MMX2010

This Wednesday's call-in show will also help. It is the topic of my question to Stef.

Read carefully, please, Alice. I never claimed that your answers were incorrect. I don't care whether your answers are correct or incorrect. I care that, when you apply those questions over the majority of transgender individuals, you get "Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes." From there, your response is, "But I'm not like that." - (which implies that every individual who asks these questions should only focus on your responses - so that they can gauge their opinion of all transgender individuals by focusing on your responses). As for "without any evidence", if you're not able to look at transgender individuals (not just yourself, but the words they use when given maximum freedom to express themselves) and NOT conclude, "Yes, Yes, Yes, to all...", then I don't think you're looking at the situation seriously. You're focused solely on yourself. The following is not a strawman; it is a question: How many hours of your life have you (individually), AncapFTW (individually), Nathan Diehl (individually), Rainbow Jamz (individually), and any other pro-transgender individual spent pondering-and then-defending / promoting transgender? My proposal is simple. Estimate the number of hours as honestly as you can. Multiply that number by five. Then spend that number of hours telling the transgender community, "Your rhetoric - specifically the use of words like 'transphobic' and 'unenlightened' - has lead to the abuse of male children by parents who've swallowed your message. Therefore, it is your responsibility to create moral rules of conduct restricting your rhetoric so that these horrible situations of child abuse are much less likely to happen." Are you going to do that or are you going to yell "strawman"? (Or are you going to claim that it wasn't-at-all predictable that the use of moralistic language would produce blind moral conformity?) (Or are you going to downvote?) ---------------------- The tl;dr version is "Pro-transgender individuals = self-focused and not-at-all focused on the community. Anti-transgender individuals begin with a focus on the community."

Both. Those two practices aren't mutually exclusive.

Either. If a man uses PUA to help a woman choose virtue, women are aided in choosing virtue. If a man uses PUA to help a woman despise virtue, women are aided in despising virtue. If a man rejects PUA in order to lead a woman to choose virtue, he'll more than likely be outcompeted by any man who embraces PUA.

Determinism? No. Women are free to choose and are capable of choosing, just like everyone else. But are women equally interested in philosophy, equally capable of thinking rationally and philosophically, equally empathetic towards men as men are towards women, and equally dispassionate in their desire for truth? (No, to all.) So any philosophy which either predicts, expects, or demands women to be equal to men in these regards cannot stand the test of time. In scientific and philosophically-rigorous circles, when you make a failed prediction, you pursue self-knowledge by poring over your entire perspective.

You got under my skin, because you're a triple-digit Reputation FDR Member who claims to want to spread philosophy and leadership, but you've reduced yourself to snarky language and withdrawal. Over what? Are your arguments here really the best they can be, or can they be significantly improved? But after you get under my skin, I look forward to my future compared to yours, and I think mine is brighter. Despite wasting my twenties and most of my thirties, I love how the self-knowledge acquired through studying PUA is helping me. You don't envy people who put many hours of mental energy maintaining and tweaking their personality and their moral perspectives? Why not admire them? You're not curious about what that "something more important than myself" is? No doubt. But I know where the saltiness was provoked. It happened when OmegaHero insisted that you have "beta tendencies". From my perspective, he's mostly correct. You do have Beta Tendencies, but only one - the biggest one. You think women's sexual desires and hypergamy should respond to reason, logic, moral appeals....philosophy. (But they don't.) And when they don't, then you think you're 100% correct to call these women Non-Virtuous. (You are, but that's not the point. The point is that there's another way to spread philosophy, which I've coined "Embracing Hypergamy". That'll be the theme of this Wednesday's show.)

Here's what's funny. I get that my posts are sometimes subtle and hard to understand, but I made it easy for you. I admitted that it was "mean of me to predict your responses, so I'll let you respond instead." And I even warned you that, "If you respond with silent apathy, then you'll know why I'll never support a transgender or pro-transgender individual." Thus, you were invited to give your opinions OR get offended and withdraw your opinions. So what did you do? Withdraw your opinions and down-vote. Not "one person". A ten-year old boy. A child. This is FDR, right? The place where Peaceful Parenting is our most important mission? *shrugs*

The second one. Harsh, but true: The Girl doesn't care about your origin story. She cares about whether you've mined all of the gold, the wisdom, and motivating lessons from your origin story. I was glad to hear in a recent podcast, "How do you know when you're done with therapy?", that Stefan isn't a big fan of lifelong therapy. Not only does his non-fandom match my harsh but true lesson above, but it also matches my negative experiences with the members of the FDR NYC Meet-Up group: the ones who had been in therapy the longest were the least objective and most insufferable. So when (and if) you tell The Girl your origin story, you'd better Frame it in terms of Heroic Growth and Ultimate Triumph. Because if you Frame it in terms of humble, "still working on myself", and "am still learning", she will not accept you as heroic nor triumphant. (Naturally, the fastest and firmest way to do this is to realize that your origin story legitimately deserves to be Framed in those terms. But given the choice between "faking it, that way" and "being honest, if it isn't that way", I'd advise fakery. Every. Single. Time.) The people who you used to be "grate on you"? Where's the amused mastery in that? Where's the joy in that? My Mistress barely emotes. The Woman Who Loves Me is beautifully emotional. The Girl I Read barely emotes. And The Girl I Want To Bump Into is beautifully emotional. I adore the poking, prodding, leading I have to do with women who don't emote. But I also adore the passive observation I have to do with women who do emote. It's all joyful.

No, AncapFTW. I implied that you must be feeling something, because it's logical that you must be feeling it. Do you realize that implications, by their definition, are unsaid? You are anti-NAP because you're telling someone who has never violated the NAP that he has no self-control. What has happened in every single example wherein I posted my flirting skills and banging skills? (1) A host of individuals has proven that I've violated the NAP. OR (2) No one has commented on whether I've violated the NAP, because it's rather damn obvious that my examples don't violate the NAP. Right! The second one! Now, the simplest explanation is that I have sufficient self-control and wisdom, because every time I flirt and every time I bang, I don't violate the NAP. But the explanation that AncapFTW prefers is that I've no self-control and no wisdom, despite having never broken the NAP because I take risks. Your preferences for certain explanations are both revealing and amusing, and I thank you for allowing me to remain in my amused masterful Frame. Kevin Beal's decision to take your side, rather than pointing out the obvious flaws in your position, has also been revealing. And I thank him for allowing me to remain in my amused masterful Frame. (As one FDR member pointed out to me in PM, in reference to him, "THE SALT IS REAL!") ------------------- By the way, when you said, "There's no point in talking to you.", that's actually wrong. The point of talking to me is to explore the degree to which you're anti-NAP. You know, "Self-knowledge" and all that. So, is it TRUE that telling people who have never violated the NAP that they shouldn't risk violating the NAP makes you anti-NAP? In my mind, it does. And I've argued my point. Will you avoid the discussion or open-mindedly participate in it?

Here's an article from advice-columnist "Dear Prudence". http://www.slate.com/articles/life/dear_prudence/2015/06/dear_prudence_parents_forcing_a_boy_to_be_a_girl_for_gender_enlightenment.html ------------------- What do Alice Amell, Nathan Diehl, iHuman, AncapFTW, Rainbow Jamz, and other pro-transgender individuals have to say now? "Oh, but we had no idea things like this would happen!" (Really? You stand behind a lobby that repeatedly calls its critics "hateful", "transphobic", and "unenlightened" - while claiming that you couldn't predict that such extreme moralistic language would produce results like the one's above?) It's mean of me to predict your responses, so I'll let you respond for yourselves. But if you respond with silent apathy, you'll know why I'll never support a transgender or pro-transgender individual, no matter how noble he presents himself. Because once a ten year old gets emotionally abused so that his parents can feel "enlightened", all bets are off. AND if you're not perceptive enough to realize that no ten year old girl will ever be forced to do masculine activities in order to become "gender enlightened", then you're a pawn in the war against masculinity and side with Stefan's repeated admonition, "Man bad; woman good."

No, Nathan. That's not the problem. The problem is that Alice is just one person, but transgenders are hundreds or thousands of people. Jpahmad listed the following: DSM-5 Criteria for Borderline Personality Disorder Presence of five or more of the following in many contexts beginning in early adulthood: Frantic efforts to avoid abandonment Unstable interpersonal relationships in which others are either idealized or devalued Unstable sense of self Self-damaging, impulsive behavior in at least two areas, such as spending, sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, and binge eating Recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures or self-injurious behaviors (e.g., cutting self) Marked mood reactivity Chronic feelings of emptiness Recurrent bouts of intense or poorly controlled anger During stress, a tendency to experience transient paranoid thoughts and dissociative symptoms In response, Alice Amell said, "But I'm not like that, and I'm not like that, and I'm certainly not like THAT." But none of these are the point. Do the overwhelming majority of transgender individuals experience: "Frantic efforts to avoid abandonment"? (Absolutely.) Do the overwhelming majority of transgender individuals experience: "Unstable interpersonal relationships, in which individuals are either idealized or devalued?" (Definitely.) Do the majority of transgender individuals experience, "Unstable sense of self?" (Yes.) The entire list reads, "Definitely. Of course. Yes. Absolutely." for the majority of transgender individuals. But in response you want us to say, "Oh, but Alice Amell isn't like that. And iHuman isn't like that. So, because they're not like that, please look the other way as five year olds are taught there's no such thing as gender and eight year olds are given puberty-delaying drugs." We're not going to do that, Nathan. We're going to protect our children. Transgender individuals can be transgender all they want, but they can't claim equality with non-transgender individuals. A 71% (or higher) suicide rate automatically disqualifies their claim of equality.

It's impossible for you to simultaneously say, "I'm saying "it's risky, and dangerous to use, so you should either not use it or be very careful how you use it." AND TO DENY experiencing the heavy weight of your assumption that "the best way to love someone is to not cause them pain!" The assumption that you shouldn't cause pain on the people you claim to love CAUSES you to constantly state, "PUA is risky and dangerous to use, so you should either not use it or be very careful how you use it." The assumption that you shouldn't cause pain on the people you love CAUSES you to assume that I don't support the NAP, even though YOU don't support the NAP - (because you want to advise "caution" and "not using" of actions that MAY cause harm, instead of advising "caution" and "not using" of actions that HAVE BEEN DEMONSTRATED to cause harm. Surely you know the difference between murder / rape (actions that logically have been demonstrated to cause harm every single time they're conducted) and "not putting nuts in everything at your restaurant too, because both could very easily hurt people." (actions which are NOT-AT-ALL harmful to most people, are in fact ENJOYED by many people, and easily worked-around)! ( Welcome to MMX2010's restaurant of nutty goodness; please be advised that we love nuts so much that we incorporate them into everything we make. Those with nut allergies are peacefully encouraged to eat elsewhere.) Unless, maybe, you really don't. In which case, call in Stefan. He'll help you with that.

Also good, possibly funnier: "To find out who rules over you, simply find out whom you're not allowed to downvote."

Thank you, Joel. But I find my posts here rather sad. Take about forty minutes to browse both the first ten pages and last three pages of this thread, and definitely read every post in those eleven pages by The Lizard of Oz. If you aren't bawling your eyes out while reading the last three pages, there's seriously something wrong with you. http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-30625.html I love the way The Lizard of Oz learned to evolve his posts over time. Simple posts like, "Kimber, thanks for following up with the start date. The wagon welcomes you as of 12/20/2013." took ten pages for him to develop, but they became the glue that holds the thread together. And the way he took the time to address every poster who joined, asked questions, fell off the wagon, got back on the wagon, and/or ultimately succeeded displays devotion, depth-of-concern, and true empathy. The Lizard of Oz has never heard of Stefan Molyneux. He may even be a statist, or a religious person. But who among here doubts his commitment to virtue? And, more importantly, Where is FDR's version of The Lizard Of Oz? Why, among the people who have been here for three years or longer, are there so few whom I would give a Reputation point to? We, like TLoZ, have time, a keyboard, and our minds. We have Stef; he doesn't. So why is he out-competing us? ---------------- I'm glad that I'll be using my June 17th call-in show to address Stefan about some of these issues. But I'd be much more glad if this forum were so awesome that I didn't need to call in.

The travesty happens when Likes overpower Reputation. People strive to acquire more and more Likes, by doing less and less work. After all, if the shallow is equally "Like-able" as the deep, why pursue depth? And if your shallow snarky comments provide you with pleasure, and provide the board members who upvote it with pleasure, then where's the travesty? The travesty happens when the shallow overpowers the deep by being given the same emotional currency as the deep. And where there is no depth, there is no community - just fleeting emotional connections expressed in green boxes or red ones. (The end result? Some people feel happy towards the Green-Boxed people and angry towards the Red-Boxed people; others feel happy towards the Red-Boxed people and angry towards the Green-Boxed people. And so we're divided into emotional tribes, rather than united towards common purpose.) ----------------------- At the Roosh Forum, getting a triple-digit Reputation score means something. One of the esteemed members has shepherded dozens of men out of alcoholism by simply asking them not to drink for a year, and providing encouragement when they fail. Another of the esteemed members is a mid-forty's man who's extremely muscular AND into philosophy AND so eloquently understands music, female narcissism, and Millennial Avoidant Anxiety Attachment Disorders. (Hmm, how old are you, Kevin, and how old are the women you prefer to date?) Another is a Christian, anti-evolutionist whose piercing intellect makes his every word feel like a punch in the face. Another is an extremely smart mid-20's Black man, who brings tear-inducing peaceful insights to every racially-charged thread. He - not you, not Stef, not FDR - has helped me eliminate all of the racism that was introduced into my heart as a child. -------------------- What does a triple-digit green score on FDR mean? Nothing. Nothing at all. Where is FDR's equivalent of AnonymousBosch? Where is our Lizard of Oz? Where is our Excelsior? (Well, there's Stef.....and Stef.....and, oh yeah, Stef.) To realize that the Roosh forum is primarily focused on banging girls, but possesses a much larger collection of Men-of-Depth, Men-of-Character, Men-of-Caring, Men-of-Concern, and Men-of-Awesome than does Freedomain Radio is a travesty. But, then again, maybe your snarky comments will change that, right? I mean, it's not like you're so good at programming that you could implement the Roosh V Forum's Likes / Reputation system just to see if my praise of it has merit. Because if you were, your decision to produce snark instead of skillful change would be quite insulting to both yourself and this forum, right?

Thanks for the correction, Kevin. However, you could've also commented on AncapFTW's self-created chains, Frosty's self-created chains, and your own self-created chains. While AncapFTW is chaining himself with worries that certain types of flirting may hurt women, or Frosty is chaining himself with concerns that some forms of PUA may risk violating the NAP, and you're chaining yourself with concerns that acquiring certain flirting behaviors is a betrayal of Who You Really Are, I am free to successfully ask out a much younger woman on the very night the best woman I've ever loved told me she has fallen in love with another, better man. ------------------- I had a conversation with a man who's much younger than you, and Pick-Up Artistry came up. Him: So you've basically just got to be yourself, and confidently broadcast it. Me: No! First, you've got to become what she wants, and then you've got to be yourself! Think of what it's like to write with your opposite hand; it's really uncomfortable until it isn't. And the moment it's no longer uncomfortable, it's Who You Really Are. Now, you can mind-fuck yourself by asking which of these versions is really you: the old version who couldn't write with his opposite hand, or the new version that comfortably can. And you can mind-fuck yourself by asking how can Fakeness become Real. Or you can just shut up, become what she wants, and learn to enjoy the transformation. Because if you don't become what she wants, you're telling her that What She Wants is wrong. And are you really so smart that you know What She Wants is wrong? Who are you to judge what she wants? ----------------- That kid, who's younger than you, not-at-all trained in philosophy, and therefore not-nearly-as-smart-as-you beamed in self-knowledge, and said, "I've never had it explained to me like that. You're right." Why can't you? Why do you follow my posts, looking for the smallest corrections you can make, rather than comment on larger, more transformative issues? -------------------- By the way, Kevin, if I were to ask, "Is it a possibility that you're just infected with a rare virus that's distorting your thinking skills?", my question is of course a possibility. But referencing possibilities like this masks the other possibility, "But of course, I could totally be wrong here." So the honest version is, "Is it a possibility that you're just infected with a rare virus that's distorting your thinking skills? Of course, it's possible. But it's also possible that you're not infected with such a virus and are, in fact, thinking quite well." And the dishonest version is, "Is it a possibility that you're just infected with a rare virus that's distorting your thinking skills?" AncapFTW resorted to the dishonest version. And you had a chance to point out that he was being dishonest. Which you missed.

Do you feel the heavy weight of your assumption that, "The best way to love someone is not to cause them pain!"? Do you even realize that this is your core belief? Did you get that core belief from banging a whole bunch of girls, all of whom became extremely self-destructive after you broke up with them? (If so, I empathize, but Not All Girls Are Like That. And No Healthy Girl Is Like That. You should schedule a call-in show with Stefan to talk about this; he's a master at untying moral responsibility surrounding these issues.) (But if not, I don't empathize with you at all. I just correctly deem you as stuck in chains of your own creation, trying unsuccessfully to get me to wear them.)

My story, (and I'm sticking to it), is that my ability to ask brilliant questions causes me to have such a low reputation. The simplest point I can make is about Andrew. If Andrew told me that he has slept with about a hundred women, but has never formed emotional connections with them, I'd say, "Whoa, dude. You're seeking women for self-validation purposes, rather for their value as human beings. You need to avoid women, and look inwards to determine your motivations towards and conclusions about women." But Andrew has the opposite problem. He is 24 and has never had a girlfriend. Hence, my advice is opposite, "STOP examining your intentions and motivations. And just go interact with Real Women. Let them smile at you, curse you out, sneer at you, have sex with you, tell you they love you, and so on. GET OUT OF YOUR HEAD." (I despise all advice in this thread which asks, "Andrew, what are your values? What do you want in a woman?" - because that advice requires him to go into his head.) -------------------- The not-so-simplest points I can make concern you, J. D.. I get that I'm one of only a few FDR members who reads TheLastPsychiatrist. I get that his words are challenging, his writing style slippery, and his inside-jokes obscure. I also get that he's able to make you think he's going to eviscerate People You Hate, only to sneakily and inevitably eviscerate You. He sledgehammers your most sensitive and important parts - the ones that have been causing problems for years. His one-liners! Sweet, sharp, deadly, painful poison AND remedy! "The goal of your ego is not to change." "Narcissism is the ego's defense against change." TLP (not Stefan) made me realize that everyone has two masters: The Fearful One who makes excuses not to change, and The Strong One who needs to take over so that you can fearlessly pursue what you want by changing. And I can spot The Fearful One in others oh-so-well now. For example, "I don't know why I would need to empathize with other members of the dance class. It was clear that I was the worst male lead in nearly every class, and some women actually refused to dance with me a second time." (Get this. Part of you, The Strong One, was smart enough to realize you absolutely suck at emotionally connecting with women, mostly because you absolutely suck at emotionally connecting with yourself. The only emotion you feel when self-connecting is Anxiety/Abandonment. So The Strong One steers you into THE PERFECT METAPHOR for both your problem and the solution. You cannot dance while you are thinking; you cannot dance when you are anxious; you cannot lead a woman when you're focused on yourself. To lead the girl, you must READ THE GIRL. And you will screw it up royally the moment you go inside your head even just a little bit. But if you let The Strong One bullishly, callously, determinedly lead The Fearful One through the learning process, you'll finally get that you have A Strong One inside of you.) (Naturally, The Fearful One is an idiot who wants to be in control of everything. So, of course The Fearful One makes excuses designed to make him take control. "No! So many women refused to dance with me a second time!" (The Strong One doesn't give a crap.) "No! I don't know why I'm supposed to empathize with the women there!" (The Strong One knows that empathy for angry women is an emotional connection with them - which is the Exact Reason you're here!) "No! I'm the worst dancer here!" (The Strong One knew this was going to happen, and wants you To Do What Needs To Be Done.)) And for another example, "I got better over time, but I eventually lost interest because I started dating a women I met at one of the classes, further proof that I was there primarily to pick up women and not improve my dancing abilities." (The Strong One is seriously thinking about hanging himself now, because he knows this is just a stupid excuse from The Fearful One. Why couldn't you have just dated the woman AND regularly attended the dance class, regardless of whether she wanted to go? That's exactly what The Strong One would've done, because The Strong One always knows What Needs To Be Done, and then he just does it.) (But the Fearful One is excellent at detecting moral violations where none exist, paralyzing the Strong One from Doing What Needs To Be Done. "Lack of integrity! Hypocrisy!" Madness.) The Strong One doesn't care when other people get resentful of self-deprecating humor. Also, The Strong One is deviously clever. What are the words? "I've come here to learn about dancing, but I suck at it. I'll do my best to ensure you have quite the crappy time. *smirk*") I'm quite good at combining extremely exaggerated language with extremely exaggerated emotionally-opposite facial expressions. The words are negative and weak, but the smirk is optimistic and strong - and the double-exaggeration creates utter confusion. And a confused woman is in no position to insult you, because she's too confused. Now, if she likes you, she ignores the weak and assumes the strong "is really who you are". But if she doesn't like you, she ignores the strong and assumes the weak "is really who you are". The Strong One doesn't care either way. He's just here to practice his confusion-inducing transparently horrible acting. The Strong One is here to do What Needs To Be Done. --------------------------------------- My ultimate point can be summed up in three simple words: READ THE GIRL. My last thirty-six hours have been pretty intense. The first thing that happened is that I randomly bumped into a much younger girl whom I know reasonably well, while she was working in a fast food place. I read in her interactions that she was happy to see me, but when she asked if I was still doing my job, I quickly stated, "Yes, and I'm going to be about five minutes late to my next appointment." The speed with which she bounded to get my food made me conclude, "At least moderately interested." - but I had already said I needed to leave, so I asked her when she was working again. She told me that she was working the next night, and I concluded, "I'm going to ask her out tomorrow, and she's smart enough to know that I'm going to do so." The second thing that happened is that the most virtuous and amazing woman I've ever loved, (who has also told me she loved me), has rapidly fallen in love with another man. He is better than me. So it is just that she prefers him to me. And the way she broke up with me was so respectful, honest, open, caring...all the traits that make her so amazing were displayed at what could've been a very damaging moment in my life. And she displayed those traits because she was protecting me from that damage. So, of course, I get practically zero sleep. And I plow through my work day with a degree of grace and dignity that made The Strong One proud. The question arises, "Am I going to ask the girl out?" The Fearful One gives "excellent" FDR-approved advice, "Of course not. You need to reflect upon the mistakes that you made with the virtuous woman, because if you don't self-reflect, then you'll get stuck in a repetitive loop of specific mistakes!" The Fearful One also gives "excellent" practical advice, "How can you reasonably expect to hit on any girl when you're so sad about what happened? She'll easily read the sadness all over your face, then she'll reject you! You've gotten zero sleep, and you probably look like hell. Rest up, keep going to the place, and then ask her out." The Strong one says, "Keep your promise." So I drive to the place, but it takes about 40 minutes. And that 40 minutes is perfect for allowing The Fearful One to develop strategies/scenarios AND worries/admonitions. I arrive, and I can instantly feel The Strong One take over. "This must be done." "Find the joy." "Her Yes equals Joy; Her No also equals Joy." "Trust." I get there, she says, "Oh you're back." - but she gives no facial expression. I love it when girls involuntarily reveal their sexual attraction, because I love love love the Aloof Asshole Challenge responses that emerge from my mouth. Zero facial expression? Uh oh... But it's her voice! That slightly-higher pitched sound, coupled with the glacial facial expressions, paint a picture of a very smart girl who doesn't emote very well. I go dead-honest, with no greeting. "I was going to ask you out for coffee yesterday." She's not surprised, "Oh. What time?" Acceptance. Joy. I read the girl. ------------------------------------ What if all you need to do is Read The Girl? Are you willing to drop everything else, in order to Read The Girl? Can you see that regret is one of the things you'll need to drop, if you want to Read The Girl?

The Roosh V Forum uses a more complex system consisting of Likes and Reputation Points. Likes are used to provide instantaneous appreciation for a wide variety of posts, whether a funny joke, a great meme, a quasi-heroic story about a man braving the elements to bang a hot chick, a misogynistic comment that strikes the right chord of seriousness and shitlordery, or a really insightful post. Every user can give or receive infinite Likes per day, and no Likes require explanation. Here's an amazing post by esteemed user The Lizard of Oz, which received 124 Likes, one of which was mine. http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-37819.html ------------------------- Rep Points are the gold standard of the Forum, and are given and received with solemn reverence. Each user may only give one precious Rep Point to any single user, and may only receive one Rep Point from any single user. So if a specific post moved you deep inside your soul, that's worth a Rep Point. Or if a specific post gave you an insight for which you will be eternally grateful, that's worth a Rep Point. My current reputation is 12, in only 260 points, which is a pretty high Posts-to-Reps ratio. http://www.rooshvforum.com/reputation.php?uid=29024 The Rep Point I received from AnonymousBosch made me smile for days, but my favorite one is from SpiderKing, because I really liked my comment here: http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-46980-post-1007858.html#pid1007858 But the most important aspect of Rep Points is that each one must be explained. Therefore, highly-esteemed posters (with triple digit Reputation scores) can be browsed for hours at a time. And you can acquire both a sense of why that particular user is highly repped, and a broad knowledge of that poster's specialized and most beautifully expressed knowledge. These highly-esteemed posters have been so important to me that my brain whispers their names with well-deserved respect: AnonymousBosch, scorpion, The Lizard of Oz, Excelsior, Roosh, Tuthmosis, Days of Broken Arrows, 2Wycked, Quintus Curtius, Beyond Borders, jariel... That NON-Anonymous Hierarchy and aggressive moderating against low-post-count noobs creates a sense of stillness and self-reflection. As in, "Sure I can post this, but has someone else with a higher reputation already posted it in a much more eloquent way?" Or, "So that man's example is what every man is capable of, provided he solemnly and consistently works for it. I should stop wasting my potential." ------------------------- Here? All of the upvotes are equivalent to the Likes on the Roosh V Forum, and boards whose posters compete for Likes tend toward the sensationalistic, the petty, and the cliquey (as Kevin Beal noted here: "During the span of a couple weeks over a few threads, I got like 50 upvotes one time. The power to affect a reputation score that dramatically is surely a sign that there is too much unchecked power in this mob rule of an online community."). Sure, the occasional highly-insightful post gets deservedly-upvoted. But the fact that the highly-insightful is blended with the merely-funny is a travesty.

I agree with all of this. But Joel never expanded upon his situation, so I've nothing but my own assumptions to go on. And I assumed that he's single and finds these women virtuous. Hence, I hope that he's having sex with at least one of them. (Or, at bare minimum, I hope he has very-quick-to-develop plans for discerning whether they want sex with him.) Because if he isn't, then he's not on-board with the most important parts of Stefan's message. ------------------- If he has a whole bunch of legitimate reasons that "it's complicated", then I hope he's not using his wonderful emotional connections with these virtuous women to avoid hitting on women in real life. One of the members of the FDR NYC Meet-Up Group describes himself as "having been in therapy for years" - and I was told that he hasn't been with a woman for many years, (perhaps as many as five?). It would be nauseating if Joel followed this path, especially because he is Joel. Eyes on the prize, and all that.

This used to be true. It is no longer true. Adapt or die. I argued this point quite eloquently to Matt D in this post, but he didn't Adapt, so he is currently Dying. (He doesn't have a girlfriend, so he's not currently in a position to reproduce.) You, too, are currently Dying, because you think sex is still largely tied to reproduction. Adapt. -------------------- https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43965-friends-with-benefits/page-4#entry403716

Why does he have to only join social clubs that he's passionate about? Why can't he simultaneously join social clubs that he's passionate about and social clubs that he hates? And why, when dancing with others, did you focus on your own sense of shame / non-enjoyment? Why did you acquire self-knowledge by speculating that the lack of coordination you feel must've stemmed from not being held as an infant? (You could've, instead, empathized with every crappy male dancer in the place. Or empathized with every woman not enjoying herself in that place. Or both. And, from there, you could've focused away from your own pain by providing encouragement to the men who were struggling just as you did. Or you could've turned your sense of shame into a joke that made you feel better. Or you could've turned your sense of shame into a joke that made HER feel better. Or you could've just said, "I've come here to learn about dancing, but I suck at it. I'll do my best to ensure you have quite the crappy time. *smirk*") You had millions of ways to behave in that social space, but the way you tell it makes me feel that you were compelled to choose the behaviors you chose. ------------------------- Edited to add: If you had taken the dance class with the implicit goal of facing your fears, then you would've realized that you "won" by merely showing up, and that any added enjoyment was icing. That icing could've then been spread to others, from a genuine awareness of how great it is to face your childhood fears. From there, women may or may not have flocked to you. They may or may not have respected you. They may or may not have had sex with you. But they would've provided emotionally honest feedback to a man who was emotionally honest about his intentions and goals. Mini-rant: Why the hell does it never dawn on people that facing your fears is just-as-much meant to connect you to other people's fears? And why the hell does it never dawn on people that getting in touch with your own childhood wounds is just-as-much meant to make you aware of everyone else's childhood wounds? Does our avoidance of pain, especially social pain, leave us blind to the fact that other people are just as hurt (if not more hurt) than we are?

My first attempt at explaining my position didn't pass through the moderator's filter, so here's take two. Stefan's ultimate message is that we're all supposed to find virtuous people of the opposite sex, reproduce with that person because they are virtuous, and then raise our children peacefully. Joel Patterson's statement focuses on the joy he feels when having virtuous women as friends, but if he elevates his enjoyment of these women's company above seeking sex, reproduction, and childbirth with them, then he's not on board with Stefan's ultimate message. And if Joel's words (intentionally or not) lead another man to elevate his enjoyment of virtuous women's company above seeking sex, reproduction, and childbirth with them, then Joel's words will have led that man to being not on board with Stefan's ultimate message.

Pointing at biology is exactly like pointing at the moon and saying, "Do you see that large, bright circular object in an otherwise dark sky?" And when the transgenders and their supporters say, "No? What object are you talking about?", we reply, "You can't see the object? There must be something wrong with your vision." Calling someone non-empathetic because they don't want to acknowledge lies-as-truth is a perversion of philosophy. It also places empathy and "mystical revelations of feelings" above truth, which is why it's a perversion of philosophy.