MMX2010

Going inside of your own head to cure what you believe to be a narcissistic problem is the worst idea ever. The root cause of narcissism is that narcissists eternally dwell in their own heads and don't genuinely care what's inside other peoples' heads.

It is an argument for something! Specifically, restraint and respect for both my freedom and women's freedom. Off the top of my head, there are five people who're implying that PUA violates the NAP. You, AncapFTW, Kevin Beal, Matt D., and Rainbow Jamz. This doesn't include either Stefan himself (who may very well agree with you) and the downvoters (who probably agree with you). But other than, "We just feel that way, but there's no good sources of data for this....", what objective evidence do you have? You were very philosophically rigorous to admit that my playful banter involving pretending that the woman was being defiant probably didn't violate the NAP. But no one else addressed that example, and I don't think they will because they're "frustrated". And people are very quick to say, "Well, PUA does contain elements that can be seen as violating the NAP." - (as if I'm too stupid to know that) - but my major argument is that no one has pointed out to what I'm doing and definitively said, "That....THAT violates the NAP!" Can you empathetically consider, "Wow. That's really crappy behavior on our parts, MMX2010. I don't understand how you continue to debate this topic without lashing out at anyone, complaining to the mods, nor using faux psychological analysis to attack the mindsets of those who disagree with you."? PUA actually grew through women's demand for entertaining, no strings attached sex during their fertile youths. When a woman is between 18 and 26, she wants entertaining sex with the most physically attractive man possible. But it is only at age 27 when she suddenly realizes that her fading looks and her horrible choices in men threaten her long-term security. Here, she begins to blame men for her poor choices - as you see in the Jezebel articles. (Protip: No hot 22 year old girl complains about PUA; she enjoys their company instead.) Right. "By common interpretation of the NAP and fraud" - but by whom? By the woman who loves me whom I routinely use PUA tactics on? (No, she's smiles at me like she smiles at no one else, as if begging for me to continue.) By my best male friend who constantly uses PUA? (No, he's had a better sex life and become a much happier person in the five months we've practiced using PUA together.) Just last night, my best male friend and I discussed two interactions I had, (including the example where I pretended the woman was being defiant), and he told his best male friend. "After watching him use PUA, and after using PUA myself, I realize just how joyous it is. MMX2010 turned what would've been a boring, honest conversation about that chick's musical tastes into an emotionally-charged roller coaster ride that she so deeply appreciated. And I only now understand why they call it "Game" - it's because it's so fun!" And I continued, "Many PUAs misrepresent my intentions as 'wanting to bring joy to her so that she will sleep with me' - but my intentions are always to bring joy because I am joy. Whether she sleeps with me or not, based on my presentation of joy, is irrelevant to me." I could've said, "Somewhere two members of the FDR message board are taping this conversation looking for evidence that we violated the NAP, and they're sorely disappointed." - but we were drinking and my mind wasn't that sharp. By you, Rainbow Jamz, Kevin Beal, Matt D., and AncapFTW? (Well okay, but what have you guys done for me? Magically expected me to get it, and downvoted me for not getting it? Accused me of being a fraud without strong objective evidence? Seriously, guys, which of these am I going to appreciate more: (1) the bright smiles and passionate sexual responses of beautiful (and not beautiful!) women OR (2) the dour glares, poor arguments, and repeated downvotes of men I don't even know in real life? That I even need to ask this question should be sobering! The question isn't a permanent dismissal of yourselves and your arguments! Rather, it's an honest assertion that your current arguments are so unconvincing that every downvote I receive is a parody of your expectations that I change my behavior. So either come up with better arguments, or admit that you have none and walk away from this conversation without downvoting me. Though I'm in a position to demand apologies and upvotes to counteract downvotes, I won't demand either of those. I'll just leave you to conduct yourselves in whatever manner you see fit.

I am ready to call-in. Question: "On an FDR message board post, the caller wrote, 'Ostracizing someone for moral reasons doesn't harm the person doing the ostracism, but ostracizing someone for aesthetic reasons absolutely harms the person doing the ostracism.' Does Stefan's refusal to endorse (or embrace) hypergamy and his encouragement to ostracize people who defend and/or engage in hypergamous behavior cause great harm to his audience?" ------------------- I will definitely define "hypergamy" as a woman's natural and permanent desire for all items listed in the diagram below. I will definitely tell the story of the highly negative reactions that most male members at the FDR NYC Meeting had when I defended hypergamy, as well as the highly positive reactions that females have had to the same argument. But I will not name any of the FDR members by either name, physical description, initials, nickname, or any other identifying characteristics. Nor will I petition to be let back into the group. Nor will I speculate on reasons why I was ostracized. (In return for this, I ask that you take no future call-in shows from any members justifying why they ostracized me. I think such shows are bad radio, and are much less important than my question to Stefan.) ----------------- I will probably discuss extramarital affairs, but I only may discuss my own experiences engaging in them. (I'm going to make YouTube videos, and I want to protect her from being doxxed.) I may reference the movie The Fault In Our Stars. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuVjGbncgQE I may discuss my experiences using Pick-Up Artistry to positively influence the first two months of my current five-month relationship with The Woman Who Loves Me. --------------- You can introduce my show as a "criticism show", referencing your policy to always let critics call in for debate and to place them at the front of the line. Or you can treat my show as normal. I've no preference. ---------------- FDR members can also suggest which topics they want me to discuss.

Not in my opinion. To me, it gives him massive street cred. When an old grandpa who has had one sexual partner in his life says, "Don't indulge your every sexual whim; it's irresponsible!", he has no street cred - (especially if his marriage is unhappy). But when Roosh says it, it's different.

A lot of things to point out here. PUA taps into a woman's natural, instinctive biological drives. So: (1) "women who will be fooled by PUA" means pretty much every woman. (2) "women who have a good filter for PUA" means practically no women. (3) "women who know what to look for and will ruin a PUA's chances of succeeding" means practically no women. (Personally speaking, the women who loves me was aware of PUA when I met her and appreciated my PUA tactics.) And (4) "the long term effects of PUA is to create an opposite womens' interest to spot and weed out players, which will only amplify this effect" is completely wrong; the major factor which determines PUA-prevalence is women's sexual freedom. You misunderstand. The correct version is "PUA tactics result in personal gain by creating a situation where I acquire a woman's interest with the intention of leading to sex with it otherwise would not have with me. However, women have both freedom and relative lack-of-condemnation when having sex with anyone. So it is safe to assume that, most of the time, a woman who sexually rejects a specific PUA will relatively quickly accept someone else - especially if she's looking for no strings attached sex." Thus, if you complain that PUA is fraud because it produces no strings attached sex, then you're saying that I only defrauded myself. (You cannot say that I defrauded her, when she rejects me for not being a PUA, then finds a PUA.) Sadly, I predict very few people will weigh in on this. Not to be rude, but the problem is that you cannot see inside her mind, so you've no idea whether she's being defrauded. However, that doesn't stop you from "playing offense" by making assertions based on your "gut", which invites me to play "defense" against your assertions. But at what point will you accept that you need a much stronger argument than "my gut says so" in order to change my behavior? At what point will the plausibility that you're wrong PLUS the inability to detect whether you're right or wrong EQUAL "I shouldn't condemn PUAs because I don't have any direct evidence of harm, and it's wrong to expect people to change their behaviors based on my gut?"

I don't care what your experience of my answer was. I care what MMD's experience of my answer is, because he asked the question. And to this point, he hasn't voiced anything negative about my response. If you care so much about MMD's experience of my answer, then feel free to ask him what he felt about my answer. Please ask MMD whether he felt my answer "weaseled out of a direct answer", then leave me alone.

Matt, you're doing "that thing" that I call Avoiding The Most Important Thing That I Said, And Yet Continuing To Disagree With Me. I pointed out that birth control, labor-saving technology, and easy female-access to jobs has separated sex from reproduction, therefore necessitating a discussion of r/K Sexual Strategies as distinct from r/K Reproductive Strategies. In response you stated, "Firstly, if it weren't for contraception you wouldn't be able to make this divide between sex for pleasure and sex for babies. No this doesn't prove anything, but I think it's important to point out that our modern society has taken away most of the consequences that would normally come from the inherently risky 'adult' business of sexual intercourse." Please indulge my annoying requests to the letter. Step One: Blink ten times. (I'll wait. Go ahead.) Step Two: Look out the window. Does contraception still exist? Does labor-saving technology, i.e. - microwave ovens, washing machines, vacuums, wonderful food-growing and food-transporting device - still exist? Since the answers to those questions are YES, this means that all of the old conclusions (from earlier eras) about What Virtuous Women Are Really Like are at minimum debatable given the massive social change we've undergone in fifty years. At maximum, they're best presumed to be wrong because of this massive social change. (Rollo, of the Rational Male, repeatedly uses the metaphors "The Old Set of Books" and "The New Set of Books".) Sometimes I wish this weren't true. But then I imagine the war-torn environments that preceded this one, and thank my lucky stars that I don't have to engage in years of brutal combat just to secure any woman. Ordinarily, I would honor Kathryn's request to NOT proclaim that my experiences are objectively correct for everyone. But I can't do that, Matt, because the truth is objectively correct for everyone. So I reject your testimonial entirely. When you say, "I like challenges.", I hear, "I avoid challenges, because I'm scared of accepting that some of the most important conclusions I've made about Virtuous Women are wrong." And I empathize with you, because I used to be like that. But I am not like that anymore. The most encouraging thing I can say is that the government says I'm 39, but I say I'm only seven months old. (My commitment to accepting these new truths began seven months ago, so I can sincerely, (but, perhaps not truthfully), state that sudden change is possible.) Lastly, you asked, "When the beauty of your woman fades, what will you be left with?" First of all, someone (not me) is going to have an uproarious belly-laugh at your question, so thanks very much for asking it. Secondly, my answer is: I will be left with the results of my continued efforts to mold her into a Virtuous Woman. MGTOWs assume that women, when left to their own devices, will spontaneously develop Virtue. But I assure you that it is the opposite. You mentioned challenges? There is no challenge more important and more difficult than crafting a Non-Virtuous Woman into a Virtuous One. That is my challenge, and every MGTOW I've met had refused to accept that challenge.

No doubt. But your imaginary conclusion is based on your non-examination of my readings on alpha male / non-alpha male behavior. Objectively speaking, I can't make you be curious about what I know (and how I derived my argument). But I can point out a perceived (and, in my opinion, obvious) lack of curiosity on your part. You're free to do what you want with my impression.

Is "not having challenges" and "always experiencing enjoyment" an Aesthetic Preferable Behavior? (No, because many people prefer seeking challenges and trying new things that they don't enjoy, in order to strengthen their ability to handle non-enjoyment.) So, two things are true: (1) I am not obligated to care whether you find interacting with me "challenging" and "at times not enjoyable", and (2) You are wrong to either state or imply that "something must be wrong with MMX2010's' character, brain function, commitment to self-knowledge, or overall personality because he doesn't care that WastachMan is experiencing "challenge" and "non-enjoyment" whenever he posts with me. The simplest way to determine this would be to ask him directly. (Did you ask him whether he felt that I didn't answer his question? No.) The second simplest way would be to say, "MMX2010, I don't get the impression that you answered MMD's question. How do you feel about my impression?" (Did you use this ultra-simple format? No.) What did you do? You chose to state your presumption AND laced it with the personal accusation, "[/color=green]This form of "subtle trolling" (as you call it) is obvious to people here (at least it is to me), and people resent it because (I believe) they want to have genuine dialogues with people.[/color]"[/i] --------------- It's ironic that you claim to want "a genuine dialogue with people", when you-yourself avoid the simplest possible ways to achieve that genuine dialogue. But I'm going to pretend that you asked me directly, because I like to model genuine dialogue when accused of not wanting to participate in it. The truth is this. I've been a part of an FDR Meet-Up Group in NYC for more than two months. I and three of its regularly-attending members have repeatedly discussed both our experiences with Pick-Up Artistry and our objections to Stefan's arguments against it. And they have repeatedly asked, over at least four weeks, "When are you going to be ready for your call-in show? I can't wait for you to discuss Pick-Up Artistry with him!" Furthermore, I regularly Skype with five FDR members, four of whom are interested in having me debate Stefan on Pick-Up Artistry. So when I answered MMD's question, I was speaking on behalf of eight FDR listeners, not just myself. Repeating myself, "If I can somehow weave Ostracism, Pick-Up Artistry, and Stefan's alpha male status into one call-in show, I'll do that; if not, I'll just focus on Ostracism instead." (Missing implication, "I'm doing this because eight people, (that I know of!), are extremely interested in having me discuss Pick-Up Artistry with Stefan, and I want to consider their needs as well as the people in this topic." ---------------------- Wasatchman, when you presume to know what other people are thinking, and then accuse them of "subtle trolling", you leave yourself vulnerable to being counter-argued. Not only is my counter-argument valid and calmly stated, but it also strongly suggests that you were trolling me. Your unwillingness to ask people what they're feeling, (whether it's myself or MMD), is trolling. And the way your presumptions lead to false accusations is trolling.

To see if I can weave together Ostracism with PUA and Stefan's alpha male status. If I can weave them together, I'll speak about that. But if I can't, I'll focus on the Ostracism alone.

Not at all. (Or, not usually.) I had a Skype conversation with a guy who failed a shit test. A girl he was interested in had placed her hands in her hair, just like Beyoncé is doing in the top left panel of the following photograph. That hand placement is a hyper-reliable signal of sexual arousal, and she magically expects you to Just Get It. (Like how she magically expects you to Just Get Everything.) So he came over and asked her out, and she replied, "I can't, because I'm already talking to someone else." And he failed the shit test by believing what she said, and leaving the conversation. I told him that a correct way to pass that shit test was: (1) *scrunch your face into an exaggerated form of skepticism and distrust, turn your head to the side, while looking at her*, (2) hold for two seconds, (3) revert back to normal face, (4) ask "What?", and (5) hold a gentle stare; do not flinch! She will either say, "Nothing...", in which case you say, "Cool, so I'll pick you up tomorrow at 7." Or she'll repeat herself, in which case you troll her by saying, "*slowly, with dramatic effect, and calmness of voice* You can't go out with me because you're T-A-L-K-I-N-G to someone else?" (spelled out word "talking" indicates extra slowness, not literally spelling the word aloud). When she folds, tell her you'll pick her up tomorrow at 7. The point of the shit test is: She really likes you, but she's scared that you'll take advantage of her for liking you, so she pretends not to like you, hoping that you'll succeed by cutting through her ruse. --------------------- Meanwhile, the social ostracism I receive in real-life and this message board feels completely different. It begins as a dispute over some perceived moral-infraction I'm committing, such as having a Mistress, studying and implementing PUA, or claiming that there are correct and incorrect ways to see relationships. It escalates into an argument where I win, using either: (1) a combination of great argumentation and subtle trolling, or (2) great argumentation, period. And the end result is either: (1) rarely - the other party admits that I have a point, that I'm right, and corrects the behavior in some way - whether apology, or instant implementation of the advice I'm giving (Example: See jpahmad in TheFuzz's thread, where he both defended himself against where I was wrong, accepted where I was right, and immediately apologized.) OR (2) usually - departing from the conversation at the precise moment when I've got the person "cornered", "bedazzled", or "amygdala frozen". You would think - (as I have thought) - that the subtle trolling itself is the problem, but it isn't. The percentages vary across both the non-trolling and trolling arguments. Some people I can heavily troll and they'll instantly change. (or they'll calmly hold ground and counter-argue). Some people I can refuse to troll at all, remaining calm and argument-focused instead, and they'll depart the conversation and gossip about me to others. If anything, the trolling itself is just a catalyst in both cases. People who change their minds do so faster when I subtle troll, and people who want to depart the conversation do so faster when I subtle troll. So the point of social ostracism is that the person really dislikes you, and wants you to fail, and will use any means necessary - (including lying about you and/or misrepresenting themselves as the victim of an egregious moral infraction.) Shit test? No, the opposite.

LovePrevails gave the best advice, in my opinion. It echoes the advice of blogger, TheLastPsychistrist, (who, in my opinion, best understands narcissism). He says that lots of people ask him what the cure for narcissism is. And he tells them. But they don't get it. They ask him anyway. And he says, "The cure for narcissism has two steps: (1) fake not being a narcissist. (2) There is no Step Two; there is only Step One." The counter-argument is always the same. Something like, "You're a professional Psychiatrist! You know about all sorts of mind-altering drugs. You know about all sorts of therapy! And your snarky advice is all you're giving me?!?" And so TheLastPsychiatrist sighs and says, "You misunderstand. The cure for narcissism is the cure for narcissism because it's not for you. It's for everyone you'll ever come into contact with." ------------------- If you can read that and smile in understanding, you'll realize why LovePrevails gave the best advice. Then you'll just implement it.

To me, there are two main reasons to go to funerals: to honor the person who died, to honor the people left behind. So, by not going to the funeral, you're implying that neither the person who died nor the people left behind are honorable.

No guide. No instructions. It's as simple as, "If you're at least a Bronze donator, you can upvote/downvote." Thanks for the invitation. I agree that it's a good idea. But I'm more interested in discussing Pick-Up Artistry and Stef's alpha male status. I don't want to discuss Pick-Up artistry until I've lived the life for a longer period of time. For example, Roosh insists that a man must reach 100 approaches, keeping a journal of every approach, to learn what works for him. I want to do that first and then answer questions about manipulation and fraud, based on my actual experience of PUA (rather than theorizing about it). ---------- As far as Stefan's alpha male status, my question goes: "If attractive women between the ages of 19-25 definitely respond better to alpha male qualities, and if Stefan has always been an alpha male, then does Stefan's advice to Just Be Yourself really mean Just Be Alpha? And, if so, is there an unfortunate and damaging misunderstanding when a non-alpha male follows Stefan's advice to Just Be Yourself?" I've spoken to about ten FDR members about Stefan's alpha male status, and most of them agreed with me. (All of them found the argument interesting, and have been asking me to call-in for quite some time.) --------- As far as ostracism, give me a week to think about it.

This has been happening to me a lot recently. What would happen if you changed the colored-words into "you are calling into question the anti-PUA arguments that people are making in this thread"? (Would that change be more accurate? Yes, objectively so.) (Would an outside-observer conclude that the change is much less accusatory and much less confrontational? Yes, in all cases.) So why are you (and many other people) deliberately choosing less accurate and more accusatory descriptions of events? --------------- Secondly, I'm asserting that you don't understand PUA by asserting that I've read Roosh's manual, which is the most recent and most popular PUA manual, and you haven't. Is this really an "appeal from authority" OR is it an appeal to closely investigate something before spouting negative opinions about it? It's not convincing to simultaneously say, "We are here to explore and find the truth" and yet refuse to actually read Roosh's PUA manual to see what it actually says. No doubt. Only it's not just contraception. It's a combination of contraception, women having easy access to relatively stress-free gainful employment, and the police state ensuring child support should she become pregnant with an unsuitable father. Furthermore, I don't like the word "you" in the following statement: "Firstly, if it weren't for contraception you wouldn't be able to make this divide between sex for pleasure and sex for babies." The correct version is, "Firstly, if it weren't for contraception women wouldn't be able to..." I'm not making this distinction. I'm not enabling women to make this distinction. Women are making this distinction, because women have the capability and power to make that distinction. Yes, the entire point of the K-strategy is to favor long-term gain over short-term gain. That is why R-sexual strategies combined with K-reproductive strategies actually do favor long-term gain over short term gain. Women prefer this method because they can have their cake and eat it, too - just as you described. Notice how your decision to say "you" instead of "women" has dramatically altered your focus? From my perspective, you're lecturing me about how women behave, which doesn't make much sense. What would happen if we properly discussed women's behavior as women's behavior? What questions would you ask? What arguments would you make? You misunderstand. R-sexual strategies combined with K-reproductive strategies are K-reproductive strategies, period. You can't just re-name them into R-reproductive strategies because it's convenient to you, or because you feel like that's more accurate. Hence, there is no "double standard for men and women". I expect both men and women to follow K-reproductive standards for the sake of their future children. Secondly, if you want men and women to adopt K-sexual strategies, then you have to punish all women who follow R-sexual strategies. The most effective strategy is to never marry an older woman who has had sex with more than three partners. But two problems exist: (1) The majority of 25+ year old single women in FDR don't live up to this standard. (2) Stefan's advice to find a virtuous older woman who is less attractive allows women to follow R-sexual strategies. (Serious question, if you've been dating a woman for two months, and you ask how many sexual partners she has, do you have the lie-detecting ability to discern the correct answer? If not, how do you prevent her from telling you the wrong answer you want to hear?) As I said earlier, this used to be generally true. But it is no longer generally true. First of all, they're not "the PUA rules" - because PUAs don't make the rules. Women make the rules by having sex with certain types of men, while refusing to have sex with other types of men. Secondly, you're entirely free to refuse to play by women's rules. But the consequence of doing so is that you'll be outcompeted for sexual access by the men who do play by women's rules. As long as you can accept this consequence without lying about What Women Are Really Like and What PUAs Are Really Like, then I've no problem with your decision. Two things. The most important thing is that "PUA Fraud" must be equated to other types of Fraud. It must have the same consequences as spanking your children, taxing the people, risking peoples' lives by dispensing faulty medical advice, and so on. So I have a hard time believing that most PUA is fraud. The second thing is a simple example from today. I had the following conversation with a woman. Me: Do you know the two songs X and Y? Her: No, I don't listen to cheesy pop music. Why do you ask? Me: Because I've been listening to songs like that to get into the minds of younger women. Picture me jamming along to that. Her: *laughing* Well you won't be able to listen to that music to get into my mind. Me: I sense a great deal of defiance in your voice... Her: *laughing* That type of music is only popular with really young girls. I might've listened to that when I was seven. Me: *affronted* Now you're insulting the highly mature women I love. What's wrong with you? Me: *waiting five seconds, then switching to serious and wounded* Though you might have a point. My fourteen year old niece rolled her eyes when I told her I like those songs. Her: *victorious* Aha! She and I would get along. The truth of the matter was that I didn't at all sense any defiance in her voice. I knew that her statement was just a statement of fact. But, by falsely claiming that I felt defiance, I was able to inject emotional tension in an otherwise non-emotional conversation. Did I commit fraud in this example? ------ More importantly, scientific research repeatedly discovers that women are much better at reading emotional subtext than men. Do you 100%-reject the possibility that she knew I was kidding when I claimed to sense defiance in her voice, but chose to play along anyway?

Just pointing out that I took the time to cut-and-paste specific examples of WastachMan's thread in order to make my point. Whereas you're refusing to cut-and-paste any examples, asserting instead that "You encourage people to read the threads in context." Which one of these is objectively more likely to lead to substantial debate? Or maybe there's nothing to the story at all, but you're incorrectly hinting that there is? Isn't it obvious that cutting-and-pasting examples so that those examples can be publically debated is much more effective at getting to the bottom of things?

No. More like, "If you ball your fist in the air and yell FRAUD, and practically everyone agrees with you, then it's probably fraud; but if you ball your fist in the air and yell FRAUD, and practically no one agrees with you, then it's probably not fraud." Slow down. What gives you the right to assert that every woman who responds positively to any PUA tactic is "psychologically damaged"? What gives you the right to assert that every man who uses PUA is, in fact, exploiting psychologically damaged women? Do you understand the seriousness of declaring a large portion of people to be "psychologically damaged" - that you can't "just throw it out there, because you feel it's true"? I agree with you that Fraud is part of the NAP, but my answer to AncapFTW is also relevant to you. If you ball your fist in the air and say FRAUD and practically everyone agrees, then it's probably fraud, but if practically no one agrees (or if a very sizable minority disagrees), then it's probably not fraud. I don't know if you've read Kevin Beal's post here - but it's a prime example of a really bad (and frequently stated) anti-PUA argument. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43965-friends-with-benefits/page-3#entry403249 His post here is also enlightening: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43965-friends-with-benefits/page-2#entry402820 ---------------- What Fraud were we discussing? You probably won't believe it, but I swear it's true: The Feigning of Emotional Disinterest, particularly in the beginning stages of the relationship. This kind of thing happens all the time! People begin the conversation with assertions that PUA is Fraud, but they apply it to examples like feigning emotional disinterest, which women greatly appreciate, especially in modern times. Too much emotional sharing, especially at the early stages of the relationship, is needy and low-value. Period. And women expect you to magically know this. I'm glad that you're able to consider that not all PUA may be Fraud. And I'm glad that you're able to focus on specific examples of PUA-endorsed behavior to comment on whether it is Fraud or not. But I assure you that many members in this thread refuse to do this. They just "magically know" that all PUA is Fraud. --------------------- Edited to add: The most important thing Kevin Beal said is, "I've pretended to be someone else enough for one lifetime. And any satisfaction I got by bedding a woman who thought I was something other than what I am, would be a very fleeting satisfaction." But what does that even mean? I think he means that he hates not telling women how attractive they are, or how much he loves being with them, or saying I love you right away. But I'm only guessing what he means because he has never clarified what he meant. All he "knows" is that "pretending to be someone you're not is Fraud" and that "he feels sorry for PUA's" and that "PUA's are acting out of fear". It strikes me as highly prejudicial.

If someone else no longer lived up to the virtues you admired him for, it's not your fault that the relationship fell off. I think TheFuzz believes that people who follow the NAP (don't know whether it's the majority, or a sizable minority) are so inexperienced with violence that they're also inexperienced with recognizing violence before it happens. Hence, they wrongfully interpret "forward-thinking" preventative policing as violations of the NAP.

I'm hoping Frosty will cite the discussion on the Friends With Benefits thread, because my last post to you in that thread detailed four of your assertion that I found completely off-base. And you neither addressed, agreed with, nor counter-argued my assertions. You just abandoned the debate, only to imply now that there is "no good debate". My appreciation of Pick-Up Artistry is part of it, but it doesn't tell the whole story. I've told this story multiple times, so you may have heard it already. The second time I went to an FDR NYC Meet-Up group, the entire group of eight people (except the one guy who liked me, and has since become a friend) argued, for about 90 minutes that my communication style was "dominating" and "non-empathetic". I didn't bat an eye, didn't yell back at them, didn't insult them: just listened and counter-argued. Eventually my friend spoke about his positive experiences with embracing Roosh's three-circle Venn-diagram, illustrating what it is to be a great man. The entire group agreed that Philosophy and Self-Knowledge fall under the Lifestyle circle, and that Philosophy is the most important element of all. I stated, "You can't use an excess of six-pack abs and money to make up for a lack of philosophy." (The entire group nods.) I continue, "But you also cannot use an excess of Philosophy to make up for a lack of six-pack abs and money." (The entire group amygdala-freezes.) Except one guy, who had been repeatedly pointing out that I was non-empathetic, who said, "You don't need six pack abs and money to attract a virtuous woman." I looked him in the eye and quickly replied, "Philosophically, what you're saying is 100% true, but you're not empathizing with a virtuous woman's desire for six-pack abs and money." He reacted very, very negatively, so I knew my remark deeply stung him. But he didn't counter-argue, didn't comment, and I wasn't invited back to the next meeting. I get downvoted very often for re-telling that story, but the most important thing is that every woman I've told that story to - (about six on FDR, and exactly three outside-of-FDR) - has reacted very positively to it. At minimum, they've all smiled and agreed, and about half of them vociferously agreed with loud, instantaneous laughter and/or spontaneous clapping. So, long story short, a sizable chunk of male FDR members are using Philosophy to argue against women's natural desires for muscular men with lots of money. A man is allowed to have an aesthetic preference for women who don't seek wealth and muscular hotness, but every man is responsible for the repercussions of that decision, including being unable to compete equally with men who combine Philosophy and Pick-Up Artistry to become more attractive to women.

The FDR NYC Meet-Up has been in existence for approximately two years, and only one woman regularly attended. That's no excuse not to try, but that has been my experience of them, in the largest city in which an FDR Meet-Up group exists.

Two things here. (1) "He was trying to shame me" is exactly like Ray H's example in this thread: a highly personal emotionally-inciteful interpretation of our exchange. Not only is it much less personal and much less emotionally-inciting to say, "He was trying to point out the flaws in my argument" rather than saying "He was trying to shame me" - but also you provide no cut-and-paste examples of, "This is what MMX2010 said that was shaming!" (2) Your claim is that "a precise definition of morality damages Christians" - BUT you misinterpreted me. Now I've got to open a thread from three days ago, cutting-and-pasting our exchange, all because you're importing examples from other threads without citing examples. Surely it's more courteous to either discuss your grievances in that thread, or import examples directly so we can all talk about it. But no! Let's make me take the extra time out of my day that you can't be bothered to take. WastachMan, is asking you how many hours you spend actually talking to people really "trying to shame them"? Compared to doxxing? Compared to openly insulting them? Compared to downvoting them en masse? If a Christian person goes on a killing spree because you told him that his behaviors that he only follows because he was violently brainwashed into adopting "aren't really moral" because "truth doesn't care how it affects people", would you tell the mothers of the murder victims that the truth doesn't care how it affects people? If so, do you expect them to beam in glorious insight and bake you a casserole because you enlightened them? (Okay, I get it. That sort of behavior is unlikely to happen, so let's go much more likely.) If multiple Christian parents become apathetic and depressed and/or alcoholic, because "truth doesn't care how it affects people", would you be satisfied with this result because "at least they won't be able to hide behind their actions being moral"? Or does the negative affect of the particular style with which you spread your beliefs not matter to you, because "truth doesn't care"? --------------------------------- Thirdly, "being a racist" is absolutely immoral. You reject that notion without argument, but you haven't asked whether the majority of people in FDR agree with you. Perhaps you should start a thread about it.

Karen Straughan, who uses the pseudonym GirlWritesWhat, posted the following on Reddit. http://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/35qu94/what_should_women_do/cr7ga25 I don't think there is a universe that could exist where men, in general, hate women. So maybe the first thing would be to stop accusing men of hating women? And to call out the women in positions of power who accuse men of hating women? And to call out the women like Quinn Norton who claim that men are raised to hate women, or Chloe Angyal of Feministing who claim that our entire society hates women? Honestly, the Nazis hated the Jews. The Hutus hated the Tutsis. The KKK hated blacks. And yet this male dominated society, where men hold the majority of the positions of power, somehow HATES women despite not a single lynching of a woman for wronging a man, despite NOMAAS and the White Ribbon Campaign and HeForShe and a male feminist president, despite Boko Haram's sparing of girls while burning boys in their dormitories, despite the unbelievable (and unbelievably unspoken-of) gender gap in executions and criminal sentencing in Islamic countries, despite males being the primary receptacles of violence by both males and females from infancy to old age GLOBALLY, despite not a single genocide in history that DIDN'T begin with the systematic extermination of almost exclusively men and boys. And you think men hate women. If men hate women, then how do men feel about men? On any given day, any given male is more likely to assault a male, undermine a male, ignore a male in need, murder a male, celebrate the suffering of a male wrongdoer, hit his male child, make a decision to mutilate his male child, arrest a male, convict a male, and sentence a male to incarceration or death, than he is a female. And yet women--yes, women--have allowed a narrative to become entrenched in all our systems and institutions that males favor other males at the expense of females. That somehow, there is a "team men" that has been oppressing, subjugating and subordinating women since the dawn of human history. That men have waged a "war on women" since we descended from the trees and first tottered on two legs on the African Savannah. Men have bled for their women, fought to protect their women, died for their women, and admonished each other for millennia to love their virtuous women as Christ loves the Church, to treat their honorable women as queens and as jewels, to present to them the heads of the men who displease them, and to duel to the death to defend their honor. The literary canon, written primarily by men, has always lauded a masculinity that protects women--the villains identified by their willingness to harm women, and the heroes identified by their willingness to avenge those harms. And you think men hate women? Men have never hated women. Men will never hate women. What you see as hate is fear and frustration. Fear of what you have the power to do to any given man on any given day, just by virtue of being female. Frustration that no matter how far men bend to your whims, it's never enough to prove to you that they don't hate you and have never hated you. For god sake, have you ever gone on a conservative website and seen what the people there write about Islam and misogyny? These men couldn't care less that for every 1 woman executed for adultery in Saudi Arabia, 500 men are executed for less serious crimes. They couldn't care less that 80% of women in Saudi Arabia DON'T want the driving ban lifted, because it would mean giving up the privilege of being waited on by male family members. Those conservatives say, "OMG, look at how those horrible Islamists treat their women! They objectify and sexually exploit them!" And what do you think the Islamists are saying about Americans? "OMG, look at how those horrible Americans treat their women! They objectify and sexually degrade them!" And somehow, a minority of women (feminists) have convinced all of society that men hate women. No wonder men are afraid of you. If you [women] can convince society that it hates women, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, then you have a power that is unfathomable to the average man. A power that is unfathomable to the most powerful man. You have the power to convince society that men hate you because they don't love you 10 or 100 or 1000 times as much as they love other men, and you have the power to convince society to enact legislation an policy based on that completely stupefying false belief, and these powerful men who supposedly hate you and are in charge of everything will do it. They'll lie and they'll cheat and they'll throw less privileged men under the bus just to prove to you that they're not misogynists. Putting your foot down and saying, "what you're doing is abuse" is not hate. Drawing a boundary and saying, "this far, no further" is not hate. Saying, "I choose not to have anything to do with women unless necessary" is not hate. It's self-preservation, HSW.

You're right. It was mean of me to say you were "pretending". I'm sorry. I am exceptionally good at teaching children to read, and I noticed that the concrete noun Carl mentioned in his first post was "drugs". TheFuzz, in his second post, mentioned "drugs". Carl, in this third post mentioned "drugs". And so TheFuzz, in his fourth post, must've been implying "drugs". (Good communicators don't magically lose a highly emotionally-charged concrete noun like "drugs".) I hear what you're saying, but I do support the "If I don't do it, that guy will do it." argument. An analogy: as much as people say Pick-Up Artistry is non-empathetic and exploitive, if I don't bang this chick, some other guy will bang this chick. (Say all you want about a chick's agency; when she wants to bang someone, she'll bang someone.) Knowing myself as a person, I'm wholly confident that I'm more empathetic, more morally concerned, and just a better overall man than the majority of men she has to choose from. So if I don't bang this chick, someone else will bang this chick. (And you should see how horrible he is.) Same with police. As much as you correctly say "the system" sucks, "the system" will not be removed within our lifetimes. And comparatively noble individuals do make "the system" better than the majority of its alternatives.

I also claimed that you never commented on the Truth / Falsehood of my arguments. This claim is correct because you used no words for "true" or "false" in anything you said in that post. I also asked you whether wdiaz made a wrong argument? (You haven't commented.) I also clarified that I wasn't speaking about "other people's mindsets", but was instead speaking about specific behaviors and making predictions. (You haven't replied whether you agree with my correction.) There are so many things I've said, but you're focusing solely on what you perceive to be "personal". Why? Why not address what I believe is much more important?

You realize that you just provided evidence that I avoid using personal-language, always referring instead to "your argument", right? It says it twice, right?