Pickup artist culture is actually proof of the objectification of men

[aeonicentity]

here's an important point: the growth of the PUA community signals a fundamental shift in women: Women WANT to be 'picked up'. I think the reality is that women are just as frustrated with the dating scene as men are, but they're told that they need to have very high standards about who they should and shouldn't date by parents/media/feminists/peers and don't know what they want or who they should have relationships with. When a man swoops in, says 'all the right things' and tell her she's beautiful, she drops her pants because in this confusing world of conflicting ideals, the one thing many women are looking for is someone to tell them what they want.

 

This is not true of all women. Even accomplished pickup artists have a failure rate. However, the general idea is to prey on these types of women who are unsure of what they want, and how to achieve it, because they're the most suseptible to someone comming in and saying "I have a plan, lets get those pants off". This comes off as easy in our culture because women are being told that sex is the only way they're going to attract a husband. Generally speaking this is true of men as well, we're told that only by having sex (and a lot of it) and success we will be able to attract a wife.

 

In our culture both men and women have been objectified by the overemphasis of sex as a neccessary component of all courtship relationships. This has come at the deminishment of other components, things like emotional depth, sincerity, honesty, commitment, intelectual compatability, virtue, and other traits we should consider as important as sexual attraction in a relationship.

 

I can't count the number of times I hear "He's a duchebag, but I love him!" (translates roughly as 'he beats me, but the sex is great!'). Women often find themselves dating men who they have nothing in common with, but they are attracted to them because of their mixture of good sex, and financial success. Men often find themselves dating women who lack emotional sincerity because the've been having close intimate sexual relationships destroyed since they were 16. Neither side is happy because of the oversexualization of our culture.

[Holo Cene]

This sounds like a bit of a sexual arms race, though I realize you're saying PUA culture simply takes us closer to the natural state of things. I partly agree: modern society, including feminist/leftist influences have downplayed the value of men in the eyes of women and in the eyes of men themselves. Many are lost, lacking the confidence to approach women, carry a conversation, etc.They need to find their way. I get it.Your argument points out (and is based on) the fact that men, in a nutshell, have changed. That is, society has changed men. Right?But does your argument take into account the fact that these same societal forces have changed women to a similar degree, albeit in a different direction (being made more self-assured instead of less so)? If you want to paint with extremely broad strokes, you could say men have been turned into sniveling pussies while women have been turned into cold-hearted, self-entitled products of postconsumer culture.... so, the nature of both women and men have been changed? Yay or nay.Also: I find your free market and non-NAP justifications a bit trite. They're not untrue, but they don't really strengthen your argument. Prostitution doesn't violate the NAP, meaning it's not morally wrong, but that doesn't make it good in any sense.

 

The TS was talking about how men must become "funbags" in order to attract women, which is an "objectification" of men. The problem with this thinking is that it eschews the reality that we live in a world where people have choices, which is exactly related to the NAP. Those choices will always be mediated by self-interest. The way the dating world has evolved has turned it into a type of market place where female hypergamy is queen. This dynamic invariably has shifted the polarity between men and women, and in large part has left men unable to cope. The "alpha" or "douchebag" wins because he plays the game according to the rules. The other men play the game like paraplegic introverts, because they haven't had the education or the courage to begin that learning process. PUA is a bridge in the market that allows men to begin that learning process. The fact that we must play to hypergamy and its foibles is another discussion entirely but ultimately extremely involved in the NAP since propaganda cannot be changed we must work with what is in front of us. Cultural change can only be coerced through control of media, which is control of people. Since that is likely impossible we can only affect the people in our lives as much as we can and within limits as people are mostly resistant to anything rational or logic based. This is the objection to PUA. It is an objection to the female hypergamy and its concomitant moral decay.

[PatrickC]

I would broadly agree with you Holo Cene, when we are dealing with un-philosophical types, although there are exceptions even without philosophy. But I think you aptly portray the current state of nature for many young men and women. However, it's not clear to me why you refer to the NAP. I have my own thoughts, but was wondering whether you would clarify that point for me.

[Mishelle]

What an interesting discussion y'all have going on here!  I can't help but chime in, because I'm curious and baffled.  It seems things have really changed since I've played the field!

 

This idea that men are the performers traditionally, as LP wrote, I'm not sure I understand this.  The Don Juan character, which is what this PAU reminds of, became famous because it was so very different from the norms-- this sort of male peacock behavior.  It was something you might see a bit in aristocratic circles, but certainly not among commoners.  The women are the "performers" traditionally, we spend all the time on getting dolled up, trying to seem flawless, learning to dance and play the piano, becoming a good hostess, trying to be compliant and laugh at the right places and ask the right questions and be sure not to talk about ourselves too much, to pay attention to our body language to make sure we are saying just enough, and certainly not too much.

 

The joking and laughing has nothing to do with entertaining women, it was traditionally to keep the focus of the conversation on the man and amp his ego.

 

So, the dating world has completely turned on it's head in the last decades if I'm understanding correctly?

[Holo Cene]

I would broadly agree with you Holo Cene, when we are dealing with un-philosophical types, although there are exceptions even without philosophy. But I think you aptly portray the current state of nature for many young men and women. However, it's not clear to me why you refer to the NAP. I have my own thoughts, but was wondering whether you would clarify that point for me.

 

I bring up the NAP because it is the backbone of any freedom, which also applies to the dating market. I cannot force a woman to like me because I want her to. I must develop a skill set that allows me to become a salesman of my abilities/traits which allows a woman to then freely choose me as a prospective mate. This must occur because one cannot go around forcefully changing women, or going MGTOW which is just a boycott whose ultimate goal is the eradication of hypergamy to a certain extent. The NAP is integral because voluntarism is ultimately at the heart of the issue. When the media can propagandize women in a certain direction (hypergamy) then because the sexual market is voluntary, it will have consequences for dating.

[PatrickC]

I bring up the NAP because it is the backbone of any freedom, which also applies to the dating market. I cannot force a woman to like me because I want her to. I must develop a skill set that allows me to become a salesman of my abilities/traits which allows a woman to then freely choose me as a prospective mate. This must occur because one cannot go around forcefully changing women, or going MGTOW which is just a boycott whose ultimate goal is the eradication of hypergamy to a certain extent. The NAP is integral because voluntarism is ultimately at the heart of the issue. When the media can propagandize women in a certain direction (hypergamy) then because the sexual market is voluntary, it will have consequences for dating.

 

Right, but doesn't this apply to all forms of dating, PUA or otherwise?

[Holo Cene]

Right, but doesn't this apply to all forms of dating, PUA or otherwise?

 

Yes, but people fail to see it. PUA is in it's core, just teaching men how to open their eyes. 

[MrCapitalism]

So, the dating world has completely turned on it's head in the last decades if I'm understanding correctly?

That's been my experience. Except for the parts about physical beauty and flawlessness, I don't know of any girls that act like you describe.

[PatrickC]

Yes, but people fail to see it. PUA is in it's core, just teaching men how to open their eyes. 

 

Right, but I don't see other forms of dating as breaking the NAP, that's what I mean. Whether they are successful or not. It doesn't seem relevant, unless I'm missing something perhaps.

[Holo Cene]

Right, but I don't see other forms of dating as breaking the NAP, that's what I mean. Whether they are successful or not. It doesn't seem relevant, unless I'm missing something perhaps.

 

You are absolutely right, but a lot of men don't see it that way. They do not see it as a mutually beneficial voluntary association. They get angry at things like PUA which is just a response to a distorted reality that creates people who have no idea what they are doing. I'm not saying the NAP is only for PUA, i'm saying that it also applies to PUA. PUA only works because women are voluntarily choosing men who can hone these skill sets that PUA's teach, but essentially any man who wants to interact with women must learn. It's like MGTOW. They rage against the hypergamy and the sluts and the feminists which is completely their prerogative, but ultimately its a facile solution because all that means is that their genes will be wiped out of existence. 

[PatrickC]

Ok, I understand, thanks.. Yes, I also take issue with some of the more extreme ideas in MGTOW myself, but some of the more moderate types, as with PUA I can see some advantages and good arguments in them.. Of course, for me, it's mainly about self knowledge or at least attempting to engage and recognise that part of myself. Listening to these ideas and approaches doesn't seem at all redundant in that regard.. Interesting conversation.

[Omega 3 snake oil]

The TS was talking about how men must become "funbags" in order to attract women, which is an "objectification" of men.

Yep, with you here, but you lose me shortly after.

The problem with this thinking is that it eschews the reality that we live in a world where people have choices, which is exactly related to the NAP.

Not sure I ever suggested anything of the sort. People definitely have choices, but pointing out, say, that people have a choice in whether or not to use drugs eschews the reality that many if not most drug addicts have other psychological/emotional problems that arise from poor parenting, shitty education, childhood or other trauma. Saying something does or doesn't violate the NAP is a bit <*ahem extremely*> short-sighted in the context of this discussion, as I hope to explore further in this post.

Those choices will always be mediated by self-interest. The way the dating world has evolved has turned it into a type of market place where female hypergamy is queen. This dynamic invariably has shifted the polarity between men and women, and in large part has left men unable to cope. The "alpha" or "douchebag" wins because he plays the game according to the rules.

Agreed 100%. And those rules are what I'm suggesting we delve more deeply into--that is the point you seem to be missing as by hanging your hat on NAP.

 

The other men play the game like paraplegic introverts, because they haven't had the education or the courage to begin that learning process.

I take exception to this statement. You imply introversion is a bad or weak quality, and in doing so you exemplify what I'm getting at re: contemporary values being based on a very contrived paradigm. In nature, "alpha male" has a fixed meaning. In modern society, the definition of alpha male is constantly shifting with societal change; so if its meaning can change so readily, it cannot have the kind of intrinsic value it has in reality/nature (whereby an alpha male must have good genetics, good decision making, etc.)

 

PUA is a bridge in the market that allows men to begin that learning process. The fact that we must play to hypergamy and its foibles is another discussion entirely

umm no, it's the discussion everyone else has been having thus far. Welcome.

 

.... but ultimately extremely involved in the NAP since propaganda cannot be changed we must work with what is in front of us.

Untrue, unsubstantiated, patently absurd.

 

Cultural change can only be coerced through control of media, which is control of people. Since that is likely impossible we can only affect the people in our lives as much as we can and within limits as people are mostly resistant to anything rational or logic based. This is the objection to PUA. It is an objection to the female hypergamy and its concomitant moral decay.

Contentious at best. For example, this thread is an example of media becoming democratized, power of influence becoming decentralized. If you believe people are against anything rational or logic based, why are you on this forum?I hate to be a preachy, didactic/pedantic knob but you seem to make many dubious assertions, slather on a coat of NAP then consider things pretty much wrapped up.

[Holo Cene]

Yep, with you here, but you lose me shortly after.

Not sure I ever suggested anything of the sort. People definitely have choices, but pointing out, say, that people have a choice in whether or not to use drugs eschews the reality that many if not most drug addicts have other psychological/emotional problems that arise from poor parenting, shitty education, childhood or other trauma. Saying something does or doesn't violate the NAP is a bit <*ahem extremely*> short-sighted in the context of this discussion, as I hope to explore further in this post.

Agreed 100%. And those rules are what I'm suggesting we delve more deeply into--that is the point you seem to be missing as by hanging your hat on NAP.

 

I take exception to this statement. You imply introversion is a bad or weak quality, and in doing so you exemplify what I'm getting at re: contemporary values being based on a very contrived paradigm. In nature, "alpha male" has a fixed meaning. In modern society, the definition of alpha male is constantly shifting with societal change; so if its meaning can change so readily, it cannot have the kind of intrinsic value it has in reality/nature (whereby an alpha male must have good genetics, good decision making, etc.)

 

umm no, it's the discussion everyone else has been having thus far. Welcome.

 

Untrue, unsubstantiated, patently absurd.

 

Contentious at best. For example, this thread is an example of media becoming democratized, power of influence becoming decentralized. If you believe people are against anything rational or logic based, why are you on this forum?I hate to be a preachy, didactic/pedantic knob but you seem to make many dubious assertions, slather on a coat of NAP then consider things pretty much wrapped up.

 

Im not exactly sure what you are arguing for or against here. Can you clarify your disagreement?

[Omega 3 snake oil]

Im not exactly sure what you are arguing for or against here. Can you clarify your disagreement?

Sure, see my first post.Also, see @ 4:50http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2mKqJetgO4

[Holo Cene]

Men's value has been so thoroughly stripped away in the eyes of women that the only value most women now see in men is as fun or entertainment. Hence we get the replacement courtship with game playing, even among educated, successful women--in fact, especially among this demographic because they tend to be the most independent, at least in the most immediate sense. The prevailing ethos is women don't "need" men, and men are lucky women even consider us in the first place.With no real value as partners (except perhaps for the wealthiest 10 or 20 percent) men are offering women the only thing women still show interest in: Fun.What does a man need to do to impress a woman?  Ask any pickup artist, he will tell you either directly or indirectly it heavily based on showing her a good time. Because what could be a better, more realistic basis for a relationship than projecting an aura of a neverending party?And so men have shaped our identities based on catering to (often childish) whims rather than demonstrating genuine value (though I suppose value is a subjective thing; value to a person whose outlook is based on having fun would be whatever allows for maximum fun).

 

How do you know fun is the only criteria of value women are seeking? What is a realistic basis for a relationship? What is genuine value for a man?

[Naer]

pickup artist culture makes men into awkward individuals

[King David]

You are absolutely right, but a lot of men don't see it that way. They do not see it as a mutually beneficial voluntary association. They get angry at things like PUA which is just a response to a distorted reality that creates people who have no idea what they are doing. I'm not saying the NAP is only for PUA, i'm saying that it also applies to PUA. PUA only works because women are voluntarily choosing men who can hone these skill sets that PUA's teach, but essentially any man who wants to interact with women must learn. It's like MGTOW. They rage against the hypergamy and the sluts and the feminists which is completely their prerogative, but ultimately its a facile solution because all that means is that their genes will be wiped out of .

Righhht, just like how gay men don't pass on their genes and now we have no gay men, good one.

[Holo Cene]

Righhht, just like how gay men don't pass on their genes and now we have no gay men, good one.

MGTOW isn't a genetic phenomenon. I'm talking about your personal genetic legacy that will be wiped via not inserting your genetic material into an egg and creating a new human being. It's biology.

[Mishelle]

I've spoken to a male friend about this subject and he's more my age but still "in the field" a bit, at least far more than me.  He agrees that the dating world has completely turned upside down in the last 2 decades.  I find this fascinating.  There's something that feels to me quite unsustainable in this picture--I've always sympathized with men's rights, even before there was a movement--but this seems like a crucial issue for sure.  It's heartbreaking for me to see the genders so at odds with each other, what a fucking disaster.  

 

I just want to say thank you all for opening my eyes to these issues and I continue to watch and learn, also knowing that this cannot continue, it will change because it's just too ridiculous that men and women wouldn't make natural wonderful fulfilling evolutionary partners, what a shame, this must shift.  You've given me some food for thought what I might be able to do about it!

 

I think the first step might be to apologize for feminism.  We went overboard, quite obviously.  I'm so fucking sorry.  I am one woman, former feminist, who will work to rectify this absurdity!

[Lians]

I've spoken to a male friend about this subject and he's more my age but still "in the field" a bit, at least far more than me.  He agrees that the dating world has completely turned upside down in the last 2 decades.  I find this fascinating.  There's something that feels to me quite unsustainable in this picture--I've always sympathized with men's rights, even before there was a movement--but this seems like a crucial issue for sure.  It's heartbreaking for me to see the genders so at odds with each other, what a fucking disaster.  

 

I just want to say thank you all for opening my eyes to these issues and I continue to watch and learn, also knowing that this cannot continue, it will change because it's just too ridiculous that men and women wouldn't make natural wonderful fulfilling evolutionary partners, what a shame, this must shift.  You've given me some food for thought what I might be able to do about it!

 

I think the first step might be to apologize for feminism.  We went overboard, quite obviously.  I'm so fucking sorry.  I am one woman, former feminist, who will work to rectify this absurdity!

 

What an amazing post, Mishelle! I appreciate the courage it takes to re-examine such a core part of your historic development. It's not an easy to thing to do. It's even harder to admit it so openly.

 

Even though I have very little dating experience, I'd say that the dating scene has, indeed, mutated into something quite ugly and unsustainable. I don't think people have ever been nearly as averse to vulnerability and personal responsibility. I often find myself fascinated while watching older movies or listening to Stef talk about his dating life. "Did people really think and act like that?" It's so different from what I'm used to.

 

The moral corruption that underlies so much of what's going on in the world right now has a lot to do with the lack of quality in people's intimate relationships. It's particularly easy to see this corruption at play in the gender rights trenches of "internet warfare." Even some of my male university professors have started making sarcastic jokes about feminism during lectures. Men are very much disillusioned with women as a whole.

 

To me, the PUA community is the natural outgrowth of vengeance for what the feminist movement has done to western societies. Consciously or not, these men want to get back at women by reducing them to sex toys. Their success in this endeavour only shows how negatively feminism has affected women as well.

 

I can only wonder if societies have to be completely destroyed before people start turning this trend around. I suspect women like you will play a large role in salvaging whatever value's left in the ruins. Christina Hoff Sommers is an excellent example of a former feminist that uses her knowledge of the movement to fight it.

[Omega 3 snake oil]

How do you know fun is the only criteria of value women are seeking?

I'm hesitant to generalize so completely, as it's obvious not every woman wants the same thing. But PUA culture focuses almost entirely on providing fun/entertainment to women--I think this is apparent and self-explanatory. Again, I think this is indicative of a social shift. Values have shifted toward hedonism/solipcism.

 

 What is a realistic basis for a relationship?

Good question. That is up to the individual(s) involved, and must take into account what they both want. To answer that question using the NAP principle one could say as long as both parties are getting what they want, any relationship is valid/realistic. But this doesn't get at the deeper issues...

 

I've spoken to a male friend about this subject and he's more my age but still "in the field" a bit, at least far more than me.  He agrees that the dating world has completely turned upside down in the last 2 decades...There's something that feels to me quite unsustainable in this picture

Thank. You. So. Much. :)Sustainability is key, and I think that's what's missing more than anything. Sustainability is an objective criteria, unlike things like compassion and love (which mean the world to me as a human being but cannot necessarily be argued for on a rational basis). Imagine every last woman insisting that men provide her with fun/excitement as per "the rules of the game". What will we have left within a generation or so?<collective eye roll>Seriously, what will be left?  Women who: a) don't have children; b) have fatherless children that will require excessive state funded resources to be raised; and--sorry to be a complete ass on this one, but--c) wait too long to have kids, then suffer health-related consequences that society has to pay for; d) have generally shitty relationships that cause widespread malaise... it really does go on.

What is genuine value for a man?

Another good, hard to answer question. Again, this is very subjective, as the entire basis for gender roles shifts with society as a whole. Genuine value for a man used to mean strict provider/protector value. These roles have now been deemphasized, which itself is not necessarily a bad thing as it seems to signify the evolution of our species from animals to whatever we're capable of becoming. But, as others have pointed out in this thread, the deemphasis of traditional male roles has created a vaccuum--socially, psychologically, economically, perhaps biologically--into which a seemingly innocuous but ultimately nihilistic value system like PUA culture can insert itself.

[PatrickC]

Again, I think this is indicative of a social shift. Values have shifted toward hedonism/solipcism.

 

This is a great point and it reflects a kind of 'state of nature' that exists in the world today. Nihilism being often the choice for many a man or woman, even if they are unsure of the term. The more extreme ends of PUA certainly exploit this tendency, which is why I don't see it as a particularly useful long term strategy. Unless of course you just want lots of babies with various women that you have no involvement with. Or relationships built on boggy ground.

 

I am positive mind, because I still meet a few women of quality. They might not be philosophical (at least consciously). But I can often persuade them them to unlearn bad ideas with a good argument. So I don't think all is lost. But my opinion is that it's probably up to men to change things, as they have mostly done historically. Some of the more rational aspects of MGTOW, might well be a part of that change perhaps, insofar as relearning to appreciate their relationships with men again and taking their own interests as seriously as others. Particular that of women's interests, which seemingly many men can so easily toss away at the faintest complaint from the fairer sex. I'm personally enjoying my new found relationships with men that are competitive, responsible, houourable, rational, fun and so damned interesting. I'm certain there are women that are attracted to that.

[StevenRichards]

Could it be that everyone wants to feel as if their group is discriminated against?  Could it be that everyone wants a reason to feel superior to other people?

[Holo Cene]

I'm hesitant to generalize so completely, as it's obvious not every woman wants the same thing. But PUA culture focuses almost entirely on providing fun/entertainment to women--I think this is apparent and self-explanatory. Again, I think this is indicative of a social shift. Values have shifted toward hedonism/solipcism.

 

Good question. That is up to the individual(s) involved, and must take into account what they both want. To answer that question using the NAP principle one could say as long as both parties are getting what they want, any relationship is valid/realistic. But this doesn't get at the deeper issues...

 

Thank. You. So. Much. :)Sustainability is key, and I think that's what's missing more than anything. Sustainability is an objective criteria, unlike things like compassion and love (which mean the world to me as a human being but cannot necessarily be argued for on a rational basis). Imagine every last woman insisting that men provide her with fun/excitement as per "the rules of the game". What will we have left within a generation or so?<collective eye roll>Seriously, what will be left?  Women who: a) don't have children; b) have fatherless children that will require excessive state funded resources to be raised; and--sorry to be a complete ass on this one, but--c) wait too long to have kids, then suffer health-related consequences that society has to pay for; d) have generally shitty relationships that cause widespread malaise... it really does go on.

Another good, hard to answer question. Again, this is very subjective, as the entire basis for gender roles shifts with society as a whole. Genuine value for a man used to mean strict provider/protector value. These roles have now been deemphasized, which itself is not necessarily a bad thing as it seems to signify the evolution of our species from animals to whatever we're capable of becoming. But, as others have pointed out in this thread, the deemphasis of traditional male roles has created a vaccuum--socially, psychologically, economically, perhaps biologically--into which a seemingly innocuous but ultimately nihilistic value system like PUA culture can insert itself.

 

PUA culture is just a solution to a problem. The problem being men cannot deal with the current dating scene. You seem to have an issue with the fact that women are the choosers in the sexual marketplace. That women are the ones who decide who to fuck and who not to fuck. If women are voluntarily choosing men based on specific criteria who are you to criticize? They are doing so voluntarily of their own free will.

[PatrickC]

Could it be that everyone wants to feel as if their group is discriminated against?  Could it be that everyone wants a reason to feel superior to other people?

 

This sounds like you have more to say. I say, say more.

[Holo Cene]

I am just going to try and delineate the battle lines here. On one hand you have the hypergamy generated by feminism and modern cultual influence. On the other hand you have a more realistic, virtuous model of intersex relations. You are not going to change the current climate of female hypergamy. If you have a plan, then I applaud you and wish you well. If we must function in this current paradigm, then we must contend with female preference, which is in accordance with the NAP since women have a monopoly on choice in sexual partners as a result of their inherent power, caused by biological factors which includes the task of carrying a child to term and not limited by their investment in their children. Sperm costs nothing compared to the burden of the egg. 

[King David]

Holo Cene, if you want to delineate the battle lines you must consider the technological environment we live in today,  hypergamy has been around for ever but it was not until wide spread consumerist culture took its grip that the feminist movement began.During the pre-mechanized era the patriarchy was the force behind the moral compass and social responsibilities of communities, whether it was through church, media, government, localities, mafia or otherwise. They were not always right or 100% fair but the focus was always on growth and a future.Like the song in Canada sais "and all thy sons command", which incidentally was just recently lobbied to be changed by feminists to "and all of us command". This is a clear example of the real shift in thinking these days where you are not even talking about the same damn thing. Like I said somewhere else is that it should be natural that any valid authority that governs, does so with the needs of the future in mind. I'm willing to bet it has less to do with who is in power than what the mental state their constituents are geared towards. Do they seek instant gratification, or do they seek to save resources and plan for the future?The patriarchy wasn't about being a cynical old codger, it was about preserving the integrity of the family. They would not have dreamed of wasting money on frivolities and waste because it was not their money to spend. It belonged to the family. When these old guys first saw horseless buggies they were nuisances. Aircraft were for ninnies. Sooner or later though, enough of them got to riding around in a car and soon realized the comforts and benefits. This would become the milestone on which our culture would perform its radical 180 degree change. Reluctantly at first, added expenses like fuel and maintenance could be justified by increased productivity, but as the Joneses started ramping up their haul, the Jones boys started garnering everybody's daughters attention and naturally as throughout history, what a woman sees she wants. What a woman wants she gets (large generalization I know but bare with me). This was an important change, as one day it would give licence to burning bras.

 

Even after this shift in values occurred you could not immediately turn a culture over from solely focussing your families and nations efforts towards the future, this was the very core of society, psychology, and biology. It would not really change from that perspective after this for another two whole generations.Those two generations were the ones that went to Europe to take care of ruling class business. As well keep in mind that at least in WW2, 97% of service men and women were not front line regulars (I can't say for WW1 cause I don't know the stat but is likely similar), the other 3% were the men that either came home irrevocably damaged and disenfranchised, or stayed in Europe forever more. All those people were exposed to highly advanced technology, state propaganda, heroism and big government through some very trying years, yet they were never forced to comprehend the horrors that wild ideological politics and government are capable of producing.

 

All this mechanization became normal, convenient and much more accessible to the general public which was now primed to overthrow the 10 000 some years of beta providing forward thinking, patriarchal dominated culture (most of which can really be associated with the bible). Biological compulsions could now be denied in favor of some Elvis twerking and hamburger gobbling to satiate some immediate dalliances.So, let me ask you this, now that we have opened Pandora's Box just how does any of you propose to fix a problem in a world of 8 b people, each with unique values, morals, priorities, and entitlements to shift their thinking away from immediate jerkoff gratification in favor of a more honorable, stoicism of managing technological implements that are unique to the human race, for the betterment of the future generations.  Frig, a lot of people cannot even afford to have children these days, why the hell would they care about future generations?

 

It is not a co-incidence that feminism occurred when it did, they saw a chance to cede power and organized a wildly successful political coupe.  Nancy Astor politically ruined Churchill in a matter of months after he had personally contributed to more successes between the two wars than anybody else in the world.  She wasn't even British! To put this all in perspective, just consider how different mankind is from our fellow earth organisms. The bible, and other cultural implements in regards to the Sumerians, and Chinese, occurred as a response to the need for a new human psychology that focussed on individual family units rather than feral packs of mobile sex machine apes. The proof that this experiment in agricultural derived social engineering was successful is a testament to the diversity and intelligence of life, it is a testament to the value and righteousness of the bible, and a testament to the stead fast commitment of men to their families throughout the ages, beta men albeit.

 

Our society and culture is fractured, the way that all of natures glorious herds have historically dealt with fractures is through violence (my euphemism for this is "aligning political will"), splintering, or simple total destruction.  Quite a pickle=>me MGTOW

 

King David

[Omega 3 snake oil]

PUA culture is just a solution to a problem. The problem being men cannot deal with the current dating scene. You seem to have an issue with the fact that women are the choosers in the sexual marketplace. That women are the ones who decide who to fuck and who not to fuck. If women are voluntarily choosing men based on specific criteria who are you to criticize? They are doing so voluntarily of their own free will.

 All of this has been addressed and dealt with in this thread. Please stop asking me to repeat myself.

[In the belly of the beast]

Most of you know this, but for convenience here are the factors I see as contributing to the diminishment of men's value in the modern dating scene:

 

(1) Wide availability of cheap birth control.

(2) No fault divorce.

(3) Welfare and other such programs.

(4) Universal public education, mostly delivered by female teachers prior to high school, which both provides subsidized day care, and conditions boys within a matriarchal environment.

(5) Delayed adulthood largely caused by ever escalating state-mandated educational and licensing requirements, as well as the distortion caused by the subsidy of mass higher education (hiring criteria, student debt).

(6) Modern feminist ideology largely arising from the replacement of men as providers with the state as provider.

 

Barring a catastrophic collapse of industrial civilization, (1) will remain.  Certainly, factors (3) to (5) are unsustainable in the medium to longer term, although I think that men currently in their teens through to their thirties and beyond will have to continue to deal with this dysfunctional legacy.  I suspect that (6) would die off in less than a generation of state rollback/collapse.

[Omega 3 snake oil]

Most of you know this, but for convenience here are the factors I see as contributing to the diminishment of men's value in the modern dating scene:

 

(1) Wide availability of cheap birth control.

(2) No fault divorce.

(3) Welfare and other such programs.

(4) Universal public education, mostly delivered by female teachers prior to high school, which both provides subsidized day care, and conditions boys within a matriarchal environment.

(5) Delayed adulthood largely caused by ever escalating state-mandated educational and licensing requirements, as well as the distortion caused by the subsidy of mass higher education (hiring criteria, student debt).

(6) Modern feminist ideology largely arising from the replacement of men as providers with the state as provider.

 

Barring a catastrophic collapse of industrial civilization, (1) will remain.  Certainly, factors (3) to (5) are unsustainable in the medium to longer term, although I think that men currently in their teens through to their thirties and beyond will have to continue to deal with this dysfunctional legacy.  I suspect that (6) would die off in less than a generation of state rollback/collapse.

... this is the kind of truth that ends every conversation.

[Mishelle]

My 2 cents on the list:

 

(1) Wide availability of cheap birth control.

 

This gave women the option to control their own fertility and also to level the playing field a bit with men as far as multiple partners and riskier sexual behavior.  I'd just like to point out that women used to be the ones that felt interchangeable and disposable.  I think this is a push-back reaction on the part of women to say to men: "See how it feels!"  Or, What's good for the goose is good for the gander (or vice versa I guess) Not right, totally adolescent, but that's my opinion.  I know growing up I used to long to have the same sexual freedom as boys and was appalled and resentful at the enormous double-standard which affected every level of my life down to my curfew and what I was allowed to wear to school.

 

(2) No fault divorce.  Sure there are lots of women who leave a marriage for "lack of satisfaction" and, a lot of men cheat, are addicted to porn, are emotionally distant and uncommunicative, not to mention abusive.  This one ultimately serves both partners equally, like the birth control.  Children of course are the ones who suffer most.

 

(3) definitely.

 

(4) most definitely.

 

(5) and (6)  seem the same to me as (3) and (4).

[PatrickC]

(1) Wide availability of cheap birth control.

 

This gave women the option to control their own fertility and also to level the playing field a bit with men as far as multiple partners and riskier sexual behavior.  I'd just like to point out that women used to be the ones that felt interchangeable and disposable.  I think this is a push-back reaction on the part of women to say to men: "See how it feels!"  Or, What's good for the goose is good for the gander (or vice versa I guess) Not right, totally adolescent, but that's my opinion.  I know growing up I used to long to have the same sexual freedom as boys and was appalled and resentful at the enormous double-standard which affected every level of my life down to my curfew and what I was allowed to wear to school.

 

I'm a little doubtful about the goose and gander analogy. After all, who were all these women the men were having sex with. I'm always cautious about what I hear historically that happened to women. Given it's often been filtered through the feminist rhetoric machine. Certainly it was true that a womans life could be ruined by an out of wedlock pregnancy and a lot more worse than for a man potentially. Although there were services in which pregnant women could discreetly move to another part of the country to quietly give up their baby for adoption. Actually, this is what happened to my own mother's mother and apparently paid for by the man in question. However, there were a lot of social (peer) pressure on men to 'do the right thing'. There was also many a shotgun wedding wherein the male counterparts of her family would wade in with various threats to the man, if he didn't follow through with a marriage.

 

Overal birth control has been a great thing for both men and women. Although these days, it's not uncommon for some women to claim they are taking the pill when they are not. My devils advocate theory of course. 

[Mishelle]

Yes, good points xelent.  But, when I was growing up it was men who had more sexual partners and this was considered very natural.  The girl's virginity was her greatest feature, and still is in much of the world.  The social pressure for girls to remain chaste was very powerful, I guess that's not the case now.

[PatrickC]

Yes, good points xelent.  But, when I was growing up it was men who had more sexual partners and this was considered very natural.  The girl's virginity was her greatest feature, and still is in much of the world.  The social pressure for girls to remain chaste was very powerful, I guess that's not the case now.

 

Yes, I think I can concede that women were much more likely to experience prejudice, because of their vulnerability in being the child bearer. Very often by other women of course.

[Mishelle]

Yes true.  So to bring it back to what seems so unsustainable about all of this.  If we recognize that women are more vulnerable, and that we cannot accept that the State will try to compensate for that in any way, that leaves women more at the "whims" of men, if you will.  If we must still feel safe, but loose our backhanded ways of manipulation and dominance and coercion, that puts the onus of good relations on us, if the relations aren't good, it's on us.  But women aren't really accustomed to fixing things.  It's broken, men and women both know it, in general there seems to lots of talk on both sides about the lack of satisfaction.  

 

Maybe PUA is the answer--then everyone can be equally objectified and we can wallow in that for a while before being forced to find a new solution?