Friends With Benefits?

[Matt D]

Here is the article I forgot to link to earlier: http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Intimacy/8-stages-of-intimacy-intellectual.html

 

Agh, no! No, there is no portrayal, that's the answer.

 

The virtuous way of pursuing PUA is to genuinely change yourself into something heroic. Learning to become a chick magnet is a wonderful addition to the list of things you wish to change about yourself as you become a man- at least it is for me and MMX. The idea being that there is no manipulation, you just genuinely are awesome! You start with what's inside first, and work your way outwards, instead of outwards working your way in. It just so happens (hooray) that the monkey brain inside of women's brains is attracted to is badass motherfuckers. It's natural.

 

Instead of pretending to have money, go out there and make some fucking money. Instead of pretending like you are strong and athletic go out there and get shredded. Instead of faking confidence, be confident. Instead of pretending: BE.

 

I'm glad you clarified that, Omega. I agree with you. The way to attract women is to work on yourself, be it in spirit, mind or body. The reason I'm not on the dating market right now is because I'm not where I want to be yet to attract the kind of woman I know I want. Though I can tell you I'm a hell of a lot closer than I was a couple years ago.

 

If that's what PUA means then I have no problem with it. I fear you may be misleading younger men into thinking they can just jump into the Game without having to do the work first to actually become confident version of themselves. I'm not saying this is your suggestion, but sleeping around or even having sex early in a relationship doesn't raise you confidence in a genuine way. Not until you achieve the first six stages of intimacy with your partner.

[Kevin Beal]

Not even on her terms? 

 

You don't want to be "badass" according to the definitions and desires of the women who're evaluating you?  You want to be "badass" according to your own definitions and desires of what "badass" is, thereby forcing yourself to argue that your definitions are better than every woman's definitions? 

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. Obviously what I value and what she values would have to be largely aligned.

[MMX2010]

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. Obviously what I value and what she values would have to be largely aligned.

 

No doubt.  But whenever there's a conflict between What She Values and What You Value, you always side with your interpretation, because "I'd rather be alone than pretend to be someone I'm not." 

 

Meanwhile, you could read Roosh's book to realize: (1) that none of the advice he gives is "immoral" or "dishonest" and (2) all of the advice he gives is designed to make you better able to meet her needs WITHOUT sacrificing too much of your time, energy, and integrity. 

 

So are you interested in reading Roosh's book?  I can get you a digital copy for free, so you don't have to pay a dime. 

[Kevin Beal]

When Kevin objects to PUA because it's "Pretending", he's imply that all pretending is an affront to his True Self, The Thing He's Trying To Connect With Through Therapy.  But my argument is that women don't see Your True Self, nor The Thing You're Trying To Connect With Through Therapy; they just see How You Present Yourself - which is only a fraction of Who You Really Are. 

No, I really didn't. I proved logically that it is lying, and then you ignored the proof.

 

The problem is that it's sad, and kind of pathetic to pretend to be something other than you are in order to win someone's affections. No analysis of true selves or false selves is necessary.

 

Also, I'm not in therapy.

[MMX2010]

No, I really didn't. I proved logically that it is lying, and then you ignored the proof.

 

Wow.  Do you know why I ignored the proof? 

 

Because you equated "lying by saying you're a policeman when you aren't" with "lying by pretending to be emotionally aloof when you're really interested in her" and you refused to acknowledged the many moral, logical, and legal differences between the two situations.  (You, wrongfully, stated that my eleven-item list was "pedantic" - rather than an exhaustive list showing how wrong it is to equate those two forms of lying.)

 

Do you understand that "lying by pretending to be emotionally aloof" works because it gives her What She Wants, without violating any moral, ethical, or legal principles? 

 

Do you understand that PUA is nothing more than many scientific studies of What Women Want at various stages of their lives, coupled with advice designed to Give Her What She Wants? 

 

Do you understand that, "I don't want women to have the aesthetic preference for spanking children!" is a good argument, because spanking children violates multiple ethical and moral principles - whereas, "I don't want women to have the aesthetic preference for emotionally aloof men in the early stages of dating!" is a bad argument, because her preference for emotional aloofness violates ZERO moral and ethical principles? 

 

Do you understand that your focus on "no longer pretending to be someone I'm not" is a willful decision to NOT give women What They Want, and that the inevitable result of that decision is Some Other Man Is Going To Give Her What She Wants, and She's Going To Prefer To Be With Him? 

 

Lastly, do you understand that your decision to paint me as a "liar", in the same way that a man who pretends to be a policeman is a liar, is an extraordinarily non-empathetic and just-plain-morally-wrong? 

[MysterionMuffles]

I don't mind discussing it. My husband and I has sex right away (like on the first date), and I believed at the time that it was the best sex of my life. I've tried to end the relationship several times over the last 3 years, and he always used sex to manipulate me into staying with him. 

 

You know what's remarkable? The sex was consistently good until 2 months ago when I was introduced to FDR. Once I took the red pill, sex with my husband was terrible and made me feel disingenuous and kind of icky. It's really amazing the way awareness can change you. 

 

I've always really bought into that "my mind says no, but my heart says yes" bullshit. Of course the body says yes, it wants babies! I think this has to a lot to do with the emotional neglect and abuse I went through as a kid. It's tough for me to be single because I really crave love and validation, which I never got from my parents. I've had four long term relationships in my 20s that have followed a very similar pattern... BUT I am committed to breaking this destructive cycle by taking a (minimum) six month break from dating while continue with therapy and self-work and to be celibate until I find the person I want to be the father of my children.

 

It is extremely encouraging for me to hear that your principles and instincts are sharp enough now to resist the distraction of psychical attractiveness and see the entire individual. You've honed your skills enough now that your whole self is in tuned with your principles and that is freakin awesome. I am so inspired by all you kick ass FDRers. Integrity is such a virtue and seeing your example is such a motivation to keep working hard to live the life I want to be living. :-)

 

Hmm I guess it would be difficult to have sex with someone you end up losing respect for after taking the red pill. Good for you though, for committing to self work for that minimum 6 months. Not many people know how to take time for themselves before jumping into the next relationship, so they end up getting into another relationship for loneliness avoidance as opposed to happiness fulfillment.

 

And thanks for the kind words! I mean if I met this woman before I've done self work, yeah I'd totally go for her. I am really turned on the most by her ambition for her work, but turned off by the fact that her committment to it is coming at a conscious cost of her physical and emotional health. Now that I've connected with myself more emotionally through self knowledge, I no longer have the need to pry a woman's heart open. My last relationship was based on that "challenge" of opening a closed off woman's heart, but that's quite exhausting. Doesn't make sense to be with someone like that for me now. I prefer someone who is actively pursuing emotional connectivity with herself and others. 

[MMX2010]

I'm glad you clarified that, Omega. I agree with you. The way to attract women is to work on yourself, be it in spirit, mind or body.

 

Not quite.  The correct version is, "The way to attract women is to work on yourself, be it in spirit, mind or body in ways that match what women want in a man, provided you're not breaking any moral, ethical, or legal principles."  You can't just work on yourself in any way that you see fit and expect that women will find you attractive, because if the way you work on yourself is repellent to women, then you will not attract any women.

 

 

 

If that's what PUA means then I have no problem with it. I fear you may be misleading younger men into thinking they can just jump into the Game without having to do the work first to actually become confident version of themselves. I'm not saying this is your suggestion, but sleeping around or even having sex early in a relationship doesn't raise you confidence in a genuine way. Not until you achieve the first six stages of intimacy with your partner.

 

 

As I mentioned earlier, Roosh's book Bang combines both philosophical principles - (especially pertaining to working on yourself in a way that attracts women) - with specific tactical advice concerning body language, conversation threads, and so on.  Anyone who wants a copy of that book, so they can see what PUA is rather than talking off the top-of-their-head, can PM me. 

[Kevin Beal]

Wow.  Do you know why I ignored the proof?

It's amazing. Even when you're wrong, you're right. And it's not the first time. Even logical proofs are no match for denial.

 

No thank you, on the offer for the book.

 

And no. Making a logical argument that feigning ignorance is lying (it's literally one step in logic, two seconds thought) is not immoral of me. I actually give a very detailed reason for why that can't work logically in this post. (You not liking it has nothing to do with whether or not it's immoral).

 

Would you rather be a liar, or this guy:

I don't need to withdraw my presence from all women, hoping that some "magical force" - (Stefan's podcasts!) - will permeate the entire female gender, changing them into exactly what I want them to be.

 

I'm sorry it hurts your feelings, but you have to take that up with reality, not me.

 

No doubt.  But whenever there's a conflict between What She Values and What You Value, you always side with your interpretation, because "I'd rather be alone than pretend to be someone I'm not."

You know, or negotiate, talk about it.

[Sashajade]

Yea, I've tried this too but its not truly satisfying and I agree it ends up hurting somebody. It can be done but you really have to be strict on not developing attachment and that's tough because we are wired to attach. You cannot see them often, but usually if you really enjoy being intimate with the person its hard to do that. It's hard to separate such an intimate act and reduce it to a meaningless exchange if you are in touch with your emotions.

[MMX2010]

It's amazing. Even when you're wrong, you're right. And it's not the first time. Even logical proofs are no match for denial.

 

Nothing is a larger denial than "Impersonating a policeman IS LYING JUST LIKE pretending to be emotionally aloof to a woman is lying." 

 

 

 

No thank you, on the offer for the book.

 

 

*grins*  Of course not. 

 

Every Anti-PUA does the same thing.  Step One: Refuse to read the greatest PUA manual in human history that combines philosophical principles, warnings that undertaking PUA without doing essential inner work is harmful, and a series of easily-understood tactical steps for conversing with, dating, having sex with, and maintaining relationships with chicks.  Step Two:  Use the flimsiest of arguments to assert, "I know that MMX2010 guy is reading these books, is living what they say, and is experiencing great happiness for both himself and the women he surrounds himself with - BUT I understand PUA better than he does!. 

 

Except that's obviously impossible, and I know that's impossible.  But I admire your's, Rainbow Jamz's, Frederick Dortmund's, and the downvoter's commitment to the façade!  If you took that emotional energy and channeled it into the Roosh Program.....never mind. 

 

 

 

You know, or negotiate, talk about it.

 

 

It's hard to believe you negotiate at all, Kevin.

 

This whole conversation began when you EQUATED "impersonating a police officer" and "feigning emotional aloofness to make a girl happy".  No one says, "Stop having your feelings, Kevin!  STOP STOP STOP!"  That version of emotional aloofness is impossible, and not even I try to live up to that standard. 

 

Instead, Roosh says, "Don't express your emotional excitement at such obviously high volume and intensity.  Be excited to see her, but don't convey-at-high-volume how happy you are to see her.  Convey the opposite, because it makes her happy.  Be excited to kiss her, but don't convey-at-high-volume how excited you are.  Convey the opposite, because it makes her happy." 

 

So Roosh and PUAs like me are able to negotiate with women, because we accept: (1) that starting and maintaining relationships with women requires us to Make A Woman Happy By Giving Her What She Emotionally Wants, provided no moral, legal, nor ethical principles are violated, and (2) that every woman is free to emotionally desire What She Wants, provided no moral, legal, nor ethical principles are violated.  Women are free, Kevin.  Free to be whatever they want.  Free to want whatever they want.  And their feelings and desires don't have to be logically explainable in order for them to be valid.  Their feelings are valid BECAUSE they don't violate any legal, ethical, or moral principles.  

 

Since your equating, "Impersonating a policeman" and "feigning emotional aloofness in the early stages of dating, because it makes her happy" serves the purpose of Never Questioning The Emotional Expression Of Your Feelings, it's enormously difficult to believe that you negotiate with women - because people who Never Question The Emotion Expression Of Their Feelings are strongly implying that their default position is, "I want to express what I want to express, and your emotional reactions to my expressions are invalid!"  Example: "I'm sorry it hurts your feelings, (justifying a bad argument) but you have to take that up with reality, not me."  (Since negotiation is predicated on caring about what the other person wants, your lack of focus on What Women Emotionally Want, coupled with the implied expectation that their every emotional desire be logically valid, predicts a very bad negotiator.) 

Yea, I've tried this too but its not truly satisfying and I agree it ends up hurting somebody. It can be done but you really have to be strict on not developing attachment and that's tough because we are wired to attach. You cannot see them often, but usually if you really enjoy being intimate with the person its hard to do that. It's hard to separate such an intimate act and reduce it to a meaningless exchange if you are in touch with your emotions.

 

 

With me, an FWB relationship always means that either the woman isn't good enough for the man, or the man isn't good enough for the woman. 

 

If the not-good-enough party can accept his/her status and work to self-improve, an FWB relationship can develop into a more committed one. 

 

There's also nothing quite as powerful as sleeping with someone who doesn't think you're good enough for them.  It snaps you out of your self-concept and self-assessments and invites you into her evaluations of your behavior and presentations, and of your personality (if you've known each other for more than two years).

[Kevin Beal]

Nothing is a larger denial than "Impersonating a policeman IS LYING JUST LIKE pretending to be emotionally aloof to a woman is lying." 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43965-friends-with-benefits/?p=402997

 

Perhaps you didn't see it.

[MysterionMuffles]

Kevin, you really don't need to read any PUA literature to affirm your preconceptions for it. For the most part, you're right about it.

 

I know this because as mentioned in an earlier post, I have delved into PUA literature and videos, even used some of the "techniques," as taught. I would say for the exception of How to Succeed With Women, most of the PUA stuff is about presenting yourself as anything but what you are. Using specific pseudo psychological cues to hook a woman in such as pretending to be into palm reading just to get an excuse to touch her hands. Or like offering to perform a magic trick as an excuse to strike up a conversation. For instance, "choose a number between 1-5," let her pick, guess rightly or wrongly, but then switch the subject once you've got their attention. If you guessed right, you can hold off from explaining the law of averages until she asks. If you guessed wrong, you do your best to keep the subject away from your failure to use the law of averages in your favour, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER, if she's into you, she's into you, so move in for the "kill."

 

How to Succeed With Women is a book that has helped me the most because it does focus on self work and maintaining a positive attitude. It's been a while since I read it, but from what I remember, one of its pitfalls was saying that you shouldn't talk about religion, politics, or anything else important because women, and people in general, just want to have fun and don't care about important topics. I disagree with that since the women I've been attracting since I've delved into self knowledge have been more than happy to give me their opinions on social issues whether we agreed or not, and they've been very engaging conversations. Anyways, that book, I don't think, can constitute as PUA because its focus is more on how to maintain long term relationships as opposed to the focus on how to bed a woman ASAP. 

 

Take it from me as someone who has grown past the PUA stuff--from consuming the material and implementing it successfully/unsuccessfully--you're not missing out on much.

[MMX2010]

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43965-friends-with-benefits/?p=402997

 

Perhaps you didn't see it.

 

 

Nope, I saw it and laughed it off. 

 

 

 

 

Your distinction has nothing to do with any of my arguments, and changes nothing about the logical consequences. It's just pedantic quibbling.

 

 

 

The "changes about the logical consequences" are gigantic and are best understood through personal explanation. 

 

Let's say that you and I were interested in the same girl.

 

On your first date with her, you'd be so focused on whether you were being Your Genuine Emotional Self that you wouldn't modulate your feelings of excitement, hope, and admiration for her physical features and intellectual capacities.  Not one bit, because, as you said, "(1) You're tired of pretending to be someone you're not.  (2) You'd rather be alone than pretend to be someone you're not.  (3) You object to Pick-Up Artistry because it is pretending."  So you'll blast her with 100% of your "authentic emotional experiences" - which Roosh warns is highly friggin' beta.  And she'll probably never call you again. 

 

Meanwhile, I'd feel equally excited as you, equally hopeful as you, and equally admiring of her physical and intellectual capabilities as you.  BUT I'd use a heavy focus on both my body posture and speech patterns to combat showing her 100% of my authentic emotional experience.  Because my primary goal is to show her a wonderful time, particularly because it's ONLY our first date and she's almost certainly not-yet-ready to get into any heady philosophical and emotional exchanges. 

 

She'll laugh at my jokes, call me the biggest asshole she's ever met, and probably want to see me again. 

 

Deny this all you want, but your refusal to modify (by one centimeter) the expression of your emotions is by default a presumption that the majority of women have Bad Aesthetic Taste.  That presumption leaks into your interactions with both women-in-general (whom you look down upon) and women-you're-beginning-to-date (whom you covet so much that you reveal too much, too soon). 

[Kevin Beal]

Nope, I saw it and laughed it off.

[...]

*grins*  Of course not. 

[...]

It's hard to believe you negotiate at all, Kevin.

You know, you keep making these kinds of catty comments and adding strangely placed smiley faces, and I don't know if you are like, trying to provoke my insecurity or something, but you know, I think I'm actually starting to fall for you, just a little.

 

Tell me that my ass looks big in this skirt! I'll do anything you tell me, you mysterious dominant man, you!

 

[MMX2010]

You know, you keep making these kinds of catty comments and adding strangely placed smiley faces, and I don't know if you are like, trying to provoke my insecurity or something, but you know, I think I'm actually starting to fall for you, just a little.

 

 

Not at all, Kevin. 

 

Just pointing out that (1) refusing to read Roosh's book, while (2) strongly believing that you understand its contents (and, by extension, all of PUA) better than I do is logically impossible.  Saying that I'm "provoking your insecurity" just ignores the factual content of my arguments. 

 

If you were secure enough to admit the logical impossibility of your position, our conversation would take an entirely different tone. 

[Kevin Beal]

Not at all, Kevin. 

 

Just pointing out that (1) refusing to read Roosh's book, while (2) strongly believing that you understand its contents (and, by extension, all of PUA) better than I do is logically impossible.  Saying that I'm "provoking your insecurity" just ignores the factual content of my arguments. 

 

If you were secure enough to admit the logical impossibility of your position, our conversation would take an entirely different tone. 

Haha. I'm sure it would.

 

You're no fun! Come on. That was funny.

 

 

Anything I could say in response would just be repeating myself, and I'm done going in circles. I can't play checkers with someone who doesn't know the rules.

 

It's okay, not everyone knows how logical arguments work. You'll get there. You just have to keep practicing. I would suggest though that it may not be so much in your interest to ignore logical proofs. I would also suggest as a next step working on counter arguments which make reference to the logical sequence of arguments, rather than only the content, since the content itself may not be the important part. I would suggest watching the introduction to philosophy series, focusing specifically on epistemology, universals and logical fallacies.

 

Take care little buddy!

[Kevin Beal]

I'm just universalizing the rule that you should be condescending (his rule). It's not done to provoke his irritation, but to help him see himself. There is a method to the madness.

 

Don't hate!

[PatrickC]

Tried this a lot in my 30's and whilst the sex was great for sure. All those relationships drifted apart as soon as either one of us became involved in a monogamous relationship.

 

As for Roosh, I'll take a look at his book and only because I like him as a writer and commentator of the world. I doubt he can give me any more tips on getting punani mind.

[Matt D]

I've made a video on this fascinating topic. Because typing is lame!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s39gfKnKtnc

 

 

 

As for domination, I'm sure you're familiar with how feminists turn everything men do into "oppression" and "patriarchy".  A man works ten hours a day, seven days a week, and he's an oppressive patriarch.  But if he refuses to do the same thing, he's also an oppressive patriarch. 

 

With you, everything a man you dislike does is "domination".  It can't be "leadership", "earning her respect", "stewardship", "crafting", "husbandry" - (look up that word, it's old-school connotations are beautiful) - or even just "being right when she's wrong".  It has to be "domination" - because you say that it is. 

 

 

Now I know why I felt anticipation before. MMX, if you are going to imply I am somehow in the same camp as feminists I really don't want to engage in debate, which is clearly just a show for you and not an exploration of truth. Then again, I shouldn't be surprised since that's also your approach to dating. Even if you were right, you don't even stop to consider all the people you are turning off to PUA. Or maybe you have considered this, which would indicate you don't really believe it because you're still doing the same thing. 

[MMX2010]

Now I know why I felt anticipation before. MMX, if you are going to imply I am somehow in the same camp as feminists I really don't want to engage in debate, which is clearly just a show for you and not an exploration of truth. Then again, I shouldn't be surprised since that's also your approach to dating.  

 

You ignored the point where I said, what you call "domination" could just as easily be called "leadership", "natural attraction", "stewardship", "husbandry", "sexual chemistry", and a series of other words. 

 

You're also ignoring something crucially important: I've slept with multiple women, none of whom called me "dominating", nor "domineering". 

 

So now you're in the curious position of telling both me and every woman I've ever slept with that you-alone, based on your emotional reactions, know that I'm dominating.  That position is extremely untenable, but you still want to hold it as if it were true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even if you were right, you don't even stop to consider all the people you are turning off to PUA. Or maybe you have considered this, which would indicate you don't really believe it because you're still doing the same thing. 

 

You're calling my approach "dominating", which is an insult to every woman I've ever slept with (all of whom have enjoyed my company), and you're telling me I should consider you?  (Why would I consider you when you insult me, based on no evidence?) 

 

And you claim that I'm turning you off to PUA?  (The simplest explanation is that your usage of the word "domination", based on no evidence - which you refuse to amend - indicates that you were turned off to PUA well-before this conversation began.) 

 

I'll offer you the same thing I offered Kevin Beal, with the same response expected.  When I get a digital copy of Roosh's book, you can read it and assert which passages show "domination".  If no such passages exist, you can admit you're wrong and then use Roosh's book to change your life. 

Deal? 

[MMX2010]

Haha. I'm sure it would.

 

You're no fun! Come on. That was funny.

 

 

Anything I could say in response would just be repeating myself, and I'm done going in circles. I can't play checkers with someone who doesn't know the rules.

 

It's okay, not everyone knows how logical arguments work. You'll get there. You just have to keep practicing. I would suggest though that it may not be so much in your interest to ignore logical proofs. I would also suggest as a next step working on counter arguments which make reference to the logical sequence of arguments, rather than only the content, since the content itself may not be the important part. I would suggest watching the introduction to philosophy series, focusing specifically on epistemology, universals and logical fallacies.

 

Take care little buddy!

 

 

How about these new arguments, then, Kevin?

 

(1) Did you know that much of PUA literature endorses body language?  By deliberately maintaining certain poses, day after day in the same manner as working out, a man's thoughts and feelings are changed.  Before I began these body language exercises, I constantly worried, wasn't very confident, and was highly emotionally attached to how women reacted to me.  But in as little as two weeks I became much less worried, much more confident, and much more emotionally aloof. 

 

Are the changes produced by body language exercises "dishonest", because they're forms of "pretending"?  Or are they genuine changes that result from deliberate effort? 

 

(2) Did you know that Roosh's literature on neomasculinity endorses specific dietary products - (both whole foods and supplements) - that increase testosterone?  For example, zinc, selenium, magnesium, and vitamin D are supplements designed to raise testosterone - while dietary improvements like cutting out sugar and increasing healthy fats from red meat and/or grassfed milk/butter are all designed to increase T-levels. 

 

Before I underwent these dietary changes, I was much less confident, much more worried, and much more attached to how women perceived me.  But shortly after following these dietary changes, I became more confident, much less worried, and much more emotionally aloof with regard to women's perceptions of me. 

 

Are these emotional changes "dishonest" because they're a form of "pretending"?  Or are they a natural result of changes in my hormonal structure, and therefore "genuine"? 

 

(3) Did you know that practicing certain facial expressions produces both instantaneous short-term emotional change, and that to consistently practice coherent facial expressions will produce long-term emotional changes?  Ever since reading that, I've been deliberately practicing facial expressions to convey confidence and emotional aloofness. 

 

Are my newly-found confidence and emotional aloofness "dishonest" because they're "pretending", or are they the natural result of deliberately programming my body to become a confident and emotionally aloof person? 

 

-----------------------

 

(4) I promised I'd tell you a story. 

 

About two months ago, I started a romantic relationship with a highly intelligent and attractive woman.  I had only been developing my personality as I described above for about three months before she and I met.  When we met, I used a combination of Pick-Up Artistry and deep philosophical questions to create what she called "the best conversation of her entire life". 

 

About a month ago, she and I had our first argument - which was entirely my fault.  The older parts of me, (which I had been devoted to altering), had resurfaced and she didn't like what she saw.  Two days later, we talked it over, and I admitted both that I was wrong and that I had only been devoted to changing-myself for about three months on the day we met. 

 

Our conversation ended on a very happy note, and the last thing she told me was, "I love you, MMX2010." 

 

Does the fact that she could've accused me of being "dishonest" and "pretending" - but chose not to - erode your objections to PUA "because it is pretending"?  Does the fact that her seeing the contrast between Old Me and New Me inspired her to tell me that she loved me erode your objections to PUA "because it is pretending"?  Does the fact that she knows me far better than you supersede your objections, even if you choose not to drop your objections? 

 

-------------------------

 

(5) Earlier, you said, "I can't respect a woman who acts primitively the way PUA describes"? 

 

My counter-arguments are: (1) Pretty much all women act primitively the way PUA describes, and (2) A man can either work with a woman's primitive nature or work against it. 

 

Do you presume that my ability to tap into (and work with) this woman's primitive nature automatically means that our interactions were "dishonest"?  Do you presume that it's impossible to simultaneously tap into (and work with) BOTH a woman's primitive side and her logical/rational/moral side?  Do you presume that every man who taps into (and works with) a woman's primitive side must be committing some form of dishonesty? 

 

Do you presume that your decision to disrespect a woman's primitive side, (a side which, because it is focused on reproduction is automatically the most important side she has!), will be met with appreciation and admiration?  Or do you presume, (like I presume), that your decision to disrespect a woman's primitive side will be met with disrespect and non-admiration? 

 

See?  No condescension, just argument.  (You'll notice that I now universalized the rule that all condescension can be dropped at a moment's notice, and conversation can resume as if no condescension had ever happened.) 

 

[PatrickC]

There is no doubting that PUA teaches you the benefits of a good posture. It comes more highly recommended than the way I was taught at private school, from my ex millitary teachers.

 

"SHOULDERS BACK BOY, FOR CHRISTS SAKE!!"

 

To this day I still jump out of bed every morning and immediately straighten my back.

[Kevin Beal]

How about these new arguments, then, Kevin?

An argument is taking a premise or set of premises to a conclusion via a series of logical implications. You don't just add numbers next to sentences. You take things that we would both accept and from that foundation, build on top of that more sophisticated claims implied by the claims that make up the foundation. And keep building until the house called an argument is finished (the final conclusion is implied by everything before it). Not every step in the logical sequence need be explicit, but they should be implied by the context if they aren't explicit.

 

So, the actual form of what you are claiming is your first argument is something like this:

 

1. PUAs advocate watching and working on your body language.

2. Changes in body language can have a causal effect in terms of producing the mental states associated with the body language.

3. Therefore, putting forward the image that you have the mental states associated with the body language is not pretending.

4. Therefore you, Kevin, are wrong when you say that PUAs advocate pretending to be something you are not.

 

Just for the record, I am familiar with how body language works and have been consciously modifying my own body language for almost a decade now. Anecdotally, I can confirm that it does increase my confidence.

 

The problem is that this assumes things that I never said. (And it's a non-sequitor). Pretending to be something you're not, alone, is not the issue I have with what you're saying. (I don't claim to know anything about Roosh, only what you yourself have said).

 

Putting forward a false or half true image of yourself is appropriate in all sorts of social situations. And being true to yourself can be being false to others. You've simply condensed everything I said into some ridiculous picture of a person who when asked "how was your day?" by a cashier goes into a monologue about my whole life story. I don't know if this is an honest mistake or what, but it's not like I ever said anything like that.

 

If you are genuinely interested in the woman you are dating, feigning disinterest in her is not equivalent at all to your body language example. You aren't feigning disinterest in her in the hopes that will actually cause you to lose interest in her. By slipping in insults under the pretense of a compliment, you aren't trying to actually become a dick. You only do it because you believe it will get you women's affections.

 

You want to be with a woman you find interesting (at the very least), and you said that you care about them (and I assume don't want them to feel insecure, generally). You just want to pretend you don't feel those things so that she will like you. That's not the same thing as pretending to be more confident that you really are.

 

She becomes interested in the image of yourself you project which betrays your actual feelings for her, meaning she doesn't like you, but who you're pretending to be. Your actual feelings are bottled up inside out of fear that she won't find you attractive.

 

I pretend to be more confident or cool than I really am in the moment, often. I just don't want to base a romantic relationship on that. I don't want to bottle up my feelings because I'm afraid they won't like me. That makes me literally ill. It makes me also feel distinctly unmanly, cowardly and ashamed.

 

There are more options than: 1. be false so that she'll like me, and 2. make her my replacement mommy, on call to manage my insecurities for me. That's how you portrayed it earlier, and then added that the 2nd type (the not "you" type) are also stalkers and predators.

 

I really don't like blarping and unloading all of your personal baggage onto people, or Oprah style public confessionals, or doing anything that would even start to make anyone think that they are responsible for managing my feelings. I'd really rather establish trust by gradually sharing who we are and what our experience of each other is, including my anxieties and insecurities, as they become relevant. The more fake I am at the beginning, the more difficult it will be to build that trust, and more anxious I will be that she won't like me, and the more likely that she is attracted to the image, rather than the me that I know inside my head.

 

Not that I execute this very well, but that's the goal, anyway.

 

Women don't like desperation, do like confidence and mystery, clearly. But their desires and interests are diverse enough that I'm not going to depend on provoking their insecurities and feigning disinterest, as if they were synonymous with confidence, mystery and a lack of desperation. In fact, I think I would avoid women who attracted to dicks (or men pretending to be dicks).

 

When you start to talk as if there are only two choices, it's almost guaranteed to be a rationalization justifying behavior you yourself don't truly believe is having integrity.

[MMX2010]

If you are genuinely interested in the woman you are dating, feigning disinterest in her is not equivalent at all to your body language example.  You aren't feigning disinterest in her in the hopes that will actually cause you to lose interest in her. By slipping in insults under the pretense of a compliment, you aren't trying to actually become a dick. You only do it because you believe it will get you women's affections.

 

 

Three themes will run through my reply, Kevin. 

 

The first theme is, "The colored statement is a prediction of MMX2010's motives and/or emotions that was acquired NOT by asking me directly, but by going into your head and assuming, 'Because I feel this way, everyone else MUST feel that way.'" 

 

The second theme is, "Although every one of those predictions is utterly wrong, it is never considered that making wrong predictions EQUALS you don't know what you're talking about." 

 

The third theme comes later. 

 

----------------

 

Kevin, what really happens is I choose to feign indifference because I'm genuinely interested and empathetic towards women. 

 

I just Skyped with a female FDR listener about this topic, and I explained to her how PUA (Roosh) explains it: "Basically, there are two mentalities: Scarcity-Mentality (which happens when men don't date very many women, and don't pleasantly interact with many women) and Abundance-Mentality.  To openly express large amounts of emotional interest during the beginning stages is to convey a Scarcity-Mentality, and all forms Scarcity-Mentality are turn offs because they convey unreliability, lack of self-control, and an inability to recognize and respect a Quality Woman.  Scarcity-Mentality men give the impression, "Man, I adore this woman so much, but if a slightly prettier, slightly happier, and/or slightly more confident woman comes along, I'md going to go after her!"  Hence, a man must always display Abundance-Mentality by never broadcasting feelings of deep interest during the initial stages." 

 

She immediately and enthusiastically agreed, saying, "That's perfect.  Now I know why I've always felt mildly disgusted whenever a man who barely knows me was very interested in me.  I told myself it was because there's no chase, no hunt.  But now I get it."

 

Thus, I feign disinterest because women like it, and I want to show them a wonderful time.  I don't care whether showing her a wonderful time now will become a deep romantic relationship in the future, because I enjoy acquiring the skills required to show multiple women a wonderful time. 

 

 

 

 

You want to be with a woman you find interesting (at the very least), and you said that you care about them (and I assume don't want them to feel insecure, generally). You just want to pretend you don't feel those things so that she will like you. That's not the same thing as pretending to be more confident than you really are.

 

 

Themes one and two have re-appeared. 

 

Theme one is when you predict the emotions and/or motives of people, and your prediction here is twofold: (1) that I would never want to make a woman feel insecure, and (2) that no woman (or no "virtuous woman?") would ever enjoy feeling insecure.

 

Theme two is that, although your every prediction is incorrect, it doesn't dawn on you to consider that you don't understand.

 

What really happens is that if a woman feels wonderful when she feels insecure, then she'll enjoy my company when I make her feel insecure.    Simple as that.  And just two weeks ago, a long-time female acquaintance texted me, "I just miss you, no matter how much of an awful person you are."  She enjoys the frustration, annoyance, and insecurity - and she violates no moral nor ethical rules by acquiring those emotional experiences from me. 

 

 

 

She becomes interested in the image of yourself you project which betrays your actual feelings for her, meaning she doesn't like you, but who you're pretending to be. Your actual feelings are bottled up inside out of fear that she won't find you attractive.

 

Themes one and two again resurface. 

 

First of all, you never asked me what I feel when I'm bottling my emotions of deep emotional interest.  Secondly, you presume that I must feel fear by going into your head and saying, "Because I feel fear, then everyone else must feel fear.

 

What really happens is that I feel emotions of exhilaration, relaxation, joy, and mild contempt whenever I'm feigning emotional aloofness during the beginning stages.  I never feel fear, because I know that emotional aloofness is the correct play, whether she enjoys my company or not.  So I never feel like I'm going to "lose" - which means there's no reason to fear. 

 

 

 

There are more options than: 1. be false so that she'll like me, and 2. make her my replacement mommy, on call to manage my insecurities for me. That's how you portrayed it earlier, and then added that the 2nd type (the not "you" type) are also stalkers and predators.

 

I really don't like blarping and unloading all of your personal baggage onto people, or Oprah style public confessionals, or doing anything that would even start to make anyone think that they are responsible for managing my feelings. I'd really rather establish trust by gradually sharing who we are and what our experience of each other is, including my anxieties and insecurities, as they become relevant. The more fake I am at the beginning, the more difficult it will be to build that trust, and more anxious I will be that she won't like me, and the more likely that she is attracted to the image, rather than the me that I know inside my head.

 

Not that I execute this very well, but that's the goal, anyway.

 

 

Roosh's argument is clear.  The You That You Know Inside Your Head is something that only you will ever experience.  And The You That You Know Inside Your Head is so big that it takes everyone a very long time to get a fuzzy picture of it.  Thus, no matter what you do in the beginning stages, a person is always going to react to the Image You Present. 

 

Why do you think the woman who loves me became inspired to voice her love for me the moment she saw both: (1) the difference between My Old Self and New Self and (2) the utterly short amount of time I had devoted to crafting My New Self?  It's because she realized that everything she was positively reacting towards was nothing but a dedicated, consistent Presentation of Image.  And when she compared my dedication to Image-Presentation to the lack of dedication that other men possess, she expressed her love. 

 

You hold on to the "hope" that a woman will love The You That You Know Inside Your Head, but that's literally impossible unless she's known you for two years.  Then you refuse to take specific actions that will emotionally please her, meaning she has less incentive to try and figure out Who You Really Are. 

 

Meanwhile, I don't care whether a woman Sees Who I Really Am, (because I know that's impossible).  And I care only about showing her an emotionally wonderful time.  And then, lo and behold, more and more women want to try and figure out Who I Really Am. 

 

 

 

 

 

Women don't like desperation, do like confidence and mystery, clearly. But their desires and interests are diverse enough that I'm not going to depend on provoking their insecurities and feigning disinterest, as if they were synonymous with confidence, mystery and a lack of desperation. In fact, I think I would avoid women who attracted to dicks (or men pretending to be dicks).

 

When you start to talk as if there are only two choices, it's almost guaranteed to be a rationalization justifying behavior you yourself don't truly believe is having integrity.

 

 

The blue phrase is incorrect.  I don't talk as if there are only two choices, I talk (correctly!) as if there are only two results: Woman Is Emotionally Pleased versus Woman Is Not. 

 

The red part is, by far, the most important thing you've said, and it leads into Theme Three. 

 

Theme Three is, "Kevin Beal, and the many other men who loathe PUA, begin their interactions with women by refusing to fulfill a specific subset of women's desires.  And yet these same men expect, to the point of either genuine confusion/frustration or utter certainty despite having no female romantic partners, that women will prefer their company because of this refusal."

 

In older time periods, when women's romantic and financial options were limited, this was a very sound strategy, because you could always use the "I make all the money, so I make all the rules!" strategy.  But in these modern times, an extraordinarily small women will accept your proposal. 

 

Now I would understand your proposal if these female desires were somehow immoral.  If these desires directly caused women to spank their children, I'd salute your moral courage.  But these are aesthetic desires that morally harm no one.  So I really don't understand your cocksure-confidence that often uses moralistic language ("liar", "lying to yourself") to voice itself.  Nor do I understand your commitment to going into your own head to wrongfully predict what I'm feeling and why I do what I do. 

 

Nor do I understand the massive downvotes I've been receiving by people who share in your opinions. 

[MysterionMuffles]

 

I choose to feign indifference because I'm genuinely interested and empathetic towards women. 

 

 

You might as well be saying (1) "I lie so I can tell the truth," or (2) "I want to buy this CD so badly that I'm just gonna leave it to collect dust at the record store forever," or let's just strip the statement down to what it actually means (∞) "I feign disinterest in women because they're used to being disinterested in by their fathers and/or brothers, and I exploit that insecurity in them in order to garner their attention."

 

The blue statement is me being brash and excessive, while the red one is me being cheeky and to the point. However, the green one on the other hand is a statement that outs PUA for what it is: learning the many ways to exploit a woman's daddy issues. Green is for right on the money!

 

 

What really happens is that if a woman feels wonderful when she feels insecure, then she'll enjoy my company when I make her feel insecure.     Simple as that.  And just two weeks ago, a long-time female acquaintance texted me, "I just miss you, no matter how much of an awful person you are."  She enjoys the frustration, annoyance, and insecurity - and she violates no moral nor ethical rules by acquiring those emotional experiences from me.

 

I rest my case.

[BaylorPRSer]

I don't think feigning disinterest necessarily means lying.  It could just be turning away from her for a couple of seconds.

[MMX2010]

I don't think feigning disinterest necessarily means lying.  It could just be turning away from her for a couple of seconds.

 

There are many ways to feign indifference, but the one Kevin Beal seems most focused on is the notion of withholding the expression of the emotions anticipation, joy, and happiness from women, especially in the early stages of dating. 

 

He has strongly implied that such withholdings are equivalent to "presenting yourself as a policeman, when you're really not". 

[NumberSix]

To frame this debate in another manner, women are attracted to alpha males the way men are attracted to physically beautiful women.  If your woman does her hair up and puts on makeup and a sexy dress for your date are you happy or upset because she is deceiving you?

[MMX2010]

To frame this debate in another manner, women are attracted to alpha males the way men are attracted to physically beautiful women.  If your woman does her hair up and puts on makeup and a sexy dress for your date are you happy or upset because she is deceiving you?

 

Adding to your question, if a man say, "Yes! I'm upset that she's deceiving me!", that man becomes one of only maybe 5% to 15% of men who feel this way. 

 

Is such a man: (1) speaking about his own aesthetic preference, implying that he doesn't need anyone else to agree with him OR (2) speaking about his own moral preference, implying that everyone who doesn't agree with him is behaving immorally? 

[NumberSix]

My Myers-Briggs personality type is INTP, the least social type there is.  In order to function in the world I have to fake a certain amount of interest in other people, when, in general, I find them to be stupid and boring.  I have to play the game in order to get along in professional circumstances.  Am I being immoral?  When people tell me about their personal life, should I interrupt them and say “honestly you’re boring?”

[MysterionMuffles]

No one said anything about immorality here. It's more of a matter of being emotionally unhealthy because your thoughts are not being conrguent if you have to feign interest in people you don't like, and feign disinterest in people you do like.

[Matt D]

 

You ignored the point where I said, what you call "domination" could just as easily be called "leadership", "natural attraction", "stewardship", "husbandry", "sexual chemistry", and a series of other words. 

 

You're also ignoring something crucially important: I've slept with multiple women, none of whom called me "dominating", nor "domineering". 

 

So now you're in the curious position of telling both me and every woman I've ever slept with that you-alone, based on your emotional reactions, know that I'm dominating.  That position is extremely untenable, but you still want to hold it as if it were true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're calling my approach "dominating", which is an insult to every woman I've ever slept with (all of whom have enjoyed my company), and you're telling me I should consider you?  (Why would I consider you when you insult me, based on no evidence?) 

 

And you claim that I'm turning you off to PUA?  (The simplest explanation is that your usage of the word "domination", based on no evidence - which you refuse to amend - indicates that you were turned off to PUA well-before this conversation began.) 

 

I'll offer you the same thing I offered Kevin Beal, with the same response expected.  When I get a digital copy of Roosh's book, you can read it and assert which passages show "domination".  If no such passages exist, you can admit you're wrong and then use Roosh's book to change your life. 

Deal? 

 

Come on, you can't tell me you don't feel a sense of domination when you penetrate a woman. I didn't say domination was an insult, just that real confidence doesn't come from domination. I wouldn't characterize having sex with a woman by giving her what she "secretly-wants-but-doesn't-realize-she-wants-because-she-hasn't-read-the-masterful-roosh" as 'leadership'. When Kevin says your approach isn't entirely honest you're offended because you say it's just biology, but then you want to turn your ability to sleep with women into something virtuous! You can't have it both ways: either what you're doing has nothing to do with ethics in which case you can't claim to be leading them towards enlightenment for their own good or it does involve ethics (Aesthetically Preferable Actions) in which case feigning interest in the beginning is manipulative.

 

Obviously if you're willing to send me a free book you do consider me to some degree. Besides the fact that you seem to confuse virtue and biology I at least respect that you're putting what you preach into practice. Sure, send me a copy.

[MMX2010]

No one said anything about immorality here. It's more of a matter of being emotionally unhealthy because your thoughts are not being conrguent if you have to feign interest in people you don't like, and feign disinterest in people you do like.

 

Does every reasonable person in the world prefer being "emotionally healthy" or "emotionally unhealthy"? 

 

Since the answer is, "Every reasonable person in the world prefers being emotionally healthy.", then you're attempting to universalize your emotional reactions to certain stimuli by using the phrase "emotionally healthy". 

 

In UPB, Stefan repeatedly distinguishes between UPB (Universally Preferable Behavior) and aesthetics.  He defines aesthetics as non-enforceable preferences, while ethics and morality are defined as enforceable-preferences. 

 

------------------------

 

Notice that you, Matt D., and Kevin Beal are: (1) Claiming that everyone who acts differently than you must feel certain specific emotions - ("fear", in Kevin Beal's case, "domination", in Matt D's case, "sociopathy" and "not a real interest in self-knowledge", in your case, and then (2) Ignoring all denials of your claims.  I told Kevin Beal I feel the complete opposite of "fear" whenever I'm feigning disinterest in women - but he hasn't replied.  I told Matt D. that I feel the complete opposite of "desire to dominate" - but he ignored my statements by focusing on his annoyance that I compared him to a feminist.  And I told you that I feel the complete opposite of "sociopathy" and a "lack of real interest in self-knowledge" - but you ignored that. 

 

Not only do you ignore my claims that I feel differently, but you also never realize how rude it is to tell someone what they must be feeling - particularly when you're wrong. 

 

Why do you all use these tactics?  Simple.  You are not acknowledging the difference between ethics - (enforceable preferences) - and aesthetics - (non-enforceable preferences).  You do not realize that your shared desires to maximally express your emotional experiences with women are nothing more than your personal, non-universally applicable, non-enforceable aesthetic preference.

 

Kevin Beal won't admit that his desire for unbridled emotional expression is aesthetic.  Matt D. won't admit that his desire to "share the authentic emotional experience of his interactions with women" is aesthetic.  And you won't admit that your desire to openly express interest when you feel like expressing interest is aesthetic. 

 

Criticizing someone's aesthetic preferences always produces interest statements. 

 

For example, Kevin Beal said, "I don't respect women who act primitively the way PUA describes."  But he never asked himself, "If I don't respect a woman's natural sexual responses, why should a woman prefer to be with me over a man who simultaneously respects a woman's natural sexual responses AND knows how to evoke and work with those responses?"  (Isn't it obvious that the majority of women aesthetically prefer to be with men who know how to evoke and work with her so-called "primitive" sexual response?) 

 

For another example, both you and Matt D. strongly imply that, "Men should always express interest whenever they want to express interest!"  But Roosh's book makes clear that the overwhelming majority of men are doing just that, and the majority of women respond to this by WITHHOLDING joyful, fully abandoned, passionate sex. Isn't this evidence that women don't aesthetically prefer emotionally expressive men?" 

 

If Reason + Virtue = Happiness, then isn't criticizing other peoples' aesthetics the fastest way to achieve Joylessness? 

[MMX2010]

Come on, you can't tell me you don't feel a sense of domination when you penetrate a woman.  I didn't say domination was an insult, just that real confidence doesn't come from domination. I wouldn't characterize having sex with a woman by giving her what she "secretly-wants-but-doesn't-realize-she-wants-because-she-hasn't-read-the-masterful-roosh" as 'leadership'.

 

As I pointed out to both Rainbow Jamz and Kevin Beal, the three of you have a habit of predicting what I "must be feeling" - and then vociferously denying my self-descriptions of my own feelings. 

 

I haven't read your responses and proclaimed, "When you have sex with a woman, you must be feeling X, Y, and Z.  And BECAUSE you're feeling X, Y, and Z, you're not experiencing Real Confidence. (or are "fearful" - as Kevin Beal has hinted), (or are "sociopathic" and "not really interested in self-knowledge" and "not emotionally healthy" - as Rainbow Jamz has hinted.)  And I haven't done this, because I recognize that such behavior ranges from: (1) At bare minimum - emotionally driven and sorely misguided, (2) At medium - extremely rude and aggressive and (3) At Worst - deliberately abusive and manipulative. 

 

 

 

When Kevin says your approach isn't entirely honest you're offended because you say it's just biology, but then you want to turn your ability to sleep with women into something virtuous!

 

 

In an alternative universe, you could have asked, "I noticed you got offended when Kevin Beal said your approach was dishonest.  Why do you feel offended? 

 

But in this universe, you refuse to ask me why I feel offended, and then tell me why I feel offended.  And it never dawns on you, Kevin Beal, Rainbow Jamz, nor the downvoters that such behavior is highly offensive. 

 

 

 

You can't have it both ways: either what you're doing has nothing to do with ethics in which case you can't claim to be leading them towards enlightenment for their own good or it does involve ethics (Aesthetically Preferable Actions) in which case feigning interest in the beginning is manipulative.

 

 

 

And that's where you're mistaken. 

 

Aesthetically Preferable Actions ARE NOT ethics.  Stefan has repeatedly said this in UPB, and you're completely wrong. 

 

So you've provided strong evidence of my earlier post: that the three of your share the same confusion of assuming that your aesthetic preferences are ethical when they are not.  It's why all of you both: (1) inject highly moralistic language into your descriptions and (2) tell me what I'm feeling, without asking me what I'm feeling, and then refuse to believe me when I tell you that I don't feel that way.

[PatrickC]

Aesthetically Preferable Actions ARE NOT ethics.  Stefan has repeatedly said this in UPB, and you're completely wrong.

 

Yes you are right, APA is not UPB and therefore not morally enforceable. However, APA can still come with consequences similar to violating UPB. The most obvious and extreme example would be a drunk driver of course.

 

Manipulation can be considered as fraud in some cases. Although manipulating women into sleeping with you might be considered creepy by others rather than fraudulent. Given that most women that allow themselves to be manipulated in that manner, probably see no harm in it.

 

So you've provided strong evidence of my earlier post: that the three of your share the same confusion of assuming that your aesthetic preferences are ethical when they are not.  It's why all of you both: (1) inject highly moralistic language into your descriptions and (2) tell me what I'm feeling, without asking me what I'm feeling, and then refuse to believe me when I tell you that I don't feel that way.

 

No one has claimed this as a moral issue. The reference to APA is about those behaviours that are seen as virtuous or unvirtuous, which are in a different category to that of morality.