NexxtLevelUp

Forget your fake nostalgia

Virgle Kent March 4, 2013 Everything Else, Game 45 Comments

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“The term nostalgia describes a sentimental longing for the past, typically for a period or place with happy personal associations.[1] The word is a learned formation of a Greek compound, consisting of νόστος (nóstos), meaning “homecoming”, a Homeric word, and ἄλγος (álgos), meaning “pain, ache”.”

 

Recently in the manosphere everyone has all of a sudden become nostalgic to go back to the 50’s and 60’s era of America as it seems to be (in their minds) the last great feminine time period in the United States. On twitter and in blog posts they’ll link to some Life Magazine pictures of young skinny high school / college girls and say,  see how skinny the girls were back then,  America was such a great time and such a great place and the women were great I’d give anything to go back there and find a wife! That was the greatest time to be alive because look at this picture with skinny girls that have flowers in their hair and frolic around. Those girls are obviously DTF! I’m so nostalgic for that time period in America when men could be men and women were women!

First off as the common definition of the word nostalgia explains it’s longing for the past with “personal associations”. As far as I can tell most of the writers except for maybe a few weren’t even born till 10 to 20 years after that golden age so how do you long for or remember something that  happened before you were born? How can you personally tell me that men had it better or easier back then than they do now? Because you looked at a picture with a skinny teenager in it? Most of the people who have this nostalgia for that time are just projecting at best, it’s easy to assume how great it must have been back then and a simpler time but again you can’t personally possibly know that as fact. Oh you watched Mad Men, look at how much fun those guys had and how easy it was?

You’re not truly nostalgic for that time you’re daydreaming about it. The truth is that time might and again that’s a speculative might have been a great time period if you were a white male and wanted to get with another white female. But if you think it was all so simple it wasn’t. Things got more complicated if you were Jewish and wanted to date a non Jewish girl. If you were Irish and you liked an Italian girl, Catholic and Protestant etc etc etc. And if you were black/ Hispanic/ Middle Eastern and even looked at a girl that wasn’t in the same minority race as you in some areas of the country…. Let me know how that worked out for you. By the 60’s the sexual revolution began and the first wave of Feminism was in full swing so the country was already going downhill (in less conservative way) so the America you’re thinking about was already on the decline. But yeah high school girls were skinny.

But the best argument is that you didn’t need game or as much game because the women were feminine. I think that’s completely false or at the very least a myth. Watch any Woody Allen film from that era, dude kept it real. People got together, broke up, married divorced more than once, cheated and had affairs. Just like they do today, nothing was guaranteed. As I’ve pointed out in previous post a lot of guys in the manosphere are under the impression that the Leave it to Beaver lifestyle was how it really was. They believe that if their wife is less educated than them, stays at home and takes care of the kids then   automatic happiness is all but guaranteed. That you got married, your wife had 2.5 kids and stayed skinny forever? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA H;LAJFA;SDIOFJSIO;ADFJO;AISDFJ;AIOS F! Playa please, GTFOH!

It’s easy to look back at a previous era in any history and decide those were simpler times only because the present time we live in is so much more complicated. We look back with the knowledge of what would come and how history would turn out to this present day. But if you’re looking back and telling me times were great because there’s a 15 year old skipping through a grassy field and that’s all the evidence you need then you’re kidding yourself. The times we live in are hard times and complicated but they make hard and complicated men. If you’re going to be nostalgic about a period of time at least make sure you were alive and old enough to remember it the correct way.

Like this Article? Share it!

About The Author

Been in the game since 2005 and still learning everyday. But now I feel comfortable giving back and sharing wisdom with guys looking to improve one or two things in their lives that could increase their self confidence and the chance of having a favorable outcome in any romantic interaction with women. When you step to her you know you've already put in that work on your end. Nothing is left to chance.

45 Comments

  1. ASF March 4, 2013 at 11:04 am

    Straight up real talk VK. Even memories of those who might have been alive during that time can’t fully be trusted. Memory is a funny thing, and at a biological level what you remember actually changes over time (i.e. nostalgia).

    As you said, there is a weird belief system that if only these guys could find a virgin that wouldn’t cheat on them and pop out 2.5 kids then everything is peaches and cream. There is SUCH fear of divorce, that no one actually talks about what married LIFE is like. You know, the 5-10 years of your life before the divorce.

    I still know married couples. I hang out with them, and I have the perspective of someone who was married, got divorced, and am now back in the game. I have seen their lives. It’s work, toil at home, and run after the kids. Go on a vacation with the kids. It is the most mundane and “comfortable” existence you can imagine.

    It’s also about buying a home in a good school district, spending money on improving said home, buying things for said home, dealing with a spouse who thinks having important jobs is important, shuttling your kids to activities. There is no time for the parent. In the US there is rarely an extended family to help take the burden of child care, you’re on your own.

    There are little to no posts or comments from a male perspective about what married life is like. It’s not that great. I know my friends spent their Sunday afternoon cleaning their house, running after their kids, or something equally domestic. I spent it banging a girl almost half my age. Which would you rather do?

    • Virgle Kent March 4, 2013 at 12:25 pm

      “Straight up real talk VK. Even memories of those who might have been alive during that time can’t fully be trusted. Memory is a funny thing, and at a biological level what you remember actually changes over time (i.e. nostalgia).”

      Ahhh like the memory of your first girlfriend then you find a pic years later and you’re like… wTF was I thinking.

      It’s hard for a lot of guys to talk honestly about what married life is like, maybe they think it’s boring or it’s hard to do so honestly and make it sound compelling in the manosphere.

      • Cakes March 5, 2013 at 11:59 am

        Err, back then, men’s most common complaint was that girls rarely put out, or there was only one slutty girl in the whole highschool who gave terrible handjobs and cried after. Commonly men got married just to get laid, and if it sucked, they had made their bed and had to lie in it. If you got a girl pregnant, (and contraception wasn’t everywhere like now) you were stuck getting married or maybe she died at a back street abortionist though probably you just got hitched at 17. Many men and women had really unsatisfactory lives that were supposed to fit to some cookie-cutter mold. Gay men and women often had to pretend to be straight or pretty much give up living true to themselves. I would argue things aren’t necessarily better or worse today, there are good aspects of today (more freedom e.g. to travel, to live differently without stigma etc.) and bad. People blaming today for being today are just making poor excuses.

        • Virgle Kent March 5, 2013 at 12:44 pm

          cakes, for some reason I was reading your comment and agreeing then I started thinking of that one DiCaprio movie based on the Yates book Revolutionary Road… I was all like, wait one slut for a whole highs school… fuck that noise! And why do they always cry?

          • Cakes March 5, 2013 at 2:34 pm

            Ugh, that movie, so goddamn depressing. Maybe the slut took a time machine to the future and watched that movie, would explain the tears of depression…

  2. Peter Phoenix March 4, 2013 at 11:32 am

    - Jim Crow laws
    - Polio
    - No Civil Rights
    - No air conditioning
    - No federal highways
    - No private telephone lines

    …. but at least the bitches were skinny.

    • Virgle Kent March 4, 2013 at 12:27 pm

      LOL… ah you hit a good point if you were around back there wouldn’t all those things just be normal every day life. You couldn’t go back and be satisfied knowing what you know now. So in other words you’d have to go back and be nostalgic for the 30′s and 40′s

  3. T. AKA Ricky Raw March 4, 2013 at 11:55 am

    Yes, the fixation with being nostalgic for a time period you never even lived through is crazy. I think it’s a sign that your own life must have always been disappointing to you. Think about it, most people when nostalgic think back to some point in their lives where everything seemed great for them. I think when you’re nostalgic for times before you were even born, you’re admitting that your own life must never have had good points, so you have to think back even earlier to other people’s lives.

    If that’s the case, your problem is deeper than just “girls ain’t skinny enough.”

    • Virgle Kent March 4, 2013 at 12:29 pm

      Yeah I think back to high school for some reason and listen to B.I.G and Pac… seriously when I watch that movie The Wackness I truly get nostalgic.

  4. N. Orien March 4, 2013 at 12:14 pm

    But seriously though, why are skinny girls so rare?

    • Virgle Kent March 4, 2013 at 12:28 pm

      High School… duh.. “no pedo”

  5. Reality Slinger March 4, 2013 at 12:32 pm

    Love the site. There’s this other blog where people keep longing for the good ole’ days that their fathers never had. Appreciate Ricky Raw’s contributions too. I’m glad to see a blog for everyone, not just angry dudes who blame the rest of the world that they control for their dry crotches. I hope that “living foods” will eventually get discussed in the fitness section.

  6. ASF March 4, 2013 at 12:53 pm

    The entire American diet has deteriorated, for many complicated reasons. Women have a different relationship with food than do men. It affects them emotionally, whereas for most men this is not the case. Thus you have many fat women. It is not much better in most Western countries.

    I think it’s easier for a man to bang more girls from more places today than back in the 60′s.

    • Virgle Kent March 4, 2013 at 12:55 pm

      I would argue that because of hormones in meat and increased starch and sugar put in food pesticides on crops today to increase production to the food we eat this has added to the complex issue of increased obesity in both women and men

  7. Takahashiryu March 4, 2013 at 2:05 pm

    “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.”
    Reminiscing won’t take you anywhere. Action will. Take the best from the time that was given to you

  8. whatever March 4, 2013 at 2:24 pm

    Did you really just start an article with a dictionary definition? I don’t know if it’s more ballsy or hacky.

    Either way, people really did divorce less, and eat less. Neither the rise in divorces, nor in BMI is some nostalgic figment of imagination.

    What’s with this contrarian tone on nexxt? First a four-part Freudian manifesto against statistics. Now one against nostalgia where apparently knowledge of Woody Allen’s cinematography trumps… actual knowledge of facts.

    • T. AKA Ricky Raw March 4, 2013 at 2:41 pm

      First a four-part Freudian manifesto against statistics.

      Just because you refuse to follow any links and read the statistics in the series doesn’t mean they weren’t there. That’s like sticking your fingers in your ears, yelling “NA NA NA NA I can’t hear you!!!” Then when it’s all over saying your opponent offered no counterarguments.

      Also, just for kicks, tell us one Freudian concept I used in either part 3 or part 4 of the series. I’ll wait.

      I understand that your HBD heroes haven’t yet handed down the official talking points yet for how to respond to the evidence provided in my series, and you lack the intelligence to go through the evidence and make counterarguments for yourself, so you have to recharacterize the series as being 100% psychoanalysis with no stats to save face. It’s still pathetically transparent and intellectually dishonest though.

      • whatever March 4, 2013 at 3:38 pm

        > tell us one Freudian concept I used

        Like ego? Which you use all the way down in the… second paragraph of part four.

        The whole thing was about the ego of HBDers. That’s the point, it wasn’t even about HDB. And, as fun as it might be, analysing the psyche of proponents tells you little to nothing about the proposition.

        > how to respond to the evidence provided in my series

        Evidence of what? That environment can influence people’s development? Virtually no one thinks it doesn’t. That’s such a straw man.

        But there’s a mountain of studies[1] conducted over the past ~50 years showing clear cognitive differences between populations. And seriously, how likely is it that all human populations, sometimes separated for 100 000 years, somehow faced the same evolutionary pressures which resulted in same cognitive abilities?

        [1] I don’t know if he counts as an “HBD hero” but it’s still a nice summary http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php

        • T. AKA Ricky Raw March 4, 2013 at 4:53 pm

          Like ego? Which you use all the way down in the… second paragraph of part four.

          The whole thing was about the ego of HBDers. That’s the point, it wasn’t even about HDB. And, as fun as it might be, analysing the psyche of proponents tells you little to nothing about the proposition.

          The concept of ego-threat is not a Freudian concept. It’s highly recognized in personality psychology research involving peer-reviewed studies. For example: http://www.carlsonschool.umn.edu/Assets/71515.pdf

          And trying to isolate that one term, ego threat, and using it to somehow claim the whole article is a Freudian analysis is beyond a reach. That would be like saying any article that mentioned the word “ego” or “subconscious” was Freudian. Give me a break.

          Second, the focus of the post you are describing was not the egos of HBDers. It was about minorities, stereotype threat, and the plausible nongenetic factors established via hundreds of research studies for why black students may be underperforming in America. And guess what? Those studies had *gasp* statistics. So the idea that the series is statistics free, or goes against statistics, is a bold-faced lie. Just like your claim that part 4 was just about the egos of HBDers, a ridiculous claim to make because all someone has to do is use their mouse to click part 4 and see for themselves.

          Third, the post you are using as an example, part 4, links to about 115 books and research studies that discuss plausible, non-genetic reasons why blacks may be underperforming in schools. I provided a real world example of blacks who consistently perform well in the same environments where black Americans are underperforming. I discussed the Minnesota Transracial Adoption studies, a favorite of HBDers themselves.

          Part 2 linked to a whole body of research, hundreds of studies overall, explaining how the types of policies HBDers propose actually hurt students and make for bad policy, as well as studies where minority students were able to improve IQ scores and academic performance via environmental interventions.

          So again, how is it a 4 part series consisting purely of psychoanalysis of HBD psyches and devoid of evidence? Just saying something over and over again doesn’t make it true. I understand you can’t actually address the evidence without reading one of your icons do it first. Fine. But don’t lie about what’s in the series.

          Fourth, if the type of evidence I did use, which was psychological research involving real world performance of students, is not valid, then the concept of IQ in general is not valid by that standard, since the IQ concept and the IQ test was developed by psychologist Alfred Binet using the exact same type of research. The concept of IQ was further developed by three other psychologists over the decades. IQ is psychological concept developed using psychology research. If the statistical results of real-world psychological research is invalid, then so is the concept of IQ, which is what HBD mostly focuses on.

          But there’s a mountain of studies[1] conducted over the past ~50 years showing clear cognitive differences between populations. And seriously, how likely is it that all human populations, sometimes separated for 100 000 years, somehow faced the same evolutionary pressures which resulted in same cognitive abilities?

          “Same evolutionary pressures?” False premise. That alone makes your whole question invalid. How can every race on earth have been subjected to the same environmental evolutionary pressures throughout their histories? Are you seriously claiming that?

          And no one denies that there is a whole body of evidence that supports HBD claims if cherrypicked and just taken on its own out of context. It’s just that when you look at the whole body of research, there is just as much evidence that goes against it as well that HBDers ignore. Like you did when reading my series. Instead of addressing it, you guys just keep pretending it isn’t there, then keep asking people to read YOUR evidence instead.

          • T. AKA Ricky Raw March 4, 2013 at 5:15 pm

            Also, whatever, I never said that there was no differences in the average IQ between races and that different environments didn’t lead to those differences. But it’s a big leap to go from that to the idea to the idea that those differences are permanently fixed and can never be changed no matter how you change environments from here on out.

            For example, many Asians born in the third world are on average much shorter than people from the West, and their environments throughout history surely contributed to those differences. However it’s a hell of a leap to go from that to the claim that their historical average high is doomed to be their average height forever. For example there are several generations of Asians who are raised in the West and on Western diets who are much taller than any of their ancestors.

            You’re providing evidence for a point that no one is even contesting in the first place, that races have evolved differently.

    • Virgle Kent March 4, 2013 at 3:20 pm

      LOL! my bad the 50′s and 60′s were perfect

      • whatever March 4, 2013 at 3:39 pm

        > LOL! my bad the 50′s and 60′s were perfect

        It’s funny because that’s exactly what I wrote!

        • T. AKA Ricky Raw March 4, 2013 at 4:55 pm

          It’s funny because that’s exactly what I wrote!

          What’s actually funnier is that after blatantly misrepresenting what someone else wrote, you turn around and complain about someone doing the same to you, even though what they did was far more accurate than what you did.

          • whatever March 4, 2013 at 6:04 pm

            Yeah, it’s a whole comedy of errors because I didn’t misrepresent anything but you actually misrepresent my comments by claiming that I did. Hilarious. It should be a movie script.

          • T. AKA Ricky Raw March 4, 2013 at 6:15 pm

            Yeah, it’s a whole comedy of errors because I didn’t misrepresent anything

            Oh, I get it, misrepresentation is a deliberate act. So if you’re saying your blatant mistake wasn’t misrepresentation, I guess you mean it was accidental and just poor reading comprehension on your part? I could buy that this is about your lack of intelligence rather than your lack of honesty.

          • whatever March 4, 2013 at 6:29 pm

            > I could buy that this is about your lack of intelligence rather than your lack of honesty.

            Why do you switch do ad hominems so easily and quickly? Even when discussing some mild nostalgia for thinner America, your first instinct was to call it a “fixation” and people feeling it losers:

            > Yes, the fixation with being nostalgic for a time period you never even lived through is crazy. I think it’s a sign that your own life must have always been disappointing to you.

            Same with HBDers. Same when responding to me.

            I don’t want to do the whole pop psychology bit but it is a weirdly combative style.

          • T. AKA Ricky Raw March 4, 2013 at 7:07 pm

            Why do you switch do ad hominems so easily and quickly? Even when discussing some mild nostalgia for thinner America, your first instinct was to call it a “fixation” and people feeling it losers:

            Wow, this is just rich.

            Your very first comment in this section you say my series is “a four-part Freudian manifesto against statistics.” That’s a strawman attack, since it’s a blatantly untrue misrepresentation of my position that you’re using to make it easier to attack. It’s not four parts of Freudian analysis, it’s not anti-statistics. So why do you resort to strawmen attacks so quickly and easily, starting with your very first post?

            Same with HBDers. Same when responding to me.

            I actually responded to your strawman attack with evidence at first. I listed examples from my series of non-Freudian, evidence-supported topics. Then you just started ignoring that. So now are you going to switch to another strawman attack and now claim I’ve done nothing in this thread but use ad hominems when debating you?

            Despite the fact that people can just read this comments thread for themselves and see me clearly addressing your claims with explicit counter-examples?

            Why do you switch so easily and quickly to ignoring contrary evidence when you can’t respond to it? Same with responding to my HBD series. Same when responding in this thread.

            I don’t want to do the whole pop psychology bit but it is a weirdly combative style.

            Again, another strawman by pretending the only type of arguments you’ve been presented with all along are pop psychology ones. Again, avoiding the fact that if Dweck’s research is pop psychology, then the concept of IQ is nothing but pop psychology as well, since Binet was a psychology working with same types of studies. Again, ignoring that I linked to hundreds of studies that had nothing to do with Freudian analysis but also discussed brain plasticity studies, Dweck’s fixed mindset research studies, and stereotype research studies, all of which had statistics, despite the fact I repeated it this comments thread.

            In addition to not wanting to do the pop psychology but, you also seem to not want to do the intellectual honesty bit or the acknowledging of contrary evidence and studies bit either.

            Anyway, we’ve derailed VK’s original thread enough, and we’ve clearly established your unreliability. I’m going to stop engaging you and only respond to posts about the actual original topic.

            Sorry for the derail VK.

          • whatever March 4, 2013 at 7:16 pm

            > Your very first comment in this section you say my series is “a four-part Freudian manifesto against statistics.”

            It’s not an ad hominem argument, nor is it a straw man. It’s just a colourful description.

            But you go straight for the jugular: questioning people’s intelligence, honesty, and motives.

            > now claim I’ve done nothing in this thread but use ad hominems when debating you?

            I didn’t say “nothing but”. However, you just did.

            And I responded to your arguments in the parallel branch — my comment is awaiting moderation. Presumably, because it contains links.

          • T. AKA Ricky Raw March 4, 2013 at 7:21 pm

            It’s not an ad hominem argument, nor is it a straw man. It’s just a colourful description.

            LOL…Okay, you’re officially reaching hilariously ridiculous levels now. I’m done.

  9. T. AKA Ricky Raw March 4, 2013 at 2:51 pm

    Also, for the idea that there is no support for VK’s claim that the good old days were not as good as people like to claim, I recommend this book:

    http://www.amazon.com/Way-We-Never-Were-Nostalgia/dp/0465090974

    No one is denying that in some specific areas the past may have been better, just that overall, when taking EVERYTHING into account rather than just a really narrow focus like divorce rates and skinny high school girls, it’s hardly the paradise people are making it out to be.

  10. Reality Slinger March 4, 2013 at 6:59 pm

    What’s funny these dudes leave the “superior” blog to come over to VK’s and try to debate Ricky Raw. So what, whatever….even if you were right, you’re not getting laid, so go back to stormtiste. It’s not enough to be “superior”, they need to convince you, lol. Truths are usually self evident, but cognitive dissonance is a muthaf@ck@ !

  11. Nate March 4, 2013 at 7:44 pm

    “What’s with this contrarian tone on nexxt?”

    Shit, we can’t have that. How about we start emailing you our drafts for your approval, so that way we know for sure you’ll agree with everything that is written here.

    Re: The OP

    I’ll never understand this sort of selective cultural/generational nostalgia. They want all of the specified good, without any of the bad. Free lunch mental masturbation.

    • whatever March 4, 2013 at 7:56 pm

      >> What’s with this contrarian tone on nexxt?

      > Shit, we can’t have that.

      “Conformism and anticonformism are symmetrical manifestations of the same lack of originality.”
      — Dávila

      • T. AKA Ricky Raw March 4, 2013 at 8:14 pm

        Hm, so your accusing people of being motivated to write what they write simply because of contrarianism? That they’re motivated to write what they write simply to go against mainstream, popularly accepted opinions, rather than due to a sincere belief in what they are writing? And then you use this assumption of a contrarian motivation to accuse them of a lack of originality?

        Isn’t that pop psychology analysis, followed by an ad hom attack?

  12. TFU March 5, 2013 at 12:32 am

    Can’t have said it better than the article or a few of the commenters have, but yeah yearning for some imagined past is easier than making meaningful changes to enhance your present. Hell, think of Johnny Rockets; I see tons of people buying into the nostalgia it’s built on, but back when burger places were actually like that, the staff was still spitting on your food and you were probably some 50′s punk wishing he was eating at one of those cool 20′s restaurants back in the day where everything was so much better, of course.

  13. GreenDolphinStreet March 5, 2013 at 8:29 am

    I also love that the 1950s is romanticized as this totally stable and peaceful time in America. Yeah; it was so stable that all of its cultural norms got completely upended in the next decade. Clearly, a lot of people had problems with it, and to act like change wasn’t inevitable resembles some seriously wishful thinking.

    Also, most people who express nostalgia for this time period also tend to complain about government programs for minorities, women etc. Guess what? The prosperity of the 50s was heavily built on the GI Bill, the federal highway system, and the military-industrial complex. I guess government programs can only be good when they benefit the “right” people.

    Finally, fat women shouldn’t be a big deal if you live in a major metro area. If you can’t find enough attractive skinny women in one of these cities, you are either fucking lying, or you are not capable of getting them, so you pass the blame to the fat problem.

    • Virgle Kent March 5, 2013 at 10:01 am

      Daaaaammmmmmnnnnnnnnn…. all great points.

      • T. AKA Ricky Raw March 5, 2013 at 11:58 am

        Agreed, nice job Green Dolphin

        • GreenDolphinStreet March 5, 2013 at 4:08 pm

          Thanks. Count me in as one of those people who’s fed-up with the manosphere’s whiney tone over the past couple of years. It’s gone from “guys who go out in the city and recap tales of trying to pick up girls” to “guys who complain about the city and recap episodes of Girls.”

          You have to put in work to succeed in the city. That means not considering every demographic as your enemy, and also to stop pretending that you’re superior to everyone as a crutch.

  14. Tom in NOLA March 5, 2013 at 1:52 pm

    I’m also bothered by the general premise of “decline” that all manosphere blogs buy into. Yes, shit’s all fucked up and bullshit, anyone with eyes can tell you that. But look back at U.S./Western history: how do you think men felt about our prospects in the early 30s? Mid 40s? Mid-late 60s? Late 70s? Early 90s? Early 00s? Shit, five years ago?

    I would submit that our civilization is becoming more and more complex and less cohesive, which may be a bad thing, but is not a bad thing in and of itself, and is not the same as “decline.” And I think writers who operate from the decline premise become narcissistic, pessimistic, and disrespectful of others’ good-faith arguments, because…hey, what the fuck does it matter? I’m right and I’ll see you all in hell!

    • GreenDolphinStreet March 5, 2013 at 4:12 pm

      Yeah, the whole “I’ll be sitting poolside enjoying the decline” thing. You know what sitting by the poolside makes you? A spectator while other people have fun in the water.

      Also, the decline thing is way overstated when you consider that violent crime has steadily decreased in cities over the past two decades.

  15. Blaximus March 6, 2013 at 7:02 pm

    Good stuff.

    Being in my very early 50′s ( riiiggghhhttt, grampa is in the house ) I can remember most of the 60′s, all of the 70′s, 80′s and 90′s.

    I agree that there is not so much ” decline ” in American life and culture as there is silliness and a propensity for the dramatically inane and senseless.

    As far back as I can recall, women are still women , looks-wise.

    Attitudes have gotten worse in females. There is an increase of ” fat-ass-awareness “, but that is mostly due to our hyper-connected society where everyone is important and special and deserving of being heard while expressing their feeeeelllliiinnggsss and BLAH, BLAH, BLAH…….

    I loved the first 5 decades of life. Each had it’s own little special moments. None was greater than the other.

    The trick fellas, is to live in THIS moment as fully as possible.

  16. Boy Toy March 16, 2013 at 7:24 pm

    Yeah. People always whine about how the grass is greener on the other side, and how everything is unfair.
    I tell them to shut the f up and MAKE THE MOST OUT OF WHAT THEY HAVE.

  17. Butter Naan April 15, 2013 at 7:01 pm

    The men nostalgic for that era are also fans of arranged marriage. As someone who comes from an arranged marriage culture – THEY HAVE NO IDEA.

    Basically these nostalgic men and those who romanticize the traditional marriage customs of foreign cultures are men who are unable to compete in the here and now.

    They are Sexual Marxists

  18. sfer April 17, 2013 at 7:57 pm

    This is a good post.

    People have always had problems.

Leave A Response