MMX2010

So let's get this straight. You refused to change your mode of communication, and then you concluded that I was a mystic? A scientifically-rigorous person would've tested their conclusion by behaving in a way that challenges their conclusion. In this case, you would've offered me more, just to see how I would react. (Instead, you did the opposite.) These are not important to you: "Was the something I offered satisfactory to the other person? If not, why not? Does that person have a legitimate complaint with what I offered?" What do those questions have in common? Simple, they indicate basic emotional concern for the other person, the one you're presenting yourself as "behaving reciprocally with". Without basic emotional concern for the other person, how can you convince someone else that you're really behaving in a reciprocal fashion? Simply put, you can't. In fact, the only people you can convince are those who habitually refuse to express basic concern for other people when seeking what they want. There's a word for such people, and it's not very pretty.

So this is important to you, "Did I, or did I not, offer something?" And this is not important to you, "Was the something I offered satisfactory to the other person? If not, why not? Does that person have a legitimate complaint with what I offered?" It's also a technique of highly intelligent olden men, who know when something has to be learned through direct experience, rather than through argument. One of my favorite writers, Quintus Curtius, described this is his book Thirty-Seven, calling it, "The world will teach you." Interesting that you choose the non-emotional, dictionary-definition of reciprocity, rather than automatically knowing the emotional, implied definition of reciprocity. Hint: If you focus, long enough, on what's not important to you, you'll realize why you're not behaving in a reciprocal way. If not, "The World Will Teach You".

Could you briefly summarize the book's thesis and how you think it relates to this topic? Also, have you heard Vox Day's sociosexual hierarchy definitions? ----------------- I have a great deal of respect for Roissy's analysis of the female psyche. Even the mere terms he applies, in addition to being hilarious, provide tremendous insight for the average, clueless man who finds himself bewildered by the behavior of women around him. After all, what man could possibly assign much importance to the logical conclusions of a woman's "rationalization hamster". And many of the techniques he recommends will significantly increase the average man's ability to get off on the right foot with women regardless of whether a casual encounter or marriage is the goal. However, it must be kept in mind that Roissy's social construction of Game is intentionally limited in two ways. The overly simplistic division of men into Alphas and Betas is the natural result of his laser-like focus on scoring vs not scoring. Either you score or you don't score; scoring is Alpha and not-scoring is Beta. QED. And this singular, binary focus also leaves out the many other applications of the male social hierarchy that have nothing to do with women, much less sex. Note that this is not a criticism of Roissy's construct or his conclusions, but rather a tangential expansion of it. Whereas in Game there are only Alphas who score and Betas who don't, except for the Betas who learn the secret of becoming synthetic Alphas, I have come over time to view things in the following manner: Alphas - the male elite, the leaders of men for whom women naturally lust. Their mere presence sets women a-tingle regardless of whether she is taken or not. Once you've seen beautiful married women ignoring tall, handsome, wealthy, and even famous men because that ugly old troll Henry Kissinger walked in the room, you simply can't deny the reality of Alphadom. Example: Captain Kirk, Big from Sex in the City. Suggestion: Do you see a scoreboard? Right, so relax already! Betas - the lieutenants, the petty aristocracy. They're popular, they do well with women, they're pretty successful in life, and they may even be exceptionally good-looking. But they lack the Alpha's natural self-confidence and strength of character. They're not leaders and they're not the men to whom women are helplessly drawn. Most men who like to think they're Alphas because of their success are actually Betas. Most Betas won't change their game because they don't really have any need or reason to do so. This is probably the easiest social slot in which to find yourself, since the Beta enjoys many of the benefits of Alphadom without being trapped in the Alpha's endless cycle of competition. Example: Brad Pitt Suggestion: Have some compassion for the less naturally fortunate. Try to include them once in awhile. Deltas - the great majority of men. These are Roissy's Betas. Almost all of you reading this are Deltas despite the natural desire to believe that you are a brave and bold Alpha snowflake notwithstanding. Deal with it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a Delta, it's just a simple statistical and observable reality. The sooner you accept the truth about yourself, the sooner you will be able to control your unconscious inclinations and modify your behavior in a manner that will help you achieve your goals. I've gone out of alphabetical order here because delta symbolizes change, which most Deltas are capable to some extent. Hence the synthetic alpha instruction set known as Game. Example: Probably you. Suggestion: Never forget that there are plenty of girls on the girl tree. Gammas - the obsequious ones, the posterior puckerers, the nice guys who attempt to score through white-knighting, faux-chivalry, flattery, and omnipresence. All men except true Alphas will occasionally fall into Gamma behavior from time to time, this is the behavior and attitude that Roissy is attempting to teach men to recognize and avoid. The dividing line between a Gamma and a Delta is that the Gamma genuinely believes in the Gamma reality to the very core of his soul whereas the Delta is never truly comfortable with himself when he behaves in this manner despite being thoroughly indoctrinated in it by his culture. Example: Probably you if you've found yourself complaining about your lack of female companionship over the last two years. Suggestion: Remember that the statement "all are fallen" applies to women too. She isn't any more naturally pure or holy or ethereal than you are. Lambdas - the gays. They have their own social hierarchy. They can fill any role from Alpha to Omega, but they tend to play the part rather than actually be it because the heterosexual social construct only encompasses the public part of their lives. Example: Neil Patrick Harris. Suggestion: Straights will be more tolerant if you keep the bathhouse behavior behind closed doors. Sigmas - the lone wolves. Occasionally mistaken for Alphas, particularly by women and Alphas, they are not leaders and will actively resist the attempt of others to draft them. Alphas instinctively view them as challenges and either dislike or warily respect them. Some Deltas and most Omegas fancy themselves Sigmas, but the true Sigma's withdrawal from the pack is not a reaction to the way he is treated, it is pure instinct. Example: Clint Eastwood's movie persona. Suggestion: Entertain the possibility that other people are not always Hell. The banal idiocy is incidental, it's not intentional torture. Omegas - the losers. Even the Gamma males despise them. That which doesn't kill them can make them stronger, but most never surmount the desperate need to belong caused by their social rejection. Omegas can be the most dangerous of men because the pain of their constant rejection renders the suffering of others completely meaningless in their eyes. Omegas tend to cluster in defensive groups; the dividing line between the Omega and the Sigma is twofold and can be easily recognized by a) the behavior of male Betas and Deltas and b) the behavior of women. Women tend to find outliers attractive in general, but while they respond to Sigmas almost as strongly as they do to Alphas, they correctly find Omega males creepier and much scarier than Gamma males. Example: Eric Harris Suggestion: Your rejection isn't entirely personal. Observe the difference in your own behavior and the way the Betas act. And try not to start off conversations with women by sharing "interesting facts" with them. I'm not claiming that this hierarchy is science or incontrovertible fact, it's merely the lens through which I tend to view the current sexual-social hierarchy. I think it is a little more broadly useful from a theoretical perspective than the Game construct, even if it is less immediately applicable from a tactical point of view.

You don't get why this is so hard? Hmm, let's re-quote you, "I know this is fallacious, but it seems like PUA exists so men can stroke their ego. Maybe it is just me, but I don't prefer lots of recreational sex because I know that is not the purpose of sex (however, I also experienced some of the consequences of this recreational sex mentality in my early 20s)." Notice the passive-aggressive comment that PUA exists so men can stroke their ego? Such a comment is only objectively true if you can objectively prove that the purpose of sex isn't to stroke a man's ego. However, once you've admitted (after some degree of tooth-pulling) that "you're not trying to universalize purpose", I'm glad that you'll be retracting that passive-aggressive comment about PUAs. Oh, unless, you're "perfectly happy to ostracize for aesthetic reasons". In which case, don't retract your statement, and we'll let everyone else decide whether they find it pleasant to interact with you.

And, like I told you, the something that you offered isn't good enough for me. I've 100% confidence that donalddogsoth understands why, "If I was wrong to accuse you of violating the NAP, then I'll retract my claim that you were." is not-at-all satisfactory. I've 100% confidence that the majority of people in this thread, (suspiciously, none of them are transgender), will understand why I find your Offer of Retraction not-at-all satisfactory. But you? Impossible for you to get it. Can't hint at it with a joke. Can't directly explain using logic and reason. Can't get outsiders to explain it to you, (although they're welcome to try, I've no confidence that it'll work). You simply believe it's 100% legitimate to accuse someone of violating the NAP under the condition, "Well, I said that I would retract it if I was wrong!" You believe it, and that settles it.

Now, you're picking and choosing what you wish to respond to, rather than responding to my argument. For example, you ignored my question, "Why not refuse to use words like "violence", "conquest", and "the principle of equal consideration", and then make your point anyway?" Which is a challenge, David. CAN YOU make your argument about PUA without: (1) resorting to confusing language like "violence", "conquest" and "the principle of equal consideration" and then (2) complaining that people aren't hearing you? OR is your argument style dependent upon using that confusing language and then complaining when other people are confused? Respond to my argument, David. Don't run away with dismissive language. WastachMan, my testicles produce sperm and my penis gets hard, then ejaculates sperm. That is an observation. However, the argument, "Because my testicles produce sperm, then therefore every woman ought to want to accept my sperm." is an attempt to universalize everyone's sexual reactions - which is either a valid argument based on Objective Evidence OR an invalid argument based on no evidence at all, which means it's an intolerant, oppressive, non-libertarian approach to life. WastachMan, when you say, "The purpose of sex is to have babies!" do you mean: (1) That this is a universal statement that applies to every individual and every sex act OR (2) That this is merely an observation that cannot be used to judge, ostracize, or otherwise classify people who use birth control to prevent sex from leading to reproduction?

There's an apocryphal saying, "Nero fiddled while Rome burned.", which is pretty much what it sounds like. Nero's the king, the city he rules is on fire, and he's playing his fiddle rather than exuding leadership. We agree on all of this. I just find it interesting that you MGTOW, while I seek out significantly younger women with whom to form friendships / romantic relationships with, because I know that they don't have many (or, more likely, any), philosophically-rigorous men looking out for them.

The biochemical processes associated with certain diets are objective, and that the respective life-spans associated with certain diets can be objectively scientifically studied. Also, (and this is ultra-important, so you might have to read it more than once), we can all agree that Rational People Should Prefer To Be Healthy, and so we agree to Frame all of the dietary results identically. (In other words, if it is revealed that Diet A leads to a longer life-span than Diet B, we'll all agree that Diet A should be preferred, unless some other unknown considerations weren't taken into account.) However, PUA isn't like that at all. The emotional reactions that a woman has to PUA have been scientifically studied - (and the conclusion is, "PUA works, because women like it.") - but you're trying to first Frame the results as, "Who cares if PUA works, it's lying!" and then acting legitimately surprised when people disagree with you. Your comparison of dieting to PUA is flawed, so your conclusions are flawed. That's being done as we speak. I began this thread by trying to get people to accept some parts of PUA to help themselves in their interactions and lives. But now I'm not sure whether that's possible, because of people's tendencies to "Accuse, and Play Defense". It doesn't matter whether I use jokes to hint, "You know, I may not be able to prevent you from Accusing and Playing Defense, but I can, with great humor hint that you ought not do that if you're pursuing the truth about PUA." And it doesn't matter whether I use direct questions to ask people like WastachMan what the heck he means, (because he doesn't answer them directly). And it doesn't matter whether I give succinct arguments as to why you need to be careful when using moralistic language to control other peoples' behavior, (because David Ottinger doesn't get it). So, seriously, why am I here? I don't know. At best, I can talk about your responses with OmegaHero09, and we'll definitely have a stronger sense of Who We Are and Why We Do What We Do. But, at worst, I'm wasting my time. (Well, not really, since I have a much firmer understanding of how Gammas/Omegas debate, but I'm still not sure whether the time I invested in this thread was worth the return I got.)

I asked, "Biology is either (1) a universal, ever-present drive that everyone must fulfill OR (2) a universal, ever-present drive that technology allows us to circumvent by making individual-choices. Which is it? WastachMan replies, "One hint to what it would mean "biologically speaking" is that in biology they are called "reproductive organs". Not sure where you got that concept of biology." I reply: Look, WastachMan. If, given two choices, you can't pick one or the other, preferring instead to "hint" at what your answer is, then you're behaving in a highly evasive, trolling manner. As such, you present yourself as "not preferring a discussion wherein the truth is discovered as quickly as possible", in which case, go talk to someone else.

As long as you're speaking personally, for yourself, I've no objection to what you're saying. This is because you're explaining your own subjective emotional reaction to the situation AND NOT expecting everyone else to follow it - on condition that, if they refuse, they're delusional and immoral. If, however, you're saying that your experience is universally true for everyone, I promise you that it is not. (Just ask around, and you'll find a sizeable chunk of people who disagree with you, myself included). Once you do this, you have to make an argument based on Objective Evidence. Failing that, your reply becomes "Not An Argument", and so I'll do what I want. No hard feelings to you, of course - but those are the rules of philosophy.

If you say, "MMX2010 isn't hearing me!" you're making this personal. And if you want to make this personal, I'll respond in kind, but that detracts from the boards. Two, if "violence is not the same thing as manipulation", then why mention violence at all? Mentioning "violence" and then complaining, "You're not understanding the context of what I'm saying!" is hilarious. Why not refuse to use words like "violence", "conquest", and "the principle of equal consideration", and then make your point anyway?

(1) I already did. (2) It was when you implied (or asserted) that Violence in the Octagon is the same thing as the manipulation that PUA uses. Violence in the Octagon is Objective: you see with your senses the punches, kicks, and elbow strikes used. Manipulation in PUA is Subjective: you only infer it with your mind, and not nearly everyone infers the same thing as you. YOU scream, "Manipulation", chicks say, "Manipulation? What, really? Where? Oh that?! You don't know what you're talking about." They're correct because Manipulation is Subjective, meaning no one is compelled to agree with you lest they be dismissed as delusional.

I have to go to work soon, so I won't be posting an excellent comparison between 1980's Social Justice Warriors and their modern day counterparts. But I will point you towards an exchange between Liberalismus and me that took place in the Downvoting thread. (1) Liberalismus: The NAP does not apply to MMX, because he has personally rejected it as a principle, supporting violations of the NAP against trans people and/or their medical professionals: Liberalismus quotes me: "Facing legal obstacles to accessing medical treatment for gender dysphoria (e.g. hormone therapy if uncomfortable with the effects of hormones of the coercively-assigned gender)" (What you call "legal-obstacles", everyone else calls "Are you SURE?!?" Moreover, people face more "legal obstacles" when they want to donate a kidney to an absolute stranger than when they seek hormonally-induced sex-changes.)" (2) I reply to Liberalismus: "Wow. Okay MMD and JamesP. I don't think you can ignore that accusation, can you? Is Liberalismus correct or incorrect when he says that?" (3) Liberalismus replies to me: "Upvoted, because you are now showing actual interest in assessing the objective truth value of the things that I have said, whereas before you were portraying my experience of you as somebody who is abusive / antagonistic / supportive of NAP violations towards trans people as merely something that existed in my own mind and that was completely divorced from your objective actions." (4) I reply: "So you don't prefer to focus on whether your accusation that I violated the NAP was TRUE or FALSE?" (5) Liberalismus: "Replace "violated" with "expressed support for the violation of", as you are misrepresenting me here. Other than that point, that is exactly what I wish to focus on, to quote myself: "Upvoted, because you are now showing actual interest in assessing the objective truth value of the things that I have said" "The things that I have said" would include that my best-effort interpretation of something which you have said implies support for violations of the NAP (those violations of the NAP being present government initiation of violence against medical professionals if they do not conform to the requirements and dictates of the state with respect to voluntary interactions with and prescription of treatment for transgender patients - government dictates which differ between countries, but in many instances cause much harm to trans individuals, just as forcible government intervention in medicine causes harm to almost everyone and is opposed by adherents to the NAP). Perhaps my interpretation is wrong; perhaps my interpretations of the 20+ other things in your posts in that other thread are also wrong, but so far, nobody has made any effort to challenge them. If my interpretations are proven wrong, I have the commitment to intellectual integrity that I will revoke them, revoke the accusation that you have supported violations of the NAP, and revoke my previous accusation that you were abusive towards me (in the context of me being a trans person) in your posts. Otherwise my interpretation is correct, which means you have supported violations of the NAP. You would either have to admit mistake and revoke this position, or remain a person who supports violations of the NAP." (6) Finally, me: "Fine. I accept the correction. Not good enough. You will not merely apologize and revoke the accusation. You will do more than that. Since I don't like telling people how to make atonement, (because then I don't know whether their atonement is genuinely derived from a sense of justice and peaceful-living), it's up to you to decide what more you need to do." ------------------ I highlighted what I believe to be the most important part in blue. Liberalismus actually expected me to be happy or satisfied with the offer, "If you prove me wrong, I'll revoke my accusations that you violated the NAP." And Liberalismus has not, so far, realized why I'm not satisfied with it, nor has offered something more satisfactory to me. This not only supports your belief that "Peer pressure is not at all more pure than government force.", but also explains why in a deeply personal, emotional way. I don't even have to explain to you why I found Liberalismus's offer of Revocation deeply unsatisfying. You already know without me having to explain it to you. But Liberalismus doesn't know, and yet wants to use peer pressure, boycotts, and all sorts of ostracism anyway.

Quoting lines out-of-context, and ignoring the argument I used to challenge their assertion that they're doing so, and (perhaps) downvoting me?

Do you know the difference between Objective and Subjective? Objective means directly observable with the senses, and examples include the punches, kicks, elbow strikes, and grappling holds that occur in the Octagon. The major consequence of pointing to Objective Evidence is that anyone who doesn't agree that the Objective Evidence exists is rightfully dismissed as delusional. Subjective, however, means that it's NOT directly observed with the senses, but rather inferred within the mind. And examples of these include feelings of attraction, feelings of love, and feelings of manipulation. The two major consequences of pointing to Subjective Evidence are: (1) Because Subjective Evidence is inferred in the mind, and because everyone's mind is unique to some degree, every individual is free to determine whether he'll follow or reject Subjective Evidence without being labeled delusional. (2) Because Subjective Evidence is not Objective Evidence, people who use Subjective Evidence as a means to control, influence, or look down upon others are deemed oppressive, intolerant, and non-libertarian. *grins* Nothing is more sleight-of-hand that using Subjective Evidence as if it were Objective Evidence. If you understood what Subjective Evidence was, you'd only say, "Personally, I find PUA to be manipulative, but if other people want to use it, then I have no problem with it." You'll also notice that Sigma Tau expertly argued along these lines. Quoting Sigma Tau directly, "I tried PUA, but the only women (in my experience) I attracted with it,))) well..... I feel silly looking back at that period of my life.. If you use it, I wish you all the best." He is merely giving his personal experience with PUA. He is NOT implying nor asserting that there are any moral violations that are guaranteed to happen when PUA is used - (moral violations are universal truths based on Objective Evidence). And he is NOT implying that he's objectively "better than" anyone who currently uses PUA. He allows any one who wants to use PUA to use PUA, and he doesn't chase them down with moralistic arguments nor accusations that they violate moral arguments. You, on the other hand? You use moralistic language that hinge upon the confusion of Subjective Evidence and Objective Evidence. And that makes you the one using sleight-of-hand.

I don't fully believe that, but I'm leaning towards believing that. There are some studies that highly correlate being sexually molested by a same-sex individual with becoming gay in adulthood. ------------------ Courtesy of the Roosh V Forum: http://www.hollanddavis.com/?p=3647 Summary: "Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way. “At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics. Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay. “Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.” Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.” Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by “non-shared factors,” things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other. For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. “These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate,” he says." ------------------- Also, courtesy of the Roosh V Forum: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11501300 Summary: "In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls. Suggestions for future research were offered." ----------------------- Here's a highly uncomfortable question: If the research above were disputed but not wholly discredited, would you voluntarily expose your children to homosexual individuals in the name of personal freedom and tolerance for all? Or would you declare that your children's future is much more important than any perceived slight against homosexuals, no matter how "unjust" that slight may appear, and therefore, refuse to let your children interact with homosexuals?

This is going to sound crass, but do you think Not Killing Yourself is an essential part of every job? I ask because, as you know, the suicide rate among transgender individuals is astronomically higher than that of the general public and, unlike depression (which may be cured), transgender is permanent. Like pretty much every transgender individual I've interacted with, you focus on the emotional side of things, using emotional words like self-esteem and feeling superior about yourself. But the suicide rate and Alice Amell's language where she said, "In sex change operations, the penis isn't removed; it's re-shaped into a vagina." strongly suggest that "self-esteem" and "feeling superior about yourself" aren't the operative focus-words. Instead, the operative-focus words are "I don't want to get close to people who are much more likely to kill themselves." and "I don't want to get close to people who use delusional language."

No, WastachMan, biological is not "the context word". Biology is EITHER: (1) a universal, ever-present drive that everyone must fulfill OR (2) a universal, ever-present drive that technology allows us to circumvent by making individual-choices. This means, in the first case, BIOLOGY IS TRUE FOR EVERYONE. But, in the second case, BIOLOGY IS HARDLY TRUE FOR EVERYONE. Which is it? Biology isn't the context word, WastachMan. Biology is either: (1) a universal drive that everyone has to fulfill, thereby making it a universal truth OR (2) a universal drive that can be circumvented through technology, thereby making it NOT a universal truth. Which is it?

If I'm fighting an argument you're not making, then you're not communicating your argument very well. When you say, "The purpose of having sex is making babies!", is that a universal, objectively true statement or a subjective, emotionally true-for-only-you statement?

I agree with you, but it's more than that. I asked Alice Amell exactly what process she used to discover she was transgender, because the process is always the same. It's NEVER, "I was determined to make friends with all types of people in my high school, the jocks, the nerds, the highly intelligent, the not-intelligent, the good, and the troubled. And I succeeded in becoming friends with them. And then I engaged them in highly-contentious debates about the nature of gender and transgender." It's ALWAYS, "The moment I suspected I was transgender, I had a tepid argument with someone important to me - usually my parents. Once that person didn't instantly accept me, I shut down and stopped debating with them. This inevitably led me to seek out the company of people who already agreed with me, and that company of people was found in such-and-such internet group. The connection I felt made me so happy that I knew transgender was real, and that everyone needs to acknowledge it." -------------------- There's a seemingly unrelated article by TheLastPsychiatrist entitled The Second Story of Echo and Narcissus. I'll post a link in this thread, but I'm warning you: that article is extremely difficult to read and understand. The author, himself, warns you that after you've read it, you'll try to re-write its meaning to prevent yourself from seeing it. But the punch-line, the one-liner that is most relevant to this thread, is: "Narcissus didn't love anyone, and so he fell in love with himself." http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/10/the_story_of_narcissus.html

Okay, so how about this? John has been a highly depressed individual for many years, and he determines that being highly depressed isn't sexually attractive. Through the work of some self-help books and podcasts, he (hopefully!) has acquired a small amount of insight into his childhood wounds and (he hopes!) has gotten rid of the depression. I say, "he hopes" because he doesn't know how much he really understands nor how much he's gotten rid of the depression, because he's been depressed for years and has achieved "understanding" for two days. He spots this beautiful woman, hits on her under the frame of his new-found "awareness", and she falls in love with him. Fraud, or not Fraud? WastachMan, hundreds of women every day actively know that sex could be used for having babies, display their active knowledge by deliberately taking birth control, and then have sex anyway - but you're saying, "Sex is still for having babies, even though women, through their intelligent choices, have made sex NOT FOR having babies". Your argument is made in defiance of the facts, WastachMan, not in alignment with those facts. How do women feel when you make this argument to them, assuming you've made that argument to them at all? Right, I get it. If we could time-travel back to before birth-control was invented and various surgical options existed, then you could make the obvious claim that, biologically, sex is for making babies. But there are no time-travel devices, no ruby red slippers, and no cars that run on male frustration that travel fast enough to break the speed of light....to find a wormhole....to end up in 1857. I look out the window, and it's still 2015. And it's not called "shaming you", WastachMan - (as if your emotional happiness were, or ought to be, the central focus of this thread). It's called "acknowledging the facts" and "having empathy for women".

To me, this looks like you've figured out that women need you, that women have always needed you because they're not biologically nor socially fit to learn things on their own, but that you're just not interested in being needed by them nor teaching them what they need to know. Not saying that's what it is. Am saying that's what it looks like. It looks like Nero with a fiddle. How do you feel about this?

Yes, absolutely. With birth control technology and other surgical options, this is no longer true.

Yes, I know. You're perfectly happy to ostracize people for disagreeing with your imperfect and imprecise arguments. For example, you say, "I know this is fallacious, but it seems like PUA exists so men can stroke their ego. Maybe it is just me, but I don't prefer lots of recreational sex because I know that is not the purpose of sex (however, I also experienced some of the consequences of this recreational sex mentality in my early 20s)." When you say, "I know that is not the purpose of sex.", you speak as if you know this is true for everyone. But how do you know that? And if you don't know that, but act like you know that, then what kind of person does that make you? Yes, you're "perfectly happy" to ostracize people who disagree with you, but your subjective feelings alone aren't the sole arbiter, right? (Or do everyone else's subjective feelings get dismissed?)

Philosophy teaches you that you can't use it to declare-as-false-or-immoral any woman's voluntary aesthetic choice. At best, you can express your subjective dislike of their choices, but you can't argue that their choices are wrong / bad / evil.