J. D. Stembal

I usually post health related topics in the S & T section, but they often get over-looked there. Elliot Hulse is so inspirational. I'm glad Stefan got to talk to him, otherwise I would have probably not found his channel until much later.

That's exactly what bothered me so much about the NA group! By abdicating self-efficacy and throwing in my hat with religion, I would be saying to my self-esteem "I am so weak that I have to embrace irrationality to cope and admit that I am sinful and something is wrong with my soul." Thank you for the motivational message. I knew it was a recording that I needed to do for a while. I was dragging my feet on it. Are you are one of my seven subscribers?

It's concern trolling. He pulled a similar move with me in this thread: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/44446-podcast-fdr3004-pickup-artists-hypergamy-and-ostracism-call-in-show-june-17th-2015/?p=406181

Does anyone else see the irony that drkmdn is making an accusation that calling people parasites is an obsession, while in FDR 3004, individuals (who are not parasites on our health care system) were accused of being obsessed? My brain just exploded.

Oh, that is great news, Lens! I feel better now than I have in my entire life. Alcohol and drugs hold no appeal any more. I also shelved all the video games, which I have been playing since I was four or five. They hold a certain power over me as well since they were my surrogate parents for a lot of my childhood. Unfortunately, I picked the cigar habit back up when I was writing my deFOO letters. I had been smoke-free for a number of months. I will give it up again, I'm sure. This didn't make the final cut of the audio journal, although perhaps it should have. I spoke of my father and my anger at the NA meeting. It's hard to know for sure because no one is allowed to ask me questions when I am speaking, but I could visibly see everyone's eyes turn glassy and unfocused around me like they didn't know how or were refusing to process what I was saying emotionally. It was very creepy to experience the amygdalas of a dozen people scream in unison.

Which call in show is yours? I would like to listen to it. It was before I joined up.

I don't recall therapy being discussed in the call, but perhaps I missed it. I can see that Elias is resistant to the idea of therapy, and I can relate to that. I have resisted it because of my past experiences with psychologists, and being drugged against my will. I am making an assumption, but it is likely that there is someone close to Elias that will be harmed by him going to therapy. I can also relate to that feeling of vanishing existence. Cost can be a primary concern, but at the very least, introspective reading and journaling can help you explore and gain insights. I really like Nathaniel Branden's writing style and Alice Miller is great, too, if a little difficult to read. Perhaps her work was translated into English. Doesn't Rainbow Jamz have a blog on journaling, too? I know I saved the link somewhere. Here is the relevant article! http://yourwritetolive.com/2014/07/10/save-20000-on-therapy-by-buying-a-20-journal/

Thanks, I really appreciate it, Nathan. I want to put out the invitation that I am also seeking questions, specific criticisms or input on the content. I know it's a longer listen, so I will be patient. I am happy I was able to cut it down to under forty minutes. I was absolutely thrilled by the feedback I got several weeks back on my "Hacking the Gibson" Dream Analysis/Book Review from Lens and a few others. It really helped me see what my subconscious was telling me, and I am planning a follow-up to the dream analysis video in order to explore additional areas I purposely omitted the first time around.

Liked and shared!

Don't worry. I got your back, Jack!

I saw that you added me as a friend, and I accepted it, but I have no idea how to send you a private message. I used to have the ability to send and receive private messages, but that function has since been removed from my panel, or I am overlooking it. It's great that we've made a connection! I admit that some of my earlier replies were a bit adversarial or challenging by my own intention. Jeff Cavaliere, the Athlean-X host, has a great channel on Youtube for all manner of exercises, and yes, he is way more obsessed with core work and abdominals but the intention with his program is to train athletes, or wanna-be athletes. The visual body chart is great, but as he points out, it is of limited value since it is so broad and individuals carry fat differently based on their genetic predisposition, age and the level of the "male vitality" hormone. When I was 200 lbs., I estimate that I was between 20-24% body fat but I looked more like 16-19%. This is my subjective assessment, but I would call Dad Bod anything from 20-40% along the bottom of the chart. Stud Bod is the three on the top, and in the middle is the average. On Sunday, I took progress pictures of myself for the third time ever, and it seems like I'm still in the 13-15% range. To know for certain, and with accuracy, I would have to do an Archimedes test where the techs dunk you under water in a tank to estimate the body volume to mass ratio. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1454554784862344&set=pcb.1454559238195232&type=1&theater If you prefer books with technical and scientific explanations regarding nutrition, check out Voleck and Phinney The Art and Science of Low-Carbohydrate Living: http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-Science-Carbohydrate-Living/dp/0983490708 That is a good book to start with and it touches on most of the items in my previous reply except they do not discuss Dad Bod, Obamacare or the abdominal muscles. Edit: Well, look at that, Jeff Cavaliere released a video today about eating for abs. He's a big fan of poultry, and protein supplements. I'm not, but he has a ton more muscle mass than me. Do whatever works and whatever tastes right, and makes you feel stronger.

I am celebrating one year of sobriety, and have put together an audio journal about addiction. This is the most difficult presentation I have put together so far. I had to carefully explore my parental inner-voices. It is a reconstruction of three different sessions recorded over the past week. I could not have explored this topic so closely without first deFOOing from my toxic family. Toward the end, I reflect on a strategy for changing the Twelve Step Program to remove god and the abdication of the self from the equation, which makes it a more humanizing process. Thank you for listening, and I appreciate the input as always! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptkhFWbmUI4 I want to recommend any of Nathaniel Brandon's works on self-esteem and Jay Earley's IFS books, as these are the primary resources that I use for self-exploration and therapy. Shout out to Elliot Hulse of Strength Camp for providing a physical manifestation of self-esteem that I can model, and Stefan Molyneux and the Philosophy Crew at Free Domain Radio for being major influences on me recognizing and acknowledging my destructive addiction. This has been a collaborative effort to be certain.

I have three (well, four, actually) magic doves up my sleeve, and with persistence, I can make a convincing case for you. I am not a concern troll. I genuinely trust in what I am espousing. Abs are not only aesthetic in my eyes! I am using spoilers as this post is quite lengthy. In summation... Have I made the case that Stud Bod is moral, or that Dad Bod is not? No, since you cannot have positive moral obligations, but considering the data and presentation of the health consequences of metabolic disorder, it is clearly aesthetically preferred behavior to lean as close as you can to Stud Bod in your own life. Of course, there will be men that declare that they are as strong as an ox when they eat fast food a lot of the time, and obese women who think they look beautiful at 250 lbs. These are individuals dealing with choices, although we can no longer afford to ignore the choice and look the other way when we are forced to pay for the ill-effects down the road, through the coercion of the state.

45, 48, 51 - My back and forth with Patrick, and 78, the SigmaTau interaction. The reply within FDR2993 is in limbo, so expect it soon.

I am now experiencing frustration. How could man have fallen so far to reject his very sexuality? (so says the celibate) Until someone acknowledges my previous thesis (let alone attempting a dismissal, corroboration or refutation), I'll be exploring other threads. Thank you for the conversation, such as it was.

Wow, another hoax that I have been coerced into funding. Hands off my monies, phantom one-world government!

Insulting a woman in order to assuage or minimize your fear of rejection? Does that seem like a winning strategy in retrospect? Rejecting someone first doesn't mean you are safe from rejection. I'd say that it increases the odds that you get rejected or tested sooner. By jumping through hoops, I take that to mean that you were faced with a series of shit tests by the woman you teased? Yeah, it's not fun, and while many PUAs will cook up witty or clever responses for facing the tests, responding to a female mind game with anything other than a firm negative is largely unwise. However, you have to identify the shit test first. For example, there was a woman, eleven years my junior, I was courting. Her eggs had an argument that was very compelling to me! We made plans for one date, which was a swing dancing class, and she cancels. A week or two pass, and I make very specific plans for another date (not dinner, mind you), and she cancels again the day of the date. The first cancellation was fine, but two in a row? I was upset, and I had to be firm with her about never asking her out again. Months later, I ran into her at the place that we had first met, and she makes a snarky comment under her breath about "how you ruined it between us," at least I think that is what she said. I looked at her with wide eyes, asking her to repeat herself, and she refused. I never got access to the eggs, but I can accept that I was never getting there without plenty of shame and groveling, and I can be very thankful for avoiding eggs that were probably also extremely bothersome to date. I politely, yet firmly, expressed my boundaries to her, and she couldn't resist to shame me for it months later, waving her eggs in my face. To throw flak back at her, I later asked her elder sister out as if to demonstrate to her that she cannot keep me out of swimming in her gene pool, but her sister played it by the book. I was shut down immediately. The reason was not explicitly stated, but it was obvious that it was because I didn't play along like a good boy with her younger sister. The moral of my story is that some women aren't worth the time and effort, now matter how beautiful and intelligent, and the sooner you find out whether they are worthy of your time, the saner you will feel about interacting with the female of the species. Plus rep for deciding to be mindful of working out, reading and learning! I can tell you with some authority that the club scene is very hollow, so you are a very quick study to see that it should be avoided. I spent a long time there because 1) alcohol, 2) club drugs, 3) unlimited access to sex. This is my unholy trinity for biochemical addictive self-coping mechanisms. I may have pointed it out before in another thread, but I've had not one of the three in the past year, so I am consciously celibate and sober. This last question goes out to the general thread - why are we still talking about morality and virtue? This topic is APA, not UPB, is it not? Social justice warriors and rape culture activists aside, the non-aggression principle factors not one bit into PUA because it involves sex or intimacy between consenting humans. To suggest that a violation of universal morality factors into it is to suggest that woman are not capable of self-ownership and determination as the final arbiters of sex and family (a stark contradiction), but I have already explained the argument earlier in the thread. There is also more than one purpose to sexual activity. It's not just for making more humans. I pointed out two books in my first reply that go into great detail about how the sex hormones have multiple biological functions. The same chemical circuits that bond a woman to her mate are also the same hormones that bond her to her future infant child to encourage her to feed the baby instead of eating him. Therefore, if you want to know how a woman will mother her child, you should observe how she treats you and judge accordingly. More footnotes for Sigma Tau: One of the great filtering abilities that you can cultivate to save time with women is to see and understand how they react to seeing you, or meeting you. It has been said many times that a woman has already dismissed you as egg-worthy or not within ten seconds of seeing you for the first time before you even get a chance to run verbal game on her. This is why "peacocking" is so valuable. Wear a child's Burger King paper crown hat around in public or some other unique article. Wear women's clothing. I bought a second hand woman's knit sweater with a polar bear on the front. The sweater caused quite a stir the first night I wore it. This makes you more visible to women who may have otherwise dismissed you in the mix. Exhibit A: This is also where exercise or strength training pays dividends. Not only is it good for your long term health, women prefer men who treat their bodies like a temple because it means that you are more likely to value her bodily assets, the eggs, her fertility, and respect that no means no.

Specifically, what did you do? What was the reaction? It is not so clear other than that you feel silly about it.

In the interest of not putting words into your mouth, what are you implying with the above statements? Furthermore, we still need to work on a definition of what pick-up or game theory is. I've never purposely "negged" a woman, but I've made plenty of statements which women found objectionable. I come from the school of thought that says that if you find a woman attractive upon first meeting her in person, you should compliment at least two aspects of her physical appearance, which includes her clothing. (I love your smile. or Your shoes are adorable.) Also, you should touch her several times and make a lot of eye contact, but not overtly, such as aggressive groping or openly staring at her assets. Why would any reasonable human being think that insulting someone is a good way to determine sexual marketplace value? In my experience, only women do this maliciously with potential mates to test for alpha qualities, hence the "shit test". I wasn't aware of this female strategy for a long time, but it was most definitely happening to me. I've been deliberately insulted many times by both genders. The word, metro-sexual, springs to mind. Why would a pick-up artist assume game works on all women? The strategy is predicated on the fact that the majority of women are put-off or do not know what to make of flamboyant, charismatic, aggressive, and persistent men. A man who is sure of himself doesn't care why a woman isn't attracted to him. He cares about why she is attracted to him. Again, you are framing success as tricking a woman into being attracted to a man. Why do you insist that sexual success with woman must involve a certain degree of misdirection, and that women must be susceptible to it in order for it to succeed? Have you considered the possibility that pick-up artists tend to have more success because they have admirable qualities, some of which I mentioned above? Have you succeeded in attracting a woman? Did you have to fool her in order for her to be attracted to you? No, so why should it be any different for the PUA?

Then, this is why we are coming into disagreement in the thread. To quote Ayn Rand, However, which premise is incorrect? Or are both incorrect? We need to agree on a universal definition of what successful pick-up entails. Feminists or traditionalists favor framing the practice as outright lying, manipulation or deception, while game, at least as I understand it from reading The Way of the Superior Man, focuses on empirical reality, biology and the consequences of sexual dimorphism within the context of modern times. Patrick, do you believe that mind control is possible? How can pick-up be successful if it does not actually rely on mind control? (You used the word attempted.) No, mind control is not any more possible than deriving morality from the insanity of religion. More male and female input is requested! Have you been picked-up successfully? Have you picked-up others? I have been successful in having intercourse with women shortly after first meeting them, but I would not call myself a conscious student of game theory. I read one book tangentially on the subject called How to Succeed with Women when I was 22, but as far as my sexual habits are concerned, I am largely acting out my childhood traumas. For me, it's not a game. It's neglect and abuse coupled with a full head of hair and a winning smile and a desperate need to self-medicate neurochemically. I feel physically ill when I think about it in this context.

Both of the statements that I highlighted in bold assume that a woman isn't the final of arbiter of sexual intercourse and the family, that men can somehow perform what amounts to mind control. See Briffault's Law. I certainly agree with Stefan about female responsibility, and how it needs to greatly improve. Until then, you cannot only blame men who want to score with attractive women. Men are following the biological programming of our species; the more women with which we mate, the greater the likelihood of offspring. Why aren't women being more chaste to keep the PUAs in check? That is the question we should be asking, not whether pick-up is deceitful or not. To imply that it is deceitful trickery is to suggest that women aren't responsible over sex, for which they are completely responsible. To sum it up, it is the fault of women that pick-up works. The fact that there are so few women who can "see through the game" is a testimony to the severity of their lapse in judgement if you assume that the default biological position for a woman is to guard her eggs at all costs. Personally, I don't subscribe to the chaste woman theory. There is much evidence (see Sex at Dawn), from within modern primitive cultures, the history of our civilization, and the closely related primate species, coupled with our biological development, that females are naturally far from chaste. However, we have somehow constructed this traditional narrative (perhaps out of the social mores of religion) that the female of the species is meant to be very selective with her eggs. Nearly all the evidence points to the contrary argument. Biologically, women must mate frequently and often. Our genes and hormonal circuits (see The Chemistry Between Us) don't know about modern medicine and birth control. A woman's body doesn't know that many children no longer die before the age of six. Our hormones don't care about taxes and fiat currency. Of course, rationally, everyone knows that you can medically put off having kids, who are resource vacuums, usually through hormonal tinkering, and that mating with someone else is a conscious choice and not totally biologically determined, but you can't have a fruitful debate about human sexuality without first explicitly pointing out whether you are discussing biological tendencies or rational free choice. We risk confusing the two in this thread.

This actually happened when I was young, about age five or six. Another child in neighborhood and I were throwing rocks on top of his garage roof, trying to get them caught in the gutter, but some of the rocks fell and cracked the windshield of a car. We didn't notice the damage, or understand that what we were doing was destructive. We were playing a game of skill as far as we were concerned. Later on that night, my father was informed that I was responsible for cracking the neighbor's windshield. I may have had to think about it in my room after the lecture. I don't recall if he spanked me or not as he may have waited until I was older for punitive ass-striking, but he told me why what I was doing was wrong. I remember being extremely puzzled about it. Why were adults so concerned about cars? Why did they not care that I was playing a game? He did not make me pay for it, but he paid for the damage on my behalf. I may have paid the costs back in chores, but I'm not certain. If the lesson had been less about shaming me for my normal human curiosity and more focused on avoiding purposeful or accidental destruction of private property, the "punishment" would have more constructive in the long run.

The social justice tears, they taste bitter.

Sure, take what you want and pay for it. No one has to see your rectus abdominus if you don't want them to see. I'm not going to shame you for your chosen priorities of language and philosophy. Are you offended when someone else has different goals than you? I am concerned that you are echoing the sentiments of the hosts of Free Domain Radio, who subtly shun males with prominent ab muscles nearly every episode where they can fit it into the discussion. Apparently, being physically fit as a man is the analog of wearing high heels as a woman, or at least that is a small example of the impression that I have experienced thus far. How do you know that you are healthy? What is your body fat percentage? How about your fasting blood glucose or Hemoglobin A1c? How can you eat "whatever I want"? There is a large contradiction in premises in those two statements, meaning you cannot eat whatever you want if you wish to remain healthful. Modern food is largely poisonous to humans, hence the plague of diabesity across the world, the rise of Obamacare in the United States, and the phenomenon of the "dad bod" and "feminine body positivity" to account for it in the sexual marketplace.

It may be helpful, if as a parent, that you consider whether or not your parenting is more like an authoritarian or punitive government or a voluntary and peaceful one. Time outs do not seem like a voluntary solution unless your child wants to go sit alone and think about life in his bedroom. Too many parents, including my own, are used to using the idle threat to shut their kids down, "Do you want to go to your room?" Of course, they know that the child does not want to go and are using the threat of isolation to leverage against the behavior they are attempting to adjust. Of course, this type of external motivation through threat of force is extremely toxic, and it is the reason why everyone pays their taxes on time.