn't.

---
And yes, girls with a high tendency to get involved with men who unfairly mistreat them are usually the same ones with daddy issues. The fact that this type of girls is becoming more and more common is forcing many masculine men to not to limit themselves to being dominant and assertive (natural elements) with them , but also to be very distant, cold and even toxic and abusive (anti-natural elements), because only then do they manage to attract/retain them. Such men end up intoxicated as it is not what they really want to do. For some reason, such girls are much more numerous in the Anglo Sphere than in Europe.

_Nemrod_ Apr 10, 11:48 AM
No, I am not someone from red pill or the manosphere, but... I agree with many of their points.

Like you, I consider myself a "laudable" womanizer (although I was a tyrant in the past). I also have knowledge about psychology, philosophy, politics and history that I have learned to put into practice. The combination of all that is the reason I know so much more than average man about women.

I just checked the thread and I see that you ended your relationship with that girl. Good for you, because neither of you were prepared for that suicidal madness called marriage.

Anglo woman (especially the american and british) is the Westerner who by far has the highest tendency to get sexually/emotionally involved with men who treat her like shit. It is not enough to be assertive, strong and dominant with her, because her codependence and her self-hatred lead her to feel attracted to what denigrates her. It is very stupid to risk loving and trusting such a woman, so I understand the reason why that Korean girl captivated you.

I know Anglo-American men who, tired of being forced to be so toxic with their women in exchange for being able to fuck them, travel to Continental Europe or Ibero-America to interact with women who are really attracted to men who can be dominant and somewhat affectionate at the same time. They usually do not want to return to their homeland after enjoying women from other countries haha

Funny to see how people attack you in that thread. I wonder what they would think if they knew that the majority of men cheated on by their women are not the cheaters or manipulators but "decent" men like them.

By the way, thanks for the friend request buddy.
SemillaMinoria Apr 7, 2:54 AM
Yeah I was Akko on my old account. What happened with you and your girl? I'm not with my fiancee anymore we have broken up but we still live together and having more and better sex than before which is kinda funny lol.

I've been trying to fuck other people but it's not really working the way that I want anymore. Now when it comes to the act I can't seem to actually do it anymore. I could when it was a secret. it's really weird I don't understand.

Pandazwei Apr 3, 10:43 AM

.

.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Greetings! Evil Club's Easter Egg Hunt Event is finally here! The
event will start at April 4th, 12:00 AM EST and to join the event
simply click the banner above only during the designated time to
get to the thread and see the goodies we have prepared.

We truly apologize for this sudden unwanted newsletter. Our staff
ran into an unexpected problem which led to us not being able to
use the "Share with Members" feature, but we absolutely will not
let our dear members miss this special event after all.

Again, we apologize for the inconveniences this may have caused.
See you all at the thread! Have a great day and Happy Easter!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.

SemillaMinoria Apr 2, 9:05 AM
I really do enjoy seeing your posts around the forum. How are things with you?