MMX2010

It's not about "we"; it's about EasyNumbers123. EasyNumbers123 shouldn't necessarily limit what he can do based on his gender, BUT he must realize that the overwhelming majority of people do, indeed, limit themselves because of their gender. These highly predictable self-limitations produce highly predictable expectations-of-others. By catering to those expectations, the OP can greatly increase his chances of connecting to other people, which is what he claims to want to do. Now, if EasyNumbers123 happens to be transgender, (or whichever one of the 80-plus gender newspeak terms Millennials use), then you can counsel him on how to defy gender-expectations. But if he isn't, then it's beneficial for him to understand what these expectations are, and how to live up to them.

That's a stupid approach, because my expectations of women in modern situations can easily be different from your expectations of women in the same modern situations because I am not you, and you are not me. Hell, my expectations of women in modern situations can easily be different from my expectations of women in modern situations from five years ago, because I am not who I was five years ago. Though, I am being rather harsh in calling your approach "stupid", because it's actually "subconsciously calculated". By avoiding discussion of the differences between myself and yourself, (or between omegahero and yourself), we don't get to analyze You as a Person, You as a Physical Body, You as a Seducer, You as an Empathizer, nor any version of You as a Something-Women-Could-Want. So we never get to pinpoint the things you could do to self-improve, which is (I think) precisely the point of your postings.

I was linked to this article on empathy, oxytocin (the hormone responsible for empathy), and male/female differences in the display of empathy after being injected with oxytocin. http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/3/311.abstract ------------------ Unconscious Premise Held By Many FDR Members: Men and women are equally capable of being empathetic towards each other, because both men and woman have moral agency. Philosophy tells us so. Truth Revealed By The Linked Study: Men and women are biologically hard-wired to have differential levels of compassion towards each other, with men being far more compassionate towards women than women are compassionate towards men. Therefore, any man who expects an equalitarian relationship formulated on roughly-equal levels of compassion is much more likely to be frustrated than satisfied.

I was linked to this article on empathy/compassion, oxytocin (the hormone responsible for empathy/compassion), and male/female differences in the display of empathy after being injected with oxytocin. http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/3/311.abstract ------------------ Unconscious Premise Held By Many FDR Members: Men and women are equally capable of being empathetic towards each other, because both men and woman have moral agency. Philosophy tells us so. Truth Revealed By The Linked Study: Men and women are biologically hard-wired to have differential levels of compassion towards each other, with men being far more compassionate towards women than women are compassionate towards men. Therefore, any man who expects an equalitarian relationship formulated on roughly-equal levels of compassion is much more likely to be frustrated than satisfied.

There is only one field-of-study which simultaneously: (1) knows which of her reasons are legitimate and which are bullshit, and (2) teaches men to both accept her legitimate reasons and to make a large amount of practiced changes to his personality so that he can legitimately date a libertarian lady. This field-of-study has a lot of scientific evidence supporting its effectiveness, but is angrily opposed by People Who Have Never Tried It as "immoral" and "fraudulent". The field-of-study is called Game, and its most esteemed teachers are Heartiste, Roosh, and Rollo. Ignore them at your own peril.

Full disclosure: Omegahero and I Skype call on a fairly regular basis. I haven't seen his girlfriend (but she sounds amazing), and he hasn't seen the philosophical woman I'm strongly interested in (but I know she's amazing). If I asked my woman to take a photo of herself and nine other equally attractive women, and then asked omegahero to point to my woman, would he succeed? If he asked his girlfriend to take a photo of herself and nine other equally attractive women, and then asked me to point to his girlfriend, would I succeed? If we both ran the same test on paragons of philosophy (Kevin Beal, Lians, and Stefan-himself), would they succeed? No, because every philosophical woman looks like every other non-philosophical woman. So the only way you can discover whether a woman is philosophical is to actually talk to her, over a period of months or years. This makes utopian's Frame, "Well, I've never had a satisfying long-term relationship with a philosophical woman, BUT I know what to expect from them!", utter foolishness. It's not only that. Their ability to truly care about our feelings is conditional upon our ability to care about their feelings. I've only been close to my woman for a short time, and I already feel the admonition that Not Every Single Feeling I Have Is Worth Sharing. What utopian would call "Censorship!" is what I would call Maturity and Empathy. So if I experience self-doubt, worry, or sadness (not that I experience either of these very much), my first reaction IS NOT, "Let's call her immediately, so we can talk about it." Instead it's, "If you know what to do, so as not to feel that way, do that - now. If you don't know what to do, figure it out, then do it." This symbiosis between her presence and my desire to crush ass on the regular is exactly what I've needed, (and probably what she's needed), for a very long time. It is also something that utopian has no idea exists, yet he's trying to change our minds about the nature of women. *shakes head* Yeah, well, the good thing about this is that if he doesn't change, then more for us.

Forgive me if my post seems overly harsh or snarky, but I've become quite impatient with men who unjustifiably self-flagellate. (1) You state that you are "stuck with the knowledge that I am failing in my pursuit of relationships composed of honesty." Since when can relationships, (by definition involving two-or-more people), be distilled into either, "It's all my failing." or "It's all their failing."? Mathematically, if you are having problems with another dude, and I don't know either of you, I'm smart to assume that the fault is split 50-50. More interestingly, if you're having problems with another dude, and I know that you have more self-knowledge, then I'd be smart to assume that the fault is split 75-25. (2) So why do you present this issue as if it's entirely your failing? I can guess two simple reasons: (1) You don't realize that focusing-on-relationships is a feminine-primary perspective, (which means that it's damaging for you, as a man, to focus like that). (2) You don't realize that when a man focuses on relationships, it's almost always because he has nothing going for him. No passion. No mission. No iron-clad (to himself) way of self-improving that he can feel working, day by day, week by week, year by year. (3) For me, it's as simple as, "Focus on my life and my mission, and the relationships that happen will 'magically' be the ones I need. In other words, the less I worry/wonder about relationships, the more my relationships become stronger and better." For you, it's probably not that simple (yet), so I can only offer two simple solutions: (1) Start working out. I'm not kidding about that. Having either excess fat on your body and/or very skinny, weak muscularity floods your body with estrogen. Estrogen is the female hormone, and too much of it causes a man to become overly emotional and all-too-highly focused on "relationships". (2) Make a list of things that You Know You Should Be Doing, But Aren't. And whenever you start worrying about "relationships", do something on that list. This solution is simple to conceive of, but difficult to accomplish. When you tell yourself, "I don't want to do that because I feel so lonely right now", do the friggin' thing anyway!! This will help you develop the simple-to-explain, hard-to-find, and crucially important life-skill called "Getting Shit Done, Even When I Don't Want To". (4) I'm 38 and have become very solid in myself and in my relationships with others. Consider that I, too, need to lead a double life at times. Consider, also, that I'd have no problem dropping E with 20-something idiots. I would do so, if I wanted to, because I think it would be fun. Simple as that. Or I would refuse to do so, because I don't want to. Again, simple as that. So consider, ultimately, that a night of pill-popping has little, if anything, to do with your degree of self-knowledge. Sometimes a pill is just a pill.

Says the poster who admits, "Emotionality is defining for me in a relationship because it is part of my desire to live life in its fullest capacity. It is one of the reasons I often think most of the human race should be destroyed, because if the idea that a woman should care about me is so unreasonable, then it seems like there is no humanity in humans left worth saving." Since when does "living life to the fullest" involve pouring the majority of your emotional energy into dreaming / hoping / wishing that THE MAJORITY OF THE HUMAN RACE BE DESTROYED?!? Since when does "saving what's left of humanity" involve pouring the majority of your emotional energy into dreaming / hoping / wishing that THE MAJORITY OF THE HUMAN RACE BE DESTROYED? Funniest of all, I'm no ladies-man, I don't have a lot of money, nor a great body, nor many of the things women find attractive. However, if you give every woman on this board a choice between "being with utopian" and "being with MMX2010", how do you think pretty much every woman will vote? Do you know why they'll vote for me? Because I don't think that the humanity can be saved by dreams, hopes, and wishes that the majority of people be destroyed. In fact, I think that anyone who has these visions represents the nadir of humanity - someone who has completely lost his humanity, but idiotically crowns himself as "Height of Humanity" to excuse his homicidal fantasies. You think women are stupid to prefer being with me over being with you, but they're actually quite smart. ------------------------------------------ You would rather Rage against the entire world than admit that you're wrong about Yourself, Your Capabilities, Your Ability to Change Others, and Your Ability to Change Yourself. And your Rage, (which you think no one can see, but everyone sees it), is why no one wants to emotionally connect with you. Your only other choice is Change. Change your expectations. Change your habits. Change your desire to control others into a desire to control yourself.

At the risk of sounding misogynistic, what you're describing is the core of being a woman. (I've become quite close to a woman who has such a strong personality, determination, and drive-to-succeed that you would think she's not like that. But she's like that. And becoming close to this woman has convinced me that all women are, indeed, like this.) What you're describing is neither good nor bad. It just becomes a horrible prison when you're with a non-driven, non-empathetic, emotionally-selfish, needy man. And as the percentage of worthy men decreases to all-time lows, the odds that you'll find the goodness of your feminine core also decreases. The question (I think...) you're asking is, "How do I alter this feminine core so that I can secure my own happiness, despite being surrounded by crappy men, (or, despite having no man at all)?" I've two answers: (1) You don't completely alter this core, because if you do, you'll become an angry, ugly feminist. None of these women are either happy or worth hanging around. (2) You can alter this core a little bit by changing your habits. If you're capable of doing the following, do it. Make two lists. List #1 is entitled Things I've Been Doing For A Very Long Time That Reflect Negatively On Me As A Person. List #2 is entitled Things I Haven't Been Doing That, If I Would Only Do Them, Would Reflect Positively On Me As A Person. Make multiple copies of those lists, and place them in conspicuous places around your house (and car, if necessary). Whenever you're tempted to do things from List #1, do things from List #2 instead. Do this long enough and, before you know it, you'll become a completely different person. If you're not capable of doing the above, (because you've no idea which actions reflect positively or negatively upon yourself), do the following. Make a spreadsheet of an entire week's worth of time, starting from Sunday at noon until the following Sunday at noon. Print this spreadsheet out, and bring it with you everywhere. Then, when you've completed an activity, write down: (1) what it was, (2) what time you did it, and (3) what you felt about doing it. (Short descriptions of feelings only!) When the week is over, look over the activities that feel "burdensome and unnecessary" and work to reduce/eliminate them from the following week. Then look over the activities that feel "free and beautiful" and work to increase them from the following week. Making a habit of doing what you want also puts your brain in the habit of figuring out what you really want to do. So, if you do this long enough, you'll figure out which activities belong to which list, above. I hope that was helpful.

You don't need a good reason, but you do need to guard against the lack of ambition / momentum / desire that stems from refusing to have them. You also need to consider the possibility that you only don't want to have children, because you think women aren't worth committing to. And you need to prepare for the inexplicable rush of "I want kids!" that will develop once you turn 33 through 38. If you're not prepared for that rush, you may do something stupid - like commit to the Wrong Woman.

Yes, you did. And yes, you will. Thank you for that. So far, though, you are the only poster on FDR (not counting me) who has. PatrickC acknowledged only one of these (the potentially negative aspects of therapy). Everyone else, to my knowledge so far, has acknowledged none of these. (And, oh yeah, by the way, my reputation has fallen from 100 to 46 in the days since I started this topic.) Vox Day has a large series of articles discussing Gammas, a particular class of people that lives in a delusionary bubble, and can never admit they're wrong. "I feel angry, therefore you need to change." is a classic Gamma attitude. Unfortunately, when I say "large series of articles", I mean a large series of articles. (1) This is the foundational article, which defines all important terms. http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/01/roissy-and-limits-of-game.html (2) If you find those terms interesting, then the four-part Graduating Gamma series, (designed to make a self-aware Gamma stop being Gamma), is excellent. Part One - http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2015/02/graduating-gamma-1.html Part Two - http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2015/02/graduating-gamma-2.html Part Three - http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2015/02/graduating-gamma-3.html Part Four - http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2015/03/graduating-gamma-4.html (3) If you love those articles, and are thirsty for more, just click on the Gamma tag at the Alpha Game Plan blog. No, but I'm using three additional facts. (1) I know that the members of the FDR NYC Meet-Up Group know that this topic exists, and that they disagree with it. One person's summary, (as always, I refuse to name names, but his initials are CU) stated, "What (MMX) posted wasn't really all that accurate." (2) I know that my reputation has fallen from 100 when I started this thread to 46 right now. (3) I know that the leader of the FDR NYC Meet-Up Group (whom I've strongly disagreed with about therapy) has repeatedly visited my profile ever since I started this topic. At bare minimum, it's safe to conclude that a sizable minority (if not the majority) of the members of that group simply cannot handle philosophical-dissent. They can't discuss the potentially negative aspects of therapy, nor the potentially negative aspects of RTR, nor the potentially negative aspects of seeking a virtuous women in a very narrow way - (i.e. - refusing to associate with anyone who shows the slightest hint of "non-virtue", while hoping that someday a "virtuous woman" will appreciate them). Beyond this bare minimum, it's either safe or reckless/unfair to conclude that a sizable minority (if not the majority) of FDR members are exhibiting similar behaviors. Unlike certain people who complained about Stefan's advice in FDR 2927, I don't expect anyone to change, (least of all, Stefan). I only expect to manage myself. But I do hope that everyone reading this thread can accept the good arguments I've made in order to better manage their emotions and thought processes, where necessary.

If we were to do this, the simplest practical outcome would be, "If you don't have a doctor's note supporting the existence of your transgender condition, then I'm not going to honor your request to change my pronouns to please you." In my opinion, the vast majority of transgender individuals wouldn't accept this outcome, choosing instead to deem me "transphobic" for mentioning it.

I'm not making the "U mad?" argument, I'm saying "And quality women don't hide; they exist, and they're out there. It's just that they don't have to settle for anything less than the crop of the cream of men." In my opinion, utopia's rage is so palpable that it is the defining part of his personality. Thus, if quality women don't have to settle for anything less than the cream of the crop of men, then utopia's rage disqualifies him from experiencing the best that women have to offer. And the reason is that "relationships entail being able to utterly trust a partner". No one trusts a Rager. No one ought to trust a Rager, especially one whose Rage is founded upon unjustified expectations.

It's definitely not a fair assessment, but that isn't the only unfairness that's happening in this thread. Statement, "ALL members of the FDR community who have been to therapy have used it to maximally pursue self-knowledge." *dissenting hand shoots up from the back row* "ALL?! Are you sure about that? There are so many ways that people-in-therapy can use to avoid seeking self-knowledge about painful topics that I don't see how ALL of them can behave as self-knowledge seeking paragons." ----------------------- Statement, "ALL members of the FDR community who have read Real-Time Relationships will use RTR-sounding language to engage in empathetic, philosophically-focused conversations with other FDR members." *dissenting hand shoots up from the back row* "ALL?! Are you sure about that? There are so many ways people can use an RTR-sounding statement to avoid philosophical discussion, to wrongfully place emotional self-management onto another person, or to refuse to acknowledge a philosophically-sound argument that they wish weren't true. With so many ways to use RTR-language inappropriately, it's hard to assume that everyone who knows RTR will be empathy-seeking, philosophy-seeking exemplars." --------------- Statement, "But no one has said "ALL"! *dissenting hand shoots up from the back row, crowd groans* "Really? No one has said?! Isn't it fair to assume that when people don't acknowledge the negative aspects of therapy and RTR-language, then they're behaving as if they believe that everyone who uses therapy and RTR-language is good?" I already apologized for framing my original post in imprecise language. But I won't acknowledge that I've been unfair without pointing out ways in which others have been unfair. This is an acknowledgement that my original post was unfair and imprecise.

You aren't investing in women (or people); you're investing in your ability to invest. You're strengthening your ability to want.

No, it is not about my preferences, it is about the definition of philosophy. "The purpose of philosophy is to discern truth from falsehood." - is Stefan's example from the introduction to philosophy series. One example he repeatedly uses is, "The statement, 'I had a dream about a unicorn last night..." can never be True or False, because there is no way to provide objective evidence that I did, or did not. (The implication is that you can either believe me or not believe me - but this is measured by the words Sincere / Insincere or Honest / Dishonest - NOT the words True / False.) The second implication is that the statement, "I feel frustrated and emotionally disconnected whenever talking with you." can also NEVER be True/False, because there's no way to provide objective evidence that you either do, or do not, feel that way. At best, I can either believe you, or not - but this, too, is measured along the Sincere / Insincere; Honest / Dishonest continuum, never the True / False one. You aren't addressing my argument, Patrick. I said, "There are two ways to refuse to engage with someone: (1) Anti-philosophically, because they're making solid arguments that you wish were false, but cannot refute. (2) Philosophically, because they're making non-arguments and you're solely interested in the truth." In response, you're saying, "It's entirely up to them...", which I already mentioned earlier, and agreed with you. Do you agree with me that those two ways to refuse to engage with people exist? You'll notice that this is a Yes/No question, which requires only a Yes/No answer. I will also stipulate that agreeing with me that these two ways-to-disengage exist, does not provide evidence that this is what happened. Still, I need you to answer Yes/No You're not addressing my argument, Patrick. Worse, you're turning my argument about the definition and purpose of philosophy into a secret psychological reading of my intentions. My argument, which you have not addressed, is that there are TWO WAYS to refuse to engage with someone: (1) Anti-philosophically, because they're making strong arguments that you wish were false, but cannot refute. (2) Philosophically, because they're making weak arguments that you've easily refuted, but refuse to change their minds. Why won't you (or anyone else, for that matter), either: (1) address that argument by proving that those two ways don't exist OR (2) address that argument by accepting that those two ways do exist, while accepting my stipulation that your admitting this doesn't prove that the other members of the FDR NYC Group were doing this?

As usual, I'll take the unpopular / dissenting view. This woman dumped you seven months ago, right? Do you think she (A) sobs herself to sleep at night, because you didn't understand her feelings, which scarred her so badly that she is now unlikely to find love with another man OR (B) smiles silently to herself every night before she goes to sleep either because she's found someone else, because she knows dumping you was the right move, or because both-of-these? From my experience with women, the odds are roughly 98% that it's B. And if it's B, she doesn't need your apology! She needs you to move on, ideally hyper-determined to not make the same mistake with the Next Woman. But she'll also gratefully settle for much less ideal situations, provided that you never contact her again. If you're dead-certain that it's A, by all means, apologize. But if it's not A, then you're not understanding her feelings - again - and are apologizing to her to make yourself feel good, which defeats the purpose of apologizing.

Small corrections: (1) The discussions at the FDR NYC Meet-Up group centered around "mistressing" - (sleeping with a woman who is engaged to someone else) - not rape. (2) Jer is the user who passive-aggressively asserted that the way I sleep with my mistress "sounds like rape" - and he hasn't backed down from his passive-aggressive and non-factual use of that term. So, as you're processing your feelings about this thread, you'll certainly benefit from the above corrections.

There's only one person in the world who will never misread your intention: YOU. And this works because only YOU are privy to 100% of your thoughts, emotions, desires, and beliefs: everyone else just gauges you based on what you say. And so there's a word for someone who experiences legitimate shock when someone else, (who, by definition, has limited access to your Total-Internality), mis-reads their intentions. There is, indeed, a word for this, but I cannot remember what it is.

There's a problem with that, though. I've never been to China, have never been emotionally involved with a Chinese person, and have absolutely no investment in China. So do you know what I never talk about, not even on message boards where I'm free to engage in any intellectual topic I wish? China. That you need to announce to as many people as possible how justified you feel in not emotionally investing in women is, in itself an emotional investment. It's either in (1) women, who you hope will defend themselves against your charges, or (2) other men, who will tell you how "noble", "honorable", and "somberly disappointing, but correct" your decision is. To seek confirmation is to be emotionally invested. There's a problem with this, too. Modern Americans are plagued with an ironic dilemma: it has never been easier for anyone (man or woman) to independently-develop themselves into a Truly Amazing Person, and yet the number (and relative percentage) of Truly Amazing People in America has never been smaller. How could this be? Because people are plagued with the "Why bother?" syndrome. As in, "Why should I, as a man, maximally develop my mind, body, finances, and flirtation skills when there's no guarantee that any woman will be loyal to me?" And as in, "Why should I, as a woman, maximally develop my body, peace-of-mind, flirtation skills, and deep trust in men when there's no guarantee that any man will be loyal to me?" The irony is NOT that these attitudes exist; it's that both men and women believe that no one else can see their attitudes. But these attitudes are so intensely odorous that everyone can see them, especially quality people who have no time for that odorous attitude. And so every woman rages at you because you rage at every woman, except the quality women don't rage at you. They hide.

According to a FOX news snippet, enforcement is two steps. (1) You get a $20 fine in the mail, unless you mail in a doctor's note (or some other legitimate excuse). (2) If you refuse to either justify non-voting or pay the $20 fine, you get dragged into court - with a $175 fine at stake.

That's not true, though, Patrick. Using an deliberately extreme example, two KKK members who commit violent crimes against minorities together will experience strong emotional connections based on vulnerability - (because what could be more vulnerable than committing violent crimes together?) - but their lack of devotion to philosophical truth will make their friendship extremely weak. Because the moment someone comes along with The Truth About Racism or The Truth About Racial Differences, both of these highly emotionally-connected individuals will work their damnedest to deny the truth. Using a less extreme example, any two individuals who've expressed deep vulnerability will have strong emotional connections with each other, but the strength of their friendship is determined by their devotion to philosophical truth. Because if someone comes along who knows an unpleasant truth, then their friendship is strong solely to the extent that they both can accept this unpleasant truth. I don't experience 'game' as "artfully avoiding emotional connection with people". Moreover, if you google 'avoid emotional connections' and any game-teacher's name (such as Roosh, Rollo, or Heartiste), you won't find any articles which explicitly advise people to avoid forming emotional connections with people. Lastly, I experience 'game" as (1) A scientifically-supported description about the nature of men and women, followed by (2) an artfully-applied series of instructions designed to prevent a man from being emotionally connected to anyone who will exploit that emotional connection. As far as "the whole reason for this thread", you're mistaken about that, too. I don't "disagree with their application of philosophy", I disagree that they ever applied philosophy to certain important decisions, such as their interactions with members of the opposite sex or their conclusions about the degree of honesty present in modern romantic relationships. Your words in bold are highly-important to me, because you're the first person in this thread - (and perhaps in the FDR-audience in general) - to admit that clients can deliberately manipulate their therapists to avoid grasping important truths. My experience with the FDR NYC Group is that at least three of them were doing this. As far as FDR-members-in-general doing this, all I can say is that too many FDR-members have been in therapy and the temptation to manipulate your therapist is so high, that it's mathematically impossible for zero FDR-members to engage in this behavior. I, obviously, cannot name specific people - because I don't deeply communicate with all of them; but I can argue that it certainly happens. Yes, anyone is free to exclude anyone they wish. But there are two ways to do this: (1) Philosophically, because the person is making bad arguments and you're focused on acquiring truth. (2) Anti-philosophically, because the person is making philosophically-sound arguments, and you're focused on avoiding truth. My experience was that I was excluded for anti-philosophical reasons. Thanks for your replies, though. There are two problems with your point, though: (1) As someone who avoids putting yourself in these risky situations, you have zero experience (or interest) in developing counter-measures against them. (2) I already have access to a large collective of men who both put themselves into these situations AND know how to avoid the worst of consequences. Thus, I'd rather listen to their advice than yours. And since you didn't even ask whether I needed your help, you can't argue that you were empathetically trying to protect me. No one. You'll also notice I never explicitly stated that I adhere to that standard. My standard is, "If you're not using science to make the really important decisions in your life, then you're not nearly as devoted to science as someone who does." And the same standard applies to philosophy. My experience is that a large number of people who claim to be interested in philosophy avoid using it to discuss really important (and seriously painful / frightening) issues. Hence, these people are not nearly as philosophically-rigorous as people who use philosophy to discuss these issues. I agree with you here. But my experience of the meet-up was that certain members were NOT being honest with me about their feelings, WERE putting responsibility onto me for managing their feelings, and WERE using their feelings to try and stop me from making an argument they didn't like. And my experience of RTR (the book) is that it contains zero warnings or disclaimers that such a thing is possible. And my experience of FDR (the community) is that you are the only person who has explicitly implied that such a thing is possible. So thanks for that. This conversation has been very helpful to me. I hope that others have been similarly helped by it.

No, they do more than just that. For you to find a woman that cares about your feelings, you have to live in a culture in which a large number of women already care about men's feelings. Broadly speaking, there are five potential factors which make large masses of people think, feel, and act in a certain way. The first way is Genetics, and Rollo's articles provide lots of objective evidence that women aren't genetically pre-disposed to care about men's feelings. The second way is Culture, and I think we both agree that modern American culture encourages women to NOT care about men's feelings. The third way is Religion, which some would deem just another example of Culture, but I would deem as completely different. Most religions do not teach women to care about men's feelings, and the ones that do accomplish this feat by placing a Strong Male at the center of authority in a young girl's life. Does it work? Yes, absolutely. Does it really suck for her, as a child? Yes, absolutely. The fourth way is Family, which can either be a pleasant experience for her (Peaceful Parenting) or a decidedly unpleasant experience for her (Religious Parenting). Ideally, you want her to have a pleasant childhood, but look around you and ask yourself, "How many reasonably attractive women do I know who've had pleasant childhoods - NOT decidedly unpleasant childhoods that she, due to a lack of self-knowledge, erroneously frames as pleasant BUT a genuinely pleasant childhood?" Your answer, like my answer, is probably zero. The fifth way is Magic. Magical Thinking is usually what people resort to when neither Genetics, Culture, Religion, nor Family can provide justification for their desires, but they don't want to surrender their desires, but sometimes Magical Thinking represents a piece of scientifically-supported evidence that few people grasp, and you are among the few who do. By my count, the only thing left to support your desire to have a woman care about your feelings is Magical Thinking. And if your Magical Thinking is supported by scientifically-supported evidence that I currently do not grasp, then point it out so that I can grasp it. Otherwise, your desire to have a woman care about your feelings is unreasonable. --------------------------------- Except it's worse than unreasonable. Without going into too many details, I had passionate, loving sex with a deeply philosophical, highly emotionally-liberated woman who deeply understands my feelings. It came into my life at a very unexpected time, and revealed to me certain crucial insights into my character and my future. What sucks most is NOT the longing I feel because she's not in the same room as me, but rather that our great interpersonal chemistry stems chiefly because Her Sucky Childhood matches (in both detail and in negative emotional effect) My Sucky Childhood. We connect because I deeply empathize with her past, because it's so similar to my past. And she admires me because my understanding of my childhood is so strong that I know how to be joyous, happy, and ambitious despite it - whereas she's somewhat-struggling to channel her joy, happiness, and ambition into her own future. It is wonderfully amazing to connect with her on a face-to-face, deep-person-to-deep-person level, but what I really want to do is saw off my own hand to travel back in time so that she wouldn't suffer the childhood she suffered. How, after all, could I legitimately claim to love her without being deeply wounded by her family-induced mistreatment? Thankfully, my desire to time-travel through self-amputation is just another example of Magical Thinking, so I'm stuck being her emotional rock instead. She admires me because I understand her pain so much that I'm not rattled by it in any way. She told me that she's allowed to feel her emotions more freely when she's with me because she knows that I can handle it. And the way you speak of marriage and romance right now broadcasts the completely opposite signal: women are simply not free to Emotionally Be Themselves because it enrages you.

Mike Cernovich of Danger and Play has many pages and podcasts on TRT. He has personally been injecting himself with replacement testosterone for a while. www.dangerandplay.com/2013/11/12/testosterone-replacement-therapy-trt

Haven't gotten mine tested in years, but I remember it was 140 when I was in 7th grade.