Omega 3 snake oil

It's not the sex, it's the behavior leading up to the sex that often is anti intellectual. I say this because the conversation tends to be shallow and vacuous, and from what I know about PUA they teach men to avoid all manner of intellectualism when dealing with a woman, because the rational part of her brain apparently does not process sex very well. If you want to lose her, attempt intelligent conversation.

I disagree and think that you would be objectifying her. Not saying I'm necessarily or completely above it, but in my life I have shown a strong preference for women who along with being good looking are thoughtful, sincere, funny, and sensitive. An apparent dearth of this type of woman is admittedly part of the impetus in starting this thread. Women who are all looks seem to prefer men who are all entertainment, all status (whether real or perceived makes little difference).Now, as I've been over in this thread, I'm not saying it's necessarily immoral to objectify another person (we all do it in business and it usually goes just fine), but when men and women fully and completely objectify one another, well, I think we can safely call it problematic. Good, valid points here. But none of it necessarily refutes my argument(s). Your first sentence seems somewhat undermined but those that follow. If men are supposed to be proactive about cultural change, why should they focus on mastering relationships that tend to be vacuous, anti-intellectual, amoral?

Cats. Lots and lots of cats.

Cheeky but I think you're getting at something here. It's definitely going to get worse before it gets better.

good topic and responses. Slightly different angle: could people be hesitant about showing empathy because we've internalized the fact that our culture tends to associate coldness, selfishness, and even cruelty with success and happiness? oversimplifying, but the logic may go: I want to be happy. In order to be happy I need to be successful. In order to be successful I need to be perceived as powerful, supremely confident, our culture's ideal of cool. Showing real empathy may diminish the facade just described by requiring one to lower their defences in order to interact with and potentially care about another human being. Just a thought, I think it's complimentary to every written so far.Also just heard a guest on Stefan's podcast who's from China say there are laws in place to discourage people from helping others hit by cars and left at the side of the road. The police will arrive and say , "Why were you helping them?" which perversely leads to an accusation the bystander/witness was actually involved in the accident ("why else would you be helping them?") and the person winds up facing fines and jail time. Crazy to us, by the Chinese government isn't that stupid. The caller from there said the Chinese government wants badly to discourage people from helping strangers, and assuming the story is true.Does our society have a similar, subtler policy in place? A Policy which in my opinion is more effective and more pernicious because it is more ubiquitous, achieved mainly through control of mass media and education (there are many, many, many examples of this). And so people wind up lacking empathy which they see as wrong but are at a loss as to why this is the case.Just a thought, sorry for the slight tangent. I just realized I offered no advice to the TS and this is an advice thread. Be right back...

... this is the kind of truth that ends every conversation.

All of this has been addressed and dealt with in this thread. Please stop asking me to repeat myself.

Lisa: "I think it's terrible that Krusty is ashamed of his roots."[Homer walks by w/ plunger stuck to his head]Bart: "What are you changing your name to when you get older?"Lisa: "Lois Sandborne."Bart: "...Steve Bennett!"

I'm hesitant to generalize so completely, as it's obvious not every woman wants the same thing. But PUA culture focuses almost entirely on providing fun/entertainment to women--I think this is apparent and self-explanatory. Again, I think this is indicative of a social shift. Values have shifted toward hedonism/solipcism. Good question. That is up to the individual(s) involved, and must take into account what they both want. To answer that question using the NAP principle one could say as long as both parties are getting what they want, any relationship is valid/realistic. But this doesn't get at the deeper issues... Thank. You. So. Much. :)Sustainability is key, and I think that's what's missing more than anything. Sustainability is an objective criteria, unlike things like compassion and love (which mean the world to me as a human being but cannot necessarily be argued for on a rational basis). Imagine every last woman insisting that men provide her with fun/excitement as per "the rules of the game". What will we have left within a generation or so?<collective eye roll>Seriously, what will be left? Women who: a) don't have children; b) have fatherless children that will require excessive state funded resources to be raised; and--sorry to be a complete ass on this one, but--c) wait too long to have kids, then suffer health-related consequences that society has to pay for; d) have generally shitty relationships that cause widespread malaise... it really does go on. Another good, hard to answer question. Again, this is very subjective, as the entire basis for gender roles shifts with society as a whole. Genuine value for a man used to mean strict provider/protector value. These roles have now been deemphasized, which itself is not necessarily a bad thing as it seems to signify the evolution of our species from animals to whatever we're capable of becoming. But, as others have pointed out in this thread, the deemphasis of traditional male roles has created a vaccuum--socially, psychologically, economically, perhaps biologically--into which a seemingly innocuous but ultimately nihilistic value system like PUA culture can insert itself.

Sure, see my first post.Also, see @ 4:50http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2mKqJetgO4

Yep, with you here, but you lose me shortly after. Not sure I ever suggested anything of the sort. People definitely have choices, but pointing out, say, that people have a choice in whether or not to use drugs eschews the reality that many if not most drug addicts have other psychological/emotional problems that arise from poor parenting, shitty education, childhood or other trauma. Saying something does or doesn't violate the NAP is a bit <*ahem extremely*> short-sighted in the context of this discussion, as I hope to explore further in this post. Agreed 100%. And those rules are what I'm suggesting we delve more deeply into--that is the point you seem to be missing as by hanging your hat on NAP. I take exception to this statement. You imply introversion is a bad or weak quality, and in doing so you exemplify what I'm getting at re: contemporary values being based on a very contrived paradigm. In nature, "alpha male" has a fixed meaning. In modern society, the definition of alpha male is constantly shifting with societal change; so if its meaning can change so readily, it cannot have the kind of intrinsic value it has in reality/nature (whereby an alpha male must have good genetics, good decision making, etc.) umm no, it's the discussion everyone else has been having thus far. Welcome. Untrue, unsubstantiated, patently absurd. Contentious at best. For example, this thread is an example of media becoming democratized, power of influence becoming decentralized. If you believe people are against anything rational or logic based, why are you on this forum?I hate to be a preachy, didactic/pedantic knob but you seem to make many dubious assertions, slather on a coat of NAP then consider things pretty much wrapped up.

So people know I'm not a "hater", here's something I just came across on Neil Strauss' website that I think is useful/valuable for men looking to meet women... I just want to be clear that I believe there is definitely some value in PUA thinking Top 11 Mistakes Men Make When Approaching WomenEnjoy… Don’t wait to approach her until she’s alone. Even if she likes you, her friends will soon drag her away. Don’t stare at her for more than three seconds before approaching. Hesitate, and you’ll either creep her out or psych yourself out. Don’t be afraid to approach just because there are men in the group. Chances are she’s with family, friends, or co-workers, not a love interest. Don’t open a conversation by apologizing. Phrases like “Excuse me,” “Pardon me,” and “I’m sorry” make you sound like a beggar. Don’t hit on her or give her a generic compliment. Instead, start a conversation with an entertaining anecdote or question, such as asking the group to suggest names for a three-legged cat or a store that sells 70s memorabilia. It may sound corny, but everyone loves to give an opinion. Don’t buy her a drink. You shouldn’t have to pay for her attention. Don’t touch or grab her right away. If she touches you, say, with a smile, “Hey now, hands off the merchandise.” Don’t lean in or hover over her. Stand up straight and, if the music’s too loud or she’s seated, simply speak up. Don’t initially ask what her name is, what she does for a living, or where she’s from. She’s bored of talking about the same things with every new guy she meets. Don’t focus all your attention on her when she’s with other people. If you win her friends over, you’ll win her. Don’t be afraid to disobey any of these guidelines once you understand them and why they exist.

Yes, but there's more. I would say social cohesion exists to varying degrees in a handful of very nice places (read: expense to live). People who live in such places, say Monaco for example, probably enjoy a great deal of what might be called social cohesion and thus a nice helping of what we call culture. Not saying this example occurs more often than the scenario you give, the one where property rights are not upheld, resulting in a loss of social cohesion, but I'm thinking there are some wealthier communities/sub cultures/cultures who enjoy very high standards of living and so could be argued they have both a shared set of values and thus social cohesion. Can't imagine why that would be unthinkable, or why that would matter for the purposes of this converation By your first sentence it sounds like you intend to invalidate my argument at least partly based on my not having a definiton of shared values. Then you give an example of one type of shared value, suggest that this particular shared value never has never worked out, then show its not working out as being the cause of social problems. Yeah? No, but I think this really gets away from my argument, the one about the core issues (at least what I see them as) Pretty contentious. Culture does a bit more than that, and you're implying it doesn't.

This sounds like a bit of a sexual arms race, though I realize you're saying PUA culture simply takes us closer to the natural state of things. I partly agree: modern society, including feminist/leftist influences have downplayed the value of men in the eyes of women and in the eyes of men themselves. Many are lost, lacking the confidence to approach women, carry a conversation, etc.They need to find their way. I get it.Your argument points out (and is based on) the fact that men, in a nutshell, have changed. That is, society has changed men. Right?But does your argument take into account the fact that these same societal forces have changed women to a similar degree, albeit in a different direction (being made more self-assured instead of less so)? If you want to paint with extremely broad strokes, you could say men have been turned into sniveling pussies while women have been turned into cold-hearted, self-entitled products of postconsumer culture.... so, the nature of both women and men have been changed? Yay or nay.Also: I find your free market and non-NAP justifications a bit trite. They're not untrue, but they don't really strengthen your argument. Prostitution doesn't violate the NAP, meaning it's not morally wrong, but that doesn't make it good in any sense.

I don't see the logical flow here...

American females and non-white Americans don't do these things? I think the point(s) you're trying to make are best highlighted here. For the purposes of this discussion I'd say you're defining culture as a shared value system. I realize you said "It's the ethnic practices of a particular nationality" but I think this is a bit narrow. "Shared value system" is more accurate and nicer-sounding So, it's the lack of a shared value system that causes social problems such as violence in the US? I think there is some truth here. I'm going to make some leaps in logic, which I think I could qualify but for brevity's sake, won't get into the nitty gritty.Lack of shared values causes breakdown of families and community (or even prevents their cohesion in the first place), which leads to problems such as lack of education, myriad forms of abuse, and thus poverty, violence, and so forth. So yeah, you could say a lack of culture leads to violence.Of course, for this to fly you'd have to go back and demonstrate how exactly America is lacking a culture (not saying whether this is true or false but it needs to be explained in some detail).Sorry to be trite but I think that's all the value this argument has to offer.

Because the whole interaction is based on men providing entertainment for women."Well that's because men want entertainment value from women, so it's a mutual give and take"... fine, but not entirely. First, even if a man doesn't want a woman for entertainment--he may want genuine friendship, or something that can lead to a committed relationship--he still needs to entertain her to keep her interest. Secondly, and this is not as strong an argument, but if the male-female dynamic is based on men approaching, men maintaining the conversation, men making sure dates go smoothly, men paying for dates, etc., where exactly is the woman's responsibility? <collective laughter from the PUA set>This is not a two-way street.A relationship where one party bears all the responsibility and all the obligation, isn't necessarily fair, balanced, or harmonious. "Yeah, well, that's how the game is played, so it's smart to learn the rules, etc...." Again, I think "the game" is a social construct built on top of stone age instincts. Women used to be attracted to men who could provide for their offspring, displayed by traits such as confidence and decisiveness. But now that we're not usually faced with immediate threats to our survival (i.e. by living in modern/consumer society), women's innate desires have run amok, manifested in beliefs like "I want the most confident, attention-getting man in the club!" But that confident, attention-getting male may not have much actually going for him. No other alpha males will (likely) test him. There are no sabretooth tigers to weed out the impostors. And so, everyone gets away with pretending."Fake it til you make it!" To think that our society can get by on everyone faking whatever they want to be... this is the same kind of unsustainable optimism that creates economic bubbles.Tangential, and not necessarily related to my other arguments, but I'm going to come out and say that "the game" (modern rules of dating as exemplified by PUA culture) allows people to artificially inflate their value in a way that is not sustainable, like every stock or every house on the market being sold for three times its actual value.

the way that it's gender specific: PUA culture is very much focussed on men providing entertainment/short term enjoyment to women in order to obtain and keep a woman's interest. It does not foster much in terms of a "two way street" unless you consider the woman's end of the bargain to be fulfilled by her looking nice and perhaps allowing sex to occur. Kind of apples to oranges, here. When a person decides to master a skill it is generally for the love of that skill/art in and of itself, with ends like money or fame being fringe benefits. When a novelist sits down to write his/her magnum opus, it's generally not based on "if I pull this off, I will receive money/fame/pussy", whereas men learn PUA skills almost exclusively with the end goal of sex in mind. Valid points (you make many ), but saying PUA culture doesn't define itself based on female approval is like saying the NFL doesn't define itself based on points scored. Take women out of that equation, and what would you have?... Well, then you'd have a bonafide male support group, or male positive space. And those do exist, but that's not what we're talking about. I know there are many ancillary benefits of PUA culture, like increased confidence, self-worth, better social skills in general, but you are still operating within a framework based on gaining female approval (i.e. "the game").And I do see some practical value in learning how to deal with shit tests, etc. (something I've made a point of working on). But in a greater philosophical sense, why should grown men have to worry about things like "shit tests" in the first place? Aren't these mainly a byproduct of modern society, people having too much time on their hands, too much disposable income, etc.? Women are inventing new criteria to qualify or disqualify men (you could argue it's "always been like that", but I have a hard time imagining the mentality of contemporary women existing in my mother's generation). These criteria may have their origins in our nature as hunter/gatherers but now that child rearing has largely been taken off the table, what point does any of it serve besides entertaining women? So does the PUA community have many gay members?... If you're scoffing at that, I ask you, why? Don't gay men deserve, want, and need positive self-image as much as hetero men?... Maybe they aren't interested in the PUA community because without women as an incentive men tend to find different, non-pussy-based ways of defining their self-worth.

because the existence of that market is at least partly indicative of a culture that has changed to focus on instant gratification (hence the shift away from the family). Men's role in society, at least in the eyes of many young women, is to provide entertainment. As such men are not seen as entitled to hold their own thoughts, feelings, opinions, etc., they exist simply to cater to the thoughts and feelings of women.And if someone wants to again point out that PUA culture is about empowering men, I'll posit that a person defining him or herself by other's desires or expectations is not empowered but is in fact a servant.

I agree that these are two of the reasons, but I think there is more to the phenomenon. Everything you say after this may be true as well, but you're working within a limited paradigm.How about, 3) women are on average far less interested in having (and raising) children today. This represents a massive change, and so women's priorities and taste in men have changed as well. Qualities like honesty and integrity (even good genetics) have taken a backseat to qualities that allow for entertainment. I somewhat agree, but this highlights the problem(s) I'm trying to point out. The social skills you're talking about are culturally relative--in a traditional hunter/gatherer society, these skills would include being an effective group hunter who has the integrity to share with his tribemates. Sounds ridiculously antiquated by our standards but such people do still exist, and we do share our genes with them. Today, social skills often include things like passive aggression and bald-faced lying. Should men cultivate whatever social skills our zeitgeist demands? Love this. Well put. Fallacious reasoning.

such as? I agree, but PUA culture is about a lot more than approaching. From a functional standpoint I'd say it's more about managing relations with women in modern society, something I think occurred more naturally in a premodern setting. The main difference to which I'm referring is today's obsession with instant gratification. I didn't say victimized...

Men's value has been so thoroughly stripped away in the eyes of women that the only value most women now see in men is as fun or entertainment. Hence we get the replacement courtship with game playing, even among educated, successful women--in fact, especially among this demographic because they tend to be the most independent, at least in the most immediate sense. The prevailing ethos is women don't "need" men, and men are lucky women even consider us in the first place.With no real value as partners (except perhaps for the wealthiest 10 or 20 percent) men are offering women the only thing women still show interest in: Fun.What does a man need to do to impress a woman? Ask any pickup artist, he will tell you either directly or indirectly it heavily based on showing her a good time. Because what could be a better, more realistic basis for a relationship than projecting an aura of a neverending party?And so men have shaped our identities based on catering to (often childish) whims rather than demonstrating genuine value (though I suppose value is a subjective thing; value to a person whose outlook is based on having fun would be whatever allows for maximum fun).

Has anyone dealt with: https://www.cavirtex.com

Thanks

Sorry to start another thread on this topic but I believe the others are on the value of Bitcoins and not on the logistics of where to acquire them. I'm looking at Canadian-based online trading companies now. Does anyone have experience?