I’m 58 and my girlfriend is 32. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. In fact, I think it is a great idea and that everyone should try it!!
Since I met her, she’s gone back to college and earned her degree and a certification in Sonography, now she’s working shifts at local hospitals and building her resume..
Life is what you make of it, if you are happy and the person you are with is happy, then be happy! Thats hard enough these days without making up taboos to keep you lonely and miserable. And if the person you are with is happier and living a better life than before you met, how can anybody say that it is wrong?
It’s clearly just sexual strategy applied by older women who are aging out. To the extent it works men will just go abroad. The women who buy into this noise are only limiting themselves.
allow me to tell you what you’re doing as a 20year old btw:)
—
the funny thing about this post is that it pretends to be a smart analysis of cultural trends, but it’s really just a long-winded justification for why older men should feel entitled to younger women—and how to spin that entitlement into a recruitment tool for far-right ideology. it’s not deep. it’s not clever. it’s just a manifesto for how to normalize predatory behavior by framing basic boundaries as oppression.
you calls it an “axiom audit,” but it’s not about uncovering truth—it’s about shutting down the conversation the second women stop performing the way you want them to. you don’t care whether the relationship is actually healthy or mutual. you only care about power. which is why your real solution isn’t to disprove the idea that large age gaps can be exploitative—it’s to convince men to stop caring altogether.
and the part that really gives it away? you literally say the goal is to make older men feel safe dating younger women by rejecting equality as a value altogether. like you actually said that out loud. not “we want freedom” or “we want fairness,” but “we want you to stop believing in equality so i can date 20-somethings in peace.”
it’s not even about desire—it’s about dominance. you’re not defending these relationships because they’re consensual or kind or balanced. you’re defending them because they preserve a version of masculinity where men don’t have to self-reflect, adapt, or be held accountable. and the only way that works is if they can convince everyone that caring about power dynamics is just feminist hysteria.
you wants to roll back the clock to a time when nobody questioned men for choosing partners they could easily control. and instead of being honest about that, you wrap it in pseudointellectual language about “axioms” and “freedom” and “manipulation”—as if the issue isn’t literally just: hey, stop grooming people half your age and calling it liberation.
this entire piece is a test balloon for how far they can push the idea that dating young equals moral rebellion. but if your version of rebellion is “i don’t care if it’s predatory,” then maybe you’re not brave or radical—you’re just proving everyone’s point.
Why are you just restating things I say in the article?
“«I don’t care if it’s unequal. That’s the point.»”
Yes, I am against equality—particularly when it's pursued for its own sake. The point of this publication is the annihilation of equality and humanism.
“a recruitment tool for far-right ideology.”
That is explicitly the only point of this article, and I say that outright.
“it’s not deep. it’s not clever. it’s just a manifesto for how to normalize predatory behavior by framing basic boundaries as oppression.”
It’s not supposed to be deep. It's strictly a tactical piece, using this as a recruiting tool for far-right ideology. And yes, I don’t believe equality is good or worth pursuing. I believe in pursuing one's interests without shame, which is—by definition—predatory. My article three weeks ago was literally called “Man Become Predator.”
“you calls it an ‘axiom audit,’ but it’s not about uncovering truth”
You can hate my axioms all you want—I certainly hate yours—but don’t diss the axiom audit. The point of it is to find out the first principle or motivating force. That’s all it is. It’s a tool.
“and the part that really gives it away? you literally say the goal is to make older men feel safe dating younger women by rejecting equality as a value altogether.”
Yes. I am for the destruction of equality. The entire point of this article isn’t even about age gaps or dating—it’s a field manual to aid in my project to destroy equality. Why are you just repeating what I already said?
“we want you to stop believing in equality so i can date 20-somethings in peace.”
You reversed it. If you stop believing in equality, then you can date 20-somethings in peace. The goal here is the destruction of equality.
“you’re not defending these relationships because they’re consensual or kind or balanced.”
I don’t care about these relationships at all. Whether they’re healthy or unhealthy is irrelevant to me. The point is what they can be used to do strategically.
“you’re defending them because they preserve a version of masculinity where men don’t have to self-reflect, adapt, or be held accountable.”
Yeah, I don’t want men to become egalitarian—nor do I want women to. The version of masculinity preached by feminism is based on the ethics of care, which I fundamentally reject. And yes, I don’t think men should be held accountable to your values, because I want those values disempowered and discarded into the dustbin of history.
“and the only way that works is if they can convince everyone that caring about power dynamics is just feminist hysteria.”
Wrong, I want them to care about power dynamics—I just want them to do it from the perspective that power is inherently good, and that we should not seek equality.
“you wants to roll back the clock to a time when nobody questioned men for choosing partners they could easily control.”
No. I want men to explicitly tell their critics that they are against equality. I don’t want nobody to think about these things—I want everybody to at least state that they are against equality as a value pursued for its own sake.
“and instead of being honest about that, you wrap it in pseudointellectual language about ‘axioms’ and ‘freedom’ and ‘manipulation’—as if the issue isn’t literally just: hey, stop grooming people half your age and calling it liberation.”
Stop reversing the cause and the effect. I’m not writing this article because I care about this issue. I’m writing it to use as a strategic wedge in my goal to eliminate the pursuit of equality for its own sake.
“but if your version of rebellion is ‘i don’t care if it’s predatory,’ then maybe you’re not brave or radical—you’re just proving everyone’s point.”
Look at my other article—I want to prove your point. I want them to explicitly tell you: yes, we are the enemy. We are an enemy to the project of egalitarianism.
If this is really your goal, I honestly don’t think you will succeed. Are you pretending that if right wingers are overt, they will succeed in destroying “equality” or “humanism”?
The goal is a transvaluation of values against equality and humanism. Just as humanism and equality replaced God I seek to replace them. Yes I believe eventually a complete overt opposition to equality and humanism will be viable as it is the endpoint most right wing thought undermining liberalism today whether the current proponents see it that way or not.
you keep asking why i’m “just restating what you said,” but that’s kind of the point. i’m not trying to misrepresent you. i’m holding up the mirror.
you said all of this—i know. and i repeated it in plain language because people need to see clearly what your philosophy actually is when it’s stripped of the smug framing. not metaphysics. not tactics. just glorified exploitation disguised as masculine clarity.
and look, if your whole goal is to proudly be “the enemy of egalitarianism,” cool. own that. but don’t act confused when someone shows up to say, yes, and you’re also exactly the kind of predator you claim to admire. that’s not projection. it’s alignment. you’re not subverting the system. you’re just fantasizing about being the one who gets to rig it.
also—using age gap discourse to radicalize men into proudly rejecting care, consent, accountability, or balance isn’t tactical genius. it’s emotional rot with a branding team.
you say you want men to declare they don’t believe in equality? cool. i want people to see what that actually looks like.
You're still trying to insinuate that I'm hiding something.
“but that’s kind of the point. i’m not trying to misrepresent you. i’m holding up the mirror.”
Yeah, you don’t need to do that. It’s not 2015 anymore. We’re pretty overt about what we want now.
“and i repeated it in plain language because people need to see clearly what your philosophy actually is when it’s stripped of the smug framing.”
Plain language? I say it overtly in the article. You're kind of proving my point that people shouldn't be equal—if you’re just admitting they’re so retarded they couldn’t parse the meaning when I literally lay out: here’s a strategy to align our interests with a group and get them to oppose equality.
“and look, if your whole goal is to proudly be ‘the enemy of egalitarianism,’ cool. own that.”
I do. I explicitly state in the article that my goal is the destruction of equality.
“you’re just fantasizing about being the one who gets to rig it.”
Yeah, I believe in power for power’s sake. I’m pretty overt about that.
“isn’t tactical genius. it’s emotional rot with a branding team.”
This part was written by AI. But also, no—it is a good strategy. We did this with the alt-right and white identity, and it worked. We’re going to do it here too.
“you say you want men to declare they don’t believe in equality? cool. i want people to see what that actually looks like.”
They can see that just by clicking the article. You’re not exposing me—I’m not wearing a mask.
“and thanks for making it so easy.”
You still don’t know what time it is. We don’t care if you know what we are. The ideology of egalitarianism is coming to an end.
you think being overt makes you untouchable—that because you admit to using age-gap discourse as a recruiting tactic, to rejecting equality, to glorifying power for power’s sake, that you’ve outsmarted the moral framework you’re undermining.
but all it really means is this:
you’ve confirmed what so many women have felt but struggled to articulate.
that there are men who don’t just stumble into predatory dynamics—they strategize them.
who don’t want mutuality. they want submission. and they’ll use anything—philosophy, data, “axioms,” edge-lord posturing—to get it.
you don’t scare me. you don’t surprise me either.
you’ve made yourself a case study.
and now that you’ve said it out loud, the rest of us will make sure people remember it.
and i do find your little ai comment funny.
you wish. but no.
can’t say the same about those images of yours though.
“you’ve confirmed what so many women have felt but struggled to articulate.
that there are men who don’t just stumble into predatory dynamics—they strategize them.”
Really? You couldn’t articulate that yourself? Kind of pathetic. Also, again, you keep harping on this as if I care about these relationships—as if that’s the goal of the article. It’s not. It’s about overt opposition to equality—not just in this form, but in every form. Every pursuit of equality for its own sake.
“you don’t scare me. you don’t surprise me either.
you’ve made yourself a case study.
and now that you’ve said it out loud, the rest of us will make sure people remember it.”
We want you to know. I’m not calling for a secret, strategic attempt to subvert equality. I’m calling for its destruction—overtly. I’m calling for people to just come out and say: we don’t want that.
But I will say one thing in your favor: I thank you for making this the new issue of feminist concern.
Basically every study on mail attraction points to the fact that doesn't age with them. There will never be a time when men don’t want to fuck 20-year-olds, even when they’re old as fuck—so justifying your disgust with these relationships under the guise of “equality” is the perfect wedge issue for use to kill it.
Like, yeah, men created an entire system to oppress women, sustained it for thousands of years, but we still somehow conclude men aren't predatory and, actually, they are victims that deep inside would like to be tender teddy bears with women 🥺
This is a quite on-the-nose example of the type of discourse that he's referring to.
"You're saying you don't value what I value. No but wait you're LITERALLY saying you don't value what I value. Are you hearing me: you literally, LITERALLY just said you don't value what I value."
This is 2019 reasoning, and it has run out of gas. Whether you personally identify as left-wing or right-wing, sufficient theory of mind should allow one to understand the axiomatic priors of the opposition. Left-wing visions of the world value equality for its own sake, and right-wing visions of the world value hierarchy for its own sake.
Per his point, you axiomatically view equality and fairness as worth pursuing. This has been taken as a given in the liberal 20th century, and particularly in the hyper-liberal 21st, but it is a historical anomaly, and reversion to the mean is inevitable unless equality politics can come up with a compelling argument to maintain it which doesn't consist of tut-tutting. It will not simply go away in the face of newly ascendant RW politics, but it is no longer considered self-evident and default.
You say he's not being honest, but he is being very honest and straightforward. You just don't agree, and that's fine. Make an argument, not a moral case.
oh trust me, i understand the “axiomatic priors” just fine. i just don’t find “let’s normalize age gaps by dismantling equality altogether” to be a morally neutral stance. the moment you frame hierarchy as an end in itself—and then attach it to who older men are “allowed” to sleep with—you’ve exited the realm of theory and entered the realm of real-world consequences. so no, i’m not just saying “you don’t value what i value.” i’m pointing out that what you value enables exploitation, then dressing it up as philosophy.
and calling that out isn’t “tut-tutting.” it’s the exact thing you asked for: an argument. you just don’t like that mine doesn’t flatter your detachment.
also—small note—you can’t sit here talking about “sufficient theory of mind” while excusing a piece that literally admits its purpose is to manipulate men into abandoning ethics if it gets them laid. that’s not high-level political strategy. that’s incel-coded propaganda with a thesaurus.
lastly: if your whole rebuttal to criticism is “but this reasoning is from 2019,” maybe pause and ask yourself why the 2025 version of your ideology still needs to be defended with bad faith analogies and cult-like reframing. because what you’re doing here isn’t advancing a new world order—it’s just giving a fresh coat of paint to old power grabs.
There is no contradiction between philosophy, moral or political, and an endorsement of exploitation, hierarchy and inegalitarianism. Lockeanism is a recent phenomenon. Thinking on these issues far predates him, and the vast majority of it hews closer to OP's conception than the moral thinking of the past century.
"Abandoning (my) ethics." This is my point. Your moral conception of the world is not universal, and hierarchical right-wing thinking does not value what you value and is not convinced by appeals to human rights, fairness and the like. You're welcome to think this is bad/evil/whatever in your formulation, but it is an "abandonment" of nothing, because Enlightenment philosophy is not some objective law of reality.
His argument is a moral divergence made clear and explicit. But your comment is correct in implying that there is a fundamental tension between LW and RW thinking. There is no reconciliation between them, only grabbing power for your preferred project and affecting them into reality, and he's laid out his game plan for just that.
right, and at some point you’ll have to admit that dressing your fixation on power and control in philosophical robes doesn’t make it noble. you’re not reviving ancient political thought—you’re using it as a shield for modern self-interest. and i’m not even surprised. there’s always been a genre of men who justify exploitation not by denying it, but by calling it tradition.
and sure, you’re correct that enlightenment values aren’t “objective reality.” they’re a choice. so is the world you’re advocating for. and the difference between us is: i’m not pretending mine doesn’t come with cost. you are.
because what’s really happening here is that you’re cloaking male sexual entitlement as some noble rejection of liberal decadence. and that’s not bold. it’s deeply unoriginal. it’s been done before—usually by regimes that eventually collapsed under the weight of their own cruelty.
so no, i’m not shaken by your “there is no reconciliation” line. i agree. but at least be honest: you’re not trying to build a society—you’re just hoping enough men get scared or bitter enough to sign on for your fantasy of dominance.
and if that’s the game plan, thanks for saying it out loud. makes it easier to name it for what it is.
Power is the philsophy, as is self-interest. This is not dressing; it is the whole of it, and it is honest about that. You're right that this is recurrent through history, because power and its applicatio is a constant of nature.
Notably I haven't endorsed anything or called this project noble. My effort is to describe, and in my estimation the described outlook and approach is a scissor that will beat liberalism's paper unless there is a reckoning with power politics.
Critique is not enough. Saying men with this philsophy are piggish, entitled and exploitative may very well be true in the liberal formulation, but they don't care about that. So whats the move then to ensure a durable liberal politics in a world where those who recognize and possess power are willing to wield it?
Of course I recognize the costs associated with either project, as does OP in his advocating for it. Hierarchy is just willing to make someone else pay for it; they kick cost down the ladder. So what is the response? OP has a very specific plan; what is the liberal, egalitarian plan?
Perhaps this vision succeeds, establishes a NWO, and then collapses, as you say, under the weight of its own cruelty. It almost certainly will, these things are cyclical. But it doesn't stop the abolition of the LWO in the meantime.
and there it is: you’re not even making a moral case—you’re just forecasting a collapse and betting on the side with bigger boots. power as inevitability. exploitation as strategy. hierarchy as realism. no need for ethics when you’ve already declared the fight post-moral.
but here’s the part you don’t seem to clock: people have survived your vision too. time and time again. because the thing about cruelty and coercion is—it can dominate for a while. it can suppress. but it can’t create meaning. it can’t build loyalty. it can’t write futures people actually want to live in. even your imagined win is temporary, because it relies on force and fear and the hope that no one dares to resist. but they always do. and they always will.
your mistake is thinking liberalism only works when it has power. but actually, its real strength is in what it seeds—even in loss. even underground. it creates people who remember what dignity felt like. who recognize tyranny even when it’s disguised as tradition or order or “just nature.” and those people don’t need your permission to exist, or rebuild.
so while you’re over here strategizing how to make more men kick downward, i’ll keep naming what you’re doing. because you’re not inevitable. you’re just loud.
and fyi: the move was never to convince you. the move was to unmask you—so the people you’d rather step on see it coming.
“because Enlightenment philosophy is not some objective law of reality.”
Ten years ago, when the “post modern” activists were actively rejecting objectivity as a pillar of white supremacy, I desperately pleaded to slam the breaks. I told them “this won’t turn out how you think.” The underlying assumption was that because social justice does not withstand rational inquiry, objectivity is an enemy to be defeated. Once objectivity is removed, people will have no choice but to accept social justice as a default. Turns out I was right, that objectivity was not replaced by social justice for most people, but rather by many other things: cults, superstitions, and yes, might makes right.
I’m not mad about this, it is what it is. I just find it very ironic that the “reject objectivity “ people got what they wanted , and the outcome is now running roughshod over them.
I’ll always hold objectivity in my heart, it was the soul of the culture I was raised in. But in the interest of survival, we must move on, prioritizing tribalism above all else.
I think it’s a false objection. The women are acting like it’s predatory only after they are older than that age. As they approach the wall, the shaming language comes out.
They know they can’t compare to a twenty something anymore. They have no leverage to get men in their 30’s to take them seriously, hence the fake pedo accusations.
Gentlemen in your 30s, stand your ground and abide your preferences. Ignore these harpies. For a man in his 30s, the women his age are loaded with debt, run through, bragging about their “trauma“ “healing journey“ on TikTok, divorced to chase hedonism, which they call “their happiness“… they’re on anxiety meds, antidepressants, did I mention loaded with debt? They’re bitter, argumentative, masculine, entitled, and especially delusional as they raise their standards while their value declines. They likely have multiple babies from multiple baby daddies, they want you as a stepfather but not any children of your own, they want you to pay for everything… In other words, they’re looking for a sponsor not a spouse. Men are in love, women are in business. Do not rescue these creatures. The young women are still cheerful, adventurous, playful, feminine, less baggage, fewer bodies, you just might rescue them from their own degeneracy. Better yet, skip all the modern western women and get a passport if you must to find a traditional woman.
40? No, they are suggesting a man in his 30’s is predatory for dating a woman in her 20’s. Trying to shame him into dating a woman his same age still.
But if he wants kids, a family, the answer is Hell no, Ashley, your eggs are damaged and nearly gone. He’ll take the 25 year old (who has less baggage, and looks up to him… follows his lead.)
"I've never really seen a woman specifically desire a man who makes roughly the same amount of money as her, is equally as strong as her, is equally as smart as her, has the same social status as her, is as popular as her, etc."
Because nobody desire that way. People tend to state they want somebody "hotter" than them, both sexes do it. Yet they date assortatively.
I don't have a problem with age gaps, but what you propose has been already done by the manosphere at large for...like 10-15 years on the internet. That translated on humiliating women for *ageing*, stupid "the wall" speech, obvious bad faith "bbut ferteeleetee" speech when they probably don't want to have 6 kids just fuck a hot babe, and lies told to men about how they will "reach their prime" so they can finally date 20's hot years old when their swimmers are expiring, when in reality the best time is when they are in their 20's too.
Given that, I doubt it will be appealing, more when in reality common men will end up probably with someone close to their own age. It's just loser cope at this point.
"Yet they date assortatively." That's true, but let's be clear here: they're settling. The more money a man has, the larger the age gap between him and his wife.
In the same way most women would rather date the guy who is 6 '5 with blue eyes but can't, most men would rather be with somebody who looks 20 — but are settling because they're out of the age range and can't compensate with the money to date someone that young.
"Manosphere at large for... like 10–15 years on the internet." Not exactly. The manosphere types argue within the moral framework of their opponents. They did the whole "it's not weird because she's a consenting adult" or "she can join the Army and drink so it's fine." I explicitly don't want men to do this. I want them to say they don't care about equality. I don't really care about this issue in and of itself. I care about using it as a wedge to push men right and to turn them against equality.
"Reach their prime so they can finally date 20's hot years old when their swimmers are expiring, when in reality the best time is when they are in their 20's too." That's all more or less true, which is why I don't support feeding men lies — the same way I don't support feeding women lies about how "those men only date young models because they can't pull women their own age."
"Given that, I doubt it will be appealing, more when in reality common men will end up probably with someone close to their own age." Yes, that will happen for most people. Again, this isn't about making it so the average 60-year-old can get a college-aged girlfriend. It's about using the issue as a fracture point to radicalize men — specifically those with money and power, whose interests are affected by this discourse.
I doubt they are settling. Regarding age gaps, women prefer smaller ones, and what we are seeing in the first world, where they have more of a choice over the men they date and marry, is a reduction in the age gap.
If it was true that women are more attracted to older guys with money, and that they are more attractive than a man their age, we would effectively see women pursuing those older guys and leaving men their age perpetually single. Doesn't happen that way, and I don't see why wouldn't women do that; there's nothing stopping them and there's no substantial reason for them to cling to broke guys they don't fully like in their "prime years", unless women just like those men more.
"In the same way most women would rather date the guy who is 6 '5 with blue eyes but can't, most men would rather be with somebody who looks 20 — but are settling because they're out of the age range and *can't compensate with the money to date someone that young*"
So...men have to compensate their ageing with money for women to chose them(? Sounds like women like men their age more than old hags with money...
"That's all more or less true, which is why I don't support feeding men lies — the same way I don't support feeding women lies about how "those men only date young models because they can't pull women their own age.""
Right uwu
" It's about using the issue as a fracture point to radicalize men — specifically those with money and power, whose interests are affected by this discourse."
I doubt DiCaprio guys are affected. But okey, I get it, you want to give them the high five and for men to start saying "based" instead of "listen, dude, she is a consenting adult *insert paragraph with scrote speech*". Okey uwur
No no you got it reversed. I'm saying the men are settling for someone their own age not the woman. Yeah the whole "men's prime is in their 40s" or whatever is cope. The same way that "40-year-old men want 20 year old women because they can't pull someone their own age" is a cope. And I hate copes.
By the way, what you say about the gold digger... I wish it were true.
To me, it sounds like a compliment to women when it's claimed that they manipulate men for their own benefit, but reality constantly shows me just how delusional that is.
I mean it kind of depends where and when you're talking about. Women in the West aren't as good at manipulation as their grandmothers were mostly because they've been taught that 1. Man and woman are the same and 2. You should seek equality not power. If you go to some poor countries in Asia you'll see young woman who are really good at getting men to empty their bank account and sell their house over the course of a week to buy them stuff.
tbh, I don't think I missed the point or got it the other way, and your argument seems pretty manospheric. I understood from your article: women don't want to date in an equal way, because they also desire guys who are "more than them" in some sense, and that the real argument against age gaps is not fueled by a desire to get more equal relationships with men, but as way to prevent men to date younger women (female intrasexual competition).
Everyone wants the highest prize they could get, attractive people are attractive, yes. But women aren't standing in line to date Chris Hemsworth or DiCaprio, when they have a choice, they go for men in their age cohort and logically, with similar income as them. Women are pursuing men who are more similar to themselves; that literally sounds like women wanting more balanced relationships and men projecting.
There's no need to make psychologism and attribute women manipulative intentions against men or to sabotage younger women. (okey, there's some truth on it too...)
Maybe it's men who feel shamed for desiring a 20 yo at 40 years old, and need the cope that women also desire in the same unequal way they want.
No! men want unequal relationships; women want equality in general terms. It's time to fully own it.
(She is just 23 years old, you sick fuck!!!)
"2. You should seek equality not power. If you go to some poor countries in Asia you'll see young woman who are really good at getting men to empty their bank account and sell their house over the course of a week to buy them stuff."
To be honest, I think the increase in both the scope and intensity of feminist shaming is testament to its waning cultural power. It no longer works to cry “rape culture” and enable college campus kangaroo courts. They have to expand the definition of “pedo” to include not just post pubescent, but legally adult women. I don’t think this persuades that many people overall. It’s destined to become noise. It also doesn’t seem to be stopping many people from pursuing age gap relationships. The people affected like your reddit example of 26 vs 23 are just neurotic, and would find something else to obsess over in absence of age gap shaming.
I encourage you to scoop up as many men as you can for the right via any strategy you can, I just see this as a strategy with limited potential . Also, the truth is that your feminist adversary in the comments is on the backslide in power and influence, but can still persuade most people against you IF you take the refreshingly bold, brazen position you have here. I believe the maximum affect of this “wedge issue” would be to simply point out as you did, the hypocrisy of “anything goes with consenting adults” and adding “EXCEPT YOU” when pointing to straight men. Most people aren’t in age gap relationships, and don’t need to actively pursue them for happiness. But the reality is that most people know SOMEONE in an age gap relationship, and since most of them are NOT predatory in any meaningful way, lots of normies will be peeved by the shaming of their college buddy who lucked out on his second wife being a sweet young thing after a nasty divorce or whatever.
At the end of the day, the social justice/feminist left has only one weapon: shame. It’s empowered by massive social media platforms not owned by them. Young men hold basically all the cards when it comes to violence, and eventually this powder keg will explode regardless of AI or surveillance or whatever. When that happens, older wealthy men who snagged cute girls much younger won’t look great, and might become targets. Ultimately, I believe it’s more productive to mentor young men on how to get girls their age, than to try to stop us being shamed by hypocrites for poaching their rabbits.
Angry and 'sensitive' young men want age gap discourse so they don't have to put up with their richer elders taking all their women. So there's competition in wanting rich old men and angry young men as constituents.
I agree that the opportunities are great. As usual, they will have to be pursued over the dead body of conservatism, which is liable to jump on this anti-male bandwagon just as it has jumped on all the others. One way to hedge against that would be to point out that "age gap discourse", i.e. allowing female hypocrites to defame male sexuality by false accusations of paedophilia, can only lead to the corrosion of legal and cultural boundaries against actual paedophilia.
Young women are attracted to older gentlemen. I have always enjoyed the attention. How to Date Young Women for Men Over 35 by R.Don Steele lays out the roadmap to success. Having been written before the advent of cell phones it's a little dated but the analysis and action plan are pretty solid.
Lol @ the tweet where the chick says "I want to see which 30 year old men are on the hunt for 22 year olds"
All of them honey
💯
I’m 58 and my girlfriend is 32. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. In fact, I think it is a great idea and that everyone should try it!!
Since I met her, she’s gone back to college and earned her degree and a certification in Sonography, now she’s working shifts at local hospitals and building her resume..
Life is what you make of it, if you are happy and the person you are with is happy, then be happy! Thats hard enough these days without making up taboos to keep you lonely and miserable. And if the person you are with is happier and living a better life than before you met, how can anybody say that it is wrong?
Ha, this is great!
It’s clearly just sexual strategy applied by older women who are aging out. To the extent it works men will just go abroad. The women who buy into this noise are only limiting themselves.
you rn:
«I don’t care if it’s unequal. That’s the point.»
allow me to tell you what you’re doing as a 20year old btw:)
—
the funny thing about this post is that it pretends to be a smart analysis of cultural trends, but it’s really just a long-winded justification for why older men should feel entitled to younger women—and how to spin that entitlement into a recruitment tool for far-right ideology. it’s not deep. it’s not clever. it’s just a manifesto for how to normalize predatory behavior by framing basic boundaries as oppression.
you calls it an “axiom audit,” but it’s not about uncovering truth—it’s about shutting down the conversation the second women stop performing the way you want them to. you don’t care whether the relationship is actually healthy or mutual. you only care about power. which is why your real solution isn’t to disprove the idea that large age gaps can be exploitative—it’s to convince men to stop caring altogether.
and the part that really gives it away? you literally say the goal is to make older men feel safe dating younger women by rejecting equality as a value altogether. like you actually said that out loud. not “we want freedom” or “we want fairness,” but “we want you to stop believing in equality so i can date 20-somethings in peace.”
it’s not even about desire—it’s about dominance. you’re not defending these relationships because they’re consensual or kind or balanced. you’re defending them because they preserve a version of masculinity where men don’t have to self-reflect, adapt, or be held accountable. and the only way that works is if they can convince everyone that caring about power dynamics is just feminist hysteria.
you wants to roll back the clock to a time when nobody questioned men for choosing partners they could easily control. and instead of being honest about that, you wrap it in pseudointellectual language about “axioms” and “freedom” and “manipulation”—as if the issue isn’t literally just: hey, stop grooming people half your age and calling it liberation.
this entire piece is a test balloon for how far they can push the idea that dating young equals moral rebellion. but if your version of rebellion is “i don’t care if it’s predatory,” then maybe you’re not brave or radical—you’re just proving everyone’s point.
Why are you just restating things I say in the article?
“«I don’t care if it’s unequal. That’s the point.»”
Yes, I am against equality—particularly when it's pursued for its own sake. The point of this publication is the annihilation of equality and humanism.
“a recruitment tool for far-right ideology.”
That is explicitly the only point of this article, and I say that outright.
“it’s not deep. it’s not clever. it’s just a manifesto for how to normalize predatory behavior by framing basic boundaries as oppression.”
It’s not supposed to be deep. It's strictly a tactical piece, using this as a recruiting tool for far-right ideology. And yes, I don’t believe equality is good or worth pursuing. I believe in pursuing one's interests without shame, which is—by definition—predatory. My article three weeks ago was literally called “Man Become Predator.”
“you calls it an ‘axiom audit,’ but it’s not about uncovering truth”
You can hate my axioms all you want—I certainly hate yours—but don’t diss the axiom audit. The point of it is to find out the first principle or motivating force. That’s all it is. It’s a tool.
“and the part that really gives it away? you literally say the goal is to make older men feel safe dating younger women by rejecting equality as a value altogether.”
Yes. I am for the destruction of equality. The entire point of this article isn’t even about age gaps or dating—it’s a field manual to aid in my project to destroy equality. Why are you just repeating what I already said?
“we want you to stop believing in equality so i can date 20-somethings in peace.”
You reversed it. If you stop believing in equality, then you can date 20-somethings in peace. The goal here is the destruction of equality.
“you’re not defending these relationships because they’re consensual or kind or balanced.”
I don’t care about these relationships at all. Whether they’re healthy or unhealthy is irrelevant to me. The point is what they can be used to do strategically.
“you’re defending them because they preserve a version of masculinity where men don’t have to self-reflect, adapt, or be held accountable.”
Yeah, I don’t want men to become egalitarian—nor do I want women to. The version of masculinity preached by feminism is based on the ethics of care, which I fundamentally reject. And yes, I don’t think men should be held accountable to your values, because I want those values disempowered and discarded into the dustbin of history.
“and the only way that works is if they can convince everyone that caring about power dynamics is just feminist hysteria.”
Wrong, I want them to care about power dynamics—I just want them to do it from the perspective that power is inherently good, and that we should not seek equality.
“you wants to roll back the clock to a time when nobody questioned men for choosing partners they could easily control.”
No. I want men to explicitly tell their critics that they are against equality. I don’t want nobody to think about these things—I want everybody to at least state that they are against equality as a value pursued for its own sake.
“and instead of being honest about that, you wrap it in pseudointellectual language about ‘axioms’ and ‘freedom’ and ‘manipulation’—as if the issue isn’t literally just: hey, stop grooming people half your age and calling it liberation.”
Stop reversing the cause and the effect. I’m not writing this article because I care about this issue. I’m writing it to use as a strategic wedge in my goal to eliminate the pursuit of equality for its own sake.
“but if your version of rebellion is ‘i don’t care if it’s predatory,’ then maybe you’re not brave or radical—you’re just proving everyone’s point.”
Look at my other article—I want to prove your point. I want them to explicitly tell you: yes, we are the enemy. We are an enemy to the project of egalitarianism.
If this is really your goal, I honestly don’t think you will succeed. Are you pretending that if right wingers are overt, they will succeed in destroying “equality” or “humanism”?
The goal is a transvaluation of values against equality and humanism. Just as humanism and equality replaced God I seek to replace them. Yes I believe eventually a complete overt opposition to equality and humanism will be viable as it is the endpoint most right wing thought undermining liberalism today whether the current proponents see it that way or not.
What’s your value?
Arete and the will to power
Ugh, Nietzschean.😒
you keep asking why i’m “just restating what you said,” but that’s kind of the point. i’m not trying to misrepresent you. i’m holding up the mirror.
you said all of this—i know. and i repeated it in plain language because people need to see clearly what your philosophy actually is when it’s stripped of the smug framing. not metaphysics. not tactics. just glorified exploitation disguised as masculine clarity.
and look, if your whole goal is to proudly be “the enemy of egalitarianism,” cool. own that. but don’t act confused when someone shows up to say, yes, and you’re also exactly the kind of predator you claim to admire. that’s not projection. it’s alignment. you’re not subverting the system. you’re just fantasizing about being the one who gets to rig it.
also—using age gap discourse to radicalize men into proudly rejecting care, consent, accountability, or balance isn’t tactical genius. it’s emotional rot with a branding team.
you say you want men to declare they don’t believe in equality? cool. i want people to see what that actually looks like.
and thanks for making it so easy.
You're still trying to insinuate that I'm hiding something.
“but that’s kind of the point. i’m not trying to misrepresent you. i’m holding up the mirror.”
Yeah, you don’t need to do that. It’s not 2015 anymore. We’re pretty overt about what we want now.
“and i repeated it in plain language because people need to see clearly what your philosophy actually is when it’s stripped of the smug framing.”
Plain language? I say it overtly in the article. You're kind of proving my point that people shouldn't be equal—if you’re just admitting they’re so retarded they couldn’t parse the meaning when I literally lay out: here’s a strategy to align our interests with a group and get them to oppose equality.
“and look, if your whole goal is to proudly be ‘the enemy of egalitarianism,’ cool. own that.”
I do. I explicitly state in the article that my goal is the destruction of equality.
“you’re just fantasizing about being the one who gets to rig it.”
Yeah, I believe in power for power’s sake. I’m pretty overt about that.
“isn’t tactical genius. it’s emotional rot with a branding team.”
This part was written by AI. But also, no—it is a good strategy. We did this with the alt-right and white identity, and it worked. We’re going to do it here too.
“you say you want men to declare they don’t believe in equality? cool. i want people to see what that actually looks like.”
They can see that just by clicking the article. You’re not exposing me—I’m not wearing a mask.
“and thanks for making it so easy.”
You still don’t know what time it is. We don’t care if you know what we are. The ideology of egalitarianism is coming to an end.
you’re not hiding. i never said you were.
you’re bragging. and that’s the point.
you think being overt makes you untouchable—that because you admit to using age-gap discourse as a recruiting tactic, to rejecting equality, to glorifying power for power’s sake, that you’ve outsmarted the moral framework you’re undermining.
but all it really means is this:
you’ve confirmed what so many women have felt but struggled to articulate.
that there are men who don’t just stumble into predatory dynamics—they strategize them.
who don’t want mutuality. they want submission. and they’ll use anything—philosophy, data, “axioms,” edge-lord posturing—to get it.
you don’t scare me. you don’t surprise me either.
you’ve made yourself a case study.
and now that you’ve said it out loud, the rest of us will make sure people remember it.
and i do find your little ai comment funny.
you wish. but no.
can’t say the same about those images of yours though.
“you’ve confirmed what so many women have felt but struggled to articulate.
that there are men who don’t just stumble into predatory dynamics—they strategize them.”
Really? You couldn’t articulate that yourself? Kind of pathetic. Also, again, you keep harping on this as if I care about these relationships—as if that’s the goal of the article. It’s not. It’s about overt opposition to equality—not just in this form, but in every form. Every pursuit of equality for its own sake.
“you don’t scare me. you don’t surprise me either.
you’ve made yourself a case study.
and now that you’ve said it out loud, the rest of us will make sure people remember it.”
We want you to know. I’m not calling for a secret, strategic attempt to subvert equality. I’m calling for its destruction—overtly. I’m calling for people to just come out and say: we don’t want that.
But I will say one thing in your favor: I thank you for making this the new issue of feminist concern.
Basically every study on mail attraction points to the fact that doesn't age with them. There will never be a time when men don’t want to fuck 20-year-olds, even when they’re old as fuck—so justifying your disgust with these relationships under the guise of “equality” is the perfect wedge issue for use to kill it.
Feminism is cringe because of these things.
Like, yeah, men created an entire system to oppress women, sustained it for thousands of years, but we still somehow conclude men aren't predatory and, actually, they are victims that deep inside would like to be tender teddy bears with women 🥺
💀
you’re not as original as you think.
you’re just repeating history in a louder voice, convinced that saying the word “predatory” with pride somehow makes it righteous.
you say it’s not about age gaps.
but you’re using men’s refusal to stop sexualizing younger women as the delivery system for your ideology.
you say you want to end equality in all forms—but somehow it always starts here:
with a girl barely out of school. with a man decades older who calls domination “natural.” with the idea that care is weakness, and desire is power.
you’re not building something new.
you’re dragging us back to the oldest rot in the system—
and pretending it’s revolutionary because you gave it a logo.
i’m not debating you.
i’m documenting you.
and now everyone watching can see exactly how this game is played.
because women fall for the act all the time.
they truly believe y’all are worth saving.
but i’ve always seen it.
and the worst part is—
i’m only 20.
i haven’t even faced the devil yet.
but i know it’s men.
This is a quite on-the-nose example of the type of discourse that he's referring to.
"You're saying you don't value what I value. No but wait you're LITERALLY saying you don't value what I value. Are you hearing me: you literally, LITERALLY just said you don't value what I value."
This is 2019 reasoning, and it has run out of gas. Whether you personally identify as left-wing or right-wing, sufficient theory of mind should allow one to understand the axiomatic priors of the opposition. Left-wing visions of the world value equality for its own sake, and right-wing visions of the world value hierarchy for its own sake.
Per his point, you axiomatically view equality and fairness as worth pursuing. This has been taken as a given in the liberal 20th century, and particularly in the hyper-liberal 21st, but it is a historical anomaly, and reversion to the mean is inevitable unless equality politics can come up with a compelling argument to maintain it which doesn't consist of tut-tutting. It will not simply go away in the face of newly ascendant RW politics, but it is no longer considered self-evident and default.
You say he's not being honest, but he is being very honest and straightforward. You just don't agree, and that's fine. Make an argument, not a moral case.
oh trust me, i understand the “axiomatic priors” just fine. i just don’t find “let’s normalize age gaps by dismantling equality altogether” to be a morally neutral stance. the moment you frame hierarchy as an end in itself—and then attach it to who older men are “allowed” to sleep with—you’ve exited the realm of theory and entered the realm of real-world consequences. so no, i’m not just saying “you don’t value what i value.” i’m pointing out that what you value enables exploitation, then dressing it up as philosophy.
and calling that out isn’t “tut-tutting.” it’s the exact thing you asked for: an argument. you just don’t like that mine doesn’t flatter your detachment.
also—small note—you can’t sit here talking about “sufficient theory of mind” while excusing a piece that literally admits its purpose is to manipulate men into abandoning ethics if it gets them laid. that’s not high-level political strategy. that’s incel-coded propaganda with a thesaurus.
lastly: if your whole rebuttal to criticism is “but this reasoning is from 2019,” maybe pause and ask yourself why the 2025 version of your ideology still needs to be defended with bad faith analogies and cult-like reframing. because what you’re doing here isn’t advancing a new world order—it’s just giving a fresh coat of paint to old power grabs.
There is no contradiction between philosophy, moral or political, and an endorsement of exploitation, hierarchy and inegalitarianism. Lockeanism is a recent phenomenon. Thinking on these issues far predates him, and the vast majority of it hews closer to OP's conception than the moral thinking of the past century.
"Abandoning (my) ethics." This is my point. Your moral conception of the world is not universal, and hierarchical right-wing thinking does not value what you value and is not convinced by appeals to human rights, fairness and the like. You're welcome to think this is bad/evil/whatever in your formulation, but it is an "abandonment" of nothing, because Enlightenment philosophy is not some objective law of reality.
His argument is a moral divergence made clear and explicit. But your comment is correct in implying that there is a fundamental tension between LW and RW thinking. There is no reconciliation between them, only grabbing power for your preferred project and affecting them into reality, and he's laid out his game plan for just that.
right, and at some point you’ll have to admit that dressing your fixation on power and control in philosophical robes doesn’t make it noble. you’re not reviving ancient political thought—you’re using it as a shield for modern self-interest. and i’m not even surprised. there’s always been a genre of men who justify exploitation not by denying it, but by calling it tradition.
and sure, you’re correct that enlightenment values aren’t “objective reality.” they’re a choice. so is the world you’re advocating for. and the difference between us is: i’m not pretending mine doesn’t come with cost. you are.
because what’s really happening here is that you’re cloaking male sexual entitlement as some noble rejection of liberal decadence. and that’s not bold. it’s deeply unoriginal. it’s been done before—usually by regimes that eventually collapsed under the weight of their own cruelty.
so no, i’m not shaken by your “there is no reconciliation” line. i agree. but at least be honest: you’re not trying to build a society—you’re just hoping enough men get scared or bitter enough to sign on for your fantasy of dominance.
and if that’s the game plan, thanks for saying it out loud. makes it easier to name it for what it is.
Power is the philsophy, as is self-interest. This is not dressing; it is the whole of it, and it is honest about that. You're right that this is recurrent through history, because power and its applicatio is a constant of nature.
Notably I haven't endorsed anything or called this project noble. My effort is to describe, and in my estimation the described outlook and approach is a scissor that will beat liberalism's paper unless there is a reckoning with power politics.
Critique is not enough. Saying men with this philsophy are piggish, entitled and exploitative may very well be true in the liberal formulation, but they don't care about that. So whats the move then to ensure a durable liberal politics in a world where those who recognize and possess power are willing to wield it?
Of course I recognize the costs associated with either project, as does OP in his advocating for it. Hierarchy is just willing to make someone else pay for it; they kick cost down the ladder. So what is the response? OP has a very specific plan; what is the liberal, egalitarian plan?
Perhaps this vision succeeds, establishes a NWO, and then collapses, as you say, under the weight of its own cruelty. It almost certainly will, these things are cyclical. But it doesn't stop the abolition of the LWO in the meantime.
and there it is: you’re not even making a moral case—you’re just forecasting a collapse and betting on the side with bigger boots. power as inevitability. exploitation as strategy. hierarchy as realism. no need for ethics when you’ve already declared the fight post-moral.
but here’s the part you don’t seem to clock: people have survived your vision too. time and time again. because the thing about cruelty and coercion is—it can dominate for a while. it can suppress. but it can’t create meaning. it can’t build loyalty. it can’t write futures people actually want to live in. even your imagined win is temporary, because it relies on force and fear and the hope that no one dares to resist. but they always do. and they always will.
your mistake is thinking liberalism only works when it has power. but actually, its real strength is in what it seeds—even in loss. even underground. it creates people who remember what dignity felt like. who recognize tyranny even when it’s disguised as tradition or order or “just nature.” and those people don’t need your permission to exist, or rebuild.
so while you’re over here strategizing how to make more men kick downward, i’ll keep naming what you’re doing. because you’re not inevitable. you’re just loud.
and fyi: the move was never to convince you. the move was to unmask you—so the people you’d rather step on see it coming.
“because Enlightenment philosophy is not some objective law of reality.”
Ten years ago, when the “post modern” activists were actively rejecting objectivity as a pillar of white supremacy, I desperately pleaded to slam the breaks. I told them “this won’t turn out how you think.” The underlying assumption was that because social justice does not withstand rational inquiry, objectivity is an enemy to be defeated. Once objectivity is removed, people will have no choice but to accept social justice as a default. Turns out I was right, that objectivity was not replaced by social justice for most people, but rather by many other things: cults, superstitions, and yes, might makes right.
I’m not mad about this, it is what it is. I just find it very ironic that the “reject objectivity “ people got what they wanted , and the outcome is now running roughshod over them.
Don't bemoan the end of the objectivity it was inevitable. Join us on the post modern right. https://open.substack.com/pub/blissproductions/p/postmodernism-for-the-right?
I’ll always hold objectivity in my heart, it was the soul of the culture I was raised in. But in the interest of survival, we must move on, prioritizing tribalism above all else.
I think it’s a false objection. The women are acting like it’s predatory only after they are older than that age. As they approach the wall, the shaming language comes out.
They know they can’t compare to a twenty something anymore. They have no leverage to get men in their 30’s to take them seriously, hence the fake pedo accusations.
Gentlemen in your 30s, stand your ground and abide your preferences. Ignore these harpies. For a man in his 30s, the women his age are loaded with debt, run through, bragging about their “trauma“ “healing journey“ on TikTok, divorced to chase hedonism, which they call “their happiness“… they’re on anxiety meds, antidepressants, did I mention loaded with debt? They’re bitter, argumentative, masculine, entitled, and especially delusional as they raise their standards while their value declines. They likely have multiple babies from multiple baby daddies, they want you as a stepfather but not any children of your own, they want you to pay for everything… In other words, they’re looking for a sponsor not a spouse. Men are in love, women are in business. Do not rescue these creatures. The young women are still cheerful, adventurous, playful, feminine, less baggage, fewer bodies, you just might rescue them from their own degeneracy. Better yet, skip all the modern western women and get a passport if you must to find a traditional woman.
Mate, don’t kid yourself most girls do not want a 40 year old man.
40? No, they are suggesting a man in his 30’s is predatory for dating a woman in her 20’s. Trying to shame him into dating a woman his same age still.
But if he wants kids, a family, the answer is Hell no, Ashley, your eggs are damaged and nearly gone. He’ll take the 25 year old (who has less baggage, and looks up to him… follows his lead.)
"I've never really seen a woman specifically desire a man who makes roughly the same amount of money as her, is equally as strong as her, is equally as smart as her, has the same social status as her, is as popular as her, etc."
Because nobody desire that way. People tend to state they want somebody "hotter" than them, both sexes do it. Yet they date assortatively.
I don't have a problem with age gaps, but what you propose has been already done by the manosphere at large for...like 10-15 years on the internet. That translated on humiliating women for *ageing*, stupid "the wall" speech, obvious bad faith "bbut ferteeleetee" speech when they probably don't want to have 6 kids just fuck a hot babe, and lies told to men about how they will "reach their prime" so they can finally date 20's hot years old when their swimmers are expiring, when in reality the best time is when they are in their 20's too.
Given that, I doubt it will be appealing, more when in reality common men will end up probably with someone close to their own age. It's just loser cope at this point.
"Yet they date assortatively." That's true, but let's be clear here: they're settling. The more money a man has, the larger the age gap between him and his wife.
https://research.rug.nl/en/publications/the-golden-years-men-from-the-forbes-400-have-much-younger-wives-?utm_
In the same way most women would rather date the guy who is 6 '5 with blue eyes but can't, most men would rather be with somebody who looks 20 — but are settling because they're out of the age range and can't compensate with the money to date someone that young.
"Manosphere at large for... like 10–15 years on the internet." Not exactly. The manosphere types argue within the moral framework of their opponents. They did the whole "it's not weird because she's a consenting adult" or "she can join the Army and drink so it's fine." I explicitly don't want men to do this. I want them to say they don't care about equality. I don't really care about this issue in and of itself. I care about using it as a wedge to push men right and to turn them against equality.
"Reach their prime so they can finally date 20's hot years old when their swimmers are expiring, when in reality the best time is when they are in their 20's too." That's all more or less true, which is why I don't support feeding men lies — the same way I don't support feeding women lies about how "those men only date young models because they can't pull women their own age."
"Given that, I doubt it will be appealing, more when in reality common men will end up probably with someone close to their own age." Yes, that will happen for most people. Again, this isn't about making it so the average 60-year-old can get a college-aged girlfriend. It's about using the issue as a fracture point to radicalize men — specifically those with money and power, whose interests are affected by this discourse.
(comment edited; the app sucks)
I doubt they are settling. Regarding age gaps, women prefer smaller ones, and what we are seeing in the first world, where they have more of a choice over the men they date and marry, is a reduction in the age gap.
If it was true that women are more attracted to older guys with money, and that they are more attractive than a man their age, we would effectively see women pursuing those older guys and leaving men their age perpetually single. Doesn't happen that way, and I don't see why wouldn't women do that; there's nothing stopping them and there's no substantial reason for them to cling to broke guys they don't fully like in their "prime years", unless women just like those men more.
"In the same way most women would rather date the guy who is 6 '5 with blue eyes but can't, most men would rather be with somebody who looks 20 — but are settling because they're out of the age range and *can't compensate with the money to date someone that young*"
So...men have to compensate their ageing with money for women to chose them(? Sounds like women like men their age more than old hags with money...
"That's all more or less true, which is why I don't support feeding men lies — the same way I don't support feeding women lies about how "those men only date young models because they can't pull women their own age.""
Right uwu
" It's about using the issue as a fracture point to radicalize men — specifically those with money and power, whose interests are affected by this discourse."
I doubt DiCaprio guys are affected. But okey, I get it, you want to give them the high five and for men to start saying "based" instead of "listen, dude, she is a consenting adult *insert paragraph with scrote speech*". Okey uwur
No no you got it reversed. I'm saying the men are settling for someone their own age not the woman. Yeah the whole "men's prime is in their 40s" or whatever is cope. The same way that "40-year-old men want 20 year old women because they can't pull someone their own age" is a cope. And I hate copes.
Oh, okey uwu
By the way, what you say about the gold digger... I wish it were true.
To me, it sounds like a compliment to women when it's claimed that they manipulate men for their own benefit, but reality constantly shows me just how delusional that is.
I mean it kind of depends where and when you're talking about. Women in the West aren't as good at manipulation as their grandmothers were mostly because they've been taught that 1. Man and woman are the same and 2. You should seek equality not power. If you go to some poor countries in Asia you'll see young woman who are really good at getting men to empty their bank account and sell their house over the course of a week to buy them stuff.
tbh, I don't think I missed the point or got it the other way, and your argument seems pretty manospheric. I understood from your article: women don't want to date in an equal way, because they also desire guys who are "more than them" in some sense, and that the real argument against age gaps is not fueled by a desire to get more equal relationships with men, but as way to prevent men to date younger women (female intrasexual competition).
Everyone wants the highest prize they could get, attractive people are attractive, yes. But women aren't standing in line to date Chris Hemsworth or DiCaprio, when they have a choice, they go for men in their age cohort and logically, with similar income as them. Women are pursuing men who are more similar to themselves; that literally sounds like women wanting more balanced relationships and men projecting.
There's no need to make psychologism and attribute women manipulative intentions against men or to sabotage younger women. (okey, there's some truth on it too...)
Maybe it's men who feel shamed for desiring a 20 yo at 40 years old, and need the cope that women also desire in the same unequal way they want.
No! men want unequal relationships; women want equality in general terms. It's time to fully own it.
(She is just 23 years old, you sick fuck!!!)
"2. You should seek equality not power. If you go to some poor countries in Asia you'll see young woman who are really good at getting men to empty their bank account and sell their house over the course of a week to buy them stuff."
Gonna seek guidance there then uwur
To be honest, I think the increase in both the scope and intensity of feminist shaming is testament to its waning cultural power. It no longer works to cry “rape culture” and enable college campus kangaroo courts. They have to expand the definition of “pedo” to include not just post pubescent, but legally adult women. I don’t think this persuades that many people overall. It’s destined to become noise. It also doesn’t seem to be stopping many people from pursuing age gap relationships. The people affected like your reddit example of 26 vs 23 are just neurotic, and would find something else to obsess over in absence of age gap shaming.
I encourage you to scoop up as many men as you can for the right via any strategy you can, I just see this as a strategy with limited potential . Also, the truth is that your feminist adversary in the comments is on the backslide in power and influence, but can still persuade most people against you IF you take the refreshingly bold, brazen position you have here. I believe the maximum affect of this “wedge issue” would be to simply point out as you did, the hypocrisy of “anything goes with consenting adults” and adding “EXCEPT YOU” when pointing to straight men. Most people aren’t in age gap relationships, and don’t need to actively pursue them for happiness. But the reality is that most people know SOMEONE in an age gap relationship, and since most of them are NOT predatory in any meaningful way, lots of normies will be peeved by the shaming of their college buddy who lucked out on his second wife being a sweet young thing after a nasty divorce or whatever.
At the end of the day, the social justice/feminist left has only one weapon: shame. It’s empowered by massive social media platforms not owned by them. Young men hold basically all the cards when it comes to violence, and eventually this powder keg will explode regardless of AI or surveillance or whatever. When that happens, older wealthy men who snagged cute girls much younger won’t look great, and might become targets. Ultimately, I believe it’s more productive to mentor young men on how to get girls their age, than to try to stop us being shamed by hypocrites for poaching their rabbits.
Angry and 'sensitive' young men want age gap discourse so they don't have to put up with their richer elders taking all their women. So there's competition in wanting rich old men and angry young men as constituents.
I agree that the opportunities are great. As usual, they will have to be pursued over the dead body of conservatism, which is liable to jump on this anti-male bandwagon just as it has jumped on all the others. One way to hedge against that would be to point out that "age gap discourse", i.e. allowing female hypocrites to defame male sexuality by false accusations of paedophilia, can only lead to the corrosion of legal and cultural boundaries against actual paedophilia.
God what a dream it would be to be a PMC or a jobless bourgeoisie engaging in some of the most worthless parts of the dialectic ive ever seen.
What a phenomenal display of rage bait and amorality. I wish you well on the ideological battleground.
I dont agree with equality, so I agree with you
Mate, don’t kid yourself no girls want to marry a 40 year old.
Is your solution literally just to ask “why”?
they didnt have a problem with it when they were 14
Young women are attracted to older gentlemen. I have always enjoyed the attention. How to Date Young Women for Men Over 35 by R.Don Steele lays out the roadmap to success. Having been written before the advent of cell phones it's a little dated but the analysis and action plan are pretty solid.
re: google search graph
Jeffery Epstein is a typo though. Not sure, what you can infer from that.