Friends With Benefits?

[Kevin Beal]

Honestly, I had no idea that dressing up as a police officer was illegal, and I certainly don't think that it's immoral (even if other people do). I would have used a different example if I knew he was going to hang on to it for dear life.

 

"This is what Kevin Beal thinks, what he really means. I'll explain it to you, because it needs all kinds of interpretation and can't simply be taken as written. But that's okay, because I've got him all figured out".

 

You know. I find that pretty offensive!

 

Also, it feels weird being referred to with both first and last name. Is anyone going to get confused if you just say "Kevin"? I don't know, it just seems so cold. brrrrr!

[MysterionMuffles]

Honestly, I had no idea that dressing up as a police officer was illegal, and I certainly don't think that it's immoral (even if other people do). I would have used a different example if I knew he was going to hang on to it for dear life.

 

"This is what Kevin Beal thinks, what he really means. I'll explain it to you, because it needs all kinds of interpretation and can't simply be taken as written. But that's okay, because I've got him all figured out".

 

You know. I find that pretty offensive!

 

LOL yes...we are accused of ascribing our subjective feelings to the objective experience of other men.

 

But then we are quoted and strawmanned to death as to what we really meant to say. PRICELESS!!!

 

Remember what I said earlier about the mental gymnastics one must go through in order to justify being happy with a friends with benefits relationship? The proof is in the pudding. And man is it delicious.

[MMX2010]

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.

 

Right, so let's talk about drunk driving (which no one here is doing) in comparison with withholding emotional expressions of interest from a woman during the early stages of dating (which is the focus of our disagreement). 

 

Secondly, the phrase "consequences similar to violating UPB" is important, but you didn't apply it to "withholding emotional expressions of interest from a woman during the early stages of dating" because doing so invalidates your argument. 

 

Violating UPB produces consequences that no rational, reasonable human being would voluntarily choose: being murdered when you want to live, being raped when you'd rather not be raped.  But violating Kevin Beal's, Rainbow Jamz's, and Matt D's exhortations to "share 100% of your emotional experiences with a woman" makes the majority of women HAPPY.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

No, Patrick.  They smile whenever it happens.  They come back for more.  They eagerly look forward to it happening again.  That's NOT "seeing no harm in it"; that's "making them happy".

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

The problem with your argument is that you've shifted from UPB to just PB. 

 

If your argument describes behaviors that are universally seen as virtuous, then you've got a very strong argument.  But those behaviors are not even close to being universally seen as virtuous. 

 

The men who disagree with Rainbow Jamz, Kevin Beal, and Matt D. have wonderful sexual experiences with women who look forward to seeing them.  The women who aesthetically prefer to disagree with their position experience joy by following their biology in a way which oppresses no one and violates zero universally preferred moral perspectives. 

 

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

 

Overall, it appears that certain people cannot bear that other people are happy despite disagreeing with them.  To combat seeing that these people are happy, they use language like "see no harm in it" to describe a woman who's obviously (to the non-agenda-driven) smiling in joy.  And they repeatedly tell men like me what I "must be feeling" without asking me what I'm feeling, and without accepting my self-reported emotions. 

 

When called out on this behavior, they double down, triple down, and use evasive snark (like Kevin Beal's, "Honestly, I had no idea that dressing up as a police officer was illegal, and I certainly don't think that it's immoral (even if other people do). I would have used a different example if I knew he was going to hang on to it for dear life." 

 

And, yes, they downvote rather than address my criticisms of their objectively observable behaviors. 

 

Compare that to their utterly pretentious way of asserting that I feel what I don't feel, and you'll see who's really interested in debating the facts surrounding male/female sexuality. 

[MMX2010]

Honestly, I had no idea that dressing up as a police officer was illegal, and I certainly don't think that it's immoral (even if other people do). I would have used a different example if I knew he was going to hang on to it for dear life.

 

"This is what Kevin Beal thinks, what he really means. I'll explain it to you, because it needs all kinds of interpretation and can't simply be taken as written. But that's okay, because I've got him all figured out".

 

You know. I find that pretty offensive!

 

Also, it feels weird being referred to with both first and last name. Is anyone going to get confused if you just say "Kevin"? I don't know, it just seems so cold. brrrrr!

 

 

Your original words don't say, "dressing up as a police officer".  They say, "If I present myself as a police officer, wear the uniform and a badge, does that make me a cop?"  If you had said, dressing up like a police officer, I wouldn't have had any problems with what you said.

 

Worst of all, I like talking to cops on message boards.  And they will all agree that presenting yourself as a police officer means directly telling someone, "Police!  Can I see your driver's license." or "Police! Freeze!"

 

So your use of word choice was very poor, and you're representing your words as completely different from what you actually said. 

 

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

 

Furthermore, I gave multiple examples: (1) You directly told me, "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." 

 

(2) You directly told me, "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." 

 

(3) You directly told 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." 

 

(4) You directly told me, "I am not an expert on PUA, but it's my understanding the these men are pretending to be something that they are not so that they can be with women who like them for being something other than what they really are. I don't feel as sorry for the women in that arrangement as I do the men. I've pretended to be someone else enough for one lifetime. And any satisfaction I got by bedding a woman who thought I was something other than what I am, would be a very fleeting satisfaction."

 

(5) You directly told me, "It's not the women that I'm concerned about so much as it is the fact that PUA's are lying to themselves in order to get women. It is a confession that you don't think you are valuable enough for her. I can't respect a woman who operates so primitively, as described by PUA's. Why would anyone want to be with someone that they don't respect?

 

In our very first Skype conversation, you reminded me of Stefan's brilliant analogy about the man trapped in the invisible cage: "He's responsible for his refusal to discuss certain topics."

 

That you seize on the "dressing up as a police officer" example - in a way that completely changes what you actually said - while refusing to address the other examples of your poor behavior of "telling me what I, and all PUA's, must really be feeling - and refusing to believe us when we say we don't feel that way" - reminds me of the man trapped in the invisible cage. 

[PatrickC]

No, Patrick.  They smile whenever it happens.  They come back for more.  They eagerly look forward to it happening again.  That's NOT "seeing no harm in it"; that's "making them happy".

 

The problem with your argument is that you've shifted from UPB to just PB. 

 

If your argument describes behaviors that are universally seen as virtuous, then you've got a very strong argument.  But those behaviors are not even close to being universally seen as virtuous. 

 

You do realise that when I shifted from UPB - APA in my previous post, that it was a shift not dissimilar to your own cruder version of UPB - PB. You've basically rearranged the deck chairs of my wording.

 

As you know APA cannot be universalised. The best we can do is examine the evidence for the pros and cons of certain actions that don't violate UPB and act on that information accordingly in a rational way.

 

People are free to test their relationship theories such as PUA or RTR (let's say) and decide on the better outcomes. They can also ask others for advice or examine the lives of others that chose different theories. However, the trouble with some relationship theories is that sometimes the outcomes don't come to light until several years have passed. After which, if you chose the wrong theory you could be a father, potentially in a divorce court with your balls being nailed to a cross.

 

So choose wisely everyone.

[MMX2010]

You do realise that when I shifted from UPB - APA in my previous post, that it was a shift not dissimilar to your own cruder version of UPB - PB. You've basically rearranged the deck chairs of my wording.

 

As you know APA cannot be universalised. The best we can do is examine the evidence for the pros and cons of certain actions that don't violate UPB and act on that information accordingly in a rational way.

 

So when are you, Kevin, and Matt D. going to start doing that? 

 

When Kevin Beal first claims that I both (1) "must be" feeling fear whenever I feign emotional disinterest, and (2) "must be" "admitting that I believe that I have no value to her", and subsequently ignores my objections that I don't feel that way, he's refusing to examine the evidence for the pros and cons of certain actions that don't violate UPB and act on that information accordingly. 

 

When Matt D. first claims that I "must be" either feeling "domination" or desiring to "dominate", and subsequently ignores my explanation that I don't feel that way, he's refusing to examine the evidence for the pros and cons of certain actions that don't violate UPB and act on that information accordingly. 

 

And when you claimed that women react to the (perceived) emotional manipulations of PUA by "finding no harm in it", you were also refusing to examine the evidence for the pros and cons of certain actions that don't violate UPB and act on that information accordingly.  (You also didn't acknowledge my more accurate description of how they feel about the emotional manipulations of PUA: happiness, shock, anticipation, and joy.) 

 

So while you (collectively) claim to be open-mindedly examining the pros and cons of PUA, you're doing the exact opposite;  you're making up evidence by going into your heads and wrongfully accusing others of feeling what they do not feel.  This has the overall effect of shouting down the real evidence of the pros and cons of PUA, (which explains the downvotes). 

 

The funniest part is that you're not even a majority opinion.  The majority of women respond positively to PUA.  Don't their emotional reactions matter much more than yours, since they are the recipients of PUA behavior?  Logically speaking, this is obvious - but neither you, Matt, RJ, nor Kevin want to follow this logic.  Morally speaking, this is obvious, because women are free to choose whomever they want to sleep with, for whatever reasons they please - but neither of you want to follow this moral premise. 

 

However, the saddest part of all is that you (collectively) don't realize that the absolute worst emotional experience that a woman seeks from a potential male suitor is He Who Tells Me That My Feelings Are Wrong, Without Good Evidence.  It is the biggest turn-off to women, but this never factors into your evaluation of the question, "Where have all the virtuous women gone?" 

[PatrickC]

I have seen the evidence of a PUA lifestyle. Known many men (inc myself to a leser extent) in my past that used the techniques. You've heard the analogy used about women and spiders I presume.

 

Women are much better manipulators than us men. Many of them will bide their time even. The moment you have to drop your guard (and it will come) she wont thank you for it. You sold her a lie she'll say. I thought you were the boldest, bravest and most gallant knight of the realm. In this regard I'll let MGTOW Barborossa have the the last word on PUA.

 

"You only think you're in control until eventually one day you have to show a chink in your armour. At which point you'll be so consumed in her web that you'll be begging her to be gentle with you".

 

__________________________________________________________________________

 

On an aside, those old friends of mine. ALL of them fathers and ALL now seperated or divorced. In their day they were no beta chumps by PUA standards. Ironically it's only been the beta chumps amongst my friends that have remained happily married. But then again those chaps weren't bull shitting their ladies from the start, so go figure.

 

I'm quite sure this will fall on deaf ears for you MMX. Since you're so wrapped up in your short term gains with women to see what the long term might look for you. But hey don't take my word for it, go ask the men in your life that are long term happily married with kids. They probably know a thing or two about picking a good wife.

[kathryn]

MMX, I see several reasons you may not be getting your points across in this thread.

 

First of all, the sheer volume and length of your posts is very distracting from your main idea. The frequency and wordy nature of your discussion almost reads as static at this point. I think it would be more effective to be concise. 

 

Secondly, it is very off-putting to read arguments that are so riddled with logical fallacies. You are constantly appealing to the authority of the advocates of PUA without speaking much to your own life, and you ask a great many loaded questions that only incite anger and weaken your argument. Also, using straw man and ad hominem tactics to denigrate the experiences of the other people on this thread is not right. (I don't think it is necessary to pull out the specific examples from your posts of you engaging in these logical fallacies because they are so obvious, but if you truly cannot see them I can quote examples for you if that would be helpful.)

 

Lastly, I think everyone here should keep in mind there is no one correct way to approach relationships. There are so many differences in preference and personality, and while it is useful to discuss those differences, it is not helpful to push your own agenda on people. For example, the fact that I want children changes my perspective on relationships and raises the stakes a great deal, but if you don't want kids it makes sense that you would approach relationships more causally.

[AncapFTW]

Remember what I said earlier about the mental gymnastics one must go through in order to justify being happy with a friends with benefits relationship? The proof is in the pudding. And man is it delicious.

How are one night stands with women you pick up in bars, possibly by exploiting their emotional issues, the same as "friends with benefits"?  Everyone has went way off topic here.

 

"Friends" implies that you have an emotional relationship with them already, possible a deep one.  All this topic was originally about was "is it ok to add sex to an emotional relationship, or will it change the relationship into something else?"  None of the recent posts have anything to do with that topic, though.

[ToniC]

</MMX2010>;

[MMX2010]

I have seen the evidence of a PUA lifestyle. Known many men (inc myself to a leser extent) in my past that used the techniques. You've heard the analogy used about women and spiders I presume.

 

Women are much better manipulators than us men. Many of them will bide their time even. The moment you have to drop your guard (and it will come) she wont thank you for it. You sold her a lie she'll say. I thought you were the boldest, bravest and most gallant knight of the realm. In this regard I'll let MGTOW Barborossa have the the last word on PUA.

 

 

Barbarossa: A guy who has never embraced PUA, has never extensively lived it, but hates it anyway.  You think he's the one best qualified to discuss its merits and demerits? 

 

When you claim the blue-colored sentences to be true, are you saying: (1) they're true for all men, period, (2) they're true for most men, including me, (3) they're true for some men, including me, or (4) they're true for some men, including me, or (5) they're true for some men, not including me? 

 

 

 

 

On an aside, those old friends of mine. ALL of them fathers and ALL now seperated or divorced. In their day they were no beta chumps by PUA standards. Ironically it's only been the beta chumps amongst my friends that have remained happily married. But then again those chaps weren't bull shitting their ladies from the start, so go figure.

 

I'm quite sure this will fall on deaf ears for you MMX. Since you're so wrapped up in your short term gains with women to see what the long term might look for you. But hey don't take my word for it, go ask the men in your life that are long term happily married with kids. They probably know a thing or two about picking a good wife.

 

 

 

It will "fall on deaf ears" because you are comparing the PUA of old, (Neil Strauss and Mystery) with the PUA of Roosh.  And I keep claiming that Roosh's perspective is extremely different from those two.  I've even offered to give people free copies of Roosh's book, so that they'll see how Roosh has changed the perspective. 

 

To use an analogy, it's like someone refusing to study Stefan because he's a philosopher, based on his negative experiences with Plato and Aristotle.  While it's wonderful to have grounding in the originators of a perspective, assuming that the perspective hasn't changed - especially when I keep telling you that it has changed - is closed-minded.  Stefan, himself, repeatedly (and correctly) claims that he has revolutionized philosophy, and it's a shame whenever people refuse to give Stefan a full chance to back up his claim of revolutionizing the field. 

[Frosty]

Emotionally healthy? Now there's an elastic term, depends what you mean.

 

I did it throughout a lot of my 20's and enjoyed it, I was always up front about it and always made sure they knew the deal so there was no one being mislead. You need to be sensible and set some ground rules about intimacy and what is and is not allowed, the moment one of you starts developing feelings which is inevitable then you need to do the difficult but sensible thing of breaking it off, no matter how good it is.

 

I was doing rather well for a period before I met a girl I really fell for, she wasn't very virtuous and I knew it, but still amazing in a lot of ways, she was insanely hot and we shared hobbies of playing games (which is very rare quality in women) so we were both friends with benefits but also pretty good buddies. Anyway I started to fall for her, broke it off which was very difficult to do, she eventually dragged me back in by saying she felt the same and wanted more, and then it all went to hell and I crashed and burned. I'm 31 now and I've not bothered since, that's something great for your 20's but once you've had a few really hot partners and a lot of sex, the novelty wears off.

 

I can't speak to emotional health, it was a decade of fun with a horrible ending but I don't know that it was unhealthy for me, I'm more experienced, wiser, I have thicker skin emotionally, I know better what I'm looking for in women now.

 

I'm also aware of how some of the traits of sociopathic women manifest which is super important because they're excellent manipulators and It's part of why I don't really buy this "use philosophy to spot good women" because you can mimic virtue just as you can mimic anything else.

[MMX2010]

MMX, I see several reasons you may not be getting your points across in this thread.

 

Secondly, it is very off-putting to read arguments that are so riddled with logical fallacies. You are constantly appealing to the authority of the advocates of PUA without speaking much to your own life, and you ask a great many loaded questions that only incite anger and weaken your argument.

 

 

It's not fair of you to mention "logical fallacies" without citing a single example.

 

It's also not fair of you to assume that everyone who is getting angry at my questions is acting rationally.  One of my funniest mottos is, "When someone else is angry, we naturally assume that they're not thinking clearly.  But when we are angry, we naturally assume we have access to such clarity-of-thinking that the other person is too stupid to understand.  Ironic, no?"  Based on my motto, it would be more rational to assume that all angered parties are behaving irrationally, because they're angry. 

 

Secondly, I mention "the authority of PUA" to make a distinction between: (1) those who don't want to study PUA, but want to believe they supremely understand it, and (2) those who are at least willing to try to understand PUA before giving their strong opinions about it.  Matt D. and PatrickC get props for accepting my offer to read Roosh's book.  Kevin Beal and Rainbow Jamz get anti-props. 

 

In another thread, I spoke about a form of art that incorporates the Privileged Position.  Basically, when you look at an artwork from any random spot, the artwork makes no sense.  But when you stand in just the right spot, the Privileged Position, then the artwork suddenly makes sense.  Many people imply that the Privileged Position with PUA (and relationships) is Abstract, Intellectual Distance, meaning, "I don't need to study it up close, nor to I need to personally get involved, to actually get it."  Others, including myself, imply that the Privileged Position is Emotional Closeness, meaning, "I need to get up close to something, and get personally involved with it, in order to actually get it." 

 

 

 

 

Also, using straw man and ad hominem tactics to denigrate the experiences of the other people on this thread is not right.

 

Not only have I never done this, but it has been repeatedly done to me.  Telling me I'm acting out of fear, when I'm not, is ad hominem.  Telling me that I've no interest in self-knowledge, when I do, is ad hominem.  Telling me I'm acting out of domination, when I'm not, is ad hominem. 

 

As you said, you're willing to give examples, so give me the two best ones and I'll counter-argue.

 

 

 

 

Lastly, I think everyone here should keep in mind there is no one correct way to approach relationships. There are so many differences in preference and personality, and while it is useful to discuss those differences, it is not helpful to push your own agenda on people. For example, the fact that I want children changes my perspective on relationships and raises the stakes a great deal, but if you don't want kids it makes sense that you would approach relationships more causally.

 

No, there is a correct way to approach relationships. 

 

The wrong way is speaking from Abstract, Intellectual Distance - pretending to know what someone feels and assuming (based on nothing but those pretenses) that the person you dislike is going to crash and burn.  The right way is speaking from Emotional Closeness. 

 

You mentioned that you suddenly want to have a baby?  A man worthy of being your husband must act from Emotional Closeness. 

 

An Abstract, Intellectual Distance reaction would be something like, "Well, she wants a baby.  Mothers want resources.  So let me go to college to study something I'm suddenly interested in, even though that field requires seven years of school to master and about ten years of experience to make money."  From his Abstract, Intellectual perspective, he's trying to give you resources, right?  But from the Emotional Closeness perspective, he's completely clueness - because Mothers don't just want resources; they want a steady stream of resources, NOW.  And so any man who pulls the "studying a new field" approach is going to be dismissed as "not really trying". 

 

So I appreciate your feedback and hope you'll follow with examples.  But I think you're dead wrong here. 

[MysterionMuffles]

Emotionally healthy? Now there's an elastic term, depends what you mean.

 

I go into defining it here: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43965-friends-with-benefits/?p=401429 but MMX2010 failed to acknowledge that I even made these points, possibly because it exposes his lifestyle for what it is. But thanks for sharing your experiences! Let me know if what I describe there coincides or conflicts with what you've said and experienced. To me it just sounds like you had your fun, but want something more fulfilling now. No harm no foul, especially since you did do the sensible thing of setting boundaries and ground rules that had to be honoured til the bitter end.

[MMX2010]

I go into defining it here: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43965-friends-with-benefits/?p=401429 but MMX2010 failed to acknowledge that I even made these points, possibly because it exposes his lifestyle for what it is.

 

I refused to acknowledge them because of your repeated pattern of pretending that what's true for you is true for everyone.

 

Examples include, "As Blackout pointed out, having sex is an intimate act in which you develop emotional attachment to someone."  (This is not true for everyone.  They are not true for me, and it isn't automatically true that everyone who isn't like this is unhealthy.)

 

And, "If you have a friend with benefits and you have sex on a consistent basis, you are training your body to prefer them over others. To know of them sleeping with someone else, even in the non-jealous type of person, STILL invokes a degree of jealousy."  (Neither of these statements are true for everyone.  They are not true for me, and it is not automatically true that everyone who doesn't feel this way is emotionally unhealthy.)

 

And, "I could be wrong, but judging from the friends I've had, polyamory tends to require a great deal of mental gymnastics to be okay with enacting. Whereas my friends who are in functional healthy monogomous relationships, they don't have to justify themselves to anyone. They're just A COUPLE and don't have to worry about getting jealous of other people to be sharing their partner with because of the agreed monogomy and exclusivity."  (When you use the dismissive word "mental gymnastics", you close yourself off to the possibility that people are smarter than you and that the evidence that they're smarter than you is that you don't get it.) 

 

And, "Mental gymnastics refers to constantly reinforcing the idea to ones self and others that "yeah we just have sex on the side. They're a cool friend too, but I wouldn't want to be in a relationship with them because x, y, and z," whereas (again only from my experience and what I've witnessed), monogomous relationships require less reason to justify."  (Monogamous relationships require LESS reasons to justify?  That is so utterly wrong, since monogamous relationships - particularly marriages in traditional societies have ALWAYS BEEN the most serious, most life-changing events that people, (especially women!), have ever experienced.  To claim that non-monogamous relationships require more justification is completely off-base.) 

 

Finally, "As I mentioned in my response to MMX, you are desiring exclusivity and she's not willing to accept that. Therefore, it creates some ambivelance in you. How much do you have to reason yourself into thinking that it's okay to just have her on the side, while there is that possibility she does want to work on herself and become monogomous. Whatever it is that's causing her to think she can't handle the monogomy...does she not realize she's already acting in nature without defining it for what it already is?" 

 

It has never been true that I'm "desiring exclusivity and she's not willing to accept that."  I've never indicated this.  You just went into your head and made it up.  From this assumption, you have this long-string of accusations, all of which paint me as "ignorant" of her desires - when it is you who are ignorant of the entire situation. 

 

(Kathryn, this is yet another example of the Abstract, Intellectual Distance approach that members of FDR take when "understanding" relationships.  They think they can just go into their heads and, without asking clarifying questions, declare-with-100% confidence what you're really feeling, and what you really should do.) 

 

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

 

Even something seemingly harmless as Patrick's words here are extremely callous and harmful. 

 

He says, "Women are much better manipulators than us men. Many of them will bide their time even. The moment you have to drop your guard (and it will come) she wont thank you for it. You sold her a lie she'll say. I thought you were the boldest, bravest and most gallant knight of the realm."

 

He hasn't asked, but I'm currently involved in a two-months long romantic relationship with a mid-20s atheist, anarchist, highly intelligent chick, who also is trying to enter into the modeling industry.  Yes, I used PUA tactics in the initial stages.  Yes, she loved them oh-so-very much.  And, yes, she knew what I was doing because she reads the same blogs that I do. 

 

If I follow his advice and drop the PUA tactics, seeking "emotional authenticity", what will PatrickC provide me if following his advice causes her to lose attraction for me?  Why, nothing, of course. 

 

And if I ignore his advice, what will he say if ignoring his advice keeps her around?  (Well, yes, you're keeping her around now, but I swear to the Old Gods and The New that e-v-e-n-t-u-a-l-l-y the mask will fade and she won't thank you for it.)  Which basically means, 100% of any success that I derive from PUA is invalid, and that any future failure - including one that occurs 20 years from now - is evidence of "the risks and dangers of PUA". 

 

Anyone who argues along these lines is simply not being rational, not being helpful, and not actually wanting me to succeed. 

[MysterionMuffles]

 

        Proof pudding is delicious

[Frosty]

I go into defining it here: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43965-friends-with-benefits/?p=401429 but MMX2010 failed to acknowledge that I even made these points, possibly because it exposes his lifestyle for what it is. But thanks for sharing your experiences! Let me know if what I describe there coincides or conflicts with what you've said and experienced. To me it just sounds like you had your fun, but want something more fulfilling now. No harm no foul, especially since you did do the sensible thing of setting boundaries and ground rules that had to be honoured til the bitter end.

 

Right so

 

 

Healthy means do your actions add up to your innate desires?

 

Well that seems like a decent enough definition of healthy to me, I don't even know how I'd define it, health is borrowed from physical health which means normal or at least "intended" or "expected" operation.

 

Sex drives are biological in nature they serve to  increase desire for sex until it's unbareable and then slow the drive after sex has occured in order to facilitate making babies and passing on genes. That's more of a compulsion than a desire though because a desire is reasoned but a compulsion is automatic. I can desire to have a 2nd GTX980 video card for my computer but that's not a natural compulsion. In that case I can desire to have sex in order to satiate my natural sex drive, but also desire that not result in the burden of babies, in which case casual hookups meet that demand with as little additional burden as possible.

 

Not everyone has those desires of course because desires are affected by many different mental processes, especially that of social pressure and conditioning to do or not do certain things.

 

So at the very best we can say that these desires are conditional on many things depending on the person in question, and they're also temporal depending on your mood and other factors, at 20 you may want consequence free sex, in your 30's you may want sex that ends in children. So to the answer the question, I guess it depends, if you're being irrational and you're trying to get a girl pregnant who wants only causal sex then that's obviously unhealthy by this definition, it also goes against what I described in my first post where I said that no one should be mislead. I think as long as the NAP applies it's probably "healhy" by any reasonable definition.

[MMX2010]

I think as long as the NAP applies it's probably "healhy" by any reasonable definition.

 

Anyone who upvotes your comments, but downvotes mine has a major problem on their hands. 

 

You said, "As long as the NAP applies, it's probably "healthy" by any reasonable definition."  Thus, anyone who thinks PUA is unhealthy, or friends with benefits is unhealthy, had better refer to NAP violations in their arguments. 

 

However, no one who has downvoted me has pointed out any NAP violations, preferring instead to refer to (so-called) aesthetic violations. 

[Matt D]

MMX, a while back I mentioned R vs K reproductive strategy which you indicated you understood. According to PUA, would you say that men, particularly those who want to have children, should not pursue the R reproductive strategy (spray and pray)?

[MMX2010]

MMX, a while back I mentioned R vs K reproductive strategy which you indicated you understood. According to PUA, would you say that men, particularly those who want to have children, should not pursue the R reproductive strategy (spray and pray)?

 

(1) I find it offensive that you're asking me a question without addressing that you claimed that I "must be" feeling "dominance" whenever I have sex with a woman, and then doubled-down on your assessment when I told you that I don't feel that way.

 

(2) Answering your question, people confuse R and K sexual strategies with R and K reproductive strategies.  (R and K sexual strategies involve Getting Members of the Opposite Sex To Have Sex With You; R and K reproductive strategies involve Getting Members of the Opposite Sex to Agree to Reproduce With You.) 

 

My personal opinion is that it's best to combine R-Sexual Strategies with K-Reproductive Strategies. 

 

Stefan's advice is very K-Sexual, but these are sex-positive (R-Sexual) times, and so his assumptions, particularly about women, are out-of-date. 

 

For example, in FDR 2954, timestamp 1-hour, Stefan says (paraphrasing), "If a woman is pretty, you need to be careful.  *skipping*  I like to think that for the women listening to my show, that listening makes them more attractive.  And, in order to do that, I need to promote the K-reproductive Strategy.  I want my daughter to grow up in a world where the K-reproductive strategies are not lost.  *skipping*  I want to live in a world that's civilized, and to do that, I want to scrub away the female beauty-addiction from the world.  *skipping*  Doesn't that sound serious for you, 'You could murder civilization with your penis!'  *skipping*"

 

"If a woman withholds sex from you, it's like a man not getting a woman drunk. *skipping* If a drug existed that does to women's brains what sexual access did to men's brains, then all sex would be considered rape.  *skipping*   A woman who is saying, 'I don't want to have sex with you, for at least a couple of months.' is really saying, 'I don't want you to be drugged when we have sex.' *skipping*  'I'm going to withhold the drug called vagina.  I'm going to withhold the frontal lobotomy called 'I have a hole in me' so that you can evaluate me as a human being.*skipping*"

 

"So any woman who dangles sexual access is spiking your drink.  It is not playing fair.  And it is because she does not want you to see who she really is! *skipping*" 

 

"A woman who presents sex front-and-center, who parades her hotness; that is a woman who has nothing to offer but eggs!  She is the direct equivalent of a man who goes to pick up a woman on a date with his Lamborgini." 

 

"*skipping* Any woman who needs you to be so addled with lust, in order for you to spend time with her, has such ridiculously low self-esteem.

 

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

 

Everything in blue is K-Sexual Strategy, but that advice and the assumptions that inform it both no longer apply. 

 

The correct interpretation can be discovered by comparing divorce then with divorce now, or getting a tattoo then with getting a tattoo now.  When both behaviors were comparably rare AND done in direct defiance of society, they were significant indicators of character-deficiency.  But, as more and more people engage in those behaviors AND NOT in order to defy society, they become much less indicative of anything. 

 

Thus, women dress hypersexually because media encourages them to do so, and because culture gives them zero good arguments as to why not to.  Hypersexual dressing is primarily both a statement of "empowerment" and a "shit test". 

 

When a low-value man leers at a woman, he fails.  But it's more important that leering indicates low value. 

 

When a low-value man hyper-ventilates or amygdala-freezes when he sees a beautiful woman, he fails.  But it's more important that hyper-ventilating indicates low value. 

 

When a low-value man makes horrible assumptions about her character, he fails.  But it's more important that making these assumptions indicates low value, even when those assumptions are not verbally communicated; you can communicate your disgust with an eye-roll, a sneer, a serious (non-playful) skeptical squint, or a dozen other facial expressions.

 

When a low-value man tells her she's pretty, he fails!  But it's more important that telling a woman that she's pretty indicates low value. 

 

The proper play is to calmly look at her, always in the eyes, and then "Act Like You've Had Better".  A playful skeptical sneer that communicates, "I'll reject you if you introduce yourself to me." wins the game, because it indicates High-Value (that you're used to having multiple beautiful women adore you). 

 

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

 

R-Sexual strategy combined with K-reproductive strategy says: (1) All sexual experience is positive, unless it gives you an STD, because sexual talent is a learned skill - and low-notch individuals are bad in bed.  (2) All women want to primarily know that you won't freak out, become too attached, become needy, become a creep, become a stalker, call her a slut, or various other low-value behaviors after you sleep with her - and the primary way she can find out is by sleeping with you.  The earlier she sleeps with you, the earlier you display horrible behaviors, and so the earlier she dumps you.  This is beneficial for her; have some empathy!  (3) All women want to find the best man possible right now - and the only way she can do so is by experiencing a wide range of men. 

 

(4) As soon as a woman wants a baby, the rules are entirely different.  She'll withhold sex from interested men as a way to ensure that they're financially committed to the relationship before she has sex with him. 

 

Rollo Tomassi, of The Rational Male, warns that there are two kinds of sex for women: Validational - (the passionate, loud-screaming, recklessly abandoned, can't-get-enough-of-you sex that she has when she's not interested in having children with you) and Transactional - (the not-at-all passionate, quiet, you've-done-the-chores-so-I-guess-you-deserve-nookie sex that she has with her boring, stable, financially-invested primary partner). 

 

If you've never had sex with a Mistress, a woman who loves her primary partner but has sex with you when she's steaming mad at him, you've never experienced Validational Sex.  It is intoxicating if you're not used to it, and the biggest mistake men make is to assume that the Validational Sex will continue once a committed relationship is established.  (What instead happens is that the commitment itself causes all sex to become Transactional.)  If you are used to Validational Sex, you have instanteous feedback about how a woman really feels about you, whenever you have sex with her.  When the sex is Transactional, you'll know. 

 

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

 

The ultimate result of combining K-sexual strategies with K-reproductive strategies is an immense distrust of women just because they are pretty or dressed really sexy.  That immense distrust of women abandons them to the unscrupulous, non-virtuous men who'll bang them instead.  Then, when young men interested in virtue come to places that claim to be crawling with virtuous people and notice that there aren't any pretty women around, they'll leave for greener pastures.   

 

My solution is to work with beautiful women, knowing that my heart could be crushed, because I refuse to abandon these women to Asshole Men in this Narcissistic, Hedonistic, Non-Empathetic Asshole Culture. 

 

Quitting the game, and then complaining that you're losing, isn't good strategy (no matter what letter you call it). 

[Frosty]

Anyone who upvotes your comments, but downvotes mine has a major problem on their hands. 

 

You said, "As long as the NAP applies, it's probably "healthy" by any reasonable definition."  Thus, anyone who thinks PUA is unhealthy, or friends with benefits is unhealthy, had better refer to NAP violations in their arguments. 

 

However, no one who has downvoted me has pointed out any NAP violations, preferring instead to refer to (so-called) aesthetic violations. 

 

I was trying to avoid joining the existing sides in this debate but I'll weigh in on this very briefly. It depends on the kind of tactics that PUAs use and the goals they're going for, PUA is a skill and can be misused given what I wrote, so if you're trying to find a LTR using PUA then that's probably not healthy by this definition.

 

The main issue with PUA is some dubious tactics that are used that could be considered fraudulent and in violation of the NAP. Some PUA tactics definitely seem manipulative to the point that women could reasonably be upset if you revealed to them what you're up to, and some are outright lies. Some examples are that sources of PUA info will encourage dressing flashy to represent you having more money than you really have, using lies in intros such as "my friends are nearby" so you don't appear as a creepy loner, and things like that.

 

Obviously there will be some in fighting between proponents of PUAs about what constitutes "real" PUA and certainly a lot of "not a real scotman" fallacies being used, but from the casual outside observer it sure seems fraudulent.

[Carl Green]

 

It's not fair of you to mention "logical fallacies" without citing a single example.

 

 

MMX2010, if you want to talk about being fair, you might want to stop making knowledge statements about what people "actually mean" or what  they want, or what they know, or what they think.

 

I gave up counting how many times you've done this to just me alone in this topic thread, and that was before I got to page 3.

(though to be honest the count was only around 10 or so but that probably doubles in page 3)

 

Do you not see that you're doing this? Or do you see it and just don't care that you're lying like that?

 

Also, for good measure, here's a link citing a specific post from you, which exemplifies what I'm talking about.

[MysterionMuffles]

I was trying to avoid joining the existing sides in this debate but I'll weigh in on this very briefly. It depends on the kind of tactics that PUAs use and the goals they're going for, PUA is a skill and can be misused given what I wrote, so if you're trying to find a LTR using PUA then that's probably not healthy by this definition.

 

The main issue with PUA is some dubious tactics that are used that could be considered fraudulent and in violation of the NAP. Some PUA tactics definitely seem manipulative to the point that women could reasonably be upset if you revealed to them what you're up to, and some are outright lies. Some examples are that sources of PUA info will encourage dressing flashy to represent you having more money than you really have, using lies in intros such as "my friends are nearby" so you don't appear as a creepy loner, and things like that.

 

Obviously there will be some in fighting between proponents of PUAs about what constitutes "real" PUA and certainly a lot of "not a real scotman" fallacies being used, but from the casual outside observer it sure seems fraudulent.

 

Then there's also the question of what kinds of relatioships PUA programs promote. Do they want you to attract a quality mate, one night stands, flings, or mistresses? I know that Kezia Noble's goal as well as the authors of How to Succeed With Women's goal is to land long term relationships. Kezia in particular turns down men who want to join her programs for the sake of getting mistresses or to help women cheat on their partners. I think that's quite...shall I say...noble? Though if a man's original intention is to either cheat on their wives or girlfriends, she will try to get them to see the value of using her techniques on the current partners of these men instead of helping them cheat. If they are committed to cheating, THEN she'll turn them down.

 

It's interesting that you point out that some PUA tactics violate the NAP, you've inspired me to start a whole new thread that's close to that line of thinking. I'm still working out the thoughts that can substantiate a claim of mine...keep your eyes peeled for that!

 

And for the record, I welcome your disagreements, sharing your experiences, as well as input on this thread. Your concision and ability to stay on topic is proof that MMX2010's downvotes are due to behaviour, not contrary opinions. Any person with any decent level of self-knowledge would know that they should simply stop engaging and re-read their own posts in the eyes of an outside perspective. They would try and see why it can be deemed as manipulative, disruptive, and/or abusive and reflect on how they can better present their case (and if they even really have one) instead of simply having pissing contests. 

 

I mean, I've certainly learned a thing or five from getting feedback from people on how I make arguments. I can't remember the topic, nor the person who pointed it out to me, but they pointed out that I have a tendancy to ask leading questions. I'm sorry if I've done that here as it is still something I'm working on, but that's the key thing. I'm actually WORKING on it. I've actually taken a step back to evaluate how I communicate with people on the boards and the chatroom, (and obviously in my physical world), and work to correct these communication flaws. I still make similar mistakes from time to time, but at least I'm aware of them. At least I am also aware of how I come across to other people and understand what they have reacted the way they have.

 

But that doesn't mean I'm going on full person pleaser mode, though. Another thing I've learned from practising self-knowledge is also learning the difference between me behaving in a way that provokes offense, or me simply being me and someone else just taking things personally. I'm not always spot on, but I have a pretty good grasp on how to differentiate the two when it matters.

 

So, if there's anybody on this board who has gotten a ton of downvotes, enough to fall below the community threshold, I would suggest that they:

1. Log out from the boards (so they don't feel compelled to post anything new)
2. Search up their own names and look at their reputation history
3. Try to read their posts with the most downvotes from the perspective of an outsider
4. Ask themselves if they would enjoy being treated the way they've treated others in those threads
5. Remove their attachment to being right in their arguments, maybe they are right, but that's not important
6. What's important is observing one's own behaviour and learning how to correct it so they don't run repeat it
7. One last big thing is also looking for any patterns. Have several people given you the same feedback repeatedly?
8. If so, ask yourself why you refuse to accept it and work on improving.
9. If not, which criticisms provoke the most anxiety? Work on that!

Just my food for thought. Bon appétit!

[MMX2010]

 

 

The main issue with PUA is some dubious tactics that are used that could be considered fraudulent and in violation of the NAP. Some PUA tactics definitely seem manipulative to the point that women could reasonably be upset if you revealed to them what you're up to, and some are outright lies. Some examples are that sources of PUA info will encourage dressing flashy to represent you having more money than you really have, using lies in intros such as "my friends are nearby" so you don't appear as a creepy loner, and things like that.

 

 

 

The main issue is two-fold: (1) PUA contains dubious tactics that could be considered fraudulent and in violation of the NAP, but by whom?  If a woman receives a specific PUA tactic, and she smiles, laughs, and hopes for more, isn't that obvious evidence that the NAP wasn't violated, because she didn't react as if she was violently aggressed upon?  (2) Everyone wants to say, "PUA has dubious tactics that could be considered fraudulent and in violation of the NAP." - but no one wants to say, "MMX2010, the specific technique you used on Your Mistress, or on The Woman Who Loves You Violated The NAP Because..."

 

And when I beg and plead for people to: (1) stop using metaphors, and/or (2) own up to the horrible way they communicated their metaphors (Kevin Beal's example of the cop), I get radio silence and downvotes. 

 

 

 

 

 

Some PUA tactics definitely seem manipulative to the point that women could reasonably be upset if you revealed to them what you're up to, and some are outright lies. Some examples are that sources of PUA info will encourage dressing flashy to represent you having more money than you really have, using lies in intros such as "my friends are nearby" so you don't appear as a creepy loner, and things like that.

 

Unless you're going to declare that either All Women or All Rational Women will be reasonably upset when a man does X, then you're not discussing either NAP violations, aggressive actions, moral violations.  You are simply pointing out, "Some women adore it, but some women don't like it." - as if we're discussing Thai food or rap music. 

 

Secondly, one of Roosh's most famous openers is called Pet Shop, where you pose as a newcomer to the city, ask where the nearest pet shop is, and get her phone number.  He recounts the story of a girl who "fell for" the Pet Shop opener, and had been dating him for some time.  She told her mother how they met, and she replied, "I don't think he was really looking for a kitten."  She giggled, beamed, and replied, "I don't think he was, either." 

 

Finally, speaking personally, The Woman Who Loves Me responded very positively to the PUA tactics I used on her in our earliest meetings together, AND she was reading some PUA material while I was using them.  (Naturally, I expect everyone to ignore this, because it's data-that-doesn't-fit-their-presumed-conclusions - but I'm glad I typed it.) 

 

 

 

 

 

Obviously there will be some in fighting between proponents of PUAs about what constitutes "real" PUA and certainly a lot of "not a real scotman" fallacies being used, but from the casual outside observer it sure seems fraudulent.

 

Right.  But look at it from my perspective. 

 

No one wants to discuss which specific actions I've taken to determine whether they're fraudulent.

 

No one wants to explain why they as outside observers get to overrule the emotional reactions that the Women Receiving PUA have. 

 

Everyone wants to reference "aggression", "fraud", "manipulation" and other universally despised behaviors - but no one wants to admit, "Okay, these behaviors are not nearly as universally despised as I first thought." 

 

So, from my perspective, no one wants to directly criticize specific behaviors I'm doing.  Instead, they want to lump me into a category of People They Dislike, without even enumerating what negative behaviors I'm conducting.  (It's all just abstract, non-supported accusations alluded to as if they were "obvious", with no examples directly cited.) 

 

 

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

 

 

 

MMX2010, if you want to talk about being fair, you might want to stop making knowledge statements about what people "actually mean" or what  they want, or what they know, or what they think.

 

If you want to talk about being fair, Carl, you might recognize that I told Kathryn what she didn't do.  She never cited an example of any logical fallacies I committed, and I simply asked her to bring up two examples.

 

Furthermore, everything in the link describes what you said.  It is never unfair to point out what you said, and what you didn't say (but could've). 

 

Lastly, Carl, if you'd like to discuss specific grievances of what happened in that thread, please do so in that thread.  Dragging your objections into this thread is poor form. 

[Frosty]

Ah crap I had a large response written out to this and lost it all by accidentally tapping the back button on my mouse, so this might not be as well composed as I'd hoped.

 

The main issue is two-fold: (1) PUA contains dubious tactics that could be considered fraudulent and in violation of the NAP, but by whom?  If a woman receives a specific PUA tactic, and she smiles, laughs, and hopes for more, isn't that obvious evidence that the NAP wasn't violated, because she didn't react as if she was violently aggressed upon?  (2) Everyone wants to say, "PUA has dubious tactics that could be considered fraudulent and in violation of the NAP." - but no one wants to say, "MMX2010, the specific technique you used on Your Mistress, or on The Woman Who Loves You Violated The NAP Because..."

 

The 2 main points I wanted to make to you were:

 

1) Fraud is part of the NAP, you seem to be under the impression that if someone's response to fraud is positive then it's not a violation of the NAP and this is simply not correct. The only way you can excuse violations of the NAP is when consent to the actions is given. PUAs generally don't act to seek consent and a more general problem with fraud is that it doesn't work when consent is given because in order to be fooled by fraudulent activity you cannot be aware that it's fraudulent.

 

I wouldn't go as far to say that fraud can never be consensual, but the circumstances where it is would be very esoteric and outside of realm of PUA for sure.

 

2) My post was not taking sides, I've not read the whole thread nor do I intend to, it was simply my interpretation of PUA with respect to the NAP, I don't know your circumstance and whether you violated the NAP or not, maybe you only used PUA tactics which aren't fraudulent, but if you did lie either explicitly, implicitly or by omission, in order to manipulate the other person then that's a violation of the NAP regardless of her response during the manipulation. If she is revealed the truth of the lie and then says that the lie was welcomed then that could be considered non aggression.

 

 

Unless you're going to declare that either All Women or All Rational Women will be reasonably upset when a man does X, then you're not discussing either NAP violations, aggressive actions, moral violations.

 

It doesn't always lead to a violation of the NAP, it depends on the disposition of the woman to it and whether she consents to the manipulation or not, acting on the assumption you have consent when you've not confirmed it is always a risky business, and people by and large understand that which is why they have an aversion to PUA, it's certainly not done with good faith, it's done to manipulate a specific outcome and the reason you've got such a disconnect between your position that it's OK as long as they're happy during the manipulation and everyone down voting you is down to this fundamental issue.

 

 

Everyone wants to reference "aggression", "fraud", "manipulation" and other universally despised behaviors - but no one wants to admit, "Okay, these behaviors are not nearly as universally despised as I first thought." 

 

Well all fruad you'd reasonably expect to be despised, where we're getting confused is in saying that all PUA is fraud, I've outlined where it might not necessarily be, however it still remains that the purpose of many PUAs is to manipulate and so my subjective judgement of that is that it's fair to judge PUA as not particularly moral.

 

 

Then there's also the question of what kinds of relatioships PUA programs promote. Do they want you to attract a quality mate, one night stands, flings, or mistresses?

 

Not so much what they promote but what they're capable of providing, Stef has previously pointed out that a lot of good women with self knowledge and an interest in philosophy aren't going to fall for cheap PUA tactics, they're going to look for virtuous behaviour and certainly would not endorse fraud on the part of any potential partner. But then the goal of PUAs I don't think is really relationships, for a lot of them it's just getting laid, although I don't want to speak for all PUAs so I'm sure there's exceptions.

 

 

Your concision and ability to stay on topic is proof that MMX2010's downvotes are due to behaviour, not contrary opinions. Any person with any decent level of self-knowledge would know that they should simply stop engaging and re-read their own posts in the eyes of an outside perspective.

 

True but I'm not a fan of the voting system, I don't see his downvotes as good arguments against his case, I'm not convinced they're a benefit to the forum and getting to the truth of things, seems like there's some mob rule going on. I think I've worked out where at least me and him differ in our opinions (see above) so we'll see how that plays out.

 

He is a little bit irritating sometimes but I value his input and I don't think it's a good thing I now have to expand his posts to read what he has to say, a lot of the ideas and things I think about are born from the conflict and difference of opinion, he often forces me to confront the principles for which I believe things. I'd never considered PUA in terms of the NAP and he forced me to look for the principle that I base lack of morality in PUA, rather than just having it as a gut feeling.

 

We'd all benefit taking it less personally and worry less about anecdotes but rather try and work out the principles of more general cases.

[AncapFTW]

The main issue is two-fold: (1) PUA contains dubious tactics that could be considered fraudulent and in violation of the NAP, but by whom?  If a woman receives a specific PUA tactic, and she smiles, laughs, and hopes for more, isn't that obvious evidence that the NAP wasn't violated, because she didn't react as if she was violently aggressed upon?  (2) Everyone wants to say, "PUA has dubious tactics that could be considered fraudulent and in violation of the NAP." - but no one wants to say, "MMX2010, the specific technique you used on Your Mistress, or on The Woman Who Loves You Violated The NAP Because..."

So, if they don't hate it, it's not bad to do it?  A crack whore will like the fact that I'm giving her some blow for a blowjob, so I'm not exploiting her addiction to get some head.

 

Exploiting peoples psychological problems to get sex out of them sounds like coercion to me, which makes it akin to rape.  For that matter, it doesn't matter what psychological problems you're exploiting, and what you're getting out of it.  If I throw fire crackers on the ground near a vet with PTSD until he gives me money, it's the same thing.

[MMX2010]

So, if they don't hate it, it's not bad to do it?  A crack whore will like the fact that I'm giving her some blow for a blowjob, so I'm not exploiting her addiction to get some head.

 

No.  More like, "If you ball your fist in the air and yell FRAUD, and practically everyone agrees with you, then it's probably fraud; but if you ball your fist in the air and yell FRAUD, and practically no one agrees with you, then it's probably not fraud." 

 

 

 

 

Exploiting peoples psychological problems to get sex out of them sounds like coercion to me, which makes it akin to rape.  For that matter, it doesn't matter what psychological problems you're exploiting, and what you're getting out of it.  If I throw fire crackers on the ground near a vet with PTSD until he gives me money, it's the same thing.

 

Slow down.

 

What gives you the right to assert that every woman who responds positively to any PUA tactic is "psychologically damaged"?  What gives you the right to assert that every man who uses PUA is, in fact, exploiting psychologically damaged women? 

 

Do you understand the seriousness of declaring a large portion of people to be "psychologically damaged" - that you can't "just throw it out there, because you feel it's true"? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 2 main points I wanted to make to you were:

 

1) Fraud is part of the NAP, you seem to be under the impression that if someone's response to fraud is positive then it's not a violation of the NAP and this is simply not correct. The only way you can excuse violations of the NAP is when consent to the actions is given. PUAs generally don't act to seek consent and a more general problem with fraud is that it doesn't work when consent is given because in order to be fooled by fraudulent activity you cannot be aware that it's fraudulent.

 

I agree with you that Fraud is part of the NAP, but my answer to AncapFTW is also relevant to you.  If you ball your fist in the air and say FRAUD and practically everyone agrees, then it's probably fraud, but if practically no one agrees (or if a very sizable minority disagrees), then it's probably not fraud. 

 

I don't know if you've read Kevin Beal's post here - but it's a prime example of a really bad (and frequently stated) anti-PUA argument.  https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43965-friends-with-benefits/page-3#entry403249

 

 

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.

 

His post here is also enlightening: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43965-friends-with-benefits/page-2#entry402820

 

 

 

I also don't like the idea of pretending to be anything other than what I am, especially not for affections of a woman who wouldn't be attracted to the real me. I am not an expert on PUA, but it's my understanding the these men are pretending to be something that they are not so that they can be with women who like them for being something other than what they really are. I don't feel as sorry for the women in that arrangement as I do the men. I've pretended to be someone else enough for one lifetime. And any satisfaction I got by bedding a woman who thought I was something other than what I am, would be a very fleeting satisfaction.

 

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

 

What Fraud were we discussing?  You probably won't believe it, but I swear it's true: The Feigning of Emotional Disinterest, particularly in the beginning stages of the relationship. 

 

This kind of thing happens all the time!  People begin the conversation with assertions that PUA is Fraud, but they apply it to examples like feigning emotional disinterest, which women greatly appreciate, especially in modern times.  Too much emotional sharing, especially at the early stages of the relationship, is needy and low-value.  Period.  And women expect you to magically know this.

 

 

 

 

My post was not taking sides, I've not read the whole thread nor do I intend to, it was simply my interpretation of PUA with respect to the NAP, I don't know your circumstance and whether you violated the NAP or not, maybe you only used PUA tactics which aren't fraudulent, but if you did lie either explicitly, implicitly or by omission, in order to manipulate the other person then that's a violation of the NAP regardless of her response during the manipulation. If she is revealed the truth of the lie and then says that the lie was welcomed then that could be considered non aggression.

 

I'm glad that you're able to consider that not all PUA may be Fraud.  And I'm glad that you're able to focus on specific examples of PUA-endorsed behavior to comment on whether it is Fraud or not. 

 

But I assure you that many members in this thread refuse to do this.  They just "magically know" that all PUA is Fraud.

 

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

 

Edited to add: The most important thing Kevin Beal said is, "I've pretended to be someone else enough for one lifetime. And any satisfaction I got by bedding a woman who thought I was something other than what I am, would be a very fleeting satisfaction."

 

But what does that even mean? 

 

I think he means that he hates not telling women how attractive they are, or how much he loves being with them, or saying I love you right away.  But I'm only guessing what he means because he has never clarified what he meant.

 

All he "knows" is that "pretending to be someone you're not is Fraud" and that "he feels sorry for PUA's" and that "PUA's are acting out of fear".

 

It strikes me as highly prejudicial. 

[kathryn]

 

In another thread, I spoke about a form of art that incorporates the Privileged Position.  Basically, when you look at an artwork from any random spot, the artwork makes no sense.  But when you stand in just the right spot, the Privileged Position, then the artwork suddenly makes sense.  Many people imply that the Privileged Position with PUA (and relationships) is Abstract, Intellectual Distance, meaning, "I don't need to study it up close, nor to I need to personally get involved, to actually get it."  Others, including myself, imply that the Privileged Position is Emotional Closeness, meaning, "I need to get up close to something, and get personally involved with it, in order to actually get it." 

 

 

This comparison you are making not only appeals to authority, but employs strawman and ad hominem as you are calling into question the intelligence of the people in this thread. You are asserting that we just don't get PUA instead of actually addressing the argument. This example is also a red herring as you are attempting to distract by deviating from the topic at hand. 

 

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? 

 

 

And above here you ask multiple loaded questions, where you are attempting to limit the possible responses to serve your own agenda. 

 

 

I have to say that I will be blocking any further posts or messages from you. If you dogmatically believe there is one right way to do things, it does not seem very productive to engage with you. 

 

You may want to listen to this podcast about Changing a Person's Mind. http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/search/252

 

Stef talks about how there are no positions in philosophy, just as there are no positions in science. We are here to explore and find the truth, and I do not believe that is your objective. You seem to have a clear agenda to promote PUA, which feels akin to Jehovah's Witnesses attempting to convert the masses. 

[Frosty]

I agree with you that Fraud is part of the NAP, but my answer to AncapFTW is also relevant to you.  If you ball your fist in the air and say FRAUD and practically everyone agrees, then it's probably fraud, but if practically no one agrees (or if a very sizable minority disagrees), then it's probably not fraud. 

 

I'm glad that you're able to consider that not all PUA may be Fraud.  And I'm glad that you're able to focus on specific examples of PUA-endorsed behavior to comment on whether it is Fraud or not. 

 

But I assure you that many members in this thread refuse to do this.  They just "magically know" that all PUA is Fraud.

 

I only know a small subset of the PUA tactics but it seems to me that some of them are perfectly reasonable, a lot of these things just fall under good dating advice about working out, engaging in activities that raise confidence, dressing well and having some fashion sense. None of these could reasonably be considered in breach of the NAP.

 

However there are some which obviously are, explicit lies and implicit lies come in many different forms and I maintain that these fall under fraud, you're right in taking a more nuanced look at the situation, it's not black and white and depends on a case by case basis and specific actions taken. I'd disagree with any kind of statistical analysis of whether people think certain actions are fraud or not, I think you can objectively determine that.

 

One good rule of thumb that I'd probably go by is try to imagine what the reaction would be like if you disclosed your actual intent, so if you're negging a woman or feigning disinterest, how might she react if you were to just own up what you're consciously doing in hope for an expected positive response, that feeling of being manipulated I'd bet in many cases would be pretty unwelcome.

[Matt D]

My personal opinion is that it's best to combine R-Sexual Strategies with K-Reproductive Strategies. 

.....

 

(4) As soon as a woman wants a baby, the rules are entirely different.  She'll withhold sex from interested men as a way to ensure that they're financially committed to the relationship before she has sex with him. 

....

 

The ultimate result of combining K-sexual strategies with K-reproductive strategies is an immense distrust of women just because they are pretty or dressed really sexy.  That immense distrust of women abandons them to the unscrupulous, non-virtuous men who'll bang them instead.  Then, when young men interested in virtue come to places that claim to be crawling with virtuous people and notice that there aren't any pretty women around, they'll leave for greener pastures.   

 

My solution is to work with beautiful women, knowing that my heart could be crushed, because I refuse to abandon these women to Asshole Men in this Narcissistic, Hedonistic, Non-Empathetic Asshole Culture. 

 

Quitting the game, and then complaining that you're losing, isn't good strategy (no matter what letter you call it). 

 

You're the first person I've ever heard talk about R/K "sexual" strategies instead of reproductive. Not that this makes you wrong, just that it's extremely new to me and contradictory in my mind. I'll explain why.

 

Firstly, if it weren't for contraception you wouldn't be able to make this divide between sex for pleasure and sex for babies. No this doesn't prove anything, but I think it's important to point out that our modern society has taken away most of the consequences that would normally come from the inherently risky 'adult' business of sexual intercourse. Clearly, this is a requirement for the R sexual world we live in. Also, contraception is not 100% as you know. What happens if you roll snake eyes? It would really suck to be that potential fetus who didn't ask for his father and mother to fool around.

 

Secondly, then entire point of the K strategy is to favor long-term gain over short-term gain. I think you're mating advice is the attempt to have your cake and eat it too. Nothing in this world is free. If you want to have sex with lots of women, take on mistresses, and behave in a way I would describe as reckless, you will inevitably face the consequences of your actions later on. This is what Patrick was trying to point out based on his own experience. This isn't to say people who engage in casual sex when they're young can't change their ways once they've learned their lesson, but you have to learn the lesson at some point in order to change.

 

If you accept that men should change their biological drive for R "reproductive" strategies the sake of their children then to be consistent you must also demand that women overcome their biological drive to have sex with the alpha male in order to look out for her future children. I have never once heard you say that women should overcome their sexual drive. You explicitly tell men to give the women what she wants sexually. Perhaps you think there is no choice because women have all the power. That's true but men are the one's giving them that power by white knighting. There's very little different between what PUAs are doing and the 'nice guy' who tries to appease the women. Neither of you are willing to tell the woman no because of this double standard between men and women.

 

---

 

If a woman is dressed in a sexy or overly revealing way, she's telling men something very explicit: "I have power in my sexuality and I'm not afraid to use it because I don't have much else to offer." So you're absolutely right; I don't trust these women. And for good reason.

 

Nobody said we're quitting the game (at least I don't think I've seen any MGTOWs on this thread). We just refuse to play by the PUA rules.

[PatrickC]

One can only hope that MMX has also been driving the Roosh forums bonkers with Philosophy.

[AncapFTW]

No.  More like, "If you ball your fist in the air and yell FRAUD, and practically everyone agrees with you, then it's probably fraud; but if you ball your fist in the air and yell FRAUD, and practically no one agrees with you, then it's probably not fraud." 

 

 

 

 

 

Slow down.

 

What gives you the right to assert that every woman who responds positively to any PUA tactic is "psychologically damaged"?  What gives you the right to assert that every man who uses PUA is, in fact, exploiting psychologically damaged women? 

 

Do you understand the seriousness of declaring a large portion of people to be "psychologically damaged" - that you can't "just throw it out there, because you feel it's true"?

1) Argumentum ad Populum.  Also, that's not implied by what I quoted.

 

2) I didn't say "every woman who responds positively to any PUA tactic is "psychologically damaged"".  I asserted that any woman who responds to you being a jerk to them is likely damaged due to the fact that their fathers/male role models were also jerks.  I also didn't "assert that every man who uses PUA is, in fact, exploiting psychologically damaged women?", just that, again, anyone who acts like a jerk to get women are.

 

Lying to people to get them to do things your way is inherently immoral.  When you do it to specifically get them to make a decision opposite what they would if you told them the truth, it's even worse.

 

"Do you understand the seriousness of declaring a large portion of people to be "psychologically damaged" - that you can't "just throw it out there, because you feel it's true"?"

 

When a large portion of people are psychologically damaged, no, it's not serious.  In fact, almost all people are psychologically damaged in some way.

 

Also, I'm sure you'll have a problem with me saying this, but I doubt you have any respect for these women, as you treat them as something to conquer or possess, not as equals.

[MMX2010]

This comparison you are making not only appeals to authority, but employs strawman and ad hominem as you are calling into question the intelligence of the people in this thread. You are asserting that we just don't get PUA instead of actually addressing the argument. This example is also a red herring as you are attempting to distract by deviating from the topic at hand. 

 

 

This has been happening to me a lot recently.

 

What would happen if you changed the colored-words into "you are calling into question the anti-PUA arguments that people are making in this thread"?  (Would that change be more accurate?  Yes, objectively so.)  (Would an outside-observer conclude that the change is much less accusatory and much less confrontational?  Yes, in all cases.) 

 

So why are you (and many other people) deliberately choosing less accurate and more accusatory descriptions of events? 

 

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

 

Secondly, I'm asserting that you don't understand PUA by asserting that I've read Roosh's manual, which is the most recent and most popular PUA manual, and you haven't.  Is this really an "appeal from authority" OR is it an appeal to closely investigate something before spouting negative opinions about it? 

 

 

 

 

Stef talks about how there are no positions in philosophy, just as there are no positions in science. We are here to explore and find the truth, and I do not believe that is your objective. You seem to have a clear agenda to promote PUA, which feels akin to Jehovah's Witnesses attempting to convert the masses. 

 

It's not convincing to simultaneously say, "We are here to explore and find the truth" and yet refuse to actually read Roosh's PUA manual to see what it actually says. 

You're the first person I've ever heard talk about R/K "sexual" strategies instead of reproductive. Not that this makes you wrong, just that it's extremely new to me and contradictory in my mind. I'll explain why.

 

Firstly, if it weren't for contraception you wouldn't be able to make this divide between sex for pleasure and sex for babies. No this doesn't prove anything, but I think it's important to point out that our modern society has taken away most of the consequences that would normally come from the inherently risky 'adult' business of sexual intercourse. Clearly, this is a requirement for the R sexual world we live in. Also, contraception is not 100% as you know. What happens if you roll snake eyes? It would really suck to be that potential fetus who didn't ask for his father and mother to fool around.

 

No doubt.    Only it's not just contraception.  It's a combination of contraception, women having easy access to relatively stress-free gainful employment, and the police state ensuring child support should she become pregnant with an unsuitable father. 

 

Furthermore, I don't like the word "you" in the following statement: "Firstly, if it weren't for contraception you wouldn't be able to make this divide between sex for pleasure and sex for babies."  The correct version is, "Firstly, if it weren't for contraception women wouldn't be able to..."  I'm not making this distinction.  I'm not enabling women to make this distinction.  Women are making this distinction, because women have the capability and power to make that distinction. 

 

 

 

 

Secondly, then entire point of the K strategy is to favor long-term gain over short-term gain. I think you're mating advice is the attempt to have your cake and eat it too. Nothing in this world is free. If you want to have sex with lots of women, take on mistresses, and behave in a way I would describe as reckless, you will inevitably face the consequences of your actions later on. This is what Patrick was trying to point out based on his own experience. This isn't to say people who engage in casual sex when they're young can't change their ways once they've learned their lesson, but you have to learn the lesson at some point in order to change.

 

Yes, the entire point of the K-strategy is to favor long-term gain over short-term gain.  That is why R-sexual strategies combined with K-reproductive strategies actually do favor long-term gain over short term gain.  Women prefer this method because they can have their cake and eat it, too - just as you described. 

 

Notice how your decision to say "you" instead of "women" has dramatically altered your focus?  From my perspective, you're lecturing me about how women behave, which doesn't make much sense.  What would happen if we properly discussed women's behavior as women's behavior?  What questions would you ask?  What arguments would you make? 

 

 

 

 

If you accept that men should change their biological drive for R "reproductive" strategies the sake of their children then to be consistent you must also demand that women overcome their biological drive to have sex with the alpha male in order to look out for her future children. I have never once heard you say that women should overcome their sexual drive. You explicitly tell men to give the women what she wants sexually. Perhaps you think there is no choice because women have all the power. That's true but men are the one's giving them that power by white knighting. There's very little different between what PUAs are doing and the 'nice guy' who tries to appease the women. Neither of you are willing to tell the woman no because of this double standard between men and women.

 

You misunderstand.  R-sexual strategies combined with K-reproductive strategies are K-reproductive strategies, period.  You can't just re-name them into R-reproductive strategies because it's convenient to you, or because you feel like that's more accurate.  Hence, there is no "double standard for men and women".  I expect both men and women to follow K-reproductive standards for the sake of their future children.

 

Secondly, if you want men and women to adopt K-sexual strategies, then you have to punish all women who follow R-sexual strategies.  The most effective strategy is to never marry an older woman who has had sex with more than three partners.  But two problems exist: (1) The majority of 25+ year old single women in FDR don't live up to this standard.  (2) Stefan's advice to find a virtuous older woman who is less attractive allows women to follow R-sexual strategies.  (Serious question, if you've been dating a woman for two months, and you ask how many sexual partners she has, do you have the lie-detecting ability to discern the correct answer?  If not, how do you prevent her from telling you the wrong answer you want to hear?) 

 

 

If a woman is dressed in a sexy or overly revealing way, she's telling men something very explicit: "I have power in my sexuality and I'm not afraid to use it because I don't have much else to offer." So you're absolutely right; I don't trust these women. And for good reason.

 

As I said earlier, this used to be generally true.  But it is no longer generally true. 

 

 

 

 

Nobody said we're quitting the game (at least I don't think I've seen any MGTOWs on this thread). We just refuse to play by the PUA rules.

 

First of all, they're not "the PUA rules" - because PUAs don't make the rules.  Women make the rules by having sex with certain types of men, while refusing to have sex with other types of men. 

 

Secondly, you're entirely free to refuse to play by women's rules.  But the consequence of doing so is that you'll be outcompeted for sexual access by the men who do play by women's rules.  As long as you can accept this consequence without lying about What Women Are Really Like and What PUAs Are Really Like, then I've no problem with your decision. 

However there are some which obviously are, explicit lies and implicit lies come in many different forms and I maintain that these fall under fraud, you're right in taking a more nuanced look at the situation, it's not black and white and depends on a case by case basis and specific actions taken. I'd disagree with any kind of statistical analysis of whether people think certain actions are fraud or not, I think you can objectively determine that.

 

One good rule of thumb that I'd probably go by is try to imagine what the reaction would be like if you disclosed your actual intent, so if you're negging a woman or feigning disinterest, how might she react if you were to just own up what you're consciously doing in hope for an expected positive response, that feeling of being manipulated I'd bet in many cases would be pretty unwelcome.

 

Two things. 

 

The most important thing is that "PUA Fraud" must be equated to other types of Fraud.  It must have the same consequences as spanking your children, taxing the people, risking peoples' lives by dispensing faulty medical advice, and so on.  So I have a hard time believing that most PUA is fraud. 

 

The second thing is a simple example from today.  I had the following conversation with a woman. 

 

Me:  Do you know the two songs X and Y? 

 

Her:  No, I don't listen to cheesy pop music.  Why do you ask?

 

Me:  Because I've been listening to songs like that to get into the minds of younger women.  Picture me jamming along to that. 

 

Her:  *laughing*  Well you won't be able to listen to that music to get into my mind. 

 

Me:  I sense a great deal of defiance in your voice...

 

Her:  *laughing*  That type of music is only popular with really young girls.  I might've listened to that when I was seven. 

 

Me: *affronted*  Now you're insulting the highly mature women I love.  What's wrong with you? 

 

Me:  *waiting five seconds, then switching to serious and wounded*  Though you might have a point.  My fourteen year old niece rolled her eyes when I told her I like those songs.

 

Her:  *victorious*  Aha!  She and I would get along. 

 

 

The truth of the matter was that I didn't at all sense any defiance in her voice.  I knew that her statement was just a statement of fact.  But, by falsely claiming that I felt defiance, I was able to inject emotional tension in an otherwise non-emotional conversation. 

 

Did I commit fraud in this example? 

 

------

 

More importantly, scientific research repeatedly discovers that women are much better at reading emotional subtext than men.  Do you 100%-reject the possibility that she knew I was kidding when I claimed to sense defiance in her voice, but chose to play along anyway? 

[Frosty]

First of all, they're not "the PUA rules" - because PUAs don't make the rules.  Women make the rules by having sex with certain types of men, while refusing to have sex with other types of men. 

 

Secondly, you're entirely free to refuse to play by women's rules.  But the consequence of doing so is that you'll be outcompeted for sexual access by the men who do play by women's rules.  As long as you can accept this consequence without lying about What Women Are Really Like and What PUAs Are Really Like, then I've no problem with your decision. 

 

Two things. 

 

The most important thing is that "PUA Fraud" must be equated to other types of Fraud.  It must have the same consequences as spanking your children, taxing the people, risking peoples' lives by dispensing faulty medical advice, and so on.  So I have a hard time believing that most PUA is fraud. 

 

It's worth being very careful and very precise about what we're saying here, because we're talking in generalities. Women don't make the rules by having sex with certain types of men, anyone can withhold sex and that's something as a MGTOW I do, now I have way less sex than most men I bet, but I still have sex and it's based on my rules. There is of course an asymmetry to how much and how frequent sex can occur when a women withholds, men have a higher sex drive on average and so there's a high demand from males and lower supply from females giving women higher value in the sexual market place, I don't think anyone would deny that, and you're right when you say you'll be out competed, that might just mean shooting for lower value women.

 

But I'd argue that PUA is only good for picking up women who will be fooled by PUA, I'd also argue that women looking for virtuous men who don't lie and manipulate will probably have a good filter for PUA, some women are aware of PUA and know what to look for and it will just destroy your chances with them, ultimately the long term affects of PUA is to create an opposite womens interest to spot and weed out players which will only amplify this effect.

 

I reject that in order to be fraud is has to have the same consequences, I don't know how you reasoned that. Fraud loosely defined, taken from google

 

"wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain."

 

You are being deceitful with many of the PUA tactics and it does result in personal gain by creating a situation where you acquire a womans interest with the intention of it leading to sex when it otherwise would not have. You seem to be locked into this way of thinking that as long as the outcome is perceived as good and the lie is never uncovered then it's OK, but I wholeheartedly disagree with this. I have already conceded that if you reveal the lie and the woman shows a positive response in being lied to and welcomes that lie because the consquences were positive for her, then that's possibly no fraud and not a violation of the NAP (I'd like to see others weigh in on this idea, is post-hoc consent OK?)

 

 

The truth of the matter was that I didn't at all sense any defiance in her voice.  I knew that her statement was just a statement of fact.  But, by falsely claiming that I felt defiance, I was able to inject emotional tension in an otherwise non-emotional conversation. 

 

Did I commit fraud in this example? 

 

------

 

More importantly, scientific research repeatedly discovers that women are much better at reading emotional subtext than men.  Do you 100%-reject the possibility that she knew I was kidding when I claimed to sense defiance in her voice, but chose to play along anyway? 

 

It seems you did by any common definition of fraud, were you deceitful? Yes I think that's reasonable. Was it to personal gain? Again yes, I think that's reasonable.

 

Yes it's entirely possible it was a game, that you both knew the score and she was testing you in some way to see if you had the guile and balls to follow through, that's entirely plausible and completely valid with regards to the NAP because any violations have to be unwelcomed. But the problem again is that you don't know that ahead of time, you cannot know that unless you actually get consent, and when you don't get consent you're taking a risk. I don't know what the percentage of women would respond positively to the admission of being manipulated but my gut says that it's not very high and that this is more of an excuse to use PUA by throwing up doubts that it's always in violation of the NAP.

 

It's absolutely not 100% always in violation of the NAP for the 2 reasons we've discussed, but you have to differentiate these circumstances and make that effort in order to ensure you're behaving in a universally preferable way, there doesn't seem to be any effort by PUAs in this regards.

[Matt D]

The most effective strategy is to never marry an older woman who has had sex with more than three partners.  But two problems exist: (1) The majority of 25+ year old single women in FDR don't live up to this standard.  (2) Stefan's advice to find a virtuous older woman who is less attractive allows women to follow R-sexual strategies. 

 

 

I guess this is where we differ. You don't think you can win the handful of women who live up to standards of virtue; I think I can, and will. Yes it will be a challenge because of the corrupt world we've inherited and because women largely hold power in sexual relationship. But I like challenges.

 

Ask yourself: When the beauty of your woman fades, what will you be left with?