MMX2010

True, indeed. But now you know why I don't take MGTOW's seriously, preferring Roosh's NeoMasculinity instead. Under MGTOW's, you either abandon women to the cultural forces that are destroying us all or you wildly cheer on those cultural forces. But under NeoMasculinity, you fight for your women against these cultural forces.

There's a difference, Patrick, between "I observe that this particular aesthetic (specifically exercise) is universally preferred by all reasonable and healthy individuals." and "I think ALL APA's should be universal." (Physical exercise is the only APA that I endorse as universal.) If you don't understand the difference between "this particular example" and "every single example within a specific category", then you are operating from an agenda-driven perspective that vastly distorts your perception of human language. This goes triple for the two people who upvoted your comment, because they had both opportunity and the advantage of intellectual distance needed to spot your error, but instead supported it. If you admit that there's a great difference between "one particular APA" and "every possible APA that exists", then I will accept your advice as friendly. If not, I'll consider your advice demeaning and agenda-driven, (the opposite of friendly). Choose. Exactly. Then those psychological mind games to control their children turn into psychological mind games to control the thoughts, behaviors, and freedoms of adults-in-general, especially the ones they claim to love. People who resort to these mind games have no ability to participate in rational discussion, regardless of whether they've been to therapy or exercise regularly. They're still stuck in the violence/dominance, win/lose approach to every discussion. Stefan himself says of being raised in a statist system, "To see the farm is to leave it." Psychological mind games to control other people's perception of you is just-another-farm that must be seen, in order for you to leave.

Exactly. Philosophy is trying to find out what is true. Hence, using statements like, "Therapy is required for everyone in this group." to imply that, "Person X shouldn't be taken seriously because he hasn't gone to therapy." is anti-philosophical. The logical fallacy for this is called Poisoning The Well. Both. It is aesthetically preferable to be healthy. And since Stefan states as true that REASON + VIRTUE = HAPPINESS, then deliberately refusing to exercise means that you're deliberately placing a stumbling block between yourself and happiness. Which means you're not interested in pursuing the truth about yourself, your happiness, nor your body. (This is the complete opposite of "going to therapy", because "going to therapy" is not universally aesthetically preferable, nor does it have nearly the same odds-of-success as does routinely working out.) So whenever I meet someone new, I ask him if he works out. If he doesn't work out, I give him an argument from both personal experience and objective medical truth that he ought to work out. If he agrees, then I give him pointers on to how to better work out, and I follow up with him to ensure that his workouts are going well. Then, when he happiness invariably increases, I tell him, "I told you so." However, if he doesn't work out, then I don't take any of his complaints about happiness nor being able to find a relationship seriously, because he doesn't work out.

It's not. And I never said it was. I did, however, say that statements like, "Therapy is required for everyone who participates in this community." are moral statements, because they strongly hint at either Ostracism or Creating Separate Tiers of Individuals. Such statements can be used to suppress the valid arguments of Those Who Have Never Been To Therapy, (an experience I had during my first three FDR NYC Meet-Ups). And it's the truth-suppression aspect that makes such statements moral. In my observation, it varies based on an individual's behavior. Pure aesthetic preferences never create a desire to exclude, ostracize, nor create separate tiers of humans. For example, no one ever says, "I'm better than you are because I like vanilla ice cream." But once someone says or implies, "I'm better than you because X....", that's automatically a moral statement - because that statement can only be true when X is a moral issue and you have the correct moral argument. Humanity also has a horrible track record of using their aesthetic preferences to exclude others, as was illustrated in Doctor Seuss' Butter Battle Book. I just emailed you now. Sorry for the delay.

That's the plan. (And suddenly you realize why a 39-year old man like me listens to Demi Lovato. It's not because I agree with anything she believes, but because I know it's good for me to understand what she believes - because so many women between the ages of 19 and 23 believe it.) I posted the following reply to AnonymousBosch's post. --------------------- It's funny because I understand what you're saying, and I understand how to game it. They're trying to regain their innocence by sitting around, doing nothing, avoiding introspection, and - above all else - not doing any serious work. So her first step is to get with this dork. And it's great because they have such an "emotional connection" - but she knows (although she can't quite verbalize it) that it's oh-so-depressing. Naturally, it's his fault, so she needs his polar opposite - but not too opposite, because who wants to date a hyper-trigging shitlord? So I come along with minimal agreement on feminism, pro-gay rights, and other issues - but with an emotional aloofness that hints at a really sad childhood. Magically, I have the ability to agree with her political rants and complaints about her boyfriend like 10% of the time - but the other 80% I either ignore it by telling a funny story or shut it down with a raised eyebrow and the question, "Are we here to have a good time, or to sour the mood?" The other 10% of the time, I'm a shitlord. I'm her guy on the side, until I get bored of her. And so I need an exit strategy, which is among the most messed-up of exit strategies ever: HAPPINESS. No, seriously. Something like, "Ever since I changed my diet to a more red-meat based, vitamin supplemented, healthy fats approach, my mood has elevated. You should go on that diet, too." Or, "Ever since I've been reading The Last Psychiatrist, I've learned so much about the excuses I make to prevent myself from succeeding. You should read him, too." Just the subtle, but repeated hints that I'm happy, she isn't, and she should become happy by following my example will be enough to provoke her, "I don't think this is going to work out..." response. And it works because acquiring happiness through hard work is the last thing she wants to do. ------------------------ AnonymousBosch's reply was as follows: Running with this ball: Why would this passive, self-loathing type want to be in a relationship with a successful, interesting, happy man? Being the partner of a high value man would create expectations for her of having to raise her value to meet his: of working out; of dieting; of increased public-visibility; of needing to be socially-charming; of triggering that particular Millennial trait of craving positive attention whilst being threatened by the possibility of the potential negative attention that being noticed might bring; of living a more intense life with greater responsibility; and of the intimidating possibility of being taken outside her comfort zone and routine with the unpredictable passions of those who embrace living. It's easier for her to either just bang and next him; or gather attention via public rejection; convince herself he would have dumped her eventually anyway; and binge watch whatever new Netflix series is out whilst staying single, with no responsibilities to anyone but herself. There's definitely a new breed of woman who are seemingly-conditioned for self-extinction.

Which PUA teacher did you study PUA under? And how did you go about studying PUA?

There's a difference between "Therapy is a necessity for everyone in this group." and "Therapy worked really well for me, and you should probably try it. But I won't either judge you or ostracize you if you haven't been to therapy." The first is a moral argument - which requires it to be UPB. But the second is an aesthetic argument that's not even Aesthetically Preferable Action. (The Aesthetically Preferable Action is "to learn how to deal with violent people who aren't skilled in Win-Win Negotiations", not "to go to therapy".)

This was posted on the Roosh V Forum by esteemed-member, AnonymousBosch. ----------------- From my observation, the last 10 years of social media and the normalisation of the Smart Phone has rewired the Human Mind. Women have become disconnected from the idea of connection, except as a romanticised and idealised phantasm. They dream about finding 'the one', but, realistically, a boyfriend to them is just a complication in the way of the easy-distractions and self-affirmation of the smart phone, as are children. I'm expecting the next generation of largely-ignored children to respond as would children of alcoholics I've worked with, where they understood they were never as important to the parent as the bottle was. Hell, I suspect the majority of Millennial acting out, (victimhood, need for constant approval, catastrophisation, sexual dysfunction, fear of emotions, fear of losing control of self by having fun, conflict avoidance, addiction to heightened emotional states of chaos and drama, identification with wounded birds), comes from children who knew they were never as important to their mother as her career was, and never mattered to their father, because he wasn't there, or was impotent enough in the relationship to be invisible. The next generation are either going to become so ferociously-independent as to become more like Generation X, or become even more whiny and victimised. How does EvoPsych fit into a changing social landscape then, because, I'm telling you now, it's not going to be about being the biggest swinging dick in the room if girls get more positive reinforcement out of shaming celebrities and sports stars rather than dating them. You can blame 'bad game' all you want, but there is a deeper mental change happening. Matt Forney and I have recognised the Millennial indifference to content creation and how they are largely passive except when reacting to something. Roosh and I have mentioned a transition into Clown Game, as Millennials don't always react positively to too much confidence. (I mentioned in the Texting thread how I pitch my personality below jerk so I can dial it up or down). A girl looks to her smartphone seeking a distraction because she's incapable of entertaining herself. She's conditioning herself to the entertaining and trivial, away from commitment. If all you can offer a girl in this transitory period of re-normalisation is a telegraphed 'whassap' communication style and constant negging, I believe you'll be irrelevant to women within another seven years. As traditional female mating desires evolve into something else, you adapt or die. I say this as a guy who was advocating letting my physicality do all the taking and dialing down my intelligence only two years ago on here. Things are changing that quickly. ----- Further thought: If Evopsychs think Millennial Girls are drawn to a certain type of badboy alpha due to cocky overconfidence, there's simply too many subtypes of women with greater experience at distracting themselves with male approval at different points in their sexual history. Say there's three women I notice at a party: - Blonde cheerleader party girl type, the world is her oyster - University-educated career type, envies the cheerleader, but knows she's 'smarter' than her - Blue haired, tattooed, pierced waif, despises the cheerleader, is bored by the career types. I would operate on these assumptions: - Jerkboy Charisma coupled with physicality will work on the cheerleader, and work less as she approaches the wall. - I'd tailor the jerk for the career girl: increased verbosity, more snark, 'you and I are the only ones in the room who would get this'. My physicality would be less of an advantage: she'd be attracted to it, sure, but once I successfully fight off her suspicion that I'm a Dudebro / Dumb Biker. - The waif is looking for neither. She looks for a bad boy not out of sensing physical or social superiority in her partner, but a desire for a partner that appeals to her narcissistic self construct formed by her psychological issues. As such, she would be seeking a wounded bird to nurse back to health, (criminal, drug dealer, gang member) - my tattoos would be a huge advantage here - or she'd be seeking 'A Beautiful Loser', so they can both be Damaged Together, and the drama thereby would need to be dialled up, and I'd hint at a Dark Past. As society is transferring power away from Perky Cheerleader to the Blue-Haired, Damaged Waif, I'd expect her desires to become the norm. What fantasy is hugely-popular with women? The story of what seems like an Alpha Jerkboy, and whom everyone seems to think is a story about male dominance whilst missing the key attraction to women: he's actually a Wounded Bird the main character nurses back to health. (Insert picture of Fifty Shades of Gray here.) What fantasy is hugely-popular with Millennial women? (Insert picture of The Fault In Our Stars here.) Beautiful losers being damaged together, taken to the romanticised extreme of being cancerous. MMX2010 and I were discussing this song privately the other day, and now I see a deeper layer of greater clarity behind it: beautiful losers, being damaged together, trying to regain innocence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoG4_kMwr_s

Exactly this, especially mothers. Then, when raising children isn't as healing as they expected - (because children require constant care) - they take it all out on the children.

Just for the record, when you don't use the quote-feature, no one knows what part of my post you're responding to. Is it this, "What do you think would happen if you were to chase down Matt D, Kevin Beal, and/or Rainbow Jamz and ask.....no demand!....that they definitely comment that my specific usages of PUA either do or do not violate the NAP? Do you think they'd comment, or would they downvote you for being demanding?" (I hope not, because I didn't accuse you of believing that PUA violates the NAP.") Is it this, "No. No way. Once you admit it's ambiguous, then you can't claim it's universal - (unless you're going to assert that There's Something Wrong With Everyone Who Disagrees With You, which is, in fact, what Kevin Beal, Matt D., and Rainbow Jamz have done in this thread)." (I hope not, because it doesn't accuse you of believing that PUA violates the NAP.) So, unless you cut-and-paste a direct quote of mine that I can respond to, you're the one presenting the strawman. Is she the only girl you've dated since losing all the weight?

My experience is identical to labmath's, where the parents who don't spank are almost all extraordinarily passive-aggressive, prone to anger, and quick to humiliate / bully their children. Thus I agree with Hannah's speculation that society-as-a-whole condones (by not caring about) verbal and emotional abuse so much that they find Peaceful Parenting to either be: (1) an exact representation of what they're already doing - (which isn't even close to being true) OR (2) such an extreme mismatch with what they're already doing that it must be the wrong approach. Stopping spanking, no matter how much I agree with its importance, is roughly only 10% of the battle. The other 75% is promoting Peaceful Parenting in a way that challenges parent's (supposed) "rights" to verbally abuse their children.

I appreciate your ability to share a more nuanced understanding of PUA. I've said so multiple times, and don't mind saying it again. What do you think would happen if you were to chase down Matt D, Kevin Beal, and/or Rainbow Jamz and ask.....no demand!....that they definitely comment that my specific usages of PUA either do or do not violate the NAP? Do you think they'd comment, or would they downvote you for being demanding? Yes, that is my exact starting point. And I'm posting my starting point on the Freedomain Message Board, a community founded upon, (among other beliefs), LIBERTARIANISM. Libertarianism is the starting point that, with regard to political systems, all behaviors are permissible unless objectors can demonstrate that the NAP is violated. Meanwhile, in this very thread, my application of Libertarianism to MALE/FEMALE RELATIONSHIPS is downvoted, distrusted, and ostracized. Do you finally get how amusing this discussion is from my perspective? Exactly! The whole point of the NAP and UPB is that it's universally true, meaning that if someone doesn't agree with the NAP and UPB, you can correctly assume that there's something wrong with them, and subsequently ostracize them. However, my point has been.....this entire arduous thread....that: (1) There are mountains of evidence that women's reactions to PUA-deceit is largely positive. (1a) Because of Number One, it's extremely difficult to assert that the NAP and UPB are violated. (2) It is quite possible to create a version of PUA THAT DOES NOT rely upon heinous usages of deceit. (2a) That Roosh has already done this, and that I'm already doing this. (3) Because we're Libertarians, the burden of proof is always on the people who are objecting to someone's behavior AND NOT ON the person who wants to behave a certain way. (4) Because you're anonymous strangers on the internet, and the women I love and flirt with are from Real Life, I don't understand the cock-surety with which you demand that I change my behavior to please you. Notice, NOT to please the women I'm loving, flirting with, and sleeping with - but YOU. No. No way. Once you admit it's ambiguous, then you can't claim it's universal - (unless you're going to assert that There's Something Wrong With Everyone Who Disagrees With You, which is, in fact, what Kevin Beal, Matt D., and Rainbow Jamz have done in this thread). While I admire your restraint, I'd advise you to be careful whom you share company with. For neither Kevin Beal, Matt D., nor Rainbow Jamz consider that Assuming Something Is Wrong With The Majority of Males and Females isn't easy to hide. Thus, they hit on women - (or worse, they expect women to hit on them) - while possessing the default assumption that Something Is Seriously Wrong With This Woman while they are engaging in flirtatious behavior with her. Given that PUA works by tapping into a woman's ability to read subtext and subconscious communications, their Default Assumption of Female Defectiveness comes through in their flirting. And women hate that. (Ironically, I exploit women's loathing by pretending to be like that. But my pretenses are so over-exaggerated that of course they see through them, and of course they admire my ability to playfully poke fun at the loathsome men who've hit on them in the past.) ------------------- Here's an example that I pulled just last week. I'm pulling up to the McDonald's take-out window and the unattractive woman involuntarily smiled the moment she saw me. This is hyper-strong indication of sexual arousal, and I never turn down the opportunity to joyfully flirt with interested women - no matter how unattractive they are, (unless they're unattractive in a way that suggests mental illness). About a minute before driving up, I was listening to Demi Lovato's song "Neon Lights" - (Yes, I listen to Demi Lovato.) - but I turned it off because it's rude to have blaring music when talking to cashiers. When I saw her smile, I scrunched my face into exaggerated anger, and asked, "Are you laughing at my music?" She, (legitimately confused because I wasn't listening to any music), replied in slow, confused cadence, "Am I laughing at your music?" I lightened my exaggerated anger face by adding a half smirk, and said, "I dunno. When I pulled up you were laughing at something." Her face lit up in instant recognition, and she placed her body such that she was giving me 100% attention. And she smirkingly said, "I dunno. I guess I'm just a happy person." If I wanted to ask her out, I would've replied, "*stronger angry face* I don't think so. I think you need someone to teach you not to laugh at someone's music. *quick smile* I'll pick you up tonight at 7, so you can learn *exaggerated wounded face* that you shouldn't laugh at people's music: it wounds them in a very deep place from which they don't recover." But since I didn't want to ask her out, I replied, "*genuine face* Hmm, I think you're right about that. You stay happy now." Frosty, (as well as everyone else who ought to comment, but chooses not to), does flirting with a woman whom you do not want to ask out violate the NAP, even though she loved every minute of the interaction?

I know. But I've read long, complicated books that hint at why this works. And I was just wondering whether MMD is familiar with the terms.

Interesting answer, MMD. The blue is the most important part, though. Are you familiar with the evolutionary biology terms: "costly signaling theory", "the handicap principle", and "pronking"?

The central claim is more complex than that. It is, "Morality comes from god, and look at how much better it is when people follow god's commandments than when they don't." Hence, the central claim is more like, "Morality comes from obedience to God's commandments, which are presumed to be good based more on their outcomes than on their divine decree." You want to focus on the divine decree aspect, rather than the outcomes.

It doesn't sound nice. It is true in every case. Every discussion with a Christian begins with an example of God's divine goodness and mercy.

Not true, WastachMan. Christians derive their morality from "God said so" PLUS a litany of observable (and non-observable) examples of God's goodness permeating the universe.

@shirgall: You are. It's just not reaching the intended target.

The most-liked comment from the RooshVForum on this very topic goes, "The one thing I have noticed about the transgender debate/issue/question, etc, is quite possibly one of my favorite left wing hypocrisy - embracing "traditional" femininity - but only for trans women. Bruce Jenner doesn't just want to be a woman, he wants to be a pretty girl. He got his hair all done up, wore a pretty swimsuit and is on the cover of a fashion magazine - and everyone approves. He wants to wear makeup and dresses - all markers of traditional femininity - and that's all good with liberals. Feminists usually rally against "traditional beauty standards" - makeup, fashion, slender figures, deeming them oppressive. But when a man becomes a woman - he doesn't become a neon haired SJW fat acceptance Lindy West freak - he wants to become a pretty girl." I'll go further and suggest that it's probable that merely having your transgender feelings supported by a large group of anonymous people is sufficient to encourage someone to develop stronger transgender feelings.

The community probably won't share my opinion, but I don't trust people who ask hypothetical questions that'll never happen which also attempt to justify or explain the questioner's lack-of-action. Not only that, but you can never decide, on behalf of 7.5 billion people whether they're "conscious enough". They'll decide that on your own, with or without your help, and with or without your feelings of guilt/responsibility. If you want to be responsible, build up your body until it's excellent, repair a house until it's in stellar condition, or any other form of self-improvement. Don't waste your time and energy pondering things that will never happen.

Short answer: (1) Realize that pretty much everyone else lacked the very same thing. (2) Learn to build it for yourself, through yourself. (3) Pass it on to the ones you love.

We'll see what happens, won't we?

Not necessarily. Narcissists are hyper-concerned about how they appear to everyone else; they're just not concerned about what other people are really feeling. I'm a big fan of TheLastPsychiatrist, who has many anti-therapy and anti-introspection articles. This is the best short one, but there are (many!) other longer ones. Let me know if this is helpful. I'm going to start working out soon, so I feel like I'm probably not giving maximum or sufficient focus to my post here. http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/02/the_other_ego_epidemic.html

I wanted to clarify something I said earlier. When I said, "I'm going to make YouTube videos.", I meant that I'm going to be making YouTube videos about my unique business-related skillset NOT that I'm going to make YouTube videos in response to the call-in show. I know that two former FDR members were banned because they made, "I challenge Stefan!" videos rather than calling in, and I promise not to do that. Secondly, I will probably discuss this picture: That picture comes from this article, which is one of the most important ones I've ever read: http://therationalmale.com/2012/06/04/final-exam-navigating-the-smp/

Thanks for this post. It helped me clarify a lot of the frustration I have with both WastachMan and some forms of ostracism. Religious people succeed, not because they understand their actions at the level WastachMan demands, but because their religious systems are relatively more successful at getting them to behave morally. In a seemingly unrelated metaphor, I'm changing my interactions with women by constantly telling myself, "I don't need her to feel certain ways about me, I just need her to behave in certain ways."