Red flags for females

(((The pill))) damages a female's reproductive health.
>whats wrong with dressing like a whore?

WAR
WAR
WAR
WAR

Girls that use a lot of coarse language are usually also the ones that are at all interested in me

>>drinking soda is degenerate
Yes, it is. Though notice I list it not as a deal breaker if she has EVER drank soda, but only if she does now. There is no reason in 2019 to be ignorant of the fact that soda is poison.

Wait how is short hair a red flag?

Attached: 1546721803283.png (680x521, 115K)

>non virgin
>non Christian
>non white
>believes any meme ideology such as lolbergism or goyservatism

So is like every woman that goes to a gym a whore then?

There are girls who go to the gym and there are gym-thots who only go to the gym to perform meme ass exercises instead of actually working out

>So is like every woman that goes to a gym a whore then?
No, every woman that wears whore clothes in public is a whore. Women going to the gym is another problem, when they lift big at least, but there are plenty of women that wear shorts or sweatpants when they exercise.

Cuz long ass greasy hair is the way to go

For the same reason wearing men's clothes is a red flag. I will add that to the list now that I think of it.

red flags for men
>no job
>if he has a job, doesn't save money and lives paycheck to paycheck
>no degree / dropped out
>no creative hobbies
>no interests besides video games
>ugly unkempt beard
>doesn't own a single collared shirt
>can't drive
>no goals or ambitions
>references memes / internet culture in real life
>swears a lot
>only two things he can talk about at length are video games and his fringe political beliefs
>unable to articulate an opinion without quoting somebody he saw on youtube or referencing a meme
>constant, unwanted, awkward compliments on physical appearance

If 7 or more of these apply to you then I'm sorry, it's not your hair or your face or your height or your dick size, it's because you're a rotten person.

OP here, I agree with all of these.

Okay this is more agreeable, I'd put it under white trash but that's basically one in the same I guess

Ah ok so we aren't talking pic related short hair but rather like a crazy feminist buzzcut short

Attached: a61de4d08a49a184058336cb960def22.jpg (500x633, 37K)

Thank you only 2 apply to me and that will change anyways, gives me hope

>went to public school
>actually thinking private school is different and more sophisticated than public school
>not knowing it's basically the same except daddy pays money for it

Attached: superlative laugh.jpg (517x768, 56K)

I think that's a good length to draw the minimum at. I will find an exact measurement for the list.

It's not the same, and even if studies that suggest there is no difference and intelligence is 80%+ genetic at age 18, then the fact that she attended a public school rather than going to a private institution or home schooling is indicative of the quality of her household and genes.

Depends entirely on the area

Redflags are supposed to be signals that there's something wrong with her on a personal level, not things you dislike in girls.
Some of the things you listed make no sense. For example:
>not a virgin
>older than 27
>shorter than 5'5"
What are you going to do, dump your wife once you fuck her? Or once she turns 27?

And what I mean is, if it's true that those who are home schooled or go to a private institution are more intelligent just because they come from genes that are smart enough to keep them out of public schools, and the schooling itself doesn't have a pig impact, then it's still better to go for the home schooled or privately schooled woman to court.

>the fact that she attended a public school rather than going to a private institution or home schooling is indicative of the quality of her household and genes.
>he believes this
she could be the trashiest piece of shit in the world, or be like any other skank.
the only difference would be the fact that she has an expensive school uniform.

>Redflags are supposed to be signals that there's something wrong with her on a personal level,
I know.
>>not a virgin
How is being a whore not a personal fault?
>>older than 27
How is failing to find a husband before an advanced age when your fertility is going out the window not a personal fault?
>>shorter than 5'5"
Genes seem very personal to me, but I understand this is not due to any action taken by her, and it is fair to call it a personal preference on my part.

What a fancy way to say:
>not a provider and emotional sponge

>What are you going to do, dump your wife once you fuck her? Or once she turns 27?
This is a very low IQ statement. Clearly I'm interested in my wife being a virgin so she can properly pair bond, and by the time she nears the wall we will have plenty of children.

is this the same OP that posts the daily "I deserve a qt gf thread?" you need to kill yourself already

Attached: 1546502217335.jpg (720x811, 51K)

>>he believes this
Yes, I believe facts. Your post makes it clear you are ignorant of the facts and have no grasp on how to gamble.

>facts
yeah that's not facts, buddy.

Basically these are the red flags for males if these are their standards

>yeah that's not facts, buddy.
What isn't facts? It's been proven that intelligence is mostly genetic, and schooling makes little to no difference. After considering this fact, you realize those that do not go to public schools owe their greater intelligence not to the superior schooling environment, but their genes. Thus courting a woman that was home schooled or attended a private institution is going to result in a higher probability that she comes from good genetic stock.

This is disregarding the measurable benefits private schooling or home schooling provide.

And what makes you so sure your deserving of someone that has none of these "red flags" you sound entitled as fuck man.

Basically any kind of standards are a red flag for males when you're a woman with no value that any valuable man would ignore.

>because they come from genes that are smart enough to keep them out of public schools
>tfw you know a girl that comes from a loud, trashy family and she's just like them
>she was homeschooled for the most part and has spent several years in private schools
>even if she wasn't like her family, she would be following mainstream culture because that's what she is usually exposed to, so she wouldn't be so different anyway when you look at what media people use for the most part
your statements aren't facts, they're naive beliefs.

Attached: cat stare drinking tea.jpg (313x355, 42K)

>>drinks soda
>>eats fast food

lmao whats next ?
>wears clothes
>breathes air
>can only exist in positiv quantities

Im a robot but atleast im not this fucking delusional

>b-but I have an anecdotal!
>an exception means the rule is worng!
Literally double digit IQ.

It's amazing that you compare unhealthy frivolities to essentials for life. It's very telling.

>had multiple sexual partners
>has BPD
>smokes weed
This weeds out around 90% of females from 18 to 30.

>>had multiple sexual partners
You just reminded me that there are circumstances in which a non-virgin isn't a redflag. Updating the list.

Because, as I said, you could marry a 15 year old virgin and she'll eventually be 27 and not virgin, and it wouldn't signal anything bad about her as a person. You might consider them redflags for unmarried women, but not for women.
Being 5'5" is a personal preference.

>Clearly I'm interested in my wife being a virgin so she can properly pair bond
No actual proof that having sex causes inability to pair bond.
You can say it's a preference due to values and insecurities, but a woman who has had sex isn't physically incapable of pair bonding.

>by the time she nears the wall we will have plenty of children.
Statistically speaking, the best age for a woman to have children (for her health, her children health and their children's success in life) is between 26 and 34.
Children of younger mothers experience a much worse life.

>Because, as I said, you could marry a 15 year old virgin and she'll eventually be 27 and not virgin, and it wouldn't signal anything bad about her as a person
I agree, completely. Whereas a woman who is in her late 20s and has been riding the cock carousel is a worthless piece of trash.
>No actual proof that having sex causes inability to pair bond.
There is a lot of evidence to support the theory.
>You can say it's a preference due to values
I can say that as well, yes.
>but a woman who has had sex isn't physically incapable of pair bonding.
A woman who has multiple casual sex partners, and men to a lesser extent, progressively damages their ability to pair bond.
>Statistically speaking, the best age for a woman to have children (for her health, her children health and their children's success in life) is between 26 and 34.
Oh, you're baiting. 7/10

Attached: 1486784295231.jpg (2952x2497, 929K)

>i'm the only anecdotal that exists
>it's an exception
>basing your beliefs off facts that you created from your ass about private school/homeschooled = good girls when that's far from the case
>talking about genes and courting in the current year
at least anecdotal evidence is enough to make you lose childish innocence.

>>i'm the only anecdotal that exists
Stopped reading. Very tired of talking to dumb people.

>There is a lot of evidence to support the theory.
The evidence you posted doesn't prove anything beside the fact that there's a correlation between a high number of sexual partners and various issues.
It doesn't prove causation, it doesn't prove it is because inability to pair bond.

>Blatantly interested in me
Woah, bitch, you got problems.

Okay, that's fine desu

*anecdotal evidence
>being this butthurt by a typo because he doesn't want to accept the world isn't near perfect and private schooled/homeschooled girls really aren't those special princesses you want
seriously, how old are you? Are you below 20?

>you're baiting.
I'm not.
Mothers under the age of 18 have a much higher chance of dying while giving birth.
Mothers under the age of 25 have a much higher chance of their children having birth defects due to the fact that, statistically, they're too poor to access proper prenatal cures.
For the same reasons, people under the age of 25 who have children tend to offer them worse education and worse care. Almost no 20 year old can afford to be a stay at home mother without heavy financial restrictions, which heavily decrease the quality of the marriage, the quality of the child's life and such.

The only solution for this is to marry with a big age gap, but big age gaps cause a enormous increase in chances of divorce, up to 80% for people with a 10 year age gap.

Oh and to add on that, children born outside of the wedlock have a qualitatively worse life, but people who marry young have an extremely high divorce rate. And people who have divorced parents have a worse quality of life, too.

>>being this butthurt by a typo
I wasn't referring to a typo, sweetie. Referring to your lack of critical thinking, which you just displayed for us again.

>Referring to your lack of critical thinking, which you just displayed for us again.
>sweetie
Ooh, I get it.

Attached: trick on you.jpg (606x828, 148K)

>Mothers under the age of 18 have a much higher chance of dying while giving birth.
Since most are third worlders in the modern age, yeah I can see that.
>Mothers under the age of 25 have a much higher chance of their children having birth defects due to the fact that, statistically, they're too poor to access proper prenatal cures.
Since most are third worlders in the modern age, yeah I can see that.
>For the same reasons, people under the age of 25 who have children tend to offer them worse education and worse care.
Since most are third worlders in the modern age, yeah I can see that.
>Almost no 20 year old can afford to be a stay at home mother without heavy financial restrictions
People are addicted to frivolities and materialism, it's very sad.
>which heavily decrease the quality of the marriage, the quality of the child's life and such.
I deny this assertion. I think it improves their lives.
>The only solution for this is to marry with a big age gap
I can't say I disagree. This has been the norm for all of human existence.
>but big age gaps cause a enormous increase in chances of divorce, up to 80% for people with a 10 year age gap.
I sincerely doubt this is the case with virtuous relationships. Maybe when you have a whore and a whoremonger, yeah.

>Since most are third worlders in the modern age, yeah I can see that.
All of this is true in white, first world countries.

>I deny this assertion. I think it improves their lives.
You're wrong. All studies show that financial issues are the first cause of divorce. And without money you cannot pay for a lot of things that boost your quality of life: good healthcare, good education, a lot of other experiences that make you a better person.

>This has been the norm for all of human existence.
It hasn't. Age gaps have always been not particularly big, the norm has always been to marry a man slightly older than you.

>I sincerely doubt this is the case with virtuous relationships.
That's the case for marriages with big age gaps. They widely increase your chances of divorcing, and decrease the quality of your marriage.

>All of this is true in white, first world countries.
Name a white country that doesn't have a significant non-white population.
>You're wrong. All studies show that financial issues are the first cause of divorce
Okay, well divorce indicates a lack of virtue, so I don't care about these people.
>And without money you cannot pay for a lot of things that boost your quality of life:
>good healthcare
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
>good education
Is free when you home school, and it's already been proven that education has very little impact on intelligence, which is mostly heritable.
>a lot of other experiences that make you a better person.
Most things people spend money on are bad experiences that make them worse people.
>That's the case for marriages with big age gaps
Being a certain age is not the only quality people bring to a marriage, and not the only contributing factor to the course of their lives. I see nothing wrong with the age gap, as it has worked for literally the entirety of human existence, so I suspect other factors among those who commonly marry with an age gape in today's society are what contribute to this divorce rate. I only feel strengthen in my beliefs by such statistics because the traditional method of courtship I advocate is so rare today that it's impossible to think any significant amount of these divorcees were virtuous people.

ITT: fat neckbeard virgins who could never get close to get a girl, even if they have those red flags

Attached: 1530139534023.png (3000x2000, 563K)

>went to public school
>likes hiphop/"rap" music
>has painted fingernails/toenails
>wears high heels
>wears "yoga" pants
>curses excessively
This is my sister and she's a real great woman. I was going to add dyed/short hair but she's actually bald and has an array of wigs. Most are of her natural hair color but I know she has a dark purple one.

>likes rap music
>wears yoga pants
>curses excessively
let me guess: she twerks

Well, yes. That is the point of red flags, isn't it? To avoid danger.
It's possible she truly is a great woman, it's a shame she hides it under all of that trash. I wish her the best.

Not really. She dances as a hobby and sometimes it includes provocative moves but 95% of the time it just comes off as energetic because she's incapable of being sexy. I've heard her listen to a few rap songs but she likes postmodern rock more. Never seen her straight up shaking her ass, she's not at all slutty or ghetto.

She doesn't hide it under trash dude, she's really cool. Besides some shit on your list is retarded. Painting fingernails and putting on makeup are feminine things. Do you like dykes instead? She went to a public school and is pursuing a master's in geology.

Who would even do the last one? The way you typed it it sounds creepy as hell

>Name a white country that doesn't have a significant non-white population.
Most European white countries have under 10% of non-white population, really.

>divorce indicates a lack of virtue
Also a decrease in the quality of marriage, do you care about that?

>An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Doesn't mean you never need cures. You can prevent cancer really hard, but if one of your kids gets cancer, you'll have to cure it. If one of your kids has developmental issues, you'll need to pay for a specialist to treat them.
Not being able to pay for it means you destroy the quality of life of your children, or straight up kill them.

>Is free when you home school
College is not free.
And homeschooling destroys people's ability to properly socialise, which is the main reason why school is important really.

>Most things people spend money on are bad experiences that make them worse people.
That doesn't mean that having no money makes you better. You can have money and spend it properly.

>I see nothing wrong with the age gap, as it has worked for literally the entirety of human existence
It hasn't. People had small age gaps normally.

> I suspect other factors among those who commonly marry with an age gape in today's society are what contribute to this divorce rate.
People of different ages have normally different needs, interest, culture, background, desires and they mash up badly.
A woman 15 years your junior won't be a friend to you, won't be interested in the same things you're in. Maybe in a world where a woman couldn't be anything but a wife and a mother it wouldn't matter, but it wouldn't make her happy to feel lonely all the time because she had no one who cared about who she was as a person.
In current day and age, it does greatly matter.

>She doesn't hide it under trash dude
>likes hiphop/"rap" music
>has painted fingernails/toenails
>wears high heels
>wears "yoga" pants
>curses excessively
>bald and wears wigs

>Painting fingernails and putting on makeup are feminine things
No, they're retarded things. Makeup damages your face and makes you ugly, thus requiring more makeup. My aversion to painted nails is based purely on it being a sign of vanity and poor aesthetics.

Attached: 41ebba9b92f1d6498a0f830bb670a37edb3643b0c6227ea42b77cd291787985c.jpg (480x360, 38K)

>Makeup damages your face and makes you ugly
It doesn't.

Here's a good warning sign for men: Making warning signs for women with retarded shit like "paints nails". You're not intellectually or tastefully superior, you're just a fag.

>Most European white countries have under 10% of non-white population, really.
8% is a significant population, sweetie.
3% is a significant population.
>Also a decrease in the quality of marriage, do you care about that?
The decay of the marriage is a result of the lack of virtue. The reason I promote virtue is because I want to avoid things like that.
>Doesn't mean you never need cures.
I've never advocated practicing abject poverty or being a vagabond.
>College is not free.
College is not essential to life, it's actually a detriment.
>And homeschooling destroys people's ability to properly socialised
Studies prove home schooled children are better adjusted than public schooled children. Turns out being forced to attend a mini prison full of psychotics for over a decade has negative effects.
>That doesn't mean that having no money makes you better. You can have money and spend it properly.
For most post, having less money is an inherent positive because they aren't smart or strong enough to practice restraint.
>It hasn't. People had small age gaps normally.
Historically inaccurate.
>People of different ages have normally different needs, interest, culture, background, desires and they mash up badly.
A woman 15 years your junior won't be a friend to you, won't be interested in the same things you're in. Maybe in a world where a woman couldn't be anything but a wife and a mother it wouldn't matter, but it wouldn't make her happy to feel lonely all the time because she had no one who cared about who she was as a person.
In current day and age, it does greatly matter.
This isn't a bad theory from a secularist point of view.

>The reason I promote virtue is because I want to avoid things like that.
Then marry someone your age.

>College is not essential to life, it's actually a detriment.
It increases your quality of live, your earnings and nearly everything.

>Studies prove home schooled children are better adjusted than public schooled children.
No, stats prove that they do better on average when it comes to academic results.
There is no study that proves that they're better adjusted. Just some bloggers who claim that.
I looked into it heavily because I wanted to homeschool my children, but chose not to because I don't want to impair them socially.

>Historically inaccurate.
Extremely accurate, really. Normally people married around their age. The idea that big age gaps were the norm till 50 years ago is false. Same for marrying very young.
Average age of marriage 130 years ago, for example, was 22 for women and 27 for men.

>This isn't a bad theory from a secularist point of view.
It's basic psychology.
Even virtuous people want to be loved for all their traits beside their virtue, and want to share things with others.

>Then marry someone your age.
I'm not necessarily against marriage when close to the same age, I just recognize that the male being older is better for a variety of reason, not least of which being the economic problem you yourself brought up.
>It increases your quality of live, your earnings and nearly everything.
I'm not a materialist. Tell me, how are the millenials doing with their college degrees? Surely none of them are in debt, and all have happy productive lives with big savings accounts and lots of land in their name, right?
>but chose not to because I don't want to impair them socially.
nheri.org/research-facts-on-homeschooling/
So you doubt your ability to raise your children yourself. I can't say I share this feeling. I cannot imagine how anyone can consider compulsory social interaction to be healthier than natural and voluntary social interaction.
>Extremely accurate, really. Normally people married around their age. The idea that big age gaps were the norm till 50 years ago is false. Same for marrying very young.
Average age of marriage 130 years ago, for example, was 22 for women and 27 for men.
Even if I accept these numbers, which I don't, I'm talking about tens of thousands of years of human existence, not centuries.
>It's basic psychology.
Like I said, not bad from a secularist pov.

>I just recognize that the male being older is better for a variety of reason, not least of which being the economic problem you yourself brought up.
Yes, but it makes them divorce. Which isn't good, I suppose.

>So you doubt your ability to raise your children yourself.
No, I don't think that interacting mostly with adults is good for children, or teaches them to live among peers which is the most important thing for them.

>I cannot imagine how anyone can consider compulsory social interaction to be healthier than natural and voluntary social interaction.
Because life is mostly made of compulsive social interaction.

> I'm talking about tens of thousands of years of human existence
When people didn't marry and a single man fucked a bunch of females? I don't see how age at marriage matters when marriage didn't exist till around 20k years ago.

>Yes, but it makes them divorce
I've already explained why I doubt this conclusion.
>Being a certain age is not the only quality people bring to a marriage, and not the only contributing factor to the course of their lives. I see nothing wrong with the age gap, as it has worked for literally the entirety of human existence, so I suspect other factors among those who commonly marry with an age gape in today's society are what contribute to this divorce rate. I only feel strengthen in my beliefs by such statistics because the traditional method of courtship I advocate is so rare today that it's impossible to think any significant amount of these divorcees were virtuous people.

>No, I don't think that interacting mostly with adults is good for children
Yes, because the only choice is compulsory social interaction in public schools or only interacting with adults. I think your kids will be better off in public school desu
>Because life is mostly made of compulsive social interaction.
No, it isn't. Life is about voluntary relationships, and when you are raised without ever being allowed to develop skills for building voluntary relationships, you're left behind.
>When people didn't marry and a single man fucked a bunch of females?
Even at that point, when it happened, all those women could be considered his wives.
>I don't see how age at marriage matters when marriage didn't exist till around 20k years ago.
I'm not sure what you're saying here, but I think age of marriage matters for all mammals.

>I think your kids will be better off in public school desu
I have a degree in developmental psychology and am a certified teacher, I'd be alright with them. I just think it's important for them to learn to work with others. I still think I could do it and have them attend groups to teach them those skills, but it's mostly a circlejerk of people who are the same as them so it's not good for them.

>No, it isn't. Life is about voluntary relationships
No, it clearly isn't. Your work life is mostly made by compulsory relationship, your daily life is made by compulsory relationship. You don't socialise only with people you like, you need to learn to accept authorities outside your parents.
You can work on both skills, but learning how to work around people different from you is extremely important.

>all those women could be considered his wives.
No, they wouldn't. They could fuck other men, and he could fuck other women.

> I think age of marriage matters for all mammals.
Mammals don't marry unless they're humans.

>I just think it's important for them to learn to work with others.
Yet you deny them the chance to do so voluntarily, interesting.
>No, it clearly isn't
You're just wrong, sorry.
>Your work life is mostly made by compulsory relationship
All my business relationships are voluntary. It's called competition, and I have to work for my clients or lose them.
>your daily life is made by compulsory relationship
That's a very unhealthy life to live.
>You don't socialise only with people you like
Why would I socialize with people I don't like?
>you need to learn to accept authorities outside your parents.
Parents are not an authority, your concept of parents is unnatural.
>You can work on both skills, but learning how to work around people different from you is extremely important.
And you do that by interacting with other humans in a free environment where you can negotiate and compromise and learn to get along, not by being forced together against your will. That only breeds contempt.
>No, they wouldn't. They could fuck other men
Not so sure about that. At any rate I see no real arguments against virtuous polygamy.
>Mammals don't marry unless they're humans.
Pair bonding is a widely recognized phenomenon among mammal.

>Yet you deny them the chance to do so voluntarily, interesting.
I don't. They have the chance to do so voluntarily and not voluntarily.

>All my business relationships are voluntary.
You're extremely privileged then. Most people don't voluntarily pick and choose which clients to serve at their job, or their colleagues.

>That's a very unhealthy life to live.
That's life for most people. Teaching people to deal with people you don't really like is important.

>Why would I socialize with people I don't like?
Because that's life. You won't like a lot of people, you'll need to interact with them at your job, or while you're out buying groceries.

>Parents are not an authority, your concept of parents is unnatural.
Parents are an authority. It's not their only role, but it's important to give guidance to your children. Leaving all decisions up to your children when they aren't old enough to understand or make right decisions is absolutely unhealthy.
You can't reason a young kid out of doing certain things.

>And you do that by interacting with other humans in a free environment where you can negotiate and compromise and learn to get along, not by being forced together against your will
You're not forced to be friends with them, in school. You're forced to interact with them and learn to deal with differences. School is exactly an environment where you learn to get along, and learn to negotiate and compromise.

>Not so sure about that.
Be sure about that. Women and men fucked around, the children were raised in a tribe effort.

>Pair bonding is a widely recognized phenomenon among mammal.
Just some, and pair bonding isn't marriage. Most mammals fuck around.

When do they have the chance to do so voluntarily? Why do you think involuntary relationships are important in addition to these?
>You're extremely privileged then
No, I was just raised correctly and I'm a hard worker.
>That's life for most people.
And those people are dumb and make bad decisions.
>Teaching people to deal with people you don't really like is important.
And you don't learn that in public schools, or if you do, it's accidental and random.
>Parents are an authority. It's not their only role, but it's important to give guidance to your children
If you hire a guide on a trip, does he have authority over you?
>Leaving all decisions up to your children when they aren't old enough to understand or make right decisions is absolutely unhealthy.
I never suggested giving children complete agency, but the age of reason is like 7 and they should be mostly capable of thinking for themselves by 10.
>School is exactly an environment where you learn to get along, and learn to negotiate and compromise.
Who do you compromise with? What do you negotiate over?
>Women and men fucked around, the children were raised in a tribe effort.
These aren't universal truths.
>pair bonding isn't marriage
It is.

holy shit shut the fuck up already you armchair psychologists

List some red flags for females and give me something else to talk about.

>When do they have the chance to do so voluntarily?
In their free time, or at school when they make friends.

>Why do you think involuntary relationships are important in addition to these?
Because most people aren't self employed from the age of 18.

>hire
Kids don't hire their parents.

>the age of reason is like 7 and they should be mostly capable of thinking for themselves by 10.
No, it isn't. At 7 they start developing the skills useful for reasoning, they're not even fully capable of rational thinking before 11.

>Who do you compromise with? What do you negotiate over?
Other children. Depending on the age, it might be about what games to play or about how to work in a group.

>It is.
So you're married to your mom?

>Lies about her family
>Smokes/drinks, especially outside of holidays
>Body bodifications, including hair
>Exsesive swearing
>Only male friends
>No sense of humor
>Thinks possessive/paranoid behavior is romantic (From them or a partner)
>Owns a pet, barely takes care of it. Bonus points for "accessory pets"
>Eats out a lot/can't cook
>Overweight, especially if financially independent
>Lacks an inside voice/over reacts with screaming, stomping, generally attention seeking behavior
>Shit talks other people, especially exs and friends
>Thinks women are oppressed
>Single mom/Has gotten pregnant outside of a committed relationship

I think these are actually pretty lenient. Half of these can even apply to males. You don't have to be a textbook perfect pure Christian with a perfect body and subservient attitude. You just have to not be a dumbass who carelessly does whatever you want, your own self health and other's well being be damned.

this is good and concise enough

This list is a good one.

>Because most people aren't self employed from the age of 18.
Because most people go to public school desu
>Kids don't hire their parents.
They kinda do. If parents are shit, you can file for emancipation. In this sense the parent is in their role only by the grace of their offspring.
>>the age of reason is like 7
>No, it isn't. At 7 they start developing the skills useful for reasoning
Hmmmm
>they're not even fully capable of rational thinking before 11.
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
>what games to play or about how to work in a group.
Sounds like a very minuscule amount of freedom. I guess if you are raising your children to lack freedom, it makes sense.
>So you're married to your mom?
Very low IQ statement.

why is men's clothing a red flag?

>Because most people go to public school desu
No, because most jobs don't allow you to be self employed at the age of 18.

>If parents are shit, you can file for emancipation
No, you can't, unless you're over 16 in most states.

>Hmmmm
So the reproductive age starts at 11 because that's when puberty starts for some?

>Sounds like a very minuscule amount of freedom.
An appropriate amount of freedom for a child of that age, who isn't capable of making rational decisions.

>Very low IQ statement.
If pair bonding is marriage, you'd be married to your mom since you pair bond with her.
Not recognising that there's more to marriage than simple pair bonding is a low IQ statement.

>Lies
Agreed.
>>Smokes/drinks, especially outside of holidays
Agreed.
>>Body modifications, including hair
Agreed.
>>Exsesive swearing
Agreed.
>>Only male friends
I'd take it a step further and say more than 1 or 2 male friends is a red flag.
>>No sense of humor
Not sure how to define this, but it sounds like a general negative.
>>Thinks possessive/paranoid behavior is romantic (From them or a partner)
Trust is important.
>>Owns a pet, barely takes care of it. Bonus points for "accessory pets"
Agreed.
>>Eats out a lot/can't cook
Agreed.
>>Overweight, especially if financially independent
Agreed.
>>Lacks an inside voice/over reacts with screaming, stomping, generally attention seeking behavior
Agreed. Very childish behaviour. Though, not irreparable, so more of a yellow flag desu
>>Shit talks other people, especially exs and friends
I don't think someone you "shit talk" is your friend. If you have conflicting values, you can't be friends. Talking about someone from your past in a constructive manner or if I asked isn't really a deal breaker for me.
>>Thinks women are oppressed
Well such a stance does indicate ignorance, I can't really blame her and will see if she is receptive to the facts.
>>Single mom/Has gotten pregnant outside of a committed relationship
The reddest of red flags. The only non-virgin I could love is a widow.

this effectively has no sources because the sources listed are not real domains. I just looked them up.

Crossdressing is a sign of mental illness.
>No, because most jobs don't allow you to be self employed at the age of 18.
And most "jobs" are for low IQ wageslaves being pumped out of public schools.
>No, you can't, unless you're over 16 in most states.
I'll assume you're right until I look it up myself.
>So the reproductive age starts at 11 because that's when puberty starts for some?
Literally yes. 11 is the AVERAGE, so it isn't "some".
>An appropriate amount of freedom for a child of that age, who isn't capable of making rational decisions.
We disagree on a fundamental level.
>If pair bonding is marriage, you'd be married to your mom since you pair bond with her.
I'm going to stop replying to you now.

>raised by a single mother
>fat
>went to public school
>eats fast food
>eats junk food
>drinks soda
i am a walking red flag.

Attached: bugs8.jpg (342x245, 14K)

crossdressing isn't a sign of mental illness. google it, you enfeebled nerd.

Very young people who make big buck are either sociopaths, criminals or ride rich daddy's coattail, and neither of those qualities are acceptable in a husband.

>cross dressing isn't a sign of mental illness

Attached: Dad_Get_The_Horsemen.jpg (688x1024, 82K)

>And most "jobs" are for low IQ wageslaves being pumped out of public schools.
No, they aren't.
A doctor for example, or a scientist, can't be self employed at 18.

>Literally yes. 11 is the AVERAGE, so it isn't "some".
You do understand that pregnancy is highly disruptive for children that age, right?
They're not fully capable of giving birth even if they started menstruating.

>We disagree on a fundamental level.
Because you're fundamentally wrong on a lot of things.

>I'm going to stop replying to you now.
Enjoy.