PatrickC

It seems to me that many men have been reduced to this hollow shell of their former selves. As a friend said to me rather eloquently. "This is how bad it's gotten. Being "honorable" as a male has been reduced to finger wagging your own gender and admitting you're bad." Holding your own gender to a higher standard than the other is an act of betrayal that will have serious consequences for both genders in time. Taking responsibility for the actions of others is a fine way of ignoring your own.

That's an interesting perspective. One of the things I liked about one of the techniques was dealing with the 'shit test'. This is a very useful way of ditching certain ladies that have no intention of taking things further with you. But was also a balanced approach in that it showed it as quite normal for women to test men to some degree. The technique was about learning to what degree was reasonable. I chuckled a bit reading that, as I relived some of my dating disasters in my teens and early twenties. I thought hmmn, I could have done with that useful piece of advice back then, without having to learn it all myself.

Right, thanks for explaining that. I certainly agree that dating women is the only way you are going to meet women of quality. Fortunately for me (and perhaps you) I have not been so visiously treated by women, like some men have. So as a tool to better socially interact with women, I think is probably where PUA (for want of a better expression) has most of its value, which I've always felt was the case after discovering its methodology in recent years. The fact that you use it as a means to widening the opportunities for yourself is fair enough. There is no doubting that there are great points to all these mens movements. At least men are beginning to wake up and take this shit seriously at last. Men are in a dreadful state at the moment, which is often not of their design. So it's great to converse with some likeminds, even with the ocassional harshness for once, compared to all the paltry predictable responses I receive from men in the real world. It's been a pleasure chaps.

Yes KD raises some excellent points I think. It's still unclear to me what the overall benefits are to PUA, other than a way to initiate attraction in some women. I'm slightly confused by what you consider PUA adds to say your 'inner life' Holo, as you put it in an earlier post. I mean gaining enjoyment and pleasure from those we surround ourselves with I take as a given. That seems like a wholly reasoanble way to approach an initial response with anyone for that matter, friend or lover. On the other hand things like reputation, honour and integrity seemingly take a back seat these days, as culturally speaking those qualities matter little for most of the outside world. Men have essentially been robbed of their potential. And the world is fast losing the qualities in men that often shaped the world. Not to mention fatherhood as well. Never let it be said there is such a thing as a 'should'. But as philosophers I think it's incumbent on us to at least attempt to instill values in those we interact with and especially those we are intimate with. If not by words, certainly in our actions.

Yes, its filled to brimming with the same old (dare I say, 'leftist') fallacies.. None of his objections had anything to do with a free (voluntary) market.

Yes, it sucks to be in so much debt.. left home at 16 and had 3 jobs to keep my head above water just paying the rent. I will say however, it was the best decision I ever made. On an aside philosophy, self knowledge, it all comes with an obligatory journey through darkness at times. My advice will perhaps sound unhelpful at first. Just keep being conscious of yourself brother (as you are) and hold those that recognise your struggle, very close and very dear.

Yes, it's an empathic response, not a moral theory.

No more less or more than those that don't eat meat either. Except that wasn't the question in this thread.

Philosophy, self knowledge can be a dark place for some time, as you begin to unravel things for yourself.. A good therapist was very helpful for me during those times.. Otherwise I'd say journal daily, read up on some of the best authors on this stuff and try to surround yourself with people that understand what you are going through..

If he truly was mentally ill, then yes.. Particularly if he was wondering around on private property. Although I'm certain you are going to tell me the catch.

I have a genuine interest in this topic myself. But seriously, making ridiculous assumptions like 'bacon', as if people only eat the stuff for superfluous reasons is what thoroughly puts me off discussing it on this board sometimes.

I can't speak for KD on his definition, but for some of the lesser known MGTOW exponents I've recently met and interacted with are far from saying they will never interact with women again. For the most part they are attempting to build better and stronger ties with the men in their lives. They understand the enormous potential that men find in each other and in themselves. This doesn't mean to the detriment of their relationships with women. It just means that they will not accept white knighting and mangina type behaviour as acceptable ways of approaching women. Neither will they accept the woman who ingratiates herself in the privileges the current culture give her. A few of the long term exponents of MGTOW (before Barbarossa and his ilk) are indeed married now. Boycotting bad behaviour or ideology in women seems an entirely rational approach to make when deciding on life partners. So perhaps you misunderstand the MGTOW approach in the same way we might be misunderstanding PUA. Although, I'm seeing a lot of game theory being mentioned, rather than principles.

Stefan was expressing a preference. His use of the expression NSP in the video, was merely a play on words. However he takes his preference seriously enough to find torturing animals unacceptable. Which I think most people with empathy can agree with. You are conflating Stefan's words into more than what they are. There is no theory here, merely a rational and reasonable preference. Anyone that tortured animals would not be a friend of mine.

With respect, I wasn't disagreeing with you. But you make no mention of my other points.

This is because he is not making a UPB claim. This would be why he calls it the NSP. In UPB terms it would come under aesthetical choice or APA. But of course there exists a whole range of behaviours within APA that we could potentially be at odds with personally. Animal cruelty being one of them. Whether he means eating meat or keeping pets, I'd have to watch later on of course, but I'm pretty sure he's not suggesting that.

Interesting. I'm not familiar with Joe Rogans guest list, but does he regularly repeat guests and within a short space of time between each other?

The irony is that many corporations actually lobbied govt for minimum wages in the UK. But only because they got the opportunity to control those wage levels year on year.

Here in the UK I had 3 jobs when I was 16 years old in 1985. This was a just after Thatcher abolished the Wage Council, which had traditionally set minimum wages for decades. Everyone from my class had at least one full time job. Since 1999 when the minimum wage was returned, youth unemployment has sky rocketed. It's now not unusual for 23 year olds to have less a years worth of work experience.

Well, it's difficult to ignore the PUA tactic of tapping into a womens base sexual instinct. I mean in one sense we have to do that in order to attract partners. But beyond that, it simply doesn't fly as a long term strategy for a fullfilling relationship. If PUA is developing or rather PUA's themselves are maturing, then I'm interested in hearing about that process.

Sorry Mishelle, can you clarify what you mean here.

I'm surprised you missed Hitches main point. It's not that funny women don't exist, they do. It's the fact that women don't need to be funny, compared to men. "It's ok ladies, we (men) find you attractive already, thank you very much."

But I agree with King Davids view that men need to be much more than peacocks for any long term strategy to work.

Well said David for your whole post. I quite agree with your definition of alpha here too. This peacocking as you put it seems to take us back to the OP Omega's point. I'm tending to think, that as guys find hot women an initial attraction for them, conversely women find funny guys trigger the same attraction in them. I recently watched Christopher Hitchens response to a female rebuttal of his essay, 'why women aren't funny'. He makes some interesting points that relate to this topic. Most notably I thought was that if men didn’t learn to make women laugh, that they rarely got laid. Women’s laughter he goes on is a kind of surrender. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7izJggqCoA This isn’t to prove the PUA’s point, but I wonder if a woman’s draw to humour is more hot-wired than we first thought. I’m tending to think that it is.

My choice too.. It's just an appropriate use of language and discourse related to ones feelings.

Well I hope not But I do think it's up to men to make the difference. But it's great to hear women like yourself apologise for some of the excesses of the recent past by feminists. It adds a little turbo to our endeavours.