How hard is it to find genuine companionship in the modern era?

don't worry bud, we can tell

This, unironically. Dogs are better investments than gfs.

You all sound like a bunch of low T fags.
>Men aspire to be the simp and women aspire to be catered to, it's pretty fucked.
Thats how it should be, soi boi. Men produce, women consume.

Natural human society is matriarchal. Patriarchy is a myth. Men are bestowed with great strength and stamina to bring home the bread. Women take a man's production and turn it into family.

A woman's value is innate and only really connected to her looks and personality. That's because women are physically weak and dependent on men. A man's value is much more complicated and changeable. Men can fall and rise in social standing.

That is the difference. Society depends upon men performing to the highest standards. Men go to the arena of life and compete for the affections of women. That's how its always been and how it should be.

THATS HOW IT IS FAGGOTS.

Attached: 9e6b9e5bf5c66f49fe81f94cbdd4e3db.jpg (683x1024, 74.9K)

Wrong. Men are leaders, not servants. Women are hardcoded to be followers, how could that not be terribly obvious?

>Men are leaders, not servants.
Wrong. You are looking at this purely from a surface level view. In reality, men are the ones that serve women. Men literally give their life force to women in the act of sex.

Though men do lead civically, in reality, the real rulers are women, always have been, always will be. Because men are either competing for status, or maintaining their status. Though men may lead in a civic sense, behind closed doors (where it counts), women are leading the men.

There is a saying, "happy wife, happy life". Theres no saying for "happy man." Maybe you're too young to understand.

this guy gets it and the user he's responding to is coping with being a fucking simp. bottom line.

Let me put it to you this way, men serve through leading. Men do the hard work so women may enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Ever see the wife of a rich man look haggard and beat up? Of course not. A rich and powerful man spoils his wife. Women absorb a man's production. Men service women through leadership.

This is why it was very much socially acceptable and encouraged for men to open doors for women. Its not men submitting to women, its displaying competence to women through service.

No he doesn't, both of you sound like absolute whiney little cucks. You don't get it, not at all

You misunderstood me. I never said men can't be providers or protectors, I said they aren't SERVANTS. THEY dictate the terms of the relationship, not the woman. It isn't a situation of a woman making a list of demands and expectations and a man fulfilling them, he should know what is and isn't appropriate and do his duty. You're still simping and not getting the picture and what's worse you're trying to pretend like I don't understand how to be the patriarch, I was raised by one and get it perfectly well.

Prior to monogamy, humanity's natural state was one man to 2 or more women. Simps like you were trash who got thrown on the front line of the warrior squad brah, sorry to break it to you.

This. Men serve through leadership. You have to earn your woman you fucking cucks not sit around on biz bitching about how you shouldnt have to work for it. Fags

Just bee yourself :-)

Attached: image.jpg (3264x2448, 1.12M)

> I said they aren't SERVANTS.
I never said they are servants. Men serve through leadership. They do the heavy lifting.
>THEY dictate the terms of the relationship, not the woman.
No, the woman dictates the terms. Men are the selectees. Women are the selectors. Women have always been the gateway to sex. Women select the best and fittest men to procreate with. It's very simple. Simp.
> You're still simping and not getting the picture
No, you are the one that still simping, bitching about how women get to sit around and "do nothing" and how men have to supplicate. It's a cucks' argument.
> I was raised by one and get it perfectly well.
The fact that you have to say this shows that you clearly werent. Lul.
>Prior to monogamy, humanity's natural state was one man to 2 or more women.
Another jewish lie.
>Simps like you were trash who got thrown on the front line
You are weak and you sound weak.

>ignores the vast majority of human history where men took whatever women they wanted, "rape" did not exist as a concept and if a strong man took you as a woman, you were probably happy about it.

You're plainly absurd. Trying to pretend like I'm the "weak" and "simp" one when you're the dumbshit saying humans are matriarchal and men exist to serve women. Go ahead and see how that works out with your horrid roastie wife user, it will be a lovely divorce I'm sure.

>Vast majority of human history
And I'm just supposed to believe those jewish archaeologists or historians?
>if a strong man took you as a woman, you were probably happy about it.
Thanks for proving my point. You have to be strong in order to claim a woman. That is natural selection in action.

>>Vast majority of human history
>And I'm just supposed to believe those jewish archaeologists or historians?
true that, who the fuck knows WHAT we were like past 8000 years ago...

Attached: 1566506564887.gif (516x472, 3.5M)

I am simply stating what is natural. It is nature in action.

In order for you to build a family, a woman cares for the children, while a man brings home the bread. That is man's natural state. Its literally what was given to us by nature.

Your idea of the barbaric man like grabbing a woman and raping her is juvenile and childish. In civilization, and even in pre civilization, men have competed for women's affections by being the strongest.

Men literally exist to serve women. A woman takes your produce, your production, and builds a family with it. That is literally service. A man provides provision and protection to women. A man is expected to both provide food and protection from invaders if necessary.

That is indeed service - service through leadership.

A weak man is angry at this and gets angry at people that point this out, and makes absurd claims like above.

This is simply how nature works. A man is the stallion and the woman is the rider.

I fell for the online dating meme found some decent girls, planned a date, then they deleted me randomly now I am just going to take ketamine and watch anime

Attached: 1486347665280.png (429x375, 12.66K)

Just because you are doing things for your woman doesn't mean you're her servant, or that she is the leader or matriarch. You also work, toil, provide for, and protect your child, is that your leader as well? No. It's something you care about. A woman is similar.

You are still the leader. She does things for you too. Don't get it twisted just because a man has to put work into a relationship.

You are sort of right. Women no longer keep up their end of the bargain though. I suppose men don't either because most are weak physicall and/or mentally. Men want to find a woman they can submit to but most aren't worthy now and will fuck up your children and lack natural femininity. You still need to lead them but women have incredible skills when it comes to networking with others, disarming them, and manipulating desires of others to retain power for their mate beyond physical strength. Women like to be used or be useful, its your job as a man to to do so within their strengths which is generally social aspects.

>Men literally exist to serve women.
Not really true in a genuine sense. They both work and serve each other. The man has always been the leader and the woman under him. You seem to be trying to portray this relationship as the man being servile, but throughout history women have mostly been subject to the man. You are trying to persuade the other guy with semantics.
>A woman takes your produce, your production, and builds a family with it. That is literally service. A man provides provision and protection to women. A man is expected to both provide food and protection from invaders if necessary.
You can say the same thing of the service a women is doing for the man. Women keep the home in order, so that it is nice when the man comes home. Women spend time raising the kids for the man, saving that time for men to do other things. Women primp themselves and make themselves pretty for men. Women naturally gravitate to men displaying leadership, and are happy to be led.

You are presenting things in a particular angle that favors your argument, but is not true as a whole.

>doesn't mean you're her servant
I never said that. I said men serve through leadership. You are taking this literally.
>she is the leader or matriarch.
Human society is matriarchal. Men compete for women. Women are more important than men.

If the whole village population of men die, yet only 1 survives, the village can still survive. That one man can impregnate many women.

If the reverse happens, then the village collapses. It is nature in action.

>You also work, toil, provide for, and protect your child,
Irrelevant to the discussion.
>Don't get it twisted just because a man has to put work into a relationship.
Men are "leaders" in the sense that they do the heavy lifting for the relationship. Men till the land, they bring home the bread, and provide protection and even pleasure. Men do nearly all the provisioning for women.

This is why men are built to do literally everything except give birth and deal with children.

Women are the opposite. See yinyang in action. Women are specialized. They need support for 95% of life's activities.
>You are still the leader.
Men are leaders in the practical sense, but in reality, when push comes to shove - everything a man does, he pretty much does to please women.

"Happy wife, happy life"

There is no such saying for men.