MMX2010

No doubt. But whenever there's a conflict between What She Values and What You Value, you always side with your interpretation, because "I'd rather be alone than pretend to be someone I'm not." Meanwhile, you could read Roosh's book to realize: (1) that none of the advice he gives is "immoral" or "dishonest" and (2) all of the advice he gives is designed to make you better able to meet her needs WITHOUT sacrificing too much of your time, energy, and integrity. So are you interested in reading Roosh's book? I can get you a digital copy for free, so you don't have to pay a dime.

There's the objective definition of Who Someone Really Is: Every thought, emotion, and sensation someone has ever had coupled with every action they've undertaken. There's also the pragmatic definition: "The Thing That Both Must Exist and Be Objectively Perceivable By Another Human Being In Order For Anyone's Objections Against Pretending to be Valid." And then there's the psychological definition: The True-Self, The Antidote of the False Self, "The Thing You're Trying To Connect With, Through Therapy", and "The Thing You've No Connection To, Because Your Parents Were Assholes". When Kevin objects to PUA because it's "Pretending", he's imply that all pretending is an affront to his True Self, The Thing He's Trying To Connect With Through Therapy. But my argument is that women don't see Your True Self, nor The Thing You're Trying To Connect With Through Therapy; they just see How You Present Yourself - which is only a fraction of Who You Really Are. I explained it in that other thread. Women *DO NOT* search for male role models under the conditions of, "I want someone strong, intelligent, philosophically-rigorous, handsome, courageous, and financially sound - BUT I don't want to sleep with him, because the sexual interactions will ruin the objective perspective required for him to be my role model." Instead, women *AUTOMATICALLY* want to sleep with male role models who fulfill all of those conditions. Furthermore, women have extraordinarily simple categories for men, two of which are Some Guy I'm Not Sleeping With versus Some Guy I'm Currently Sleeping With. Women *DO NOT* make major life-altering decisions based on the recommendations of Men They're Not Sleeping With. So, Matt, it's not that a man has to sleep with a woman before he introduces her to philosophy. It's that no woman will simultaneously (1) want to listen to you about something important, like philosophy AND (2) not want to sleep with you. (I also mentioned that the one guy who laughed his ass off at my recommendation was married - (read: has everyday face-to-face interactions with a woman, and thereby knows her emotional proclivities). And you just indicated that you're NOT married.) -------------------- As for domination, I'm sure you're familiar with how feminists turn everything men do into "oppression" and "patriarchy". A man works ten hours a day, seven days a week, and he's an oppressive patriarch. But if he refuses to do the same thing, he's also an oppressive patriarch. With you, everything a man you dislike does is "domination". It can't be "leadership", "earning her respect", "stewardship", "crafting", "husbandry" - (look up that word, it's old-school connotations are beautiful) - or even just "being right when she's wrong". It has to be "domination" - because you say that it is. Your objection here rests on the assumption that Your True Self, (a.k.a. The Thing You're Trying To Connect To, Through Therapy), is both readily visible to her and the most valuable thing you can present to her. Unfortunately, no woman can possibly see Your True Self (and certainly NOT on the first three dates). And, just as unfortunately, Your True Self IS NOT the most valuable thing you can present to her. The most valuable thing you can present to her is a man who expertly and consistently knows how to meet her needs. In the initial stages of learning any skill, one's expertise is shallow - so one's performance isn't very good. But, with time and commitment, a man can master any skill - and his mastery of that skill allows him to expertly and consistently meet her needs. No doubt. But I can easily see how you use the language you've learned in therapy ("emotional authenticity", "integrity", "the authentic emotional experience of who I am") to look inside of yourself when you could be looking at her and what she wants. It's not merely that What She Wants never crosses your mind, but also that "You can't see What She Wants by introspection." doesn't cross your mind.

Not "may be skipping", but "are definitely skipping". Before any man can claim to understand relationships, he must understand dating. And before he can understand dating, he must understand how female-psychology influences dating. PUA is the only field that attempts to understand how female-psychology influences dating, so it's a required field of study. The Anti-PUAs are trying to use philosophy to argue against the female-psychological traits that they dislike the most, but that's not a very effective approach now, is it?

Not even on her terms? You don't want to be "badass" according to the definitions and desires of the women who're evaluating you? You want to be "badass" according to your own definitions and desires of what "badass" is, thereby forcing yourself to argue that your definitions are better than every woman's definitions?

I'm glad that I was able to help you to some degree. If you're serious about your blue-colored goal, Roosh outlines a clear, but difficult, and long approach to getting what you want. http://www.rooshv.com/the-roosh-program It'll be the toughest thing you'll ever do, but it'll be worth it.

My replies to Matt D. will be relevant to you, so I hope you'll read them. The best FDR podcast is still FDR 71: Culture: How To Enslave A Human Soul. In it, Stefan scoffs at the religious myths, saying something like, "The religious myths are so ridiculous to any rational, observant, scientifically-sound individual that nothing but violence, childhood indoctrination, and/or willful ignorance could possibly explain their continued existence." Your argument above which equates "presenting yourself as a police officer, when you're really not" and "feigning emotional disinterest and aloofness to get a woman to like you" made me think of FDR 71. And in the following two paragraphs, the green-colored numbers (listed after each clause) will represent crucial factual differences between "presenting yourself as a police officer, when you're really not" and "feigning emotional disinterest and aloofness to get a woman to like you". A police officer is a job title (1) created by the state (2) that requires years of training (3) in multiple areas (4), including but not limited to weapons training (5), rules of escalation and de-escalation of violence (6), rules involving the proper acquisition of evidence in order to apprehend violent suspects (7), and rules involving the proper arrest and detention of citizens. (8). Furthermore, presenting yourself as a police officer is a crime (9) in every political jurisdiction that has ever existed, and there's (nearly) universal agreement that presenting yourself as a police officer ought to be a crime. (10). Thus, wrongfully presenting yourself as a police officer is a moral violation (11) in the eyes of pretty much every citizen in every country. (12). Meanwhile, feigning emotional disinterest in order to get a girl to like you is the exact friggin' opposite on every green-numbered category listed above. And the most important difference is that "feigning emotional disinterest and aloofness" is at best an aesthetic violation, NOT A MORAL ONE. ------------------ My devoted reading of Pick-Up Artistry allows me to see the ONLY similarity between "presenting yourself as a police officer, when you're really not" and "feigning emotional disinterest and aloofness in order to get a woman to like you". It's an emotional similarity, namely, "It just feels dishonest, or it just feels wrong." But words like "dishonest" and "wrong" can either be used morally or aesthetically, and I've already proven that there's no moral violation in "feigning emotional disinterest", which means that your objection is aesthetic. Moralizing your aesthetic preferences doesn't make you "confident" (Matt D's self-description), nor "genuine and honest" (pretty much every FDR-member's self-description); it makes you morally wrong. ------------------ No. The PUAs are not "lying to themselves in order to get women". The Anti-PUAs are lying to themselves about the nature of both women and PUA in order to double down on their aesthetic preferences. (The easiest and most amusing example of this is when I offer Anti-PUAs a free copy of Roosh's books Bang and Day Bang. First, you can scrutinize them seeking the "moral contradictions". Then, when you find none, you can follow its prescriptions to improve your life. Rainbow Jamz rejected the offer, citing "too many books on his plate", but what will you do?) I get that certain personality traits are easier for you (and everyone else) to present than others, but your emotional comfort IS NOT the proper starting point from which to derive moral rules. Neither is hers. Neither is mine. Neither is anyone else's. Moral rules must be derived from moral principles, and comfort is not a moral principle. ----------- Secondly, I can not only respect "a woman who operates so primitively according to how PUAs describe" but also love her, honor her, cherish her, lead her, find her beautifully amusing, and look down on her condescendingly all at once, all the time, minute-after-minute, day-after-day. I don't need to withdraw my presence from all women, hoping that some "magical force" - (Stefan's podcasts!) - will permeate the entire female gender, changing them into exactly what I want them to be. (That's all MGTOW is, and it's reprehensible.) And I don't need to have so many high standards of "virtue", "honesty", "intelligence", "counter-culturalism", and whatever else goes drastically against her biology that there are oh-so-few women actually worth talking to. Instead, I can meet any woman, in any social situation, and present myself to her in any way I please - hoping that she'll like my presentation, but never being emotionally attached to her reactions to my presentation. And I can do this because Pick-Up Artistry taught me how oh-so-very impersonal the initial three months of interaction between any man and any woman is. It was quite the ego blow to discover that the first three months of interaction between myself and a mid-20's atheist, anarchist, philosopher, future peaceful parent, female model-on-the-side was oh-so-very impersonal, no matter how strongly my emotions were. But the discovery of impersonality is oh-so-very-freeing and boatloads of fun. ------------------ The only thing you're correct about is that PUA-usage is a confession that you're not valuable to women. But the impersonal nature of the first three months of interaction between a man and a woman means that this confession has ZERO emotional importance. If specific elements of my presentation aren't pleasing her, I just choose to present different elements. No muss, no fuss. Just move on confidently, and see what happens. And if she doesn't respond, I move on to the next woman who catches my eye.

There's a long rant on the Roosh V Forum that I cannot find which said something like, "In any conflict involving multiple female members, the female who can garner the most attention wins." Since more beautiful women can naturally get more attention, they're seen as threats by less attractive women.

The blue is correct, but the red is incorrect. The blue provokes both the less important question, "Why do you Present Yourself like that?" (Because you want her to be pleased with How You Present Yourself.) and the very important question, "Why does she want you to Present Yourself That Way?" The shortest answer I can give is: (1) Pretty much all conclusions about human sexuality stem from important research done in the 1950s and earlier, and the chief conclusion is that "Women are attracted to resources." (2) However, in modern times, women have so much more sexual freedom than that our "attracted to resources" conclusion is extremely flawed. (2) When a woman is between 18 and 27, she isn't thinking about long-term romantic stability, preferring instead excitement, fun, and emotional distance. (3) Young men prizing emotional closeness invest a boatload of emotional energy into their relationships, which reduces the overall energy available for making money, building a stronger body, and so on. (4) Young men prizing emotional closeness are also much more likely to "rage out" by committing those horrible "stalker-like" behaviors, including the violent ones. (5) The emotionally aloof younger men are much more likely to acquire resources, and are therefore the better bet in terms of both resources and non-stalker behavior. ------------------- The red is incorrect because "lying about your resume" involves falsifying observably verifiable statements. If I say I was CEO of Microsoft, but I wasn't - that's lying on your resume. However, if I really like a chick, but lean back in my chair and look sideways over my shoulder at her, that's presenting a false image. BUT there's no way she can peak inside my brain and say, "AHA! You appear to be emotionally aloof the way I want my men to be, but you're actually oh-so-very-interested in me! You liar!" Furthermore, no amount of "effort" can magically make my resume-lie become true. (If I wasn't the CEO of Microsoft on the dates I indicated, then not even becoming the CEO of Microsoft two years from now can turn the lie into a truth.) But if I earnestly commit to maintaining the illusion of emotional distance, then my commitment can and DOES turn my emotional aloofness into a truth. (I am emotionally aloof, because that's how I've always (or mostly) been, and you have zero objective evidence with which to call me emotionally non-aloof.) Provoking insecurity is universal advice for PUAs, and the basic rationale is that younger women experience a constant sense of superiority over their same-aged peers. So a man who provokes her insecurity is interesting. Whereas older women behave better when they're insecure, because they don't want to lose their Future Resource Provider to a younger, prettier female. Lying about income is highly frowned upon, but avoiding questions about your income is strongly advised. (Roosh offers many hilarious ways to dodge the question.) Feigning disinterest is also universally advised, and was discussed above. That blue clause almost made me drop my laptop. A woman who is extraordinarily aware about her relative Peak SMV (http://therationalmale.com/2012/06/04/final-exam-navigating-the-smp/ AND http://therationalmale.com/2015/04/24/the-reckoning/) is ultra-mega-super-hyper rare. In fact, our entire society is devoted to masking the truth about a woman's relative Peak SMV, because a man who knows this truth is strongly tempted to become a Mega-Colossal-Ultra-Dick. (All men who discover the truth about Peak SMV become as least some form of Dick; women just don't want you to become an Ultra-Dick.) (Hilariously, I had a wonderful Skype conversation with a woman on FDR between the ages of 20 and 35. She reads The Rational Male website very frequently, but her boyfriend / fiancée does not. I told her I was imagining me-without-Rollo's-knowledge dating a woman who possesses Rollo's knowledge. (Jeeeeeeeeeesus!) She laughed. Overall, her knowledge makes her much more worried about her future than an ignorant woman would be. And though her knowledge allows her to take action, most of her action involves waiting and hoping that her boyfriend becomes a better man, because that's literally her only solution. A man who empathizes with her situation is much less prone to becoming an Ultra-Dick, but he will become some form of Dick.) It's 95% mindless hysteria and 5% wisdom. The wisdom part goes, "Oh my God! I want a genuinely awesome man, not a man who's merely pretending to be awesome - because a pretend-awesome man can stop pretending at any time!" But the counter-argument is, "Lady, less than 5% of men are naturally awesome. So if we give you what you want, 95% of all men would be celibate. And then the majority of men would be enslaved to the whims of the naturally awesome men. We used to live like this for hundreds, if not thousands, of years - and it was a very violent time. Eventually the majority of men (the 95%-ers) overthrew the rulership of the 5%-men, leading to the much more stable and peaceful society you currently live in. Thus, while I understand your need for genuinely-awesome men, I will NOT let you bankrupt the entire society so that you don't have to put up with less-than-awesome men." (Note: "bankrupt the entire society" IS NOT hyperbole: every society that has allowed women to vote has become bankrupt, because women use the power of the state to ensure their financial futures are provided so that they needn't rely on less-than-awesome men to provide for their financial futures.) ------------------ Furthermore, this whole argument about, "PUAs manipulate women by hiding Who They Really Are" has already been demolished by Roosh's two-pronged argument: (1) Who You Really Are is like a yardstick that no one but you can ever see. (2) How You Present Yourself is a millimeter-sized portion of Who You Really Are. And it is also what every woman you've ever hit on has ever responded to because it was literally impossible for her to have seen Who You Really Are. So everything is presentation, and all presentations are real because they've been really presented. A man who seriously devotes himself to consistently presenting himself a certain way does eventually truly become How He Presented Himself The Entire Time. Thus, Who You Really Are is nothing but a consistent application of How You Present Yourself. Thus, there is no contradiction between PUA and "authenticity".

All of my conclusions about male and female natures come from Rollo Tomassi, and bedrock conclusions stem from articles on menstruation (http://therationalmale.com/2012/09/25/your-friend-menstruation/ AND http://therationalmale.com/2014/12/17/estrus/) and Peak Sexual Market Value, particularly the conclusion that female Peak SMV happens at age 23 and male Peak SMV happens at age 36 (http://therationalmale.com/2012/06/04/final-exam-navigating-the-smp/ AND http://therationalmale.com/2015/04/24/the-reckoning/). If you're only interested in reading one article, read the FOURTH one linked. If you're not interested in reading any articles, I can offer a short summary. Women are born into plenty, because starting from youth they're treated kindly, provided a considerate amount of help and emotional freedom, and usually experience a constant sense of warm regard from others. But as women get older, their SMV decreases, and those gifts they receive from society dwindle through no fault of their own. Men, on the other hand, are born into struggle, because starting from youth they're treated the opposite of how girls are treated. When a man ages, he acquires more resources, become stronger and more mature, and hopefully acquires more friends and lovers who appreciate him. (Sadly, most men get their optimism crushed in this society, because of both the constant focus on women's needs and the constant negative messages a man receives from the media and society.) The loss of joy that a woman experiences as she ages makes her naturally non-optimistic, while the sense of growth and potential a man experiences as he ages makes him naturally optimistic.

My read: she's a typical female experiencing negative emotions around Stefan's rants against women. And she really does want to have a rational conversation about her annoyance with Stefan's rants. But she doesn't know how to ask charmingly when she's annoyed, and no one (as yet) wants to extend an olive branch to her.

It's not a specific problem because utopian refuses to name it as a specific problem. Once he names it as a specific problem, (say ebola), then every philosophically rigorous individual will ask him crucial questions like: (1) What degree of control do you have over the problem itself? (2) Who are the individuals, if any, who have more direct control over the problem AND what influence do you have over them? (3) Has this type of problem existed in the past and what did we learn about our attempts to solve it? (4) Why, specifically, do you choose this problem to focus on? (5) Has this problem existed for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, thereby suggesting that the problem itself is not really problematic? This devoted questioning will get utopian to the root of understanding the problem, and will provide a meaningful course of action that utopian must follow if he wants to be known as a follower-of-truth. But utopian refuses to specify the problem, because he doesn't want to get to the root of it. (Go ahead and ask him to pinpoint the problem. See what happens. I double-dog dare you. )

I didn't communicate clearly enough in my previous post. (1) I am *NOT* encouraging you to just walk away from this interaction, (even though I, personally would do so). (2) I *AM* warning you that you're unlikely to succeed so that you won't either blame the entire female gender for the actions of this woman or blame yourself for your inability to convince her to follow your advice. It's tough to be emotionally detached from this situation, especially when children are involved. But you must be emotionally detached, because you have very little influence over what she (or any woman who isn't your wife) does.

The Lizard of Oz made an alternative connection that I prefer over your explanation. (1) Here's a news story: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/magazine/the-last-day-of-her-life.html?_r=1 tl;dr summary: A 65-year old female feminist professor, who married a man who later turned out to be gay, and had two children decided to kill herself before the disease wreaked major havoc on her brain. She has two children, one an adult son who "couldn't attend the plug-pulling ceremony". (2) Some RVF members expressed sadness over her death, but The Lizard of Oz had a completely different take: http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-47539-post-1022692.html#pid1022692 Nope -- there is nothing "sad" about it. Let's reserve that word for where it belongs. The only reaction this story elicited from me was a chortling and hearty LOL. It is the distillation of so many things -- this "brave" "beautiful" "pixie" midget radical feminist female academic who married a gay ghoul, raised their kids "gender neutral" and solemnly chooses "death with dignity" because of "Alzheimer's" -- it reads like a parody, it's like no one would be shameless enough to put these things together. But here they are. It is a remarkable fact that no word -- not one -- falls with a heftier and more decided seriousness on the page and on the screen of the New York Times than the sacred word "Alzheimer's". The only word that equals it in solemnity -- but does not exceed it -- is the word "warming" when it is used with no qualifiers, in its solitary glory. The fanatical nihilists that populate the pages of this rag have long been obsessed with "death with dignity"; they have a ghoulish and almost gleeful fear of the depredations of old age, since that is when what they know to be the "meaninglessness" of life finally gets proven out, when insult finally gets added to injury. And this worthless midget aspie coming to terms with pentobarbital and letting everyone in on her infinitely solemn decision -- even though the "troubled" son could not "attend the suicide" -- does not evoke the least pang of sympathy let alone sadness. When people live lives that are so grotesque, so deranged, that "attending the suicide" is your fun family gathering of a spring Saturday, they do not partake of pathos. It is rank sentimentality to feel that death -- especially such a depraved and disgusting one -- confers any worth on someone whose life was an absurd parody. There is no "sadness" here, and not even a "story"; just an almost too good to be true distillation of a peculiar depravity, all the more comical for the worshipful solemnity with which it is delivered; as if the this NYT Alzheimer's lullaby were the very locus of meaning, emotion, and interest. What a world, LOL. ------------------- They're not punishing daddy for his exploitive relationships with mommy; they're punishing daddy for conspiring with mommy to give birth to them. They are anti-life, which is why they're anti-sex, anti-joy, anti-pretty women, and anti-masculine optimism.

I posted in another thread that women DO NOT have the same level of empathy for men that they do for women. Once a man accepts women's natural lack of empathy, he rarely (if ever) tells her his problems, preferring to speak with trusted male friends. Around women, he adopts a stronger, less emotional, more determined focus - which women find immediately more attractive. From there, he either gets bitter (and ruins the gains made from his new emotional mindset) *OR* he realizes that every successful man he's ever competed against (and lost to) has had just as many problems, but was masking the expression of those problems the entire time. Women don't care whether you're authentic; they care whether you're awesome.

Do you think the man is strong enough to stand up against his wife in this situation? When you said, "They also plan on having children as this has also always been part of her plan (not necessarily his plan but that's another topic).", I got the impression that she's calling the shots, and he's just going along with what she wants. (In other words, the most common male/female marriage dynamic.) So you're basically A Guy She Isn't Sleeping With trying to directly tell her that she's not allowed to have what she wants. Matthew M's argument is good, so it "should" work on a logical, rational person - but I don't think it'll work on another man's wife. That doesn't mean you shouldn't tell her what you feel, but I wouldn't go all-in with an attitude of utmost certainty. At best, you slowly (meaning multiple conversations over a series of weeks) convince the man to stand up to her - but you didn't give me the impression that he's able or willing to stand up to his wife over this issue.

Because, "What do you want from online dating?" isn't the proper first question to ask. The overwhelming majority of messages are sent from men to women. (Does KyleK intend to message no one, and hope that a special woman notices him? If so, that's an extremely low-percentage play, and his profile needs to be perfect. But as long as he doesn't get his hopes up, and supplements his dating approaches with Day Game, he'll be fine.) Since the majority of messages are sent from men to women, you can assume that every woman he messages gets a minimum of twenty messages from other guys. Now if we assume, probably correctly, that 50% of those messages are legitimately stupid, KyleK is still competing against ten other men. So the proper first question is, "What does KyleK possess that those other nine men lack, and how does he efficiently broadcast this possession in ways that females recognize and positively respond to?" And the follow-up question is, "Assume that the chick he just messaged is experiencing lukewarm interest from at least two men, in real life. How does KyleK overcome the handicaps of not-being-able-to-talk-to-her-directly, using his words and pictures to outcompete those two men?" (If he doesn't know any of these answers, his profile will probably not be successful.) (My personal favorite follow-up question is why KyleK is using online dating, as opposed to meeting women face-to-face. Is it approach anxiety? Lack of experience? A hope that online dating is somehow more "efficient" - (less time-consuming)? But if he doesn't want to answer these questions, he doesn't have to.) You'll notice that my two questions focus on What She Wants (a.k.a. Why should she pick you over about twelve other guys?), rather than on What He Wants. ---------------------------------- The thing that really struck me - (and Matthew M and Susanna both noticed this) - is how (1) KyleK has turned his own business from a one-man operation to a five-man operation, (2) that KyleK's mentioning of this (and the rest of his life) doesn't seem all that exciting, and (3) when Susanna kindly suggested adding gym-photos to add excitement, KyleK replied, "Could you elaborate on the necessity of a guy coming across as exciting? Or ways to remain authentic while doing that. I'm a pretty calm guy who's trying to attract a girl who is at a similar energy level." Connor, if you click on my profile, you'll come across the three most important words I use to describe myself: Small Business Owner. But I don't have five employees, I just have one. And I've been doing what I do for eight years. I've some very important entrepreneurial changes planned, and I've become much more in touch with why my business exists, and why my clients should use my business over everyone else's. This heightened awareness produces both excitement and a sense of mission/focus that I can easily communicate in an online dating profile. Meanwhile, in Toronto, KyleK doesn't understand "the necessity of a guy coming across as exciting" while describing the core focus of his life for multiple years - which four people, (his employees), depend upon to pay their rents, feed their families, buy their food, and clothe their backs! And WHY doesn't he understand "the necessity of a guy coming across as exciting?" Because he is very much concerned with "how to remain authentic" while describing his business, because "he's a calm guy who wants to attract a similarly calm woman". Connor, his non-understanding of why he should be excited about his business is caused by his focus on What He Wants, the calm girl with similar energy level. So advising him to focus on what he wants is just going to exacerbate his ignorance of what women who use online dating want.

Esteemed RooshVForum member, The Lizard of Oz, calls this "Year Zero" thinking. http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-30159-post-580633.html#pid580633 One of the first things that happened in the immediate aftermath of the French Revolution was the introduction, first informally and then by edict, of a new calendar. Initially, the revolutionary year of 1789 was declared Liberty Year I, the following year was Liberty Year II and so on, but with the proclamation of the Republic it was decided that 1792 should in fact be considered Liberty Year I. In addition, the old conventions for designating months and even hours of day were abolished and replaced with new conventions. These changes lasted for about 10 years and were abolished by 1802. When the Cambodian Khmer Rouge captured Phnom Penh on April 17 1975, Pol Pot, who was educated in Paris and learned much from his French colonial masters, declared Year Zero. The period of terror, genocide, and wholesale destruction of a society that followed was so insane and memorable that the term entered the lexicon, popularized by an eponymous 1979 documentary. To quote from the brief wiki article on the subject: When I read contemporary feminist and some varieties of "progressive" text, and observe the ever growing power, accompanied by ever growing hysteria, of these ideologies, I am often struck by the extent to which they embody Year Zero thinking. They take for granted the demented conceit that ways of life, habits and traditions that have existed throughout long periods of human history, or that are obviously innate to the species itself, can be declared null and void overnight and replaced by entirely different ways of life that are introduced by mere ideological fiat. We all know the examples but let me list just a few: -- For tens of thousands of years and probably for as long as the species has existed, the sexual game between men and women has been played in a certain way across virtually all cultures, with the man as the aggressor and the pursuer and the woman as the more or less willing and seductive quarry who teases the hunter and offers various degrees of more or less token resistance before being overwhelmed and ravished. Year Zero ideology pretends that this age-old ritual is henceforth abolished. "Consent is sexy", and "consent must be continuously maintained". Anything outside of a harshly explicit, unnatural, and ludicrous code of conduct between the sexes is defined as equivalent to "rape". -- Throughout human history it has been clear that there are innate differences between men and women that determine their roles in society. These are too well-known to rehearse. Year Zero ideology pretends that such roles are mere "social constructs" and can be summarily reversed. It can be mandated that women become as athletic and physically strong as men; it can be mandated that women become soldiers, scientists, and business leaders; and it can be mandated that men become "stay at home dads" and mangina "allies". Never mind what havoc, destruction, and at times, black comedy, are caused by these mandates; Year Zero is proclaimed and they must be enforced, come what may. -- Throughout history, marriage has been understood as something that happens between men and women. While homosexuality is as old as the species itself, the idea that two men or two women can be "married" to each other would have been met not by outrage but by shrugging incomprehension a mere few decades ago. Year Zero ideology mandates that, from one day to the next, the definition be extended to "gay marriage" as if this were the most natural thing in the world. A concept that only yesterday would not have been understood even as a joke is now supposed to be taken instantly for granted, and the radical and unprecedented nature of this break from the past is to be either elided or celebrated as a sign of "how far we've come in a short period". One could go on, but the idea is clear. There are two features worth noting that characterize all Year Zero ideologies and the texts they generate: 1. Because a new and unnatural reality is mandated and must be made to exist by fiat, new linguistic constructs and slogans of various kinds must be invented to characterize this reality. Because these constructs arise from ideology and not from organic language, they always sound nauseatingly strained and artificial. When you see a "consent is sexy" t-shirt what you have before you is an example of brutally unnatural Year Zero language, and its lack of organic connection to the true and living language makes you want to throw up. 2. Because Year Zero ideological constructs are unnatural and contrary to human experience, the only way to ensure their implementation is by the savage and absolute suppression of all dissent. While contemporary Year Zero ideologues have (luckily) neither the power nor the bloodthirstiness of a Stalin or a Pol Pot, they are increasingly ruthless and effective in suppressing dissent and characterizing obvious and simple truths as expressions of "hate" or "bigotry". I believe that Year Zero is a highly useful term that succinctly characterizes something important about the lunatic nature of contemporary feminism and allied ideologies. I am reminded of this term more and more often, and feel like I want to start using it in all kinds of contexts on the forum as an effective shorthand. But I thought that before starting to use a term that not everyone is familiar with, an explanation would be in order. Hence this post.The idea behind Year Zero is that all culture and traditions within a society must be completely destroyed or discarded and a new revolutionary culture must replace it, starting from scratch. All history of a nation or people before Year Zero is deemed largely irrelevant, as it will (as an ideal) be purged and replaced from the ground up.

It's a good argument when you assume that casual sex is a "problem" - but I view casual sex as a solution. The real problem begins with the fact that women reach peak Sexual Market Value at age 23, but men reach theirs at age 36. So a girl is born into a world of plenty, since her parents, the media, and the educational system are all designed to bolster her self-esteem. (The most cynical way I've heard this phrased: "Young girls always talk about how nice everyone is. But they grow up and insist that the entire world has turned mean. Silly woman, the world has always been mean: you just got old.") That fact leads to the problem, which is, "Every young woman has a ton of male suitors, all of whom promise commitment and love - but few of whom can deliver on that promise over a lifetime." (Men interpret this problem as, "Asshole Men" versus "Good Men", but it's more complex than that. Most "Good Men" severely over-estimate their abilities to provide for women's needs, without being deliberately exploitive and mean. So most "Good Men" aren't Asshole Men, but they're not Good Men either.) (Men also fail to realize that there's no Halo. Virtuous Men don't glow a special color, wear special clothes, or uniquely respond to ultra-violet light; we look exactly like Non-Virtuous Men.) The ideal strategy for men and women is for a woman to commit (when she's 23) to a man who becomes awesome at 36, and who stays loyal. The man with potential. The man her parents approve of. But this ideal strategy is terrible for women when she picks the wrong man.....and all of the men look the same.....and she's not going to refuse to sleep with men - (since it's the men's fault for not being obviously awesome). So....casual sex is the solution. It's a way for her to have relationships without bonding with the man she's having sex with - (because he's not entirely worth bonding to right now, since she doesn't know his potential, nor his loyalty). ---------------------------- I have no problem with the solution - because I've adapted to it: bang first, then introduce a deeper picture of Who I Really Am. *NOT* introduce a deeper picture of Who I Really Am - (because she's not old enough, wise enough, nor interested enough to get a deeper picture of what a stranger is actually like) - then bang. Next time we Skype, I'll tell you a relevant story. -------------------- I don't categorically oppose therapy, the acquisition of self-knowledge through introspection, and a male's desire for emotional intimacy from women. But I do understand the odds. Most men use these things because they're scared of being rejected and/or scared of making a long-term investment with The Wrong Woman - but these fears ruin the process. A man must be fearless to acquire the best woman he can get. It has always been this way. If it helps, you're the one man in this thread whom I most assume isn't fearful - and Rainbow Jamz's "I No Want Sex With Sofia Vergara Because She Worky Too Damn Much" and Matt D's "MMX2010 endorses domination!" posts strike me as insincere revelations of fearfulness. (And FDR's vehement opposition to Pick-Up Artistry also strikes me as fearful.)

You are describing the dating process logically, even though the dating process for women is primarily emotional. A woman simply cannot feel a man's "maturity, honesty, reliability, strong sense of self, and deep knowledge of what he wants in a relationship" - because these things aren't emotions. They're personality traits that a woman can only ever understanding by dating a man for an extended period of time. (There are no short-cuts to getting a woman to understand you as a person.) When a man approaches a woman in public, he uses his body language, voice tone, speech modulation, and facial gestures to create an emotional sense of what it might be like to date him (or sleep with him). If a woman emotionally decides to date him, she dates him; and if she emotionally decides to sleep with him, she sleeps with him. (That is all that ever is, no matter how smart you imagine the woman to be.) But when a man uses an online dating profile to approach a woman, he replaces his body language, voice tone, speech modulation, and facial gestures with his words and his pictures. And so the words and pictures alone must create the emotional picture, a Herculean gesture for most men. A man who thinks the dating process is logical-for-women can't understand how a display of humor is supposed to work. He will logically ask you to dryly explain how the humor-display is supposed to logically-convey an accurate, authentic picture of Who He Really Is, especially when he's not inclined to be humorous. When that happens, you'll understand what I meant by, "You, Matthew M, are trying to explain dating logically, as if it were primarily a logical process for women. But dating, for women, is primarily an emotional process." And a man who thinks my affair is somehow relevant isn't giving humble advice; he's trying to portray himself as morally better, so that his advice will be taken more seriously.

You do realize that the "train" is a metaphor for something you never clarified, despite having seven paragraphs to do so? Is the "train" ebola, a large-scale economic collapse, an energy crisis, a severe water shortage? And do you accept how annoying it is that you "made us" ask you what the "train" represents?

First of all, I don't use online dating. I prefer Day Game. Secondly, There's a certain male stubbornness (or naivete) which insists that through argumentation alone, (while ignoring all available evidence) it is correct. You've asserted that it's "win-win" for females to give you advice, but no female in this forum has given you advice. Repeat: no female on this forum has given you advice. (Unless they've done so privately, which means their advice isn't exposed to critical scrutiny. Again, this is stubbornness of your part. YOU are the creator of the profile, so it's your job to passionately describe your life in a way that I (and women) can palpably feel. The women who don't respond to your profile will not put themselves in a position where you can tell them, "Oh, but you just don't get it." and "Oh, but you're wrong about the passion with which I live my life." Lastly, when you say, "but I've had good feedback on the images so far, from women and OKC overall has worked very well for me" - did you sleep with every woman who has given you good feedback on the images so far, and with every woman whom you've successfully met through OKCupid? If not, why not? Start with these. http://images.clipartpanda.com/happy-man-images-A-Happy-Man.jpg http://uvnqtno6xq158w827ulxd16yl.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2014/03/Fotolia_8789265_Subscription_XXL.jpg Place those two photos next to your profile photos and insist that all three photos depict equally-happy men. If you can't do that, (because your photo depicts a much less happier man), then that is your first (and most easily correctible) problem. -------------- Secondly, when you said, "I'd be open to that because I do struggle to sound enthusiastic through text, without seeming like a woo-boy.", the word "woo-boy" is a prejudicial / bigoted dismissal of Men Who Are More Confident Than You. When people are prejudiced against the thing that they want to be, they prevent themselves from being what they want to be. Drop your prejudice, so that you can become more confident.

I know what K-strategy is, but not nearly everyone who practices K-strategy will successfully reproduce. And if they don't reproduce, they're not exactly following K-strategy. Right. I've heard him say that, but there's a problem. He's an older alpha male, who has clearly mastered the three-circle Venn diagram I've repeatedly posted. That makes him a genius. But he's advising much younger, decidedly non-alpha males who've not yet mastered those three circles. So when he says, "After a ten minute conversation with her, I knew she wasn't right for me...", I'm inclined to believe him - but when one of his followers says the same thing, I'm much more skeptical. ------ And your argument doesn't particularly address my points: (1) Because it takes about two years to get a fuzzy picture of Who Someone Really Is, everyone judges you by How You Present Yourself unless they've known you for about two years. (2) This means that all relationships that are shorter than two years are determined by How You Present Yourself, rather than Who You Really Are. (2a) It is also true that the majority of deep personal changes come from a "Fake It Until You Make It" mantra, which means How You Present Yourself should be your main focus when meeting new people - NOT an introspective, "How do I feel about that person?" monologue which ruins Your Presentation. -------------- By the way, the few studies that attempted to determine "ability to spot liars" as a product of profession concluded that no professions are statistically better at spotting liars. We tend to believe, because it's convenient to believe. Domination? When I use CTRL + FIND on the words "dominate", "domination", "control", "manage", "coerce", and "force" - those words don't match anything I said. Now, it's quite possible I missed where I endorsed such "domination". So if you'd kindly point out where you think I've endorsed "domination", I'll gladly clarify. But if you don't explain yourself, I'll be extraordinarily annoyed and sad that you used such an aggressive word on a Libertarian/Anarchist message board without any evidence.

My counter-argument is as follows: (1) We both agree that pretty much everyone is traumatized by their parents, and we both agree that this traumatization negatively impacts all future adult relationships. (2) We also both agree that the primary form of traumatization is "lack of emotional connection" - (detailed thoroughly by J D Silverman above), so we must conclude that the primary form of the cure is "presence of emotional connection". (Simply put, if a man's disease is caused by lack of water, we infer that the disease will be cure (or lessened) by giving him more water.) (3) So, basically, the majority male population between the ages of 18 and 30 consists of men who weren't nurtured enough, and who have concluded that emotional nurturing from women is the cure that they need. (4) But women aren't biologically inclined to nurture men; they're biologically inclined to nurture children. And when men become emotionally needy, expecting nurturance from their women, women become turned off. (I've had routine Skype conversations with many women in FDR, and all of them have echoed this theme.) ---------------------- So my ultimate argument is: (1) The men who so strongly push "emotional connection" with women - (especially younger women who have a lot of male suitors) - are doing so because of childhood trauma. (2) If those men weren't traumatized that way, they'd act differently. (3) Pick-Up Artistry is nothing more than a man pretending not to be like that, so that he can reinforce the constant pretending, so that he can crystallize and habituate the pretense, thereby genuinely becoming not-like-that. (4) The act of introspection, especially through therapy, intensifies the focus on "emotional connection" - which makes the "turning off of women effect" more and more pronounced. (5) At about age 27, a small percentage of women begin to seek "emotional connection" at the same level of these traumatized men; and by about age 33, the majority of women begin to seek this "emotional connection". So the majority of "both of us went to therapy, and then we met and fell in love" marriages involve older men with few sexual partners marrying older women with an unknown number of sexual partners. (6) Casual sex, especially when younger women are involved, is a marked rejection of the desire for "emotional connection" with their same-aged traumatized male peers. They would rather be with a man who's aloof to them - because at least he's not needy. Casual sex, therefore, is not "working against our biology" - but is rather a clarion warning that the majority of men are working against our biology. Men simply cannot be needy, not when they seek sex and (eventual) emotional commitment from young, fertile females.

You might be stuck in a "Frame War". Are you sure it's emotions that he's avoiding, or is he avoiding emotions in response to specific topics that you want to analyze? What topics do you discuss that he avoids? And does he get emotional over "stupid shit", like the way I do regarding my favorite hockey team?

Yes, but this is by design. Rainbow Jamz is a sex-negative person, and he peppers his sex-negativity with passive aggressive accusations like "sociopath", "not really interested in self-knowledge", "not really connected with their emotions", and "not really knowing what they want in life". Sex-negative people simultaneously have less sex than everyone else and suspect that women justly equate sexual experience with the ability to sexually please. So the sex-negative person needs to disqualify everyone who has had more sex by categorically dismissing their sexual experience and/or personal (or moral) characters. Anyone with a basic understanding of Game/Pick-Up Artistry can recognize his Disqualification ("I'm better than everyone else who has had more sex than me, period.") and his Beta-Identification Game ("I'm better qualified to have long-term sexual relationships with women, because my being-in-touch with my emotions mirrors the way that women are in touch with their emotions, which is what women always want."). The notion that stoic, masculine men are better than emotionally introspective men in some cases, as exhibited by the behaviors (i.e. - sexual preferences) of some women, does not enter into his consciousness. (Or, when it does, it's always because the men is defective, the woman is defective, or both.) Then he'd have to apologize for insulting everyone who doesn't equate sexuality to emotional tumult and potential danger. Then he'd have to seriously consider whether his own emotional reactions to sexuality are wrong OR caused by childhood trauma. Then he'd open himself up to the possibility of changing his mind. What if the connection is neither "instinct", nor a "learned behavior caused by cultural training", but a wrongfully-perceived-to-be-uncontrollable reaction stemming from childhood trauma? (Meaning, that RJ's parents were horrible to him - much like every FDR members parents were horrible to us - but RJ transmuted that parental horror into, "If only I can find a loving, understandable woman to mother me the way I wasn't mothered...") This aesthetic preference wouldn't be right or wrong, even though it was caused by his bad childhood. But it would be wrong to: (1) universalize that aesthetic preference as if it stemmed from moral realization, (2) unjustly morally criticize every man who disagrees with him, (3) unjustly morally criticize every woman who prefers not to view sexuality as "woman mothers man to help man heal", and (4) to expect the majority of young, pretty women to view sexuality this way. ----------------- When I read J. D. Silverman's post, I'm filled with sadness over his bad childhood experiences, but I'm also glad that he doesn't moralize his aesthetic preferences for sex and intimacy over the entire human race. He doesn't say, "Because being held and holding a person feels like the sweetest ecstasy to me, then it ought to feel like the sweetest ecstasy to everyone else. And everyone who disagrees is probably sociopathic, and/or not really into self-knowledge, and/or not really in touch with their emotions, and/or doesn't really know what they want out of life, and/or prefers discussions over non-actionable abstractions." And because he doesn't say these things, he is open to trying on an uncomfortable personality which no longer views hugging as ecstasy. His unwillingness to moralize his preferences makes him open to personal change. And it makes him much less likely to insult others who don't share his preferences.