MMX2010

Okay. So what values do you have? What values do you think I have? And what are you going to do if/when I insist that those aren't my values?

Right, so it's NOT that anything I've done has actually violated the NAP. It's that you feel uncomfortable by what I'm doing. It's NOT that I'm actually guilty; it's that you've heard that some people who share the label "PUA" have done some horrible things. You're not making an argument here, dude. You're just asking me whether it's possible for something to be true. (Logical fallacy known as "Begging the Question".) And once you use the word "manipulate women better", you're poisoning the well by asking us to assume that PUA is corrupt. This is exactly like how anti-capitalists ask us to assume that all Rich Businessmen are corrupt, and all Al Sharpton followers ask us to assume that all White people are corrupt. Now you're asking me to assume that I have "an inability to have a serious, long-term relationship", rather than assuming that I have an "unwillingness to enter into a serious, long-term relationship unless certain needs are met".

My argument here is a little subtle, so bear with me. When labmath2 calls transgenderism a "movement", he's referring to the combination of movies depicting transgender in a positive way, media shaming people who think transgender is stupid as "transphobic", and people arguing that "Transgender doesn't harm anyone". Those are political goals to normalize transgender, as if, "It's always been around..." is a proper argument for normalizing anything. Back in the day, it used to be that transgendered individuals could "do their thing", and everyone else could either ignore them, point and laugh at them, overtly feel disgusted by them, or actively support them. And nobody really cared what those non-transgender individuals did, so long as transgender had its own space outside of normal, respectable society. I've no beef with transgender individuals, but I've massive beef with the normalization of transgender behavior - (to the point where children as young as eight are allowed to identify as transgender and get hormonal treatment). ============= http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sex-change-treatment-for-kids-on-the-rise/

First of all, you didn't read me accurately. Secondly, if a piece of advice is objectively true, but the OP refuses to follow it without providing a rational counter-argument, then you know he's not really interested in obtaining/pursuing the truth about both himself and male/female relationships. He, instead, prefers an imaginary domain where the women comport themselves to his fantasies about How They Should Be. That, alone, is grounds for moral ostracism. Rape and kidnapping aren't the only forms of aggression, Troubador. Refusal to acknowledge truth always leads to aggression, which is why you should morally ostracize people who don't acknowledge truths. Now, if you want to state that no forms of advice given were objectively true, then: (1) make that argument, (2) allow me to counter-argue, and then (3) we'll see what happens. Anyone who refuses to accept truth is harming himself. From there, he will inevitably try to harm others by advocating that his falsehood is true. Anyone who refuses to accept non-objectively-true advice isn't harming himself. You need to distinguish between the two types of advice.

I hope you're having sex with at least one of these women, because if you're not, you're not succeeding.

For female behavior, there is no such thing as "Alpha Female Traits", because alpha females are those who have the loyalty and support of Alpha Males. For male behavior, I much prefer this more-detailed list or traits. Vox himself admits that his classification system isn't "immediately understandable and immediately applicable" - but if you stick with it long enough, you get it. The most important warning it provides is that, although philosophy is intended to move a man from Gamma and Omega to Delta, Beta, or Alpha, many people misuse philosophy in order to remain Gamma and Omega. It also predicts how and why Gammas and Omegas will misuse philosophy. --------------------- http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/01/roissy-and-limits-of-game.html I have a great deal of respect for Roissy's analysis of the female psyche. Even the mere terms he applies, in addition to being hilarious, provide tremendous insight for the average, clueless man who finds himself bewildered by the behavior of women around him. After all, what man could possibly assign much importance to the logical conclusions of a woman's "rationalization hamster". And many of the techniques he recommends will significantly increase the average man's ability to get off on the right foot with women regardless of whether a casual encounter or marriage is the goal. However, it must be kept in mind that Roissy's social construction of Game is intentionally limited in two ways. The overly simplistic division of men into Alphas and Betas is the natural result of his laser-like focus on scoring vs not scoring. Either you score or you don't score; scoring is Alpha and not-scoring is Beta. QED. And this singular, binary focus also leaves out the many other applications of the male social hierarchy that have nothing to do with women, much less sex. Note that this is not a criticism of Roissy's construct or his conclusions, but rather a tangential expansion of it. Whereas in Game there are only Alphas who score and Betas who don't, except for the Betas who learn the secret of becoming synthetic Alphas, I have come over time to view things in the following manner: Alphas - the male elite, the leaders of men for whom women naturally lust. Their mere presence sets women a-tingle regardless of whether she is taken or not. Once you've seen beautiful married women ignoring tall, handsome, wealthy, and even famous men because that ugly old troll Henry Kissinger walked in the room, you simply can't deny the reality of Alphadom. Example: Captain Kirk, Big from Sex in the City. Suggestion: Do you see a scoreboard? Right, so relax already! Betas - the lieutenants, the petty aristocracy. They're popular, they do well with women, they're pretty successful in life, and they may even be exceptionally good-looking. But they lack the Alpha's natural self-confidence and strength of character. They're not leaders and they're not the men to whom women are helplessly drawn. Most men who like to think they're Alphas because of their success are actually Betas. Most Betas won't change their game because they don't really have any need or reason to do so. This is probably the easiest social slot in which to find yourself, since the Beta enjoys many of the benefits of Alphadom without being trapped in the Alpha's endless cycle of competition. Example: Brad Pitt Suggestion: Have some compassion for the less naturally fortunate. Try to include them once in awhile. Deltas - the great majority of men. These are Roissy's Betas. Almost all of you reading this are Deltas despite the natural desire to believe that you are a brave and bold Alpha snowflake notwithstanding. Deal with it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a Delta, it's just a simple statistical and observable reality. The sooner you accept the truth about yourself, the sooner you will be able to control your unconscious inclinations and modify your behavior in a manner that will help you achieve your goals. I've gone out of alphabetical order here because delta symbolizes change, which most Deltas are capable to some extent. Hence the synthetic alpha instruction set known as Game. Example: Probably you. Suggestion: Never forget that there are plenty of girls on the girl tree. Gammas - the obsequious ones, the posterior puckerers, the nice guys who attempt to score through white-knighting, faux-chivalry, flattery, and omnipresence. All men except true Alphas will occasionally fall into Gamma behavior from time to time, this is the behavior and attitude that Roissy is attempting to teach men to recognize and avoid. The dividing line between a Gamma and a Delta is that the Gamma genuinely believes in the Gamma reality to the very core of his soul whereas the Delta is never truly comfortable with himself when he behaves in this manner despite being thoroughly indoctrinated in it by his culture. Example: Probably you if you've found yourself complaining about your lack of female companionship over the last two years. Suggestion: Remember that the statement "all are fallen" applies to women too. She isn't any more naturally pure or holy or ethereal than you are. Lambdas - the gays. They have their own social hierarchy. They can fill any role from Alpha to Omega, but they tend to play the part rather than actually be it because the heterosexual social construct only encompasses the public part of their lives. Example: Neil Patrick Harris. Suggestion: Straights will be more tolerant if you keep the bathhouse behavior behind closed doors. Sigmas - the lone wolves. Occasionally mistaken for Alphas, particularly by women and Alphas, they are not leaders and will actively resist the attempt of others to draft them. Alphas instinctively view them as challenges and either dislike or warily respect them. Some Deltas and most Omegas fancy themselves Sigmas, but the true Sigma's withdrawal from the pack is not a reaction to the way he is treated, it is pure instinct. Example: Clint Eastwood's movie persona. Suggestion: Entertain the possibility that other people are not always Hell. The banal idiocy is incidental, it's not intentional torture. Omegas - the losers. Even the Gamma males despise them. That which doesn't kill them can make them stronger, but most never surmount the desperate need to belong caused by their social rejection. Omegas can be the most dangerous of men because the pain of their constant rejection renders the suffering of others completely meaningless in their eyes. Omegas tend to cluster in defensive groups; the dividing line between the Omega and the Sigma is twofold and can be easily recognized by a) the behavior of male Betas and Deltas and b) the behavior of women. Women tend to find outliers attractive in general, but while they respond to Sigmas almost as strongly as they do to Alphas, they correctly find Omega males creepier and much scarier than Gamma males. Example: Eric Harris Suggestion: Your rejection isn't entirely personal. Observe the difference in your own behavior and the way the Betas act. And try not to start off conversations with women by sharing "interesting facts" with them. I'm not claiming that this hierarchy is science or incontrovertible fact, it's merely the lens through which I tend to view the current sexual-social hierarchy. I think it is a little more broadly useful from a theoretical perspective than the Game construct, even if it is less immediately applicable from a tactical point of view.

If we're providing truths that the OP doesn't want to acknowledge, then his leaving the thread is an act of moral cowardice for which we're morally obligated to ostracize him. Saying, "you're completely free to leave if you're not finding any value in what we're saying places his own emotional-desire-for-comfort above his moral-obligation-to-pursue-the-truth. I'm not surprised that you, who counsels the value of comfort, are appealing to his own comfort ahead of his pursuit of truth.

Absolutely. It's goal-post moving from, "Don't violate the NAP." to "Don't risk violating the NAP." (And if you can't tell the difference between "Don't do something." and "Don't risk doing something.", your mind is fogged.) Also, you know how socialists automatically assume that every business deserves to succeed, so that the really successful businesses are only succeeding based on cut-throat business practices that need to be regulated by a large-scale social body? (Because successful businesses couldn't possibly have gotten that way by better understanding how to provide services to their customers at cheaper prices?) Well, anti-PUAs all assume that every man deserves a loving wife who bangs him with constant enthusiasm, assume that sexuality ought to be regulated by a large-scale governing body (if not the state, then Stefan's podcasts), and assume that every man who bangs the largest number of women has something wrong with him - rather than assuming that these men just understand women's needs far better than they do. I wasn't speaking lightly when I called anti-PUAs socialist Anti-Libertarians. And now that I've made my argument, I expect cogent and sincere counter-arguments. But I'll await your silent downvotes instead.

The "degrees" argument is meaningless, because everyone has degrees of criminality, degrees of medical expertise, degrees of aggressive behavior, and degrees of philosophical integrity. But transgender only want to acknowledge the degrees of gender traits, without acknowledging the degrees of every other trait. Hilariously, many people do indeed want to acknowledge the degrees of many other traits. So you have transabled people - (who recognize that everyone has degrees of physical handicap by insisting that they're handicapped even though they could walk) - transracial people (not kidding, google, "transnigga") - and transhumans - (again, not kidding, google "otherkin").

Every woman is not biologically programmed to give unconditional love and emotional support to grown men. Every....single....one. No exceptions. Do you agree with this or not?

Most men who have poor self-esteem tend to assume that acquiring the virtuous love of an attractive chick will validate them somehow. But women aren't biologically designed to provide men with this type of love; they're (barely!) biologically designed to provide this type of love to their children. So when a man wants validating-love from a woman, he inadvertently casts himself into the childhood role, which is a massive turn-off for women. Your proposed solution is to have Andrew31 "no longer care about what other people think about him" - but that's a pitfall trap, too. Because when Andrew31 proposes a very wrong solution to any particular problem, we need him to care enough about what we think about him in order for him to realize that his solution is wrong. (If he doesn't care about us, and if he doesn't care about what we think, he'll implement that wrong solution - hurting everyone in his path.) So the actual solution is to pursue the truth in all cases, and the confidence that results will be the consequence of acquiring that truth. And this confidence will be extremely different from the confidence that Rainbow Jamz proposes ("comfort with self, via self-examination") and from the confidence that you propose ("comfort with self, via shedding off what other people think about you"). The truth of the matter with regard to male/female relationships is, "If you don't please her, she'll find someone else who will." From there, the first and most crucial question is, "What do women want, and how do I provide those things without violating any moral rules?" (You'll notice that this solution runs contrary to both your's and Rainbow Jamz's proposals.)

This is easily proven wrong through multiple examples, but I'll just pick one. Loser males who play video games all day, thereby contributing nothing to either the economy nor the advancement of the human species, are extremely "comfortable with themselves, to the point of loving themselves". Are these men surrounded with beautiful women who adore them? No. They're largely solitary. Why? Because relationships don't begin with the question, "Am I comfortable with myself?"; they begin with, "What does the other person want, and how do I provide it for them without breaking any moral rules?" Do you think it's surprising that your position, which begins, "Self-Knowledge is paramount to romantic relationships." leads to your conclusion that, " So if you're gonna be open, honest, and confident--since like attracts like, you will attract others who will be willing to reciprocate what they see as a mimic of themselves."? (From where I sit, your conclusion isn't surprising at all. You began this quest by looking at yourself, and your conclusion is that yourself is the answer. ) Meanwhile, my position begins, "Knowledge-of-the-Other is paramount to romantic relationships. Know who your woman is, know what she wants, and learn how to provide it to her without breaking any moral rules." What are the results of my initial position? Well, I can flirt just as easily with smart women as with stupid women. I can romance just-as-easily naïve twenty-somethings as hardened thirty-somethings. I can date multiple different types of women at once, knowing how their differences are more easily flattered and catered to (as well as how these differences inevitably close these women off to certain viewpoints). The man who presumes that romance happens when a woman likes what she sees because it's a mimic of herself inevitably finds himself less and less compatible with more and more women, simply because they're Not Like Him.

What's this guy's name? Is he married or not-married? How many women has he slept with? So I did a bit of Google sleuthing. His name is Leo Gura. His website is actualized.org. He doesn't list his age anywhere. He doesn't list whether he's ever been married. I don't expect him to list how many women he's slept with, but I was hoping that utopian (assuming that he's watched much more of Leo's videos) would know whether he's ever hinted.

It can be resolved when certain parties admit that they are quite libertarian with regard to economics and government, but outright socialistic and anti-libertarian when it comes to women and sex. I, personally, discovered that the moment I stopped replying to their objections and accusations, (preferring instead to flirt with beautiful and not-so-beautiful women), my detractors had nothing left to say.

Right. Meaning, you elegantly tried to tell me off. You are 24. You've never had a girlfriend. You've studied the most manipulative PUAs on the planet, without realizing that there are other, far more honest, far less manipulative PUAs out there. Meanwhile, I am 39. I've had girlfriends. I've had one-night-stands. I've had mistresses. I study the least manipulative and most honest PUAs out there. And yet you have the nerve to tell me BEFORE YOU HAVE EVEN HEARD WHAT I HAVE TO SAY that, "you're a manipulative PUA who's arguments for inner games can't possibly contribute to this topic." while also saying, "(I don't think people who I 'judge' should take my opinion too serousely)." Spelling errors, aside, Andrew31, telling someone their arguments are wrong before you've even heard them is the most serious thing you can do. It seriously shows all reasonable and rational people that you're not interested in hearing out alternative opinions. Instead, you're interested in shouting down all people who disagree with you - (who might, just might, know more than you do because they have what you want in real life). And if this attitude leaks into your interactions with women, (because how can it not?), you've just answered your question, "Why haven't I had a girlfriend?" --------------------------------------- Now that's funny. This is an ancap message board, right? So if a random poster were to come on here and say, "I'm trying to sell this product, what should I do?", we'd give him ancap marketing advice. Chief among this, we'd say: (1) You're not entitled to any profits, nor sales. (2) Your customers make the ultimate decision as to whether your product is worthwhile, and how much they're willing to pay for it. (3) So the ultimate truth is that you have to understand your customers: know what they want and provide it to them at the right price. Your feelings and thoughts about the product are irrelevant compared to those of your customers. Meanwhile, on this ancap message board, some random male dude just asked, "I'm trying to sell myself as a product, but it has never worked. What should I do?" And you've just given him the opposite of ancap advice! (1) You're entitled to any profits and sales, provided that you're doing what you enjoy. (2) Focus solely on your own thoughts and desires. Never change yourself to be more marketable to woman's desires. (3) Whenever there's a conflict between what women want and what you want, assume you're always right. Granted, you're not the only one on this board who thinks this way. Kevin Beal's rant about how he's tired of pretending to be someone he isn't comes to mind. But it is still amusing how little many male FDR members apply ancap-philosophy to relationships (and shout down the men, like me, who do).

Now THAT'S highly revealing, isn't it? You're withholding "the respect of answering" my questions solely because I'm "coming from a different world". You can't give an ultra-simple answer to the ultra-simple question, "Under which teacher did you study PUA?", because "MMX2010 argues from a different world."? Really!? I'll be blunt. If you think such a response conveys, "I, Andrew31, am an upstanding individual, dedicated to discovering truth above all else.", that response conveys the exact opposite. And if you think such a response conveys, "I, Andrew31, am so strong and so confident in my ability to identify and live truth!", that response conveys the exact opposite.

It's so much easier to find friends when you're more focused on being a friend.

I asked you earlier what PUA teacher you trained under, because only some of them focus on Inner Game, particularly questions about why you're learning PUA in the first place. If you don't focus on Inner Game, you a-s-s-u-m-e that there's only one reason to practice PUA, and that everyone else is, therefore, following your reasons. Case in point, you thought I was advising J. D. Stembal to open with challenging flirtation in order to be good with women, but I was advising him to take that tactic so that he could be proud of attending the event and fearlessly hitting on women. For strong Inner Game to be develop, the rewards of PUA can never be the women you succeed with; the reward must always be You.

Though this is true, it's nearly impossible (or quite possible to do, but at massive social cost) to change other peoples' opinions. Better off allowing them to have whatever opinions they want to have, and work on changing yourself.

That's interesting to me, because if you hadn't cared whether women would've seen through the "phoniness", you'd have played your cards much better. Realistically, you can't simultaneously "fool yourself into liking an activity" you hate and "overcome your fears of an activity". So a more genuine perspective would've been, "I'm doing this, even though I dislike it, because I'm looking to overcome my fears." From here, a woman's reaction to your presentation is irrelevant, since you're only approaching them to get over your fears of approaching. And from here, you can use aloof asshole personas to hit on the women, "I only came here because I was bored; maybe you dance well-enough to fix that, but we'll see."

That's pretty funny, but for me the funniest MGTOW-contradiction is their hatred of PUA. This means they want to refuse to satisfy the subset of female emotional needs connected with sexual attraction and yet be appreciated because of this refusal.

A blogger named The Last Psychiatrist coined the term "outsourcing the superego" to describe this phenomenon. It's not so much "shaming the kid in public" that's horrible - (though it is quite bad) - it's that the parent needs to get cultural approval for his decision to be upset by what the child has done.

Yes, JakeN. I definitely agree with you. Esteemed RVF member, scorpion, ranted against a certain subset of porn by stating, "The guys who watch this kind of porn are voluntarily psychologically cuckolding themselves. It's no wonder all kinds of weird fetishes and ED are on the rise. I can't imagine how messed up your brain and sexuality get if you watch hardcore porn like that for years on end." Calling women unicorns can have the same effect on the brain, although I appreciate it when calling them unicorns is a tongue-in-cheek way of saying, "Don't automatically assume, during the initial stages of getting to know her, that her virtuous act is a genuine lifelong behavior pattern."

Yes. That's why my motto is, "Anything for an audience." Just get close enough to her to make my pitch, and if she accepts, we're a couple. If she doesn't, we're not. MGTOW's would rather let other people permeate their ideas into women, hoping that these women will find them attractive and gallant for standing by and not participating. (Doesn't compute.)

A man in a coma isn't the same thing as a living individual who, through a series of choices made over years, becomes obese due to lack of exercise. I know that Stefan uses "coma guy" to raise important distinctions between UPB and APA, but the comparison isn't relevant here. Yes, because physical exercise has zero, if any, downsides, and cannot be substituted for - *AND* unfailingly aids you in the pursuit of truth and virtue. (It is necessary, but not sufficient.) No, because therapy is one of many ways to achieve magnanimity, and it's not nearly true that the majority of people who've sought therapy are magnanimous. Nor is it true that therapy has few (if any) downsides. Hence, to advocate either ostracism / creating separate tiers of individuals based on, "Who, here, has gone to therapy?" isn't philosophically rigorous. (Therapy is neither necessary, nor sufficient. It merely has helped some people.) Ostracism and Creating Separate Tiers of Individuals is an inherently moral (or immoral) act, so I'm glad that you can't remove morality from the analysis.