MMX2010

Agree with this 100%. Omegahero, it'd be one thing if your actual girlfriend/wife had a negative emotional reaction to your porn viewing. Then you and the forum could have a heart-to-heart that could change your life for the better. But empathizing with all women is dangerous because: (1) not nearly all women empathize with you, and (2) not nearly all women have negative emotional reactions when their boyfriends/husbands watch porn.

Hell yeah. TheLastPsychiatrist nails it in this article, enthrallingly titled, "When's The Last Time You Got Your Ass Kicked?" http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/09/when_was_the_last_time_you_got.html You feel like you're not allowed.....that's the most frighteningly succinct way to describe the problem.

@Tservitive: This will come across as rather harsh, but you don't understand what the problem is. Nor do you understand that the problem is you. (Thankfully, the problem you have is the problem that pretty much everyone has - so it's not like you're distinctly horrible; you're horrible like everyone else, and horrible like I used to be.) The problem is this: "In closing, if she is a virtuous person who acts on her morales, I am willing to act in accordance to her morals, then I am willing to get to know her better even though she initially cheated." And the reason why that's the problem is this: "I do have the feeling that she was probing me for my character, though I am unsure specifically if it was due to wanting to date me, or wanting to use me. I am leaning towards the former, but I am open to the possibility of the latter." She wasn't probing you for your character; she was probing you for your seriousness and ability to take responsibility for her actions. How do I know? Because for the past four years, I've been in a sexual relationship with a woman engaged to another man. Our sexual encounters always work the same way. I escalate, and she strenuously objects without leaning away. ("That's bad!", she says, as she kisses me back. "No!", she says, as she sighs with pleasure without turning her body away. "Why do you make me do that?", she opines while doing it.) She uses her words as a way to protect herself from the importance of her actions, and (more crucially) as a way to permit herself to enjoy those actions. She gets to love her fiancée because she said, "No!" and "That's bad!". --------------------- Your problem is that you think morality and character are displayed / discovered primarily through words. She said, "I have a boyfriend!" and you took her at her word. You thought, "She was trying to probe you for your character." - because that's what you would do if you were here. But you are YOU and she is HER. Your plan is to ask her, honestly whether she's told her boyfriend?!? Certain questions are automatically and always ridiculous to ask because everyone knows why you're asking, and everyone knows what the correct answer already is. Cases in point: (1) "Do you plan to murder me?" - If I truly don't, then I'll answer, "No, that's ridiculous." But if I definitely do, then I can't answer "Yes" because you'll take self-protective measures. So I'll also answer, "No, that's ridiculous." (2) How many sexual partners have you had?" - When a man asks a woman this, she already knows why you're asking, (the minor reason: because you're seriously considering emotionally investing in her), and W-H-Y you're asking, (the major reason: because you're insecure about her sexual history), so she sizes you up and takes her Best Possible Guess as to the number that will make you commit to her. She lies (or tells the truth) - and you either stay or you don't. But she knows how to answer that question. In your case, what makes you think this woman doesn't already know what the Best Answer is? What makes you think the woman will say, "I've told him, and we're breaking up.", even though that's a lie, just to keep you around? --------------------- The most ironic thing about Male/Female relationships is that every woman always aligns herself to a man's moral code. She wants her man to take responsibility for all of the decisions she makes, and also wants him to "Just Get It" - that this is what she wants from him, and that it's his job to provide it. So it's not surprising that you, a man who is thoroughly unsure about his moral code but thinks it can be found through talking, is stuck on a girl who makes him unsure of what to do other than to pursue the truth by talking to her.

Some striking things: (1) You're defending your actions by speaking ONLY about how your felt about your actions. (2) You're defending your actions, by speaking ONLY about how you felt about your actions, to a man who is hyper-focused on the importance and healing power of work. (3) Your explanations, when viewed through the perspective of work, read, "I did the absolute minimum amount of work - period. Am I feel mad, sad, offended that you would disapprove of the work I did. You need to value my work EQUALLY as much as you value the work of others." Not only that, but the way they approach their work makes highly visible the way other people approach their work. Miesha Tate is a really attractive woman outside of the ring; in it, she's a bloody mess. But when she becomes that bloody mess, she makes me ask myself, "Do I approach my own work with the same level of self-sacrifice, endurance, and passion as she does?" (Since the answer is no, the problem is me, and the solution is blindingly obvious.) Hilariously, if she didn't do MMA, she'd be "just another hot chick" - but doing MMA both defines her in a much more powerful way *and* makes her hotness irrelevant. It's selfishness when viewed through the perspective of my goals, but it's selflessness when viewed through the perspective of my emotional needs and personality. I'm not currently looking for a mentor to help my work along, but if I were looking I'd prefer a Cute Helpful Funny Chick who I could develop romantic feelings for. But what would happen if I got an arrogant, yelling, non-empathetic male who calls me names and very quickly makes me four times more productive in my work? I'd be happy! Because the Cute Helpful Funny Chick caters to my emotional needs, and makes me feel happy. Whereas the Angry Horrible Guy teaches me that my emotional needs and happiness aren't all that important, because the work is always most important. The blog author, TheLastPsychiatrist, helped me figure this out. He's tough to read, because he's extremely snarky and peppers his explanations with subtle hints and inside jokes. But his cure for narcissism is foolproof, brilliant, and infuriating. If you still don't get it, that's totally okay, because it took me a while to get it, too. The trick is that the self-knowledge you get by introspection, even introspection through therapy, is highly likely to be narcissistic. Whereas the self-knowledge you get by working with others, especially if you focus your work-efforts on providing value for others, (Get it? Providing value for OTHERS?) is very unlikely to be narcissistic. For example, throughout my life I've never been interested in physical fitness. But now I'm determined to take up physical fitness, then boxing, then Brazilian Ju-Jitsu. I would've never been able to reach those desires by focusing solely on how I feel about my work, nor on how I feel about boxing and BJJ. The trick was to realize that pretty much all of my students would find it very cool to learn from someone who boxes and does BJJ, and this reason alone is strong enough to over-power any personal objections I have towards physical fitness, boxing, and BJJ. It doesn't matter how much pain the path demands, because my pain doesn't matter. My emotional needs don't matter. My emotions themselves don't matter. The work matters. It accepts me when I'm depressed, but only when I'm working. It accepts me when I'm elatedly happy, but only when I'm working. It accepts me when I'm enraged, but only when I'm working. It is interested in my emotions in the abstract sense of, "You work 10% better when you're happy, so you should be happy." - but it only really cares about my emotions when they interfere with the work, as in, "I don't care how happy, sad, or angry you are right now: GET TO WORK!" Saarl, your art, if you view it through this lens will cure your narcissism. It will hint at all of the things you can do to improve yourself, but it will only love you when you undergo those improvements for the sake of Your Art Itself. If you undertake those improvements so that you can be happy with yourself, it'll sternly disapprove. (And it'll be right; you'll be wrong.) I'll PM you some articles by TLP on narcissism; they're amazing.

I will never record any conversations because that wouldn't be fair to everyone else. And because I trust my memory. I both admire and am annoyed by RTR. I think it's great when you're in a one-on-one conversation with an admirable someone you've known for awhile, but it's fruitless or even downright dangerous to use in a group of strangers. RTR can also be extremely inefficient compared to a more confrontational Dismissive Laugh. My Dismissive Laugh happened in three steps. The first step occurred well-before the Dismissive Laugh happened. Here, the group spoke about my non-empathetic, cold, domineering communication patterns for about an hour. And their major point was that I needed to take responsibility for how my communication style makes more emotional human beings feel. That bluntness is cold. That direct honesty, though valuable in its own right, can never be separated from the emotional experiences my words create. The second step headed closer to the Dismissive Laugh. Here, another man in the group spoke about his joyful experiences perusing Seduction Literature over the past month: (Rollo, Heartiste). He said that he most enjoys the unburdening aspect of Seduction. Beforehand, he thought every misstep with a woman was Totally His Fault and that it was his job to find a Completely Rational Woman. But after learning Seduction, he has become unburdened from expecting women to behave rationally, and instead caters to her emotional expectations by creating specific emotional experiences with his words, tone of voice, body language, and other factors. The third step led immediately to the Dismissive Laugh. Here, the woman in the group (who has studied some Seduction literature) said that she understood what the man's goals are, and accepts that Seduction literature teaches men to create specific emotional experiences for women, but also asserted that he is "damaging his character" (not her exact words, but that was the gist) by engaging in dishonesty. Furthermore, she rhetorically asked whether constantly tailoring his words to produce specific emotional experiences in others is exhausting. That's when I dismissively laughed. To her enormous credit, she looked me dead in the face and said, "Please don't laugh like that. It's very disrespectful." To which I replied, "I'm sorry. But there is only one man at this table who very strongly believes in directly speaking the truth, with little focus on creating positive emotional experiences in others. That person is me. But I just had the entire group tell me that my preferred communication style is deficient because it doesn't create positive emotions in others. So I laugh at the contradiction between your advice to me and your advice to him." To his credit, he added, "So MMX was expressing a frustration at what you all have been saying. And, you know what, his frustration is valid, right?" No one objected. But the absolute best part about this sequence (from her words, to my dismissive laugh, to her objection, to my reply, to his conclusion) is that it took only forty-five seconds! How wonderful would marriages become if the majority of the less-important conflicts could proceed from Climax to Falling Action to Denouement in less than a minute? (The hidden bonus is that the faster you solve the less-important conflicts, the more energy you have to manage the more-important ones.) (More importantly, I could've corrected her final statement in terms of RTR language. Her statement, "That's disrespectful." is a conclusion, so RTR says that she should've said, "I feel disrespected and diminished when you laugh at me like that." But I also know that she's been working, with the help of her therapist, towards expressing her needs confidently and assertively. So watching her say that ... like that ... was like watching a former couch potato snatch lift 300 pounds. So correcting her language would've been enormously petty. Instead, I translated what she said into RTR language, and responded as if she used correct RTR language.) --------------------- The potentially dangerous part of RTR occurs during interactions with specific types of people. AnonymousConservative calls them Rabbits, and I don't yet have the technical knowledge and linguistic facility to succinctly and fully describe them. But I do understand that an honest person will always use RTR to express their feelings, with little (if any) agenda; and the agenda being furthered will always be morally good (or at least morally permissible). Whereas a Rabbit will use RTR exclusively to humiliate you, destabilize you, and destroy your confidence all under the guise of, "I feel really frustrated when...." The differences between an honest person and a Rabbit can be excruciatingly subtle, (especially if you've convinced yourself that you don't need to study Seduction techniques), but I think these are the two key differences. (1) An honest person understands that His Feeling About The Thing is not necessarily a Property Of The Thing, whereas a Rabbit presumes that His Feeling About The Thing is automatically a Universally Present Property Of The Thing. (2) An honest person understands that His Feelings About The Person isn't necessarily evidence that the person should change, or apologize, or even acknowledge his feelings, whereas a Rabbit presumes that His Feelings About The Person morally compel that person to change (if the Rabbit wants you to change), to apologize (if the Rabbit wants your apology), and/or to acknowledge his feelings (if the Rabbit wants acknowledgement). (Worse, if the Rabbit wants your changed ways, apology, and acknowledgement but you only provide apology and acknowledgement without change, then the Rabbit escalates with humiliation until you change. And if your change is only 92% satisfactory, the Rabbit will escalate.) In this article, Rollo unwittingly (because I doubt he's familiar with AnonymousConservative's work) describes the process in the beautifully-titled article "Just Get It". http://therationalmale.com/2012/08/22/just-get-it/ With an honest woman who is not a Rabbit, the Just Get It aspect will be ever-present. And it'll be exhausting and annoying at times, but it'll be worth it. But with a Rabbit, the Just Get It aspect will be eternally present and you'll never be able to please the Rabbit! Because the goal of the Rabbit is to remain eternally displeased with you, so that you'll engage in long conversations that lead nowhere, unless you magically give the Rabbit 100% of what he wants in that moment. Yet even if you do that, within two days the Rabbit will be displeased..... Personally, I am happy that learning Seduction helps me understand women and defend myself against Rabbits. But collectively, I feel scared for people who only focus on Overt Words while assuming all such Overt Words are honest, without studying Sub-Text. Such people are easy prey for Rabbits.

I agree with everything you've said, except your phrasing, "She used her sexuality to insert you into a stable orbit." The correct phrasing should be, "The way you immediately responded to her proclamation of having a boyfriend assured your insertion into a stable orbit." If I were in the OP's shoes, I would've responded by making my strongest judgmental face, turning away from her, and moving towards the exit. I think there was a 90% chance that she would've responded by grabbing his hand, pulling him back towards her, and saying something like, "No, no, no. Come back. It doesn't matter that I have a boyfriend." The other 10% chance was that she'd allow him to walk away, secure in her devotion to her boyfriend. Either reaction would've avoided placing him into her stable orbit. In the first case, he either walks away for real or bangs her despite having a boyfriend. In the second case, he walks away and never comes back. Right now, though, because he's in her stable orbit, I don't know why he'd want to punch four times harder to regain the ground he wouldn't have lose if he responded like I described above.

Gotcha. While I certainly can't force you to participate in a thought experiment, I can express my hope that saarl (and others) will see your unwillingness to participate in this particular thought experiment as an indication that your advice to saarl "You have a happy and healthy friend to gain here." is harmful to her.

A thought experiment for you: Picture yourself meeting an attractive woman who is not-Virtuous, but is interested in you. You expose her to Stefan's podcasts and philosophy-in-general, and she becomes the AnCap Virtuous Woman of Your Dreams. You marry. It's awesome. It's your five year wedding anniversary. You take her to the perfect place, and say, "When I met you, you weren't virtuous, but now here I sit in awe of our marriage and your progress as a Virtuous Woman. Tell me, dear, why did you transform yourself from Non-Virtuous to Virtuous?" She smiles, bats her gorgeous eyes and says..... (Focus on what you feel immediately after reading her response.) Ready? "I transformed myself so I could marry you." Now, I refuse to speak for your emotional experience to that response. But I will say that if a woman said that to me, I'd have a strong feeling of revulsion and contempt. Because becoming Virtuous solely for the sake of securing my loving commitment isn't the same thing as becoming Virtuous solely because it's morally right to become Virtuous. Do you agree with me? If you do, then your advice to saarl, "You've a happy and healthy friend to gain here." is completely contradictory to the revulsion you have. Saarl doesn't have any obligation, whether moral or aesthetic, to become empathetic IN ORDER FOR her friend to become happy and healthy. Saarl's first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth obligations are to herself and her art, and so forming empathetic emotional connections in ways that diminish her art to any degree cheapens the art, cheapens saarl's virtue, and cheapens saarl's relationship to her high school friend.

@Mr. Capitalism - Your post intrigues me the most, and I've had it in mind for days. But I will reply to it when I feel that I've fully digested and considered it. That thread was a bit of a clusterfuck. I was exasperated by James Dean's, Josh F's., and Rainbow Jamz' assertions that they have oh-so-awesome relationships with people who have tattoos, because they didn't empathetically acknowledge that I've every right not to follow in their footsteps, that exercising this right has zero moral component, and that their lack of empathy was the primary reason that I wasn't changing my mind. I am also firmer in my commitment to not associate with tattoo'ed individuals, but I can be "cajoled" into doing so as long as I don't see your tattoos before you've shown a highly admirable part of yourself. Since I didn't have the confidence, (nor capability, since it's a message board and not a face-to-face interaction), to issue Dismissive Laugh, I argued point-by-point instead. That won't happen next time. As far as, "What made me change my mind?", there are many reasons. (1) I'm 38, and don't know whether I want to have children. But if I do, I can't afford to wait around for the gender ratios to even out the same way a 25 year old man could. (2) I'm exasperated by some of the blind spots that the FDR NYC Meet-up group possesses. When I stated my observation about the skewed gender-ratios, I was met with: (a) A repetition of the argument that it's always better to associate with virtuous people over non-virtuous ones, (b) A reminder that the gender ratios themselves aren't a justification for having a mistress, © A suggestion that the gender ratios themselves are irrelevant, because it's up to me to have my own moral standards, and (d) An uncomfortable silence when I repeated that the gender ratio is what the gender ratio is. But I tend to pay more attention to important things that are missing, and what was missing was a confident, collected acknowledgement of my argument that would've signaled that they also noticed the skewed gender-ratio and had been considering it for quite some time. Not noticing such skewed gender-ratios is like not noticing that you've been sitting on *gasp* chairs for the entire meeting. (3) I've suspected for quite some time that some members of FDR use philosophy to avoid considering important differences between people in order to understand, respect, and profit from those differences. (The irony is deliciously bitter.) Thus, "I don't want to have interactions with non-virtuous people!" is a sadly over-blown translation of, "Ewww, you make me uncomfortable!" Crucially, the first statement implies both that the speaker shouldn't change a single thing about himself/herself and that the recipient (me) should absolutely change some things about myself. While the second statement is much more easily turned around onto the speaker, as in, "Dude, so what if I make you uncomfortable? Your discomfort has absolutely no moral bearing on anything I've said or will say, done or will do, thought or will think, felt or will feel." Also crucially, when the statement, "I don't want to have interactions with non-virtuous people!" is not-at-all about me, it's about the pool of potential marriage partners. And so, YES, you have the right to refuse further interaction with anyone whom you deem non-virtuous BUT if your "Virtue Radar" is skewed because it interprets ALL of your personal discomfort as signs of non-virtue, then you're going to have a problem meeting the right woman. And that problem will be you. (4) Lastly, I brought up the circle diagram in yesterday's Meet-Up and made two identically true statements that got completely opposite emotional reactions. The first statement, which was visibly agreed with, "You cannot use Money and Six-Pack Abs as an excuse to not develop philosophical strength." But the second, (which is, again, equally true), which was visibly disagreed with, "You cannot use Philosophical Strength as an excuse to not develop Money or Six-Pack Abs." One man said, "You don't need Money and Six-Pack Abs to attract a virtuous woman." And I replied, "Your statement is absolutely true, but it also doesn't empathize with a virtuous woman's desire for Six-Pack Abs and Money." I'll follow up on that statement at the next Meet-Up. So, overall, I haven't fully change my mind yet, but I'm much more willing to "turn a non-virtuous woman into a virtuous one" than I was two months ago. Most of this stems from reading Rollo Tomassi's blog on male/female relationships, which has given me an understanding of Male Leadership and the intense resistance and/or surrender that such Leadership inevitably produces. But some of this stems just from being 38.

I've been experiencing a lot of impasses at the FDR NYC Meet-up meetings, but I at least know what those impasses are. Just yesterday, I said to the group, "You guys are operating solely on the intellectual level, where you hear the words people say, and trust those words at 100% face value. But those overt words (the Text) form only 20% of communication, and so you're blind to Sub-Text, the non-verbal communications behind those words that comprise 80% of all communication." Case in point, "I have a boyfriend..." the moment you begin talking to a girl is millions of miles different from "I have a boyfriend..." the moment you start kissing. The first statement is 100% honest, with 0% sub-text. (Or minimal sub-text, like, "I really love my boyfriend, and you need to respect that.") When a woman makes a statement like that, you listen and respect her commitment. But the second statement is maybe 10% honest, with 90% sub-text. It does not mean, "You should respect my commitment to my boyfriend." It means, "I really like you right now, and being with you here and now makes me realize just how much I don't respect or love my boyfriend. So are you okay with pushing this further?" And these questions / comments about her level of virtuousness, based solely on the fact that she kissed you while having a boyfriend, are unimportant. Yes, I hear the popular argument, "If she's willing to cheat on her current boyfriend to get with you, then she's more likely to cheat on you when you become her boyfriend." But my counter-argument is: (1) This is just-as-true for women who don't have boyfriends when you kiss them for the first time. (2) This argument masks the admittedly frightening question, "If I love her better than her current boyfriend, does this mean she'll be loyal to me even though she wasn't loyal to him?" Yes, the question is frightening. Yes, different men in different scenarios will have different success rates when poaching a girlfriend from another man. Yes, stomping your feet firmly on the ground, and declaring to yourself, "I shall never poach another man's girlfriend.", makes things undeniably simpler. But neither the fright, nor the variance, nor the yearning for simplicity are either Moral Reasons or Sufficiently Good Reasons to NOT ask, "If I love her better than her current boyfriend, does this mean she'll be loyal to me even though she wasn't loyal to him?"

@Saarl - I'm going to be 39 in a couple of months, and lately I've been focusing on the idea of (and importance of) work. About a week ago, I started watching some MMA videos: chicks and dudes beating the crap out of each other in front of large audiences. On the one hand, I'm an anarchist and that kind of spectacle is violent. But on the other hand, those people eat punches to the face just to get some work done. I'm a teacher/tutor. For me, I have very clear lines between Helpful For My Work (Good), Has Zero Effect On My Work (Not Good), and Destructive Towards My Work (Bad). My life is only as awesome as how intently I focus on my work. This has always been true, but I've only recently been smart enough to realize it. ("But what about relationships?!?" asks the FDR-community. "What about empathizing with your fellow human beings??!") I get annoyed when people ask me questions that I've already answered: the answer is those very clear lines I mentioned above. You're an artist. Art is both who you are and your work. (Love love love love love your work, by the way. Damn.) Artists, writers, and film-makers are n-o-t-o-r-i-o-u-s for deliberately exposing themselves to horrible situations and relationships in order to create art from those experiences. It makes me *facepalm*. (Don't get angry; my facepalming doesn't mean I'm right.) So you should ask yourself one simple question: "Does the empathy I've invested in this high school friend cause me to produce better art?" If it does, continue to show her empathy. But if it doesn't, then stop. Now. With 100% conviction. No! The exact opposite. I mean that, "If you develop well-earned success, *hint* your art, then you'll magically know who deserves your empathy and who does not." (*hint* The ones who never produce anything, and whom you can never imagine producing anything equivalently awesome to (or better than) your art - because they've always got an excuse, a malady, a chip on their shoulder, a dramatic expression of their emotions that suspiciously saps their energy, or just a simple lack of discipline and dignity - never deserve your empathy.) Please let me know if this helps. I'm making major changes to my personality and communication style, so let me know if you think anything I've said is wrong.

Bluntly, you're not supposed to empathize for the woman whose life is miserable and health is failing. Nor are you supposed to empathize for people standing between yourself and your goals. When you've succeeded in a way (and to a sufficient degree) that you feel well-earned pride, it'll be obvious who you should (or shouldn't) empathize with. Success first, self-pride first, empathy second.

I don't quite remember in what context Stefan was making the following argument. But he said something like, "If you assume something is genetic, then you'll assume it's unchangeable and won't work hard enough to use upbringing / peaceful parenting to change it. So it's better to assume that it's caused by upbringing / peaceful parenting to make yourself work hard to change it." I agree with Villar that women have a smaller capacity for moral action, but I would never hold them to a lower standard of responsibility, because of what I said above. Even if a woman's smaller capacity stems mostly from genetic influences, to assume that it's most genetic means that I shouldn't work to change it. (Hence, no White Knighting on my part. Hence, a complete rejection of your argument that, "the logical implication is (A) to let women off the hook, (B) since they really can't control it, © beyond suppressing strong natural impulses".) You are correct when describing B and C, but incorrect when describing A. My argument is that you hold them responsible (~A), even though they can't really control it without a constant leadership / supervisory force in their lives (B), beyond suppressing strong natural impulses ©. My argument is either more sympathetic towards a woman's personality, or towards a woman's daily temptations stemming from our extremely permissive modern America, or both. -------------------------- One of the men I most respect at the FDR NYC Meet-up Groups is married with a wife and son. He was telling a story about how his wife calmly told him, "The way you portray me makes me sound like a monster." I know RTR says that you're supposed to say, "I feel sad, confused, and betrayed when you say that." And she's supposed to say, "Tell me more." - or else she's not being empathetic. But I assert that you're supposed to say, "You're right, honey. My throat is really sore from mimicking the Godzilla voice you use when you talk to me." Or, "You're right honey. I need you to mend my shirt because I ripped it when describing your behavior like this *insert motion of Incredible Hulk tearing his shirt open*." When a man says either of those things with the right smirk on his face, the right relaxed tone of voice, the right dominant / confident body language, and the complete conviction that this is the right thing to say, it invites her to instantly and emotionally realize just how ridiculous her worry was. Some random dude may deliberately portray his wife's emotional concerns as monstrous, but he ain't no random dude; he's philosophically sound and eternally empathetic. And when she instantly and emotionally realizes how ridiculous her worry was, she'll immediately decide to never have it again. (And if she does have it again, you either make a similar joke or jokingly ask, "Hey, do you remember the time when my throat was sore because I was mimicking your voice?") At least two-thirds (and as much as four-fifths) of a woman's worries are frivolous, so the more energy you spend on frivolous worries, the less time to work on meaningful ones. The less time spent on meaningful ones, the less of a person your wife/girlfriend is - which means the less happiness for you and her.

I PM'ed her my response to her latest response, because I wanted to respect her request to not clog this topic. (I, personally, don't think my response was off-topic. And if she wants to cut-and-paste what I wrote, she can do that. Or if she gives me permission to cut-and-paste what I wrote, I will do that.) Also, I am not speaking about "Hannah's psychology" - (as if it's either a permanent part of her personality / identity OR a consistently present part of her personality). I only speak about her feelings in the moment of posting that topic. I view Villar's philosophy about women as true for all cultures with moderately present modern technology. Like all generalizations, it only works when applied to large numbers of people, and it is most vulnerable when applied to singular individuals, (which I almost never do). I discuss all large generalizations with the person whom I think it applies, and allow them to self-determine the relevance. I view TheLastPsychiatrist's philosophy about Little-n narcissism as true for all English-speaking, currently existing, media savvy, White-majority cultures. There is no escape from being "infected" with it. So if someone displays it, I don't speak from a "never been through it" perspective, but rather from an "I understand what it's like to be infected with it, and I was only (possibly) cured from it two weeks ago." one. No way. The first logical implication would be, "If you think a large enough pool of women will achieve philosophical understanding by themselves - meaning 'without YOUR constant leadership' - then you are delusional." Monitor: everyday. Lead: everyday. This, or non-procreative MGTOW. (There is never going to be a third option.) The second logical implication would be: "Do you see the majority of men you meet, the ones without philosophy and with a strong inclination to let women forge their own destinies? Because they exist, you do not get to change your society for the better. You get to have a family. You get to choose your friends. You get to be perfectly free and highly powerful, but you don't get to save your society." You get to hold her accountable for her actions, and you get to leave her when it's no longer morally permissible to stay with her. But you don't get to change the girl. At best, you get her to behave the way you've always wanted a girl to behave. And at best, you get to live in the society that you think best enables you exercise your leadership influence. But you don't get to change the internal nature of the girl; she owns it, you influence it. It's not.

Okay, thank you for pointing that out.

I had this discussion during yesterday's meeting of the FDR NYC Meetup group, and wanted to know what you think. Two men articulated Stefan's oft-repeated argument that, "If a woman isn't virtuous, then you shouldn't associate with her." I replied, "That's a great argument, but there's a major problem: she (pointing to the only woman at our table of eight) is the only woman here." One man re-stated Stefan's argument, and I repeated, "I agree with everything you said, but this doesn't change the fact that she is the only woman here." I then stated, "One potential solution, which is very scary (and not necessarily correct) is to take a woman who isn't virtuous and turn her into a woman who is virtuous." A man objected, "That's exactly like a twenty-something woman who falls in love with a drug-addicted alpha male, hoping to change him for the better." I replied, "No, it's not exactly like that because That Chick follows her animal impulses and no philosophy to do what she wants, but you're a philosophically-sound male. That doesn't mean that my argument is a good one, but still you're not That Chick." So my arguments are: (1) If you're a gay man seeking a virtuous life partner through philosophy, you can follow Stefan's advice as stated. (2) If you're a heterosexual woman seeking a virtuous life partner through philosophy, you can absolutely follow Stefan's advice as stated. (3) But if you're a heterosexual male seeking a virtuous life partner through philosophy then: (A) IF you follow Stefan's advice as stated, then you will inevitably have to hyper-compete against the rest of the men who want the same thing; see attached diagram. (B) IF you object that this is unfair / not worth it, you can either stop pursuing virtuous women or complain about the situation instead of following the diagram. This will just lead you to getting outcompeted by the men who follow the diagram without complaining. © IF you accept the gender ratios for what they are, then you could follow my scary alternative path: Find a woman who isn't virtuous, and turn her into a woman who is. I assert (without evidence because I think this statement is established as fact) that these gender ratios are permanently a part of all English speaking, White majority nations. (This means that to believe that "some day", the ratios will even out is exactly like believing in the future return of Jesus.) So my questions are: (1) Do you choose the Stefan-advice path, meaning that you choose to hyper-compete against all men OR do you choose the scary-path, meaning that you swim in shark infested waters, hoping to wrestle a shark into a "somewhat tame reformed shark"? (2) Why?

When Hannah asked whether everything she was told about feminism is a lie, she focused on two feelings, (which I won't order in terms of More Focused On, Less Focused On): (1) the annoyance she would feel at how the bad behavior of feminists would cause her, an anti-feminist, to be "lumped in with them", and (2) the rage she felt towards feminists, because they could be Much Better People, but aren't. If she focused on the nature of those women, not caring one bit about how either her future behavior would be negatively judged or how better the world would be if feminists weren't like that, she'd ask herself tough questions about: (1) the nature of feminists, (2) the nature of women, (3) the nature of American society with regard to feminists, (4) the nature of American society with regard to women. But those questions are extremely frightening, and Hannah seems poised to ask only the odd-numbered questions. The even-numbered questions were asked and answered by Esther Villar in the first ten pages of The Manipulated Man. After defining man as "a creature who works" and woman as "a creature who does not work", she offers the following suggestion: You may not agree with Villar. Hannah may not agree with Villar. I completely agree with Villar. Because I agree with her, I can answer Hannah's question about feminism in the most succinct and never-wrong way. "Feminism is always right when talking about feelings that exist, but feminism is always wrong, (by ridiculous orders of magnitude!), when talking about the relative scales of positive and negative occurrences." So this statement is correct: "In the past, women felt oppressed in their marriages." And these two statements are lies: "In the past, women felt oppressed in their marriages. So if you give women absolute freedom to choose whether they want to marry, whom they want to marry, and when they want to marry, the overwhelming majority of relationships will create happiness in all who participate in them." They're lies because they suggest a 99% success rate, but you'll only ever see a 1% success rate. They're not lies because success never happens; they're lies because the success rate is wrong by many orders-of-magnitude.

And I believe that if just one non-virtuous man fills a woman's head with blissful memories of sex, then the odds of her being satisfied with you as a husband are made much smaller. Do you think this is logical? Do you think this is true? If so, then a woman's sexual history from ages 16 thru However-Old-She-Is-When-She-Marries-You is crucial to your future marital success. (And hasn't Stefan cited studies which discovered that the more sexual partners a woman has before marriage, the less likely she'll remain happily married?) So here's the problem: (1) The creature you seek (woman) has concealed ovulation, so you can't "just look at her" and know whether she's sexually aroused. (2) You can't "just look at her" and know how many sexual partners a woman has had, because it's not like she glows a different shade of blue every time she experiences a new man. (3) The culture you live in not only encourages women to seek sexual pleasure in their teens and early twenties, but also deems you misogynistic and stalker-esque for asking a woman about her sexual past. (4) Even if you are "brave enough" to ask - she can always lie. The solutions are obvious BUT no one wants to mention them in America, because American women have instituted safeguards against both voicing the solution and pursuing it. What are you going to do? You didn't read that correctly. Replace "MMX2010 can describe with absolute certainty a woman's nature." with "MMX2010 can describe with absolute certainty both the effects of the menstrual cycle on woman's thoughts, feelings, and sexual pursuits AND the most typical rationalizations she uses to excuse her sexual choices." The effects of the menstrual cycle are: (1) She wants a dominant, arousing, not-very-good-father-material man to impregnate her during the three days called ovulation. (2) She wants a non-dominant, emotionally stable, good provider, excellent father-type man to look after her during the twenty-five days called non-ovulation. The justifications are: (1) That because "three days" are far fewer than "twenty-five days", then the "Real Woman" should be defined as who she is during the Twenty-Five days. (If you accept this justification, then her sexual past won't be important to you, and any poor behavior she exhibits during the Three Days will be explained away as "not Really Her". (2) That because she's giving up the pursuit of sexual variety in her thirties (when her sexual appeal is much lower), you ought to give up the pursuit of sexual variety in your thirties (when your sexual appeal is at its peak). (If you accept this justification, you'll marry a same-aged woman at either age 25 or 30, hoping to experience ever-growing love as you age. But what'll most likely happen is that your wife will become a shell of her former beauty AND won't dare let you pursue other, younger women.) Again, once you accept these truths, the solutions are obvious. But few, if any, men want to seriously discuss them. (And the women your age don't want you to discuss them, either!) If your woman is virtuous, she will accept the truth about both her menstrual cycle and the mismatch between female Sexual Market Value and male Sexual Market Value. If she is not, she'll insist that neither of those are true, (or that both of them are true, but they shouldn't be broadcasted to everyone because it "hurts women"). Right. So women should forsake sexual variety in their teens and early twenties (when their sexual attractiveness is at its peak), just as men should forsake sexual variety in their mid-thirties (when their sexual attractiveness is at its peak). How many women have you met who either: (1) understand this, and have deliberately avoided sexual variety in their teens and twenties so that they can virtuously demand the same from you in your thirties, OR (2) understand this, but did not deliberately avoid sexual variety in their teens and twenties and so do not expect you to do the same for them in your thirties? (The woman in the second situation will allow you to have a Mistress, as long as certain rules are met.) Full disclosure: In my personal life, I've never met any women in the first category, and have never met any woman in the second category. The woman I wanted to marry may have allowed me to pursue Mistresses, but we never became committed enough to pursue this as a possibility. I'd be shocked if your results are much different than mine, and it'd be a sure sign that I need to find different women.

It's way more than that. That question, if you meditate on it long enough and get the deepest possible answers, can vastly improve your life.

I don't think this question is important. You're trying to get her to empathize with the fact that he may have seen her help as patronizing, but what Kind Of Person sees another person's help as patronizing?

So.....we're discussing whether the null hypothesis I proposed fits under the definition of a Null Hypothesis rather than whether it's a correct and useful methodology for separating exploitative women from non-exploitative ones? I would alter that question to, "How can we determine logically whether or not a given woman, who, by nature, both has a concealed ovulatory system and lives in a society that preaches that men are evil, with the obvious remedy being to allow all women to shamelessly pursue their selfish desires, is not exploitative?"

If you do watch the movie, it obviously centers around four characters: The Misogynist Painter, The Painter's Second Female Victim (not his wife), The Painter's Male Victim (the guy in the glasses), and The Male Voice of Distance and Reason (who hears the Painter tell him that line I quoted). The conversation is amazing because it exposes the hypocrisy and ethical weakness of The Male Voice of Distance and Reason. And the line itself has multiple meanings, all of which are valid.

I don't know whether you'll want to watch a 90-minute movie, but this is one of my favorites. And it perfectly reminds me of your situation. About 70 minutes in, the painter, misogynistic, womanizing bastard (and for me, role model) of a man says to a longtime male friend, "A woman can forgive a man for the harm he does to her, but she can never forgive him for the sacrifices he makes on her account." That line is much more impactful when you know the characters involved, and the conflict that led to the conversation. But, like I said, it's not necessary for you to watch the movie.

The null hypothesis is as simple as it is scary: A woman who isn't exploitative has conducted her entire life from birth by focusing on both the needs of children and on how her current conduct reflects on herself as Future Mother. Whenever she experienced conflict, she resolved it by asking, "How does the particular action I'm contemplating reflect upon myself as a Future Mother?" The scary thing is not that the null hypothesis is unfair; it's that it's extraordinarily fair and hardly any woman lives up to it. Since hardly any woman lives up to it, then the "for the children" standards of male conduct - particularly related to the male restraint of sexual pursuits - is really "for the woman". Not at all. After all, biology has given men so many powerful impulses that they, too, are prone to avoiding philosophical thought. But culture steps in and tries to get men to be philosophical, "Men, think of how your actions negatively impact others, particularly the children!" I'm assuming you live in America, and if you do, you accept that you cannot go five minutes without someone (or some organization) trying to get you to be philosophical. Do women face the same level of constant philosophical scrutiny? Are women accused of "hating" an entire gender if they betray anti-philosophical positions? What philosophical ramifications are woman encouraged to explore? (Answer: How do the enormous weakness and immorality of men justify the selfish actions that you're too scared to perform? If you dwell on this long enough, you'll realize how foolish it is to NOT give into your selfish wants, since it's all men's fault anyways.) In simple equational terms: (1) Men + American Culture = Some Chance of Being Philosophical and Virtuous. (2) Women + American Culture = Almost Zero Chance of Being Philosophical and Virtuous. So I am not arguing biological determinism; I'm arguing American cultural determinism. I can say, with total certainty, that women are by nature duplicitous. Their menstrual cycle makes them "One Type of Woman" in the three-day window during ovulation, and makes them "The Completely Opposite Type of Woman" in the other twenty-five days during non-ovulation. Their duplicity moves further into three other culturally supported duplicities: (1) That the Woman She Is during the twenty-five days is "the real her", while the Woman She Is during the three days is "not really her". (2) That every woman, by merely existing, will eventually find a way to conquer those three-day-long impulses. The duplicity, which should be obvious, is that no woman believes that men, by merely existing, will eventually conquer his anti-philosophical, destructive impulses. With men, it requires hard work, introspection, and most importantly, constant monitoring by women and society, followed by constantly "proving yourself" under the scrutiny of women's and society's gaze. (3) That every man who refuses to accept Items 1 and 2 "hates women" and "needs therapy"; if he refuses therapy, he deserves to have his every opinion rejected. I'm saying that the sex a woman provides when she knows you might leave is never as passionate and emotionally intense as the sex she provides when she knows you'll never leave. Transactional Sex is transactional; it's in response for doing something she appreciated. Validational Sex is validational; it's in response for being who you are. (If women didn't constantly ask, "Do you love me because of what I provide you, or do you love me because of who I really am?" and if women didn't constantly get into bad moods whenever they suspected, "You only love me because of what I provide!", then I'd have no objections to their actions. But their constant usage of this language indicates that they know the difference and accept that it's important. So if they know the difference and accept that it's important, why does every man have to sacrifice his quest to be on the happier side of this all-important distinction?) Note: It's THEIR JOB, as advancers-of-the-argument, to provide evidence. It's not OUR JOB, as receivers-of-the-argument, to prove the assertion wrong.

I've posted these links to articles about a woman's menstrual cycle many times. The first is older, so you should read it first. http://therationalmale.com/2012/09/25/your-friend-menstruation/ and http://therationalmale.com/2014/12/17/estrus/ I would turn, "The man in the relationship has to work harder to please the woman sexually." into "The man in the relationship will find it impossible to fully please his wife sexually, simply and solely because he's established a committed relationship with her." To commit to a woman is to make her feel secure. To make her feel secure is to voluntarily enter into the Stable Provider role. To enter into the Stable Provider role is to automatically trigger her sexual feelings during her Non-Ovulatory phase. To do this is to create unpleasing Transactional sex. There are multiple responses to this, but the typical one is to say, "Well, marriage is precisely about sublimating your sexual desires for other partners into your relationship; it's just what you're supposed to do." My counter-argument for this is that a man's sexual appeal to other women is low in his 20's and much higher in his 30's, whereas this is reversed for women. Thus, if you marry a 30-something woman, you'll acquire a woman who's saying, "Do for me what I didn't do for you." ("Sacrifice the search for sexual pleasure when you're at your highest sexual appeal to women, even though I didn't do the same thing for you when I was experiencing my highest sexual appeal to men!") (Rhetorical but ultra-serious question: Do you want to acquire a woman who demands that you sacrifice for her, what she didn't sacrifice for you?) A second response is the ultra-dangerous question, "How do I create a committed, romantic relationship without signaling that the relationship is committed and secure?" (This question is dangerous to every woman's future. But it's dangerous to your future, because women use The Gun In The Room - (divorce proceedings) - to threaten you. Earlier, you mentioned "the virtue of the free market", but, not surprisingly, women don't want a free market in relationships; they want the exact opposite.) If you want to raise a family, it's imperative that you, as a man, sacrifice some of your desire for extra-marital sex. However, my counterargument first asks the dangerous question, "According to FDR's definition of a 'fit mother', what percentage of women are fit enough to be mothers?". It then argues, "Because that percentage is so low, then all conventions about men sacrificing their search for sexual variety to show commitment to their future children does not primarily benefit children. It benefits the unfit mothers of children who shouldn't have been born to that particular family situation to begin with." Philosophy challenges men's and women's choices around sex, but it rarely asks the dangerous question I mentioned above. Few women would tolerate philosophy if it did. Because that question challenges every woman's biological notion that she "ought" to have children if (and when) she wants. Philosophy works best when it challenges each woman to define what she means by "ought" and to provide objective evidence that she is correct. But women want philosophy to assume that nearly every woman is right when she says "ought", thereby shifting the burden of proof onto men-like-me that she is wrong. I'm not foolish enough to suggest that I can "get" women to stop. But I can tell you, a man, what the score is.