Watch this video if you will,

Let us consider a few ideas here. First the comedienne who is made out to be hottest thing around, is not particularly attractive; especially when you see what is inside. Just look at the image above.

Second, who is going to code up the new changes allowing douchebag assertions? The women that we saw?

Third, as the videomaker suggests, it is not really about rejecting douchebags; rather it is about rejecting guys who don’t measure up in terms of looks in a more nasty manner than they could before. Since this doesn’t seem to serve any purpose other than for ego gratification and short time thrill, it would seem to contrary to what women are supposed to be; sugar and spice and everything nice.

Fourth, are there any gains to be had here from a business perspective? Perhaps it will chase away some of the less handsome men. Perhaps women will get more thrills through their new rejection methods. Perhaps there is publicity to be had, and for the young and silly, most any publicity is effective advertising with them.

Fifth, are these women actually looking for LTRs here? Is the idea that they will “improve” men for the sake of these LTRs? If the goal is not LTR’s, why not just call it Slutorama? Do the women in the video consider themselves to be sluts? Do the men that they respond to consider them to be sluts? How many marriages have ever come out of this process?

Sixth, why don’t these women admit that they want a sexy douchebag to just take them?

FuzzieWuzzieBear:

I don’t know why Tinder is going to put this app in the hands of women. They are going to abuse it. With ordinary online dating, the rate of rejection is so bad that ninety percent of men only lasted three months. I’ll bet a doughnut that it has gotten worse in the intervening years and an order of magnitude worse with the introduction of Tinder. Ti8nder’s own numbers tell us that a man has to swipe right, accept eighteen times more women than a woman does to get a match. This is what hypergamy comes down to. Women have raised themselves out of their own league. The best that they will find is very short term with men that they perceive as the sexual equal. Hence, the “douchiness”.

For the bottom eighty percent of men competing for the bottom twenty two percent of women, I don’t think that will work too well either. I don’t see much chance for improvement until the sexual marketplace is seen to seize. With numbers that are in the video, it can happen. People were skeptical about a national housing market seizure too.

The more I think about it, the more I see that Larry G is onto something. Let the seventy eight percent of American women compete for the top twenty percent of men. It will be funny to see fifty eight percent miss out completely.

Ton:

Women are not going to respond to this extra optioin the way folks think.

#1 I am under the impression they have to pay for the new features. If true, I don’t think large numbers of women will pony up the cash for it.

#2 those who do pony up the cash, or all female users if the new features are free, are only going to be more cruel to betas etc with bad Game/ no Game and the bitches will continue to get lubed up over hot guys, “douche bags”, “assholes” and “bad boys”. Soooo the only thing that will change is the level of cruelty displayed toward betas. Which won’t do anything but slightly increase the number of hard ass players and speed up the male withdrawal rate, expediting and exacerbating the problems associated with MGTOW.

Personally I don’t see why folks are getting all pissy about this. The reaction reminds me of all the hysterics on the left. It’s not much of a gamer changer outside the extra level of cruelty head toward some men, and sucky as that is, that shit has been slowly increasing over the years, and will continue to increase, any which way

Glorious Patriarch:

Seeing the mouthy, sassy women in the top ad just bemuses me. Their power is to dismiss men based on a photo and some horseshit he wrote about himself? It’s like seeing twelve year old boys drunk for the first time and hearing their bravado run riot. They’re so full of themselves but at the end of the day mommy will be picking them up at a time convenient to her and taking them home for tea.

They’re so vapid and entitled when at the end of the day it’s an app that allows men to conveniently find women to boff and move on. I’m pretty sure that the app was never much required by women, easy sex for attractive women has never been hard to find, one imagines.

And ladies. To men seeing that ad? It’s really not a good look for you. Kind of like the wassup ad by Budweiser was to women. But at least that was just trying to sell to men who didn’t know better a shit beer. Not encouraging you to invest your self worth in shitting on fellow human beings for the goodfeelz.

Deti:

Whitney Cummings.

Just look at the 1000 cock stare, the wizened, hardened face, the jaded and cynical superbitch ragecunt attitude.

BV:

This video has fascinated me and I couldn’t figure out why. Now I think I know why, and my take is a little off-center from the consensus view (taken by the Brit interpreter and commenters here).

1. As the interpreter notes, the girls say “most guys are cool.” Then they devote themselves to ridiculing three idiots to illustrate their anti-douche agenda.

2. Notably, though, the so-called douches are caricatures of successful men. They’re caricatured (and represented by mediocre male actors) in order to make their ridicule seem more intuitive, more deserved. However …

3. None of the roomful of marketing gash is either a ceo or a physical fitness buff. (The comedienne is fit, I admit.) They are all a little chubby, a little short, a little bizarre in their bad haircuts, and very poorly dressed. Also, they mostly have dull, unremarkable faces.

What we have, then, is a conference room filled with late 20-somethings, early 30-somethings, who are really annoyed that they’re in a conference room with other incipient spinsters and … the best of them is a 6.5. (If we factor personality and career choice, a 4.)

4. The video is an unintentional rant, in my view, of a bunch of superannuated sorority sister average white chicks, who are not very smart (they’re in marketing, remember), rationalizing why their 5 doesn’t attract a male model 9 who has a job at Goldman Sachs and a second home on the Vineyard. They’re calling the real life guys (who might fuck them in the parking lot but don’t call them back) they want to be with, douches.

There’s just way too much energy expended in ridiculing a small minority of men, in that video, to suggest anything but frustration with same.

5. Postscript: When the comedienne said her “uterus tilted”? I wondered, “I really don’t believe you made it to 33 without having it removed for medical purposes.”

Perhaps the other unintended message from the video is this. Emojis *are* enough.

And why? This roomful of super-awesome chubbies actually don’t have a lot of awesome real-life interactions with men — none of their male peers are good enough, “where is my NetJets subscribing benefactor”, “if you don’t think I’m as hot as a starlet, you are body-shaming” troglodyte — so it’s just an emoji party. That’s all they’ve got.

If all you’ve got is a platform on the internet to endlessly drown in your attitude and words, you’re not going to be disappointed by any stream of disappointment. It’s validating, self-actualizing, in truth. Solution: emojis.