Comments by "dixon pinfold" (@dixonpinfold2582) on "FBE Capital" channel.

Hahaha, you just broke their brains. Cognitive dissonance rising to a frenzy pitch. Hang on, wait for it..... Here it comes.... Deafening chorus: "Misogynist!😡"
18
I think women like her are a large part of the explanation for the collapse of good looks. At one time a very attractive woman would be pursued by many men eager to plant their seed in her. She'd select a 'good provider' to marry (even if she had a good job herself) and, like other women, have 2 to 5 kids, but they'd be good-looking. For the past 40 years at least, the same woman has seen fit to stay single and enjoy being pursued for many years longer, living better, etc. She doesn't want, by having kids, to 'ruin' the body that underwrites the good life of romance and a certain amount of luxury. If she finally does marry she'll have one or two kids. Meanwhile, the meh or unattractive woman snags a husband a lot earlier while she still has a shot at one, and has multiple (not very attractive) kids, also earlier. If she can't marry or doesn't want to, she may well turn to the government for money and have all kinds of kids. (The govt. pays them more the more they have.) The important thing is that she is likely to have more kids than the 1 to 1.5 that the really attractive woman does. Four to six in a lot of cases. In this way the population becomes less attractive. And since good looks correlate with intelligence and wealth, the population becomes stupider and poorer at the same time. Btw, hardly do I exclude men from this process of decline. Good-looking men likewise shun or postpone marriage and children for the most part more than the less-attractive ones, and for reasons similar to those of good-looking women. Lastly let me add that these are of course generalities and of course exceptions abound. But I think it's safe to say that there's a bit of a Pareto distribution going on. E.g., the least attractive 60% of women are having 80% of the babies. Something like that.
8
I tried a new strategy. After seeing a woman for a while and it's clear we're a thing, but before that point where she thinks she can start nagging me, I say "If you nag me I'll leave." It really, really works. Tbh I think they're relieved to hear it. I'm sure nagging takes a lot out of them.
5
@madalin4802 Yeah? The statement you later deleted stopped me in my tracks. And the English in which it was written was faultless and eloquent.
3
@lalywindland5764 Good-looking older men have zero problem attracting women (younger women included), in many cases way more of them than when they were 30, even if they never became very well-off. More daily maintenance is needed, that's about it. The stomach has to stay fairly flat. Rarely is this true of a woman of, say, 45 to 55 years. Really rarely.
3
Hi BDF, you replied to me earlier ("Interesting way to look at it, reminds me of [...]"). Well, now I only have the notification. The whole thread itself is gone. Did you delete that? Was it yours to delete? I'm assuming No. So this is about a suspicion that it was deleted by the platform. Wondering if you could say. Anyway, cheers.
2
"I am baffled, the fact that I'm single." Meanwhile she has trouble speaking because of her massively over-injected lips. My dear woman, those lips say to men: "Run. Run now. Run screaming!"
1
@ligafftheindifferent3495 You have a point about Chads there. I've heard that DNA testing shows that an astonishing percentage of children born to women in intact marriages were not fathered by their husbands. (I think it was something like 25%, but that study could have had validity problems. Studies also show that an astonishing percentage of academic studies are no good.) And then there's single, unattached women.
1
@ligafftheindifferent3495 I forgot to say that no one's contradicting me that there's been a collapse of good looks. Proves nothing, but may suggest a fair level of agreement.
1
@madalin4802 Thanks for your comment. But if what you're saying is true, why are you the only one saying it?
1
@madalin4802 But you later edited your original comment. And the part that I thanked you for and asked you about is the part you later deleted. What's up with that? Is it because you referred to women as "we"?
1
@Yaci7 It was a short paragraph. Anyone could say the same thing because anyone has the time to write under a hundred words. (Don't know why you're even saying book when you didn't see it. It was edited out a couple of days ago.)
1
@oddixgames6704 Linguistic irrelevancy there. Handle: v.t. (1) Manage. (2) Tolerate, put up with. n. (3) Thing for opening a door. And so on.
1
@nadiaoak5123 Expressing serious dissatisfaction over unreasonable harassment within a marriage is hardly threat-making. Or maybe you think it is when a man does it, and not when a woman does it. I rather suspect you do. Uncool story, madam.
1