Friends With Benefits?

[MMX2010]

Which could be why I personally can't do the casual sex thing. I feel like I'd have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to reason myself out of the feelings of attachment, but would be much easier if they were lesser of quality partners. And since lesser quality people are usually the ones that sleep around blindly, and I don't believe in sex with people you can't enjoy the company of, I would much rather stay from it altogether. I've had my flings, but I'm a grown man now, and there's no more time to mess around. I need me some wifey material

 

 

 

Roosh's counter-argument is brilliant and much better matches observable, objective reality than yours. 

 

It begins with three facts. 

 

(1) Who You Really Are is defined as every thought, sensation, and emotion you'll ever have and every action you've undertaken.  Thus, Who You Really Are is a gigantic thing, which you can conceive of as meter stick.  And the only way someone can get a true picture of Who You Really Are is to be magically teleported into your body, from birth, to experience every thought, emotion, sensation you'll ever have and every action you've ever done.  (THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE.)  And the only way someone can get a fuzzy-but-accurate picture of Who You Really Are is to interact with you daily for two years - but that hardly ever happens.

 

(2) When you hit on a woman in a thirty-minute approach, she reacts to How You Present Yourself.  When you go out on a first date, she reacts to How You Present Yourself.  When you participate in a call-in show with Stef, he reacts to How You Present Yourself.  When you participate in an FDR Chat Window, the people react to How You Present Yourself.  When you have a glorious two-month affair with a woman who is very much into philosophy, she reacts to How You Present Yourself.  But in none of those cases will anyone react to Who You Really Are.  

 

(3) How You Present Yourself is so very miniscule compared to Who You Really Are.  Is just is.  It just objectively is.  And How You Present Yourself is best conceived as a millimeter, (probably smaller).

 

===============

 

Accepting these facts leads to some surprising, but unavoidable, conclusions. 

 

(1) Whether you're accepted for How You Present Yourself, or rejected for How You Present Yourself, neither the acceptance nor rejection is ever personal, because personal acceptance/rejection requires that person has a fuzzy-but-accurate picture of Who You Really Are, a process which takes a minimum of two years.

 

(2) The desire to be seen for Who You Really Are based on brief interactions is irrational, because it's impossible for anyone to fulfill that desire.  And all conclusions you make about Who Someone Really Is based on any process besides daily-interaction for two years are always irrational.

 

(3) There is no such thing as a False Persona that masks Who You Really Are, because Who You Really Are is eternally masked by its very bigness.  All Personas are real, because How You Present Yourself is always real, (except when you lie about what you've done). 

 

===============

 

Your statement, "I feel like I'd have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to reason myself out of the feelings of attachment, but would be much easier if they were lesser quality of partners." is double wrong! 

 

(1) The real "mental gymnastics" you perform are desiring to be seen for Who You Really Are as quickly as possible, even though she doesn't really know you, and you don't really know her.  The nagging feeling that you're demanding the impossible, which you wrongfully call "mental gymnastics to reason yourself out of the feelings of attachment", is the truth. 

 

(2) Your conclusion that Who She Really Is, is a "lesser quality partner" is absolutely wrong, because you're drawing this conclusion from brief interactions with her.  Those brief interactions are based on How She Presents Herself, which cannot in that brief time give you a fuzzy-but-accurate picture of Who She Really Is. 

 

 

 

Hmm you bring up a good point, Steve.  I definitely think you can achieve and feel that emotional, intimate, and romantic connection through just conversation.

 

 

If "emotional, intimate, and romantic connection" is achieved when Who You Really Are experiences Who They Really Are, then it's impossible to achieve this through brief conversation.  All you can say is that you aesthetically prefer How Woman #1 Presents Herself over How Woman #2 Presents Herself.  Either way, your preference is impersonal, and therefore not intimate. 

 

 

 

I think the more intellectual and emotional the connection you have with someone, the better the sex would be because it feels a lot less like a transaction, and more of an intimate act where you train your hormones to pair bond with each other. This is why this whole "sex on the first date" culture is actually destructive to love. If sex is the highest value in an intimate relationship and it is given up way too early in the relationship, and you later find that you can barely stand your partner after having copious amounts of sex with them, then it makes the sex disingenuine. Too many dysfunctional relationships rely on sex to just keep things going, and that's all there is, then we are no better than the cavemen we evolved from.

 

All relationships are transactional in the first two years, because both people are using How They Present Themselves in order to meet their present needs. 

 

And "sex on the first date" is not NEARLY as destructive to love as, "How can I speed up the process of getting to know Who You Really Are?  And how can you speed up the process of getting to know Who I Really Am, so we can have intimate, personal connections now?" 

 

There is no way to speed up the process.  To think you've found a way is irrational and destructive, because to think you've found a way is to judge yourself and the entire female gender unfairly. 

 

 

=============

 

Since men have to do all of the approaching, and since being rejected FEELS personal - (even though it totally isn't) - men develop comforting myths in order to keep approaching.  And the most convenient, timeworn myth of all is, "Oh, wow.  That rejection really stung.  But if she only knew the Real Me, Who I Really Am, then she'd accept me."

 

This myth leads to its other equally popular myth, Oh, wow.  That rejection really stung!  My attraction to her must've been really wrong then!  She must be a horrible partner!"

 

Since neither myth is true, and since those myths are both strongly advocated by the men who are most reluctant to have sex, I'm repeating my statement, "Any man who says, 'I don't have nearly as much sex as That Guy Over There, BUT I understand women, sex, and relationships better than he does....' is docked a hundred trillion points." 

[MysterionMuffles]

It seems like the friends with benefits scenario is just letting go of so many personal standards, and I think being entangled in a relationship like that would prevent you from finding the truly virtuous person you want to be with.

 

For myself, I know I am far too emotional to engage in causal sex. I have a hard enough time as it is maintaining boundaries with people. In my experience, if I sleep with someone, they will never leave me alone. 

 

Oxytocin is the bonding chemical. Those hormonal releases during sex create attachment, especially for women, and that can get very confusing when there is no real merit for that attachment. 

Ah yes oxytocin, thanks for giving the word for it. I feel like I'm blindfolded and shooting in the darkness to hit a target without using specific words to explain what I'm talking about

 

Is the oxytocin production much higher for women when they have sex? I thought it just depended on each individual's level of sexual drive?

 

I'm starting to see a pattern here that people who seem the most connected with their emotions are the ones who are less likely to engage in casual sex. I'm not saying people into poly, casual sex, and friends with benefits are sociopaths or anything--though I do wonder to what level they are or are not connected to their emotions in order to separate emotions from sex. From the people I've talked to here, (I won't name names), it appears that the people who are much more comfortable debating abstract philosophical concepts (as opposed to actionable ones), are the ones more likely to be into polyamory and all it entails.

 

I could be wrong though. Just a speculation. I'm just finding that the people who are really into self knowledge are the ones who prefer monogomy because they tend to have a better grasp at what they want in life and love, so there's no need to spread that "love" around amongst various partners. They've already given a lot of it to themselves, and whatever emanates from that gets to be shared with a partner who is deserving of their standards. 

[MMX2010]

I'm starting to see a pattern here that people who seem the most connected with their emotions are the ones who are less likely to engage in casual sex. I'm not saying people into poly, casual sex, and friends with benefits are sociopaths or anything--though I do wonder to what level they are or are not connected to their emotions in order to separate emotions from sex.

 

Not true.  The pattern is that the people who assume that sexual intercourse within the first two years of getting to know someone is personal are the ones least likely to have casual sex. 

 

When I presented the argument that "All personas are genuine personas." and "Because Who You Really Are is so big that no one can see it within the first two years of getting to know you; hence, all sexual intercourse within the first two years is an impersonal reflection of How You Present Yourself.", those arguments were meant to convince people who think "All sex is personal." to change their minds. 

 

In response, no one refuted the argument - (nor attempted to refute the argument) - and no one attempted to change their minds. 

 

This is the behavior of someone so sure that his emotional assessment is accurate - no matter what philosophically rigorous challenges can be mounted against his assessment.   And this behavior leads to the expectation that everyone agree with him, meaning that he can only have sex with people who share his irrationally negative assessment of casual sex. 

 

It is not lost on me that the people who believe "All sex is personal." are both accurately called Sex-Negative (in an increasingly Sex-Positive world) and ironically reflecting the stereotypically 1950's female assessment of sexuality - i.e. "Anyone who has sex with multiple people is corrupted.", "Anyone who can't relate to the female's emotional turmoil surrounding all sexual activity is callous.", "Anyone who has more sexual experience than the concerned and frightened woman should never be taken seriously - because it's impossible for sex with multiple people, of varying ages, levels of intelligence, degrees of emotional expression, and philosophical-understanding to be positively-educational.", and "If we only silently accepted the female-emotional assessment of sexuality, then there would be peace and harmony in all sexual activities." 

[J. D. Stembal]

I'm starting to see a pattern here that people who seem the most connected with their emotions are the ones who are less likely to engage in casual sex. I'm not saying people into poly, casual sex, and friends with benefits are sociopaths or anything--though I do wonder to what level they are or are not connected to their emotions in order to separate emotions from sex. From the people I've talked to here, (I won't name names), it appears that the people who are much more comfortable debating abstract philosophical concepts (as opposed to actionable ones), are the ones more likely to be into polyamory and all it entails.

 

I could be wrong though. Just a speculation. I'm just finding that the people who are really into self knowledge are the ones who prefer monogomy because they tend to have a better grasp at what they want in life and love, so there's no need to spread that "love" around amongst various partners. They've already given a lot of it to themselves, and whatever emanates from that gets to be shared with a partner who is deserving of their standards. 

 

Did you know that men pay women and women pay women just to cuddle?

 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/professional-cuddle-store-cuddle-up-to-me-2014-11?r=US

 

Why is it that men will pay women for what is essentially a long horizontal hug, but not the reverse?

 

I needed sex and intimacy as a crutch for an oxytocin deficiency in my childhood. I was not breastfed. I was not held. I was left alone to weep by myself in my crib. Holding a person and being held feels like the sweetest ecstasy to me. Intercourse is the inevitable result of two people who cuddle long enough because they start to feel the hormonal effects, and misconstrue those feelings for love.

 

Straight men often cuddle with each other because they know the other man is not going to bill for the time.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/01/straight-men-cuddle-guys-study_n_5241953.html

 

Of course, this HufPo article attempts to paint the trend as progressive and new due to rampant trad-con homophobia in older generations, except that cuddling is not sex, otherwise Samantha Hess's business would have to be shut down. They completely ignore the most obvious motive. These men were not held by their mothers, so they hold each other, sensing that deficit in the other. They don't, however, eventually fuck each other unless they are both secretly gay.

 

This is a "no-strings attached" male oxytocin exchange.

[AncapFTW]

I'm starting to see a pattern here that people who seem the most connected with their emotions are the ones who are less likely to engage in casual sex. I'm not saying people into poly, casual sex, and friends with benefits are sociopaths or anything--though I do wonder to what level they are or are not connected to their emotions in order to separate emotions from sex. From the people I've talked to here, (I won't name names), it appears that the people who are much more comfortable debating abstract philosophical concepts (as opposed to actionable ones), are the ones more likely to be into polyamory and all it entails.

 

I could be wrong though. Just a speculation. I'm just finding that the people who are really into self knowledge are the ones who prefer monogomy because they tend to have a better grasp at what they want in life and love, so there's no need to spread that "love" around amongst various partners. They've already given a lot of it to themselves, and whatever emanates from that gets to be shared with a partner who is deserving of their standards. 

Doesn't this preclude the possibility that their "self-knowledge" lead then to disconnect emotions and sex?  What if sex isn't necessarily the emotional rollercoaster people tend to think it is?  What if the connection isn't "instinct", but a learned behavior caused by cultural training from a young age?

 

I think that's likely, considering animals are rarely monogamous, and there are many "primitive" societies in which sex isn't taboo.

[MMX2010]

Doesn't this preclude the possibility that their "self-knowledge" lead then to disconnect emotions and sex? 

 

Yes, but this is by design.  Rainbow Jamz is a sex-negative person, and he peppers his sex-negativity with passive aggressive accusations like "sociopath", "not really interested in self-knowledge", "not really connected with their emotions", and "not really knowing what they want in life".  Sex-negative people simultaneously have less sex than everyone else and suspect that women justly equate sexual experience with the ability to sexually please.  So the sex-negative person needs to disqualify everyone who has had more sex by categorically dismissing their sexual experience and/or personal (or moral) characters. 

 

Anyone with a basic understanding of Game/Pick-Up Artistry can recognize his Disqualification ("I'm better than everyone else who has had more sex than me, period.") and his Beta-Identification Game ("I'm better qualified to have long-term sexual relationships with women, because my being-in-touch with my emotions mirrors the way that women are in touch with their emotions, which is what women always want.").  The notion that stoic, masculine men are better than emotionally introspective men in some cases, as exhibited by the behaviors (i.e. - sexual preferences) of some women, does not enter into his consciousness.  (Or, when it does, it's always because the men is defective, the woman is defective, or both.) 

 

 

What if sex isn't necessarily the emotional rollercoaster people tend to think it is?

 

 

Then he'd have to apologize for insulting everyone who doesn't equate sexuality to emotional tumult and potential danger.  Then he'd have to seriously consider whether his own emotional reactions to sexuality are wrong OR caused by childhood trauma.  Then he'd open himself up to the possibility of changing his mind.

 

 

 

What if the connection isn't "instinct", but a learned behavior caused by cultural training from a young age?

 

 

What if the connection is neither "instinct", nor a "learned behavior caused by cultural training", but a wrongfully-perceived-to-be-uncontrollable reaction stemming from childhood trauma?  (Meaning, that RJ's parents were horrible to him - much like every FDR members parents were horrible to us - but RJ transmuted that parental horror into, "If only I can find a loving, understandable woman to mother me the way I wasn't mothered...")  This aesthetic preference wouldn't be right or wrong, even though it was caused by his bad childhood.  But it would be wrong to: (1) universalize that aesthetic preference as if it stemmed from moral realization, (2) unjustly morally criticize every man who disagrees with him, (3) unjustly morally criticize every woman who prefers not to view sexuality as "woman mothers man to help man heal", and (4) to expect the majority of young, pretty women to view sexuality this way. 

 

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

 

 

Did you know that men pay women and women pay women just to cuddle?

 

http://uk.businessin...me-2014-11?r=US

 

Why is it that men will pay women for what is essentially a long horizontal hug, but not the reverse?

 

I needed sex and intimacy as a crutch for an oxytocin deficiency in my childhood. I was not breastfed. I was not held. I was left alone to weep by myself in my crib. Holding a person and being held feels like the sweetest ecstasy to me. Intercourse is the inevitable result of two people who cuddle long enough because they start to feel the hormonal effects, and misconstrue those feelings for love.

 

 

 

When I read J. D. Silverman's post, I'm filled with sadness over his bad childhood experiences, but I'm also glad that he doesn't moralize his aesthetic preferences for sex and intimacy over the entire human race.  He doesn't say, "Because being held and holding a person feels like the sweetest ecstasy to me, then it ought to feel like the sweetest ecstasy to everyone else.  And everyone who disagrees is probably sociopathic, and/or not really into self-knowledge, and/or not really in touch with their emotions, and/or doesn't really know what they want out of life, and/or prefers discussions over non-actionable abstractions."  And because he doesn't say these things, he is open to trying on an uncomfortable personality which no longer views hugging as ecstasy. 

 

His unwillingness to moralize his preferences makes him open to personal change.  And it makes him much less likely to insult others who don't share his preferences. 

[MysterionMuffles]

Did you know that men pay women and women pay women just to cuddle?

 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/professional-cuddle-store-cuddle-up-to-me-2014-11?r=US

 

Why is it that men will pay women for what is essentially a long horizontal hug, but not the reverse?

 

I needed sex and intimacy as a crutch for an oxytocin deficiency in my childhood. I was not breastfed. I was not held. I was left alone to weep by myself in my crib. Holding a person and being held feels like the sweetest ecstasy to me. Intercourse is the inevitable result of two people who cuddle long enough because they start to feel the hormonal effects, and misconstrue those feelings for love.

 

Straight men often cuddle with each other because they know the other man is not going to bill for the time.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/01/straight-men-cuddle-guys-study_n_5241953.html

 

Of course, this HufPo article attempts to paint the trend as progressive and new due to rampant trad-con homophobia in older generations, except that cuddling is not sex, otherwise Samantha Hess's business would have to be shut down. They completely ignore the most obvious motive. These men were not held by their mothers, so they hold each other, sensing that deficit in the other. They don't, however, eventually fuck each other unless they are both secretly gay.

 

This is a "no-strings attached" male oxytocin exchange.

 

Wow that's interesting. I knew about a woman who charges all people to sleep with her, and that means literally sleep and nothing else. No sex. You cuddle up with her--provided you have taken care of hygiene beforehand--and she lets you cuddle with her sleep with you. I didn't know about men cuddling, I don't see that often. I usually only see women being physically comfortable enough with each other to hold hands, link arms, and even cuddle. I think the woman in the article you shared is a different women from what I remembered, I'm gonna have to double check on that. I forgot about factoring that into this topic so thanks for the share!

[Omegahero09]

I'm starting to see a pattern here that people who seem the most connected with their emotions are the ones who are less likely to engage in casual sex. I'm not saying people into poly, casual sex, and friends with benefits are sociopaths or anything--though I do wonder to what level they are or are not connected to their emotions in order to separate emotions from sex. From the people I've talked to here, (I won't name names), it appears that the people who are much more comfortable debating abstract philosophical concepts (as opposed to actionable ones), are the ones more likely to be into polyamory and all it entails.

 

I could be wrong though. Just a speculation. I'm just finding that the people who are really into self knowledge are the ones who prefer monogomy because they tend to have a better grasp at what they want in life and love, so there's no need to spread that "love" around amongst various partners. They've already given a lot of it to themselves, and whatever emanates from that gets to be shared with a partner who is deserving of their standards. 

 

So then what do you say to the Russell Brands of the world? The men who connect emotionally with women briefly for the sake of it's beauty and because all parties want to?

[MysterionMuffles]

So then what do you say to the Russell Brands of the world? The men who connect emotionally with women briefly for the sake of it's beauty and because all parties want to?

 

If it only happens briefly, how are you sure he's really connecting with them emotionally as opposed to putting the guise of it in order to score?

[Omegahero09]

If it only happens briefly, how are you sure he's really connecting with them emotionally as opposed to putting the guise of it in order to score?

 

You're asking for what cannot be answered for- even the other way around:

 

How are you sure he's presenting the guise of fleeting connection in order to score and not connecting with them emotionally?

 

 

 -----------

 

 

What we're talking about is a philosophy of free-love- which is perfectly moral, voluntary etc etc

[kathryn]

Ah yes oxytocin, thanks for giving the word for it. I feel like I'm blindfolded and shooting in the darkness to hit a target without using specific words to explain what I'm talking about

 

Is the oxytocin production much higher for women when they have sex? I thought it just depended on each individual's level of sexual drive?

 

I'm starting to see a pattern here that people who seem the most connected with their emotions are the ones who are less likely to engage in casual sex. I'm not saying people into poly, casual sex, and friends with benefits are sociopaths or anything--though I do wonder to what level they are or are not connected to their emotions in order to separate emotions from sex. From the people I've talked to here, (I won't name names), it appears that the people who are much more comfortable debating abstract philosophical concepts (as opposed to actionable ones), are the ones more likely to be into polyamory and all it entails.

 

I could be wrong though. Just a speculation. I'm just finding that the people who are really into self knowledge are the ones who prefer monogomy because they tend to have a better grasp at what they want in life and love, so there's no need to spread that "love" around amongst various partners. They've already given a lot of it to themselves, and whatever emanates from that gets to be shared with a partner who is deserving of their standards. 

 

I heard that oxytocin affects women more than men from my therapist, but as I'm doing the research now it seems there is some speculation on how differently it effects the sexes. Studies have conclusively shown that oxytocin creates bonding for both men and women. And keep in mind there are multiple hormones released during sex, like one study I looked at was saying for men it was a combination of vasopressin and oxytocin that created an attachment for male prairie voles. (What prairie voles are I have no idea, lol.) 

 

I agree that the more emotional one is the more difficulties one would have with causal sex, but I think it can still be really tough. The only example I've seen of people waiting to have sex are the super religious, you know? Socially, I think people are really confused by folks who have not had a lot of sexual partners.

 

In order to explain to yourself and others why you are choosing not to sleep around, without the threat of eternal damnation, you do need a deep level of self-knowledge and a strong understanding of your reasons. Because sex feels really good, you know? I've been going through this divorce and feeling really sad, and I've been thinking about sex A LOT. It's so easy to question your principles when you are turned on, lol. So, having that deep understanding is really important to stay strong and not give into temptations. 

 

I just listened to this podcast, and the last caller brings up some of these issues: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/2899

[Kevin Beal]

one study I looked at was saying for men it was a combination of vasopressin and oxytocin that created an attachment for male prairie voles. (What prairie voles are I have no idea, lol.) 

Prairie voles are often held up as the most pair bonded animals on earth. They're rodents and they stick with their partners essentially all the time.

 

These chemicals are meant to create pair bonding behavior in animals, including humans. Casual sex is working against our biology. That's not to say that it's impossible, just so unlikely as to cast doubt on every friends with benefits relationship out there. (I've never heard of it working out well for anyone).

This whole debate reminds me of this video:

 

[MysterionMuffles]

You're asking for what cannot be answered for- even the other way around:

 

How are you sure he's presenting the guise of fleeting connection in order to score and not connecting with them emotionally?

 

 

 -----------

 

 

What we're talking about is a philosophy of free-love- which is perfectly moral, voluntary etc etc

 

Hmm good point. What do you mean by free love? 

 

 

By the way, I haven't made any arguments about having friends with benefits as a moral concern, just questioning if it's emotionally healthy to do.

 

 

Prairie voles are often held up as the most pair bonded animals on earth. They're rodents and they stick with their partners essentially all the time.

 

These chemicals are meant to create pair bonding behavior in animals, including humans. Casual sex is working against our biology. That's not to say that it's impossible, just so unlikely as to cast doubt on every friends with benefits relationship out there. (I've never heard of it working out well for anyone).

This whole debate reminds me of this video:

 

 

Lol" it doesn't usually work out, but it might for us." 

 

I agree with you Kevin, but I'll play devil's advocate and say, "just because you'e never heard of it working out well for anyone, doesn't mean it hasn't!" What do you think of swingers? Take it up a notch and go beyond friends with benefits, what do you, and everyone else think of "open relationships" as described in that video you shared? Emotionally committed, but not physically...

 

To me, again, it does seem like working against biology. Plus, if you already have the emotional connection with someone, why would you need anyone else to have sex with when you can learn and grow in the sack together?

 

I think the numerous partner thing may just be a novelty thing. Yes, people have sex differently, but what's stopping two people with a consistent sexual connection from exploring different ways to do it together instead of trying to get it from other people?

 

 

I heard that oxytocin affects women more than men from my therapist, but as I'm doing the research now it seems there is some speculation on how differently it effects the sexes. Studies have conclusively shown that oxytocin creates bonding for both men and women. And keep in mind there are multiple hormones released during sex, like one study I looked at was saying for men it was a combination of vasopressin and oxytocin that created an attachment for male prairie voles. (What prairie voles are I have no idea, lol.) 

 

I agree that the more emotional one is the more difficulties one would have with causal sex, but I think it can still be really tough. The only example I've seen of people waiting to have sex are the super religious, you know? Socially, I think people are really confused by folks who have not had a lot of sexual partners.

 

In order to explain to yourself and others why you are choosing not to sleep around, without the threat of eternal damnation, you do need a deep level of self-knowledge and a strong understanding of your reasons. Because sex feels really good, you know? I've been going through this divorce and feeling really sad, and I've been thinking about sex A LOT. It's so easy to question your principles when you are turned on, lol. So, having that deep understanding is really important to stay strong and not give into temptations. 

 

I just listened to this podcast, and the last caller brings up some of these issues: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/2899

 

Prairie voes just sound like something from...Little House on the Prairie?

 

Sorry to hear about your impending divorce and I appreciate you keeping me updated on that...if you don't mind me asking, were you ever sexually active with your husband? Did that ever help to some degree maintain your relationship or was it a case where the sex was unsatisfying because the relationship was emotionally unsatisfying? You don't have to answer these questions, and I'm sorry if you don't want to share those details on a post for anyone else outside of the chatroom to see.

 

Hm I think it's really hard to question your principles when you're turned on. There's a divide between the reptilian brain and the frontal cortext. Know how people say "my mind says no, but my heart says yes"? I don't think they're talking about their hearts in that case. I met a woman recently, she is extremely attractive. Total 9. Our first conversation was engaging and fun, and as much as I wanted to admire her committment to her job, there was something frantic about her demeanour that I couldn't jive with.

 

I talked to her more over the course of the past few months and started learning that her success is coming at the cost of her personal relationships. I respect and sometimes even envy how much drive she has for her job, but it's turning out that she is closed off from any emotional connectivity. She actively chooses to keep to herself and not pursue any personal relationships, nor a romantic relationship. She has a friend with benefits, and that's about it. Otherwise, her entire life is surrounded by work. 

 

I prefer someone who is open and willing to connect beyond flesh, and the lifestyle she lives, I don't have anything against. But learning about it finally made sense out of why I didn't feel particularly drawn to her despite of her beyond the physical level. I guess I would say that it's easy to question your principles when you're turned on with when you've reached a level of self knowledge. I've had some close calls and strange romantic relationships the past few years that have given me a ton of insight on how unconscious my attractions used to be.

 

Now that I've cut through most of the irrationalities and old patterns from my psyche, I am now able to resist pursuing someone who I don't feel compatible with myself at the level of the mind and heart--and as for the physical part? Well yeah, I still think she's super hot, but a lot of that attractiveness went down by a couple points when I found out that she has closed her heart off to any emotional connectivity.

 

Could I be the guy who can change that for her? Maybe, if I tried hard enough. I've succeeded at it before with my last girlfriend, but at a cost of my own happiness. I would much rather go for someone who already is emotionally connected with themselves, and willing to connect emotionally with others.

[MMX2010]

These chemicals are meant to create pair bonding behavior in animals, including humans. Casual sex is working against our biology. That's not to say that it's impossible, just so unlikely as to cast doubt on every friends with benefits relationship out there. (I've never heard of it working out well for anyone).

 

My counter-argument is as follows:  (1) We both agree that pretty much everyone is traumatized by their parents, and we both agree that this traumatization negatively impacts all future adult relationships.  (2) We also both agree that the primary form of traumatization is "lack of emotional connection" - (detailed thoroughly by J D Silverman above), so we must conclude that the primary form of the cure is "presence of emotional connection".  (Simply put, if a man's disease is caused by lack of water, we infer that the disease will be cure (or lessened) by giving him more water.)  (3) So, basically, the majority male population between the ages of 18 and 30 consists of men who weren't nurtured enough, and who have concluded that emotional nurturing from women is the cure that they need. 

 

(4) But women aren't biologically inclined to nurture men; they're biologically inclined to nurture children.  And when men become emotionally needy, expecting nurturance from their women, women become turned off.  (I've had routine Skype conversations with many women in FDR, and all of them have echoed this theme.) 

 

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

 

So my ultimate argument is: (1) The men who so strongly push "emotional connection" with women - (especially younger women who have a lot of male suitors) - are doing so because of childhood trauma.  (2) If those men weren't traumatized that way, they'd act differently.  (3) Pick-Up Artistry is nothing more than a man pretending not to be like that, so that he can reinforce the constant pretending, so that he can crystallize and habituate the pretense, thereby genuinely becoming not-like-that.  (4) The act of introspection, especially through therapy, intensifies the focus on "emotional connection" - which makes the "turning off of women effect" more and more pronounced.  (5) At about age 27, a small percentage of women begin to seek "emotional connection" at the same level of these traumatized men; and by about age 33, the majority of women begin to seek this "emotional connection".  So the majority of "both of us went to therapy, and then we met and fell in love" marriages involve older men with few sexual partners marrying older women with an unknown number of sexual partners. 

 

(6) Casual sex, especially when younger women are involved, is a marked rejection of the desire for "emotional connection" with their same-aged traumatized male peers.  They would rather be with a man who's aloof to them - because at least he's not needy.  Casual sex, therefore, is not "working against our biology" - but is rather a clarion warning that the majority of men are working against our biology. 

 

Men simply cannot be needy, not when they seek sex and (eventual) emotional commitment from young, fertile females. 

[Matt D]

Hi again. I know I dropped a bomb of an article and then disappeared. I swear, the responses I think will get comments never do and the ones I don't... it's called Murphey's Law, right?

 

 

 

Having conversations with people I find brings about a state similar on which I can judge whether or not the sex would be good with them.  Certain people I feel tense around, or I feel they are withholding or dishonest or dangerous, other people I feel relaxed around, jovial, honest and well connected.  I can use these biological markers / feelings of comfort/joy/happiness to choose who I have sex with.  I don't need to have sex with someone to figure these things out.

Can you really tell how good the sex will be just from talking to the person? I think the purpose of examining a person's character isn't so you can have a better orgasm, it's so you can figure out if you'd potentially spend the rest of your life with the person. Otherwise I agree with you, Eh Steve. But I would add it's also a social responsibility to make sure your friends are hooking up for the right reasons.

 

 

I would argue that we're a sexually reproducing species, so any argument which begins, "I don't have sex, but...." or "You don't need to have sex to...." is automatically docked 100 goals.  (It's like spotting the opposing team 100 goals, but trying to win the game anyway.) 

 

The argument isn't that you will never have sex, but that you will defer sexual gratification for the sake of reproduction. This is the "K reproductive strategy". If you don't want to have kids then you are definitely not contributing to the reproductive goal of the species.

 

It seems like the friends with benefits scenario is just letting go of so many personal standards, and I think being entangled in a relationship like that would prevent you from finding the truly virtuous person you want to be with.

 

For myself, I know I am far too emotional to engage in causal sex. I have a hard enough time as it is maintaining boundaries with people. In my experience, if I sleep with someone, they will never leave me alone. 

Oxytocin is the bonding chemical. Those hormonal releases during sex create attachment, especially for women, and that can get very confusing when there is no real merit for that attachment. 

Yes, women produce more oxytocin, sometimes called the empathy hormone, than men who produce more testosterone. I have heard the opposite, that men get more attached to their sexual partners than women. I don't have the biological explanation to prove my case, however. Look up Paul Zac on TED, who has a great talk on oxytocin. 

 

 

(3) How You Present Yourself is so very miniscule compared to Who You Really Are.  Is just is.  It just objectively is.  And How You Present Yourself is best conceived as a millimeter, (probably smaller).

 

=============

 

Since men have to do all of the approaching, and since being rejected FEELS personal - (even though it totally isn't) - men develop comforting myths in order to keep approaching.  And the most convenient, timeworn myth of all is, "Oh, wow.  That rejection really stung.  But if she only knew the Real Me, Who I Really Am, then she'd accept me."

 

This myth leads to its other equally popular myth, Oh, wow.  That rejection really stung!  My attraction to her must've been really wrong then!  She must be a horrible partner!"

 

Since neither myth is true, and since those myths are both strongly advocated by the men who are most reluctant to have sex, I'm repeating my statement, "Any man who says, 'I don't have nearly as much sex as That Guy Over There, BUT I understand women, sex, and relationships better than he does....' is docked a hundred trillion points." 

 

I'll challenge you on this MMX because I like to do that whenever someone uses the words "It just objectively is".

 

I'll put forth that you can tell quite a lot about Who A Person Is just from body language, context, and instinct. Even if the other person is presenting themselves falsely, that too is something you can pick up on. "We're all geniuses" is a phrase I've heard thrown around from this one philosopher guy on the internet.

 

--

 

You missed a third myth, which is "This girl is rejecting me because I'm bad with women".  The reason it's a myth is because it doesn't focus on how the guy feels about her, other than horny. Confidence doesn't come out of domination, it comes out of trusting your own feelings, which has a lot to do with my point above. 

 

 

In order to explain to yourself and others why you are choosing not to sleep around, without the threat of eternal damnation, you do need a deep level of self-knowledge and a strong understanding of your reasons. Because sex feels really good, you know? I've been going through this divorce and feeling really sad, and I've been thinking about sex A LOT. It's so easy to question your principles when you are turned on, lol. So, having that deep understanding is really important to stay strong and not give into temptations. 

 

I agree with you about self-knowledge, Kathryn.  It's true, sex feels really good. I like this poem:

 

Nymph! Why didst thou tempt me so?
And pray tell why thou tempst me still!
Though sense bid I let thy mem'ry go,
my heart keep'th thee against my will.

 

 

I struggle with what to say to people who just got out of a divorce. I don't think sympathy is necessarily due because you obviously played a part in it. Let me just say, that really sucks... And not in the oral way.

[Kevin Beal]

My counter-argument is as follows:  [series of logical steps]

Thanks! I really really appreciate you stepping me through the logic there. I find that makes conversation much more productive and enjoyable.

 

I think that it was a bit of an overstatement for me to say that casual sex works against biology, without the important caveat that there are different mating strategies that us humans are wired for. It is working against the purpose of oxytocin, an important part of our biology. The effects of which are very powerful. So, the argument is basically:

 

1. Oxytocin is seen in mammals with a very close positive correlation with pair bonding in that species.

2. Sex is one place that oxytocin is released, and breastfeeding is another, and other situations where bonding is important for survival.

3. Humans produce a lot of oxytocin and the effect of it is an increased bond, attachment.

4. When people engage in activities that serve to create an attachment, while trying to maintain a lack of attachment, this will be difficult, if not effectively impossible.

5. Being that I've never heard of it leading to anywhere but resentment after things are complicated by the introduction of this attachment, I'm inclined to think that it's impossible, rather than unlikely.

 

I can't really argue with you about the desire to be nurtured bit, though. That does, apparently seem to turn a lot of women off. I do wonder though about the exact context. To analogize with the sexes reversed, if someone asked me "do you find Julie Benz sexy?" I would say "hell yea, I do" and I find most models of the magazine cover variety hot. But I also find other body types attractive as well. Like, if you asked me "do you find fat women sexy", I'm going to say "nope". But there are some body types with some extra meat on their bones that I really like a lot. I've been surprised by just how much. I've heard the same thing from other guys.

 

If lots of men are pushing for emotional connection with their romantic interests because of childhood neglect and denial of affection, that statement alone paints a picture which may not be the reality. It could be the case that it's because of his history that he's learned the importance of emotional connection, rather than some compulsive, unconscious and neurotic thing he's trying to use the woman for.

 

Full disclosure, I have this same wound, and the same desire, so I have a bias. Perhaps it's wishful thinking, and if so, I'm not really in a position to tell the casual sexers that they are engaged in wishful thinking. Definitely something to be mindful of, so thanks for challenging me on it.

[MMX2010]

 

The argument isn't that you will never have sex, but that you will defer sexual gratification for the sake of reproduction. This is the "K reproductive strategy". If you don't want to have kids then you are definitely not contributing to the reproductive goal of the species.

 

 

I know what K-strategy is, but not nearly everyone who practices K-strategy will successfully reproduce.  And if they don't reproduce, they're not exactly following K-strategy. 

 

 

 

I'll challenge you on this MMX because I like to do that whenever someone uses the words "It just objectively is".

 

I'll put forth that you can tell quite a lot about Who A Person Is just from body language, context, and instinct. Even if the other person is presenting themselves falsely, that too is something you can pick up on. "We're all geniuses" is a phrase I've heard thrown around from this one philosopher guy on the internet.

 

 

Right.  I've heard him say that, but there's a problem. 

 

He's an older alpha male, who has clearly mastered the three-circle Venn diagram I've repeatedly posted.  That makes him a genius.  But he's advising much younger, decidedly non-alpha males who've not yet mastered those three circles.  So when he says, "After a ten minute conversation with her, I knew she wasn't right for me...", I'm inclined to believe him - but when one of his followers says the same thing, I'm much more skeptical. 

 

------

 

And your argument doesn't particularly address my points: (1) Because it takes about two years to get a fuzzy picture of Who Someone Really Is, everyone judges you by How You Present Yourself unless they've known you for about two years.  (2) This means that all relationships that are shorter than two years are determined by How You Present Yourself, rather than Who You Really Are.  (2a) It is also true that the majority of deep personal changes come from a "Fake It Until You Make It" mantra, which means How You Present Yourself should be your main focus when meeting new people - NOT an introspective, "How do I feel about that person?" monologue which ruins Your Presentation. 

 

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

 

By the way, the few studies that attempted to determine "ability to spot liars" as a product of profession concluded that no professions are statistically better at spotting liars.  We tend to believe, because it's convenient to believe.

 

 

You missed a third myth, which is "This girl is rejecting me because I'm bad with women".  The reason it's a myth is because it doesn't focus on how the guy feels about her, other than horny. Confidence doesn't come out of domination, it comes out of trusting your own feelings, which has a lot to do with my point above.

 

 

Domination?

 

When I use CTRL + FIND on the words "dominate", "domination", "control", "manage", "coerce", and "force" - those words don't match anything I said. 

 

Now, it's quite possible I missed where I endorsed such "domination".  So if you'd kindly point out where you think I've endorsed "domination", I'll gladly clarify. 

 

But if you don't explain yourself, I'll be extraordinarily annoyed and sad that you used such an aggressive word on a Libertarian/Anarchist message board without any evidence.  

[kathryn]

Prairie voes just sound like something from...Little House on the Prairie?

 

Sorry to hear about your impending divorce and I appreciate you keeping me updated on that...if you don't mind me asking, were you ever sexually active with your husband? Did that ever help to some degree maintain your relationship or was it a case where the sex was unsatisfying because the relationship was emotionally unsatisfying? You don't have to answer these questions, and I'm sorry if you don't want to share those details on a post for anyone else outside of the chatroom to see.

 

Hm I think it's really hard to question your principles when you're turned on. There's a divide between the reptilian brain and the frontal cortext. Know how people say "my mind says no, but my heart says yes"? I don't think they're talking about their hearts in that case. I met a woman recently, she is extremely attractive. Total 9. Our first conversation was engaging and fun, and as much as I wanted to admire her committment to her job, there was something frantic about her demeanour that I couldn't jive with.

 

I talked to her more over the course of the past few months and started learning that her success is coming at the cost of her personal relationships. I respect and sometimes even envy how much drive she has for her job, but it's turning out that she is closed off from any emotional connectivity. She actively chooses to keep to herself and not pursue any personal relationships, nor a romantic relationship. She has a friend with benefits, and that's about it. Otherwise, her entire life is surrounded by work. 

 

I prefer someone who is open and willing to connect beyond flesh, and the lifestyle she lives, I don't have anything against. But learning about it finally made sense out of why I didn't feel particularly drawn to her despite of her beyond the physical level. I guess I would say that it's easy to question your principles when you're turned on with when you've reached a level of self knowledge. I've had some close calls and strange romantic relationships the past few years that have given me a ton of insight on how unconscious my attractions used to be.

 

Now that I've cut through most of the irrationalities and old patterns from my psyche, I am now able to resist pursuing someone who I don't feel compatible with myself at the level of the mind and heart--and as for the physical part? Well yeah, I still think she's super hot, but a lot of that attractiveness went down by a couple points when I found out that she has closed her heart off to any emotional connectivity.

 

Could I be the guy who can change that for her? Maybe, if I tried hard enough. I've succeeded at it before with my last girlfriend, but at a cost of my own happiness. I would much rather go for someone who already is emotionally connected with themselves, and willing to connect emotionally with others.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[MMX2010]

Thanks! I really really appreciate you stepping me through the logic there. I find that makes conversation much more productive and enjoyable.

 

I think that it was a bit of an overstatement for me to say that casual sex works against biology, without the important caveat that there are different mating strategies that us humans are wired for. It is working against the purpose of oxytocin, an important part of our biology. The effects of which are very powerful. So, the argument is basically:

 

1. Oxytocin is seen in mammals with a very close positive correlation with pair bonding in that species.

2. Sex is one place that oxytocin is released, and breastfeeding is another, and other situations where bonding is important for survival.

3. Humans produce a lot of oxytocin and the effect of it is an increased bond, attachment.

4. When people engage in activities that serve to create an attachment, while trying to maintain a lack of attachment, this will be difficult, if not effectively impossible.

5. Being that I've never heard of it leading to anywhere but resentment after things are complicated by the introduction of this attachment, I'm inclined to think that it's impossible, rather than unlikely.

 

It's a good argument when you assume that casual sex is a "problem" - but I view casual sex as a solution. 

 

The real problem begins with the fact that women reach peak Sexual Market Value at age 23, but men reach theirs at age 36.  So a girl is born into a world of plenty, since her parents, the media, and the educational system are all designed to bolster her self-esteem.  (The most cynical way I've heard this phrased: "Young girls always talk about how nice everyone is.  But they grow up and insist that the entire world has turned mean.  Silly woman, the world has always been mean: you just got old.") 

 

That fact leads to the problem, which is, "Every young woman has a ton of male suitors, all of whom promise commitment and love - but few of whom can deliver on that promise over a lifetime."  (Men interpret this problem as, "Asshole Men" versus "Good Men", but it's more complex than that. Most "Good Men" severely over-estimate their abilities to provide for women's needs, without being deliberately exploitive and mean.  So most "Good Men" aren't Asshole Men, but they're not Good Men either.)  (Men also fail to realize that there's no Halo.  Virtuous Men don't glow a special color, wear special clothes, or uniquely respond to ultra-violet light; we look exactly like Non-Virtuous Men.) 

 

The ideal strategy for men and women is for a woman to commit (when she's 23) to a man who becomes awesome at 36, and who stays loyal.  The man with potential.  The man her parents approve of.  But this ideal strategy is terrible for women when she picks the wrong man.....and all of the men look the same.....and she's not going to refuse to sleep with men - (since it's the men's fault for not being obviously awesome). 

 

So....casual sex is the solution.     It's a way for her to have relationships without bonding with the man she's having sex with - (because he's not entirely worth bonding to right now, since she doesn't know his potential, nor his loyalty). 

 

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

 

I have no problem with the solution - because I've adapted to it: bang first, then introduce a deeper picture of Who I Really Am. 

 

*NOT* introduce a deeper picture of Who I Really Am - (because she's not old enough, wise enough, nor interested enough to get a deeper picture of what a stranger is actually like) - then bang. 

 

 

I can't really argue with you about the desire to be nurtured bit, though. That does, apparently seem to turn a lot of women off. I do wonder though about the exact context.

 

 

Next time we Skype, I'll tell you a relevant story. 

 

 

 

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

 

 

If lots of men are pushing for emotional connection with their romantic interests because of childhood neglect and denial of affection, that statement alone paints a picture which may not be the reality. It could be the case that it's because of his history that he's learned the importance of emotional connection, rather than some compulsive, unconscious and neurotic thing he's trying to use the woman for.

 

Full disclosure, I have this same wound, and the same desire, so I have a bias. Perhaps it's wishful thinking, and if so, I'm not really in a position to tell the casual sexers that they are engaged in wishful thinking. Definitely something to be mindful of, so thanks for challenging me on it.

 

 

 

I don't categorically oppose therapy, the acquisition of self-knowledge through introspection, and a male's desire for emotional intimacy from women.  But I do understand the odds.    Most men use these things because they're scared of being rejected and/or scared of making a long-term investment with The Wrong Woman - but these fears ruin the process.  A man must be fearless to acquire the best woman he can get.  It has always been this way.

 

If it helps, you're the one man in this thread whom I most assume isn't fearful - and Rainbow Jamz's "I No Want Sex With Sofia Vergara Because She Worky Too Damn Much" and Matt D's "MMX2010 endorses domination!" posts strike me as insincere revelations of fearfulness.  (And FDR's vehement opposition to Pick-Up Artistry also strikes me as fearful.)

[Kevin Beal]

I don't categorically oppose therapy, the acquisition of self-knowledge through introspection, and a male's desire for emotional intimacy from women.  But I do understand the odds.    Most men use these things because they're scared of being rejected and/or scared of making a long-term investment with The Wrong Woman - but these fears ruin the process.  A man must be fearless to acquire the best woman he can get.  It has always been this way.

 

If it helps, you're the one man in this thread whom I most assume isn't fearful - and Rainbow Jamz's "I No Want Sex With Sofia Vergara Because She Worky Too Damn Much" and Matt D's "MMX2010 endorses domination!" posts strike me as insincere revelations of fearfulness.  (And FDR's vehement opposition to Pick-Up Artistry also strikes me as fearful.)

Part of the reason I entered therapy was because of this fear. I've passed up opportunities to date because of this fear before and since therapy. I'm not any kind of authority on women or dating. I don't know if this fear saved me or hurt me. In some cases, it certainly did help me to avoid some potentially very unhappy relationships, and other's I'm less sure.

 

To my surprise, I have had some limited success focusing on being my charming and funny self rather than my fearless self. I might have better luck trying out the fearless thing, but whenever I try and pushed past or ignore my fear, I only ever end up amplifying the fear (at least, with women). When it comes to fear and things I want very badly, it often has to become the case that the fear of not getting it surpasses the fear of trying and failing. Instant video pornography probably hurts me then, for this reason: because it keeps me somewhat satisfied.

 

I suspect that everyone is fearful, but that could just be me mistaking myself for the world. I don't really see anything wrong with fear, except when it affects your game face when you are trying to get a woman's phone number. Fear has been a huge motivator in my life and has helped me achieve a lot. (Not that I'm super successful or anything).

 

I'm sort of counting on the fact that some women will not completely ignore what they pretty universally find attractive in men, but know what she wants in terms of virtue. That is, to start with virtue at the beginning. (Virtues beyond confidence). I have found and seen in others that one problem with waiting to share your actual thoughts and feelings about the other person and the relationship adds increasing complexity in the form of mismatched expectations, how invested you become in maintaining the mask, etc.

 

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.

 

To me, it's like two opposing worldviews that I can neither reconcile, nor abandon. I want to be my sensitive self which I like, and I also want to be my assertive self like I know that women like. I imagine the solution is some combination of the two, but I don't know what that looks like, necessarily. I just know that I don't want to be valued for something that I'm not, and I know that I want to be attractive to good women. I want to induce drooling and weak knees with my normal charming self

[Omegahero09]

I'm sort of counting on the fact that some women will not completely ignore what they pretty universally find attractive in men, but know what she wants in terms of virtue. That is, to start with virtue at the beginning. (Virtues beyond confidence). I have found and seen in others that one problem with waiting to share your actual thoughts and feelings about the other person and the relationship adds increasing complexity in the form of mismatched expectations, how invested you become in maintaining the mask, etc.

 

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.

 

To me, it's like two opposing worldviews that I can neither reconcile, nor abandon. I want to be my sensitive self which I like, and I also want to be my assertive self like I know that women like. I imagine the solution is some combination of the two, but I don't know what that looks like, necessarily. I just know that I don't want to be valued for something that I'm not, and I know that I want to be attractive to good women. I want to induce drooling and weak knees with my normal charming self

 

It's only for pretend, if you're pretending.

 

The difference is this: are you totally confident, cool, and could give a shit whether the girl before you is into you or not? Or is it an act to collect the number?

 

PUA is manipulation if the dude isn't fully developed as a man, into his maturity as a masculine agent of his own desires. If you've never been confident in talking to women, then of course talking to women is going to be weird.

 

But that's why Game and PUA is a thing- it's our tools as men who don't know how to talk to women (or how to keep them or understand them biologically etc) because those who never learned it... never learned it. Ideally you learn it from your father. I didn't from mine, 'cause he abandoned my family (*spits on the ground*), so I had to learn it from the manosphere, as do so many other men. The star quarterback never needs to study Game, because he has practiced it since high school, without even knowing it.

 

Game only exists as it does now, because so many people don't know how to Game.

 

 

 

So the million dollar question is this: if applying Game for you right now is manipulation, how do you apply Game- without it being manipulation?

[Kevin Beal]

So the million dollar question is this: if applying Game for you right now is manipulation, how do you apply Game- without it being manipulation?

Again, I'm no expert, but my understanding is that PUA is about presenting a certain image for a desired effect, in the same way that lying on a job resume is presenting an image of the perfect employee for the effect of getting the job.

 

Provoking insecurity, lying about the amount of money you make, feigning disinterest are all examples that I've heard from pick up artists. Being confident, being responsible and assertive and things like that are pretty universal and not particular to PUA and would be part of any relationship advice column. I might have a distorted version of PUA in my mind, but I don't think that PUA and Game are synonymous.

 

Also, I don't think that not caring if she says yes or no is necessarily a good thing.

 

I kind of think that you need both the father and the mother involved in teaching these things. A mother who's honest about how women operate, and a father who helps you see that what women say they want is not always what they really want. (I got neither). It's women's interests we are talking about after all, and I don't know what it's like to be a woman.

 

If someone who was not a programmer was talking with authority to know even better than programmers how programmers think, it would kind of annoy me. And there is a lot of outrage about PUA from women. I'm inclined to think that not all of it is mindless hysteria.

 

I think that PUA may help to pick up where the father lacked, but I think that there is another dimension to it worth exploring.

 

I think it would be really awesome to hear from more of the ladies if they are reading this.

[Matt D]

I know what K-strategy is, but not nearly everyone who practices K-strategy will successfully reproduce.  And if they don't reproduce, they're not exactly following K-strategy. 

 

 

 

 

 

Right.  I've heard him say that, but there's a problem. 

 

He's an older alpha male, who has clearly mastered the three-circle Venn diagram I've repeatedly posted.  That makes him a genius.  But he's advising much younger, decidedly non-alpha males who've not yet mastered those three circles.  So when he says, "After a ten minute conversation with her, I knew she wasn't right for me...", I'm inclined to believe him - but when one of his followers says the same thing, I'm much more skeptical. 

 

------

 

And your argument doesn't particularly address my points: (1) Because it takes about two years to get a fuzzy picture of Who Someone Really Is, everyone judges you by How You Present Yourself unless they've known you for about two years.  (2) This means that all relationships that are shorter than two years are determined by How You Present Yourself, rather than Who You Really Are.  (2a) It is also true that the majority of deep personal changes come from a "Fake It Until You Make It" mantra, which means How You Present Yourself should be your main focus when meeting new people - NOT an introspective, "How do I feel about that person?" monologue which ruins Your Presentation. 

 

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

 

By the way, the few studies that attempted to determine "ability to spot liars" as a product of profession concluded that no professions are statistically better at spotting liars.  We tend to believe, because it's convenient to believe.

 

 

 

 

Domination?

 

When I use CTRL + FIND on the words "dominate", "domination", "control", "manage", "coerce", and "force" - those words don't match anything I said. 

 

Now, it's quite possible I missed where I endorsed such "domination".  So if you'd kindly point out where you think I've endorsed "domination", I'll gladly clarify. 

 

But if you don't explain yourself, I'll be extraordinarily annoyed and sad that you used such an aggressive word on a Libertarian/Anarchist message board without any evidence.  

 

I feel a lot of anticipation answering this, which could mean a number of things. But let's continue. 

 

Can you give me a definition of "Who Someone Really Is"? To me this sounds a lot like the terms 'identity' or 'soul' which are used by politicians and priests to give or withdraw a need that hollow people are desperate to fill. I do believe that people will behave predictably over a period of time. What I mentioned earlier was simply that how people present themselves in a given context (let's say a first date) tells you a lot of signs about how they will behave in the future. Reading these signs requires self-knowledge, I completely agree with you there.

 

I'm not clear on why asking yourself "how do I feel about this person?" ruins your presentation with a quality date. I'm not saying I'm great at this, but I think any decent woman would respect if you process your feelings and say something like, "I'm really enjoying our conversation. I want to keep talking more." or "Sorry, I'm not enjoying this. But thanks for your time."

 

---

 

Yes, domination. I know you aren't advocating rape or force. However, I don't think domination or manipulation would be a mischaracterization of your position from what I've read so far. Sex is inherently an act which puts the male in a position of dominance over a woman. You asked earlier:

 

And did he introduce her to philosophy?  Did he sleep with her first, so that she'd be more willing to listen to him, and then introduce her to philosophy? 

 

Why do you have to sleep with a woman in order to increase her willingness to listen to you about philosophy? Assuming this is true (I don't think it's necessarily and universally true, but you could be right in most cases), it works because you assert your dominance over her and her hormones send the signals to her brain that lets down her defenses. Is that a fair summary of the behind-the-scenes female biology?

 

 

So the million dollar question is this: if applying Game for you right now is manipulation, how do you apply Game- without it being manipulation?

 

The idea "fake it till you make it" implies that you have to manipulate until it doesn't feel like manipulation anymore. I'm not saying you are advocating that technique, I just wanted to point out the contradiction. If you have to fake it, even if only initially, then it's manipulative.

 

I can't seem to understand the strategy for dating which says, "I'm going to intentionally not communicate my honest emotional experience with the girl until I can get her into bed with me, and then after that we're going to flip things around and be honest with each other." I just haven't seen this work out well between couples. More sex in the short term generally means less sex in the long term.

[MMX2010]

Again, I'm no expert, but my understanding is that PUA is about presenting a certain image for a desired effect, in the same way that lying on a job resume is presenting an image of the perfect employee for the effect of getting the job.

 

The blue is correct, but the red is incorrect. 

 

The blue provokes both the less important question, "Why do you Present Yourself like that?"  (Because you want her to be pleased with How You Present Yourself.) and the very important question, "Why does she want you to Present Yourself That Way?" 

 

The shortest answer I can give is: (1) Pretty much all conclusions about human sexuality stem from important research done in the 1950s and earlier, and the chief conclusion is that "Women are attracted to resources."  (2) However, in modern times, women have so much more sexual freedom than that our "attracted to resources" conclusion is extremely flawed.  (2) When a woman is between 18 and 27, she isn't thinking about long-term romantic stability, preferring instead excitement, fun, and emotional distance.  (3) Young men prizing emotional closeness invest a boatload of emotional energy into their relationships, which reduces the overall energy available for making money, building a stronger body, and so on. (4) Young men prizing emotional closeness are also much more likely to "rage out" by committing those horrible "stalker-like" behaviors, including the violent ones.  (5) The emotionally aloof younger men are much more likely to acquire resources, and are therefore the better bet in terms of both resources and non-stalker behavior.

 

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

 

The red is incorrect because "lying about your resume" involves falsifying observably verifiable statements.  If I say I was CEO of Microsoft, but I wasn't - that's lying on your resume.  However, if I really like a chick, but lean back in my chair and look sideways over my shoulder at her, that's presenting a false image.  BUT there's no way she can peak inside my brain and say, "AHA!  You appear to be emotionally aloof the way I want my men to be, but you're actually oh-so-very-interested in me!  You liar!" 

 

Furthermore, no amount of "effort" can magically make my resume-lie become true.  (If I wasn't the CEO of Microsoft on the dates I indicated, then not even becoming the CEO of Microsoft two years from now can turn the lie into a truth.)  But if I earnestly commit to maintaining the illusion of emotional distance, then my commitment can and DOES turn my emotional aloofness into a truth.    (I am emotionally aloof, because that's how I've always (or mostly) been, and you have zero objective evidence with which to call me emotionally non-aloof.) 

 

 

 

Provoking insecurity, lying about the amount of money you make, feigning disinterest are all examples that I've heard from pick up artists. Being confident, being responsible and assertive and things like that are pretty universal and not particular to PUA and would be part of any relationship advice column. I might have a distorted version of PUA in my mind, but I don't think that PUA and Game are synonymous.

 

 

Provoking insecurity is universal advice for PUAs, and the basic rationale is that younger women experience a constant sense of superiority over their same-aged peers.  So a man who provokes her insecurity is interesting.  Whereas older women behave better when they're insecure, because they don't want to lose their Future Resource Provider to a younger, prettier female. 

 

Lying about income is highly frowned upon, but avoiding questions about your income is strongly advised.  (Roosh offers many hilarious ways to dodge the question.) 

 

Feigning disinterest is also universally advised, and was discussed above.

 

 

 

I kind of think that you need both the father and the mother involved in teaching these things. A mother who's honest about how women operate, and a father who helps you see that what women say they want is not always what they really want. (I got neither). It's women's interests we are talking about after all, and I don't know what it's like to be a woman.

 

 

That blue clause almost made me drop my laptop. 

 

A woman who is extraordinarily aware about her relative Peak SMV (http://therationalmale.com/2012/06/04/final-exam-navigating-the-smp/ AND http://therationalmale.com/2015/04/24/the-reckoning/) is ultra-mega-super-hyper rare.  In fact, our entire society is devoted to masking the truth about a woman's relative Peak SMV, because a man who knows this truth is strongly tempted to become a Mega-Colossal-Ultra-Dick.  (All men who discover the truth about Peak SMV become as least some form of Dick; women just don't want you to become an Ultra-Dick.) 

 

(Hilariously, I had a wonderful Skype conversation with a woman on FDR between the ages of 20 and 35.  She reads The Rational Male website very frequently, but her boyfriend / fiancée does not.  I told her I was imagining me-without-Rollo's-knowledge dating a woman who possesses Rollo's knowledge.  (Jeeeeeeeeeesus!)  She laughed.  Overall, her knowledge makes her much more worried about her future than an ignorant woman would be.  And though her knowledge allows her to take action, most of her action involves waiting and hoping that her boyfriend becomes a better man, because that's literally her only solution.  A man who empathizes with her situation is much less prone to becoming an Ultra-Dick, but he will become some form of Dick.) 

 

 

 

And there is a lot of outrage about PUA from women. I'm inclined to think that not all of it is mindless hysteria.

 

 

It's 95% mindless hysteria and 5% wisdom. 

 

The wisdom part goes, "Oh my God!  I want a genuinely awesome man, not a man who's merely pretending to be awesome - because a pretend-awesome man can stop pretending at any time!" 

 

But the counter-argument is, "Lady, less than 5% of men are naturally awesome.  So if we give you what you want, 95% of all men would be celibate.  And then the majority of men would be enslaved to the whims of the naturally awesome men.  We used to live like this for hundreds, if not thousands, of years - and it was a very violent time.  Eventually the majority of men (the 95%-ers) overthrew the rulership of the 5%-men, leading to the much more stable and peaceful society you currently live in.  Thus, while I understand your need for genuinely-awesome men, I will NOT let you bankrupt the entire society so that you don't have to put up with less-than-awesome men."  (Note: "bankrupt the entire society" IS NOT hyperbole: every society that has allowed women to vote has become bankrupt, because women use the power of the state to ensure their financial futures are provided so that they needn't rely on less-than-awesome men to provide for their financial futures.) 

 

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

 

Furthermore, this whole argument about, "PUAs manipulate women by hiding Who They Really Are" has already been demolished by Roosh's two-pronged argument: (1) Who You Really Are is like a yardstick that no one but you can ever see.  (2) How You Present Yourself is a millimeter-sized portion of Who You Really Are.  And it is also what every woman you've ever hit on has ever responded to because it was literally impossible for her to have seen Who You Really Are. 

 

So everything is presentation, and all presentations are real because they've been really presented. 

 

A man who seriously devotes himself to consistently presenting himself a certain way does eventually truly become How He Presented Himself The Entire Time. 

 

Thus, Who You Really Are is nothing but a consistent application of How You Present Yourself.  Thus, there is no contradiction between PUA and "authenticity". 

[Omegahero09]

Again, I'm no expert, but my understanding is that PUA is about presenting a certain image for a desired effect, in the same way that lying on a job resume is presenting an image of the perfect employee for the effect of getting the job.

 

Provoking insecurity, lying about the amount of money you make, feigning disinterest are all examples that I've heard from pick up artists. Being confident, being responsible and assertive and things like that are pretty universal and not particular to PUA and would be part of any relationship advice column. I might have a distorted version of PUA in my mind, but I don't think that PUA and Game are synonymous.

 

 

The idea "fake it till you make it" implies that you have to manipulate until it doesn't feel like manipulation anymore. I'm not saying you are advocating that technique, I just wanted to point out the contradiction. If you have to fake it, even if only initially, then it's manipulative.

 

I can't seem to understand the strategy for dating which says, "I'm going to intentionally not communicate my honest emotional experience with the girl until I can get her into bed with me, and then after that we're going to flip things around and be honest with each other." I just haven't seen this work out well between couples. More sex in the short term generally means less sex in the long term.

 

Expertly-

 

Neither of you guys answered my question

[Kevin Beal]

Neither of you guys answered my question

You answered your own question: actually be as cool and confident as you are portraying yourself.

 

Young men prizing emotional closeness are also much more likely to "rage out" by committing those horrible "stalker-like" behaviors, including the violent ones. 

I'd really like to see the evidence of this. 

 

The red is incorrect because "lying about your resume" involves falsifying observably verifiable statements.  If I say I was CEO of Microsoft, but I wasn't - that's lying on your resume.  However, if I really like a chick, but lean back in my chair and look sideways over my shoulder at her, that's presenting a false image.  BUT there's no way she can peak inside my brain and say, "AHA!  You appear to be emotionally aloof the way I want my men to be, but you're actually oh-so-very-interested in me!  You liar!" 

You can easily change the analogy to include only lies on a resume which cannot be observably verifiable to the degree that pretending to be aloof is observably verifiable. This distinction doesn't take away anything from what I said, that I can see. It's still lying. My point was that it was lying to be liked by women.

 

if I earnestly commit to maintaining the illusion of emotional distance, then my commitment can and DOES turn my emotional aloofness into a truth.    (I am emotionally aloof, because that's how I've always (or mostly) been, and you have zero objective evidence with which to call me emotionally non-aloof.) 

You already confessed to it being done for an effect, rather than a genuine disinterest. I don't have to prove it.

 

That blue clause almost made me drop my laptop. 

 

A woman who is extraordinarily aware about her relative Peak SMV (http://therationalmale.com/2012/06/04/final-exam-navigating-the-smp/ AND http://therationalmale.com/2015/04/24/the-reckoning/) is ultra-mega-super-hyper rare.  In fact, our entire society is devoted to masking the truth about a woman's relative Peak SMV, because a man who knows this truth is strongly tempted to become a Mega-Colossal-Ultra-Dick.  (All men who discover the truth about Peak SMV become as least some form of Dick; women just don't want you to become an Ultra-Dick.) 

Rare or not, it's still important. Rare or not, it still is women's interest we are trying to get, and women know women the way that programmers know programmers.

 

(1) Who You Really Are is like a yardstick that no one but you can ever see.  (2) How You Present Yourself is a millimeter-sized portion of Who You Really Are.  And it is also what every woman you've ever hit on has ever responded to because it was literally impossible for her to have seen Who You Really Are. 

 

So everything is presentation, and all presentations are real because they've been really presented.

If I present myself as a police officer, wear the uniform and a badge, does that make me a cop? No. The fact that you say that feigning disinterest is part of the PUA deal, necessarily implies the lie. If it weren't a lie, it wouldn't be feigning.

 

Again, I don't need to prove anything, you've already confessed it.

[Matt D]

Expertly-

 

Neither of you guys answered my question

And you didn't answer the question, "how often do you beat your wife?" I would claim it's a trick question, but I must admit I have not read this Game book. If you'd care to enlighten us as to your answer please go ahead.

 

---

 

Here's a strategy which seems to work for a lot of people. It's called "The Eight Stages of Intimacy". It's designed for couples who are dating and want a long-term fulfilling relationship. The authors claim:

 

"Make a commitment to yourself to explore each stage in-depth with a potential mate before proceeding to the next.  Most superficial relationships will fall apart during stages four through six [intellectual, spiritual, and emotional], the very stages most people skip in order to experiment in seven [sex].  Then they wonder why the relationship didn't last!  When you finish this article, you may be enlightened."

 

I fully admit that as a philosopher geek I want to jump right in to stages four through six, and I may be skipping over some very important development periods in the earliest stages of the relationship. But this problem is not solved by jumping straight into stages seven and then going backwards, with the hope you will be compatible when the sexual intoxication wears off. 

 

I think we all want the same thing on this thread. My opinion is that we are all messing up in different ways. This makes sense if we had male role models when growing up who were deficient in different ways.

[Kevin Beal]

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?

 

Well, if the other two options are being an alpha or being a sensitive guy who's really a stalker and potential murderer, then that limits your options quite a bit.

 

I've hear repeatedly that this or that and the other is rare. A ton of things are apparently very rare. Maybe all those rarities add up into something which is actually not beyond anyone's reach.

 

I'd rather be alone than have to pretend to be something I'm not.

[MMX2010]

  

If I present myself as a police officer, wear the uniform and a badge, does that make me a cop? No. The fact that you say that feigning disinterest is part of the PUA deal, necessarily implies the lie. If it weren't a lie, it wouldn't be feigning.

 

My replies to Matt D. will be relevant to you, so I hope you'll read them.

 

The best FDR podcast is still FDR 71: Culture: How To Enslave A Human Soul.  In it, Stefan scoffs at the religious myths, saying something like, "The religious myths are so ridiculous to any rational, observant, scientifically-sound individual that nothing but violence, childhood indoctrination, and/or willful ignorance could possibly explain their continued existence." 

 

Your argument above which equates "presenting yourself as a police officer, when you're really not" and "feigning emotional disinterest and aloofness to get a woman to like you" made me think of FDR 71.  And in the following two paragraphs, the green-colored numbers (listed after each clause) will represent crucial factual differences between "presenting yourself as a police officer, when you're really not" and "feigning emotional disinterest and aloofness to get a woman to like you". 

 

A police officer is a job title (1) created by the state (2) that requires years of training (3) in multiple areas (4), including but not limited to weapons training (5), rules of escalation and de-escalation of violence (6), rules involving the proper acquisition of evidence in order to apprehend violent suspects (7), and rules involving the proper arrest and detention of citizens. (8). Furthermore, presenting yourself as a police officer is a crime (9) in every political jurisdiction that has ever existed, and there's (nearly) universal agreement that presenting yourself as a police officer ought to be a crime. (10). Thus, wrongfully presenting yourself as a police officer is a moral violation (11) in the eyes of pretty much every citizen in every country. (12). 

 

Meanwhile, feigning emotional disinterest in order to get a girl to like you is the exact friggin' opposite on every green-numbered category listed above.  And the most important difference is that "feigning emotional disinterest and aloofness" is at best an aesthetic violation, NOT A MORAL ONE. 

 

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

 

My devoted reading of Pick-Up Artistry allows me to see the ONLY similarity between "presenting yourself as a police officer, when you're really not" and "feigning emotional disinterest and aloofness in order to get a woman to like you".  It's an emotional similarity, namely, "It just feels dishonest, or it just feels wrong." 

 

But words like "dishonest" and "wrong" can either be used morally or aesthetically, and I've already proven that there's no moral violation in "feigning emotional disinterest", which means that your objection is aesthetic.  Moralizing your aesthetic preferences doesn't make you "confident" (Matt D's self-description), nor "genuine and honest" (pretty much every FDR-member's self-description); it makes you morally wrong. 

 

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

 

 

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?

 

 

No.  The PUAs are not "lying to themselves in order to get women".  The Anti-PUAs are lying to themselves about the nature of both women and PUA in order to double down on their aesthetic preferences. 

 

(The easiest and most amusing example of this is when I offer Anti-PUAs a free copy of Roosh's books Bang and Day Bang.  First, you can scrutinize them seeking the "moral contradictions".  Then, when you find none, you can follow its prescriptions to improve your life.  Rainbow Jamz rejected the offer, citing "too many books on his plate", but what will you do?) 

 

I get that certain personality traits are easier for you (and everyone else) to present than others, but your emotional comfort IS NOT the proper starting point from which to derive moral rules.  Neither is hers.  Neither is mine.  Neither is anyone else's.

 

Moral rules must be derived from moral principles, and comfort is not a moral principle. 

 

-----------

 

Secondly, I can not only respect "a woman who operates so primitively according to how PUAs describe" but also love her, honor her, cherish her, lead her, find her beautifully amusing, and look down on her condescendingly all at once, all the time, minute-after-minute, day-after-day. 

 

I don't need to withdraw my presence from all women, hoping that some "magical force" - (Stefan's podcasts!) - will permeate the entire female gender, changing them into exactly what I want them to be.  (That's all MGTOW is, and it's reprehensible.)  And I don't need to have so many high standards of "virtue", "honesty", "intelligence", "counter-culturalism", and whatever else goes drastically against her biology that there are oh-so-few women actually worth talking to.

 

Instead, I can meet any woman, in any social situation, and present myself to her in any way I please - hoping that she'll like my presentation, but never being emotionally attached to her reactions to my presentation. 

 

And I can do this because Pick-Up Artistry taught me how oh-so-very impersonal the initial three months of interaction between any man and any woman is.  It was quite the ego blow to discover that the first three months of interaction between myself and a mid-20's atheist, anarchist, philosopher, future peaceful parent, female model-on-the-side was oh-so-very impersonal, no matter how strongly my emotions were.  But the discovery of impersonality is oh-so-very-freeing and boatloads of fun. 

 

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

 

The only thing you're correct about is that PUA-usage is a confession that you're not valuable to women.  But the impersonal nature of the first three months of interaction between a man and a woman means that this confession has ZERO emotional importance.  If specific elements of my presentation aren't pleasing her, I just choose to present different elements. 

 

No muss, no fuss.  Just move on confidently, and see what happens.  And if she doesn't respond, I move on to the next woman who catches my eye. 

[Omegahero09]

You answered your own question: actually be as cool and confident as you are portraying yourself.

 

 

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?

 

Well, if the other two options are being an alpha or being a sensitive guy who's really a stalker and potential murderer, then that limits your options quite a bit.

 

I've hear repeatedly that this or that and the other is rare. A ton of things are apparently very rare. Maybe all those rarities add up into something which is actually not beyond anyone's reach.

 

I'd rather be alone than have to pretend to be something I'm not.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

When I apply Game, I don't manipulate, because I am confident, I am assertive, and I loooove making girl's hamster wheels spin.

 

 

 

Kevin if there is anyone quitting themselves from the dating market, I wish it were statist, marxist, feminist, bigoted, racist, child-beating, self-knowledge hiding, shallow, goddamn motherfuckin' religious, blue-pill swallowin' jackasses- it certainly would not be you Kevin Beal.

 

I'll say it- FDR needs to go out there and make babies.

 

Lots of them.

 

And by quitting yourself from the market of babes out there, by not fulfilling your full potential as a man, by not learning how to crown yourself the king of your own damn life, by turning away from the truths out there about women and their biologies, by rigorously defending your frankly beta tendencies, by refusing to learn how to take, and forgetting that you know how to wait, you will not get the woman of your dreams.

 

 

Yes, NAWALTs and Unicorns are rare. That's why they're called NAWALTs and Unicorns. Guess what though. There is Game for showing chicks virtue. It's called Crafting. You know what you should do? Raise some daughters to be NAWALTs and Unicorns.

 

 

 

 

Game is about getting what you want. Just like everything else in life. It's a tool. Take what you want. Leave nothing to the lesser men. That includes statitsts, btw.

[Kevin Beal]

I don't understand. Did you or did you not answer your own question?

 

And no, you've mistaken me. I have every intention of being a badass, and the kind of man that women desire. I just refuse to do it on anybody else's terms.

 

The only way you could have concluded that I'm quitting the dating market is to assume that I don't believe I can get a unicorn, which is not at all what I was saying. The opposite in fact is true. I refuse to settle for anything less.

 

We've already established that PUA is not game and that PUA is pretending. My entire objection to PUA is that it's pretending. My only problem with game is when it is pretending. If you don't understand that, then I don't know what the hell you've been reading, but it's certainly not anything I've written.

 

I fought very hard to get where I am, so you can kindly shove your "beta tendencies" nonsense.

[MMX2010]

I don't understand. Did you or did you not answer your own question?

 

And no, you've mistaken me. I have every intention of being a badass, and the kind of man that women desire. I just refuse to do it on anybody else's terms.

 

Not even on her terms? 

 

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

[MMX2010]

 

Here's a strategy which seems to work for a lot of people. It's called "The Eight Stages of Intimacy". It's designed for couples who are dating and want a long-term fulfilling relationship. The authors claim:

 

I fully admit that as a philosopher geek I want to jump right in to stages four through six, and I may be skipping over some very important development periods in the earliest stages of the relationship. But this problem is not solved by jumping straight into stages seven and then going backwards, with the hope you will be compatible when the sexual intoxication wears off. 

 

Not "may be skipping", but "are definitely skipping". 

 

Before any man can claim to understand relationships, he must understand dating.  And before he can understand dating, he must understand how female-psychology influences dating.  PUA is the only field that attempts to understand how female-psychology influences dating, so it's a required field of study. 

 

The Anti-PUAs are trying to use philosophy to argue against the female-psychological traits that they dislike the most, but that's not a very effective approach now, is it? 

[Kevin Beal]

Meanwhile, feigning emotional disinterest in order to get a girl to like you is the exact friggin' opposite on every green-numbered category listed above.  And the most important difference is that "feigning emotional disinterest and aloofness" is at best an aesthetic violation, NOT A MORAL ONE. 

Your distinction has nothing to do with any of my arguments, and changes nothing about the logical consequences. It's just pedantic quibbling. Even if what you were saying were true, it would only ever be a red herring. Again, just change the analogy to something which isn't illegal or ostensibly immoral. It changes nothing whatever.

 

It's just boring.

[MMX2010]

I feel a lot of anticipation answering this, which could mean a number of things. But let's continue. 

 

Can you give me a definition of "Who Someone Really Is"? To me this sounds a lot like the terms 'identity' or 'soul' which are used by politicians and priests to give or withdraw a need that hollow people are desperate to fill.

 

There's the objective definition of Who Someone Really Is: Every thought, emotion, and sensation someone has ever had coupled with every action they've undertaken. 

 

There's also the pragmatic definition: "The Thing That Both Must Exist and Be Objectively Perceivable By Another Human Being In Order For Anyone's Objections Against Pretending to be Valid." 

 

And then there's the psychological definition: The True-Self, The Antidote of the False Self, "The Thing You're Trying To Connect With, Through Therapy", and "The Thing You've No Connection To, Because Your Parents Were Assholes". 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, domination. I know you aren't advocating rape or force. However, I don't think domination or manipulation would be a mischaracterization of your position from what I've read so far. Sex is inherently an act which puts the male in a position of dominance over a woman. You asked earlier:

 

And did he introduce her to philosophy?  Did he sleep with her first, so that she'd be more willing to listen to him, and then introduce her to philosophy? 

 

Why do you have to sleep with a woman in order to increase her willingness to listen to you about philosophy? Assuming this is true (I don't think it's necessarily and universally true, but you could be right in most cases), it works because you assert your dominance over her and her hormones send the signals to her brain that lets down her defenses. Is that a fair summary of the behind-the-scenes female biology?

 

 

I explained it in that other thread.  Women *DO NOT* search for male role models under the conditions of, "I want someone strong, intelligent, philosophically-rigorous, handsome, courageous, and financially sound - BUT I don't want to sleep with him, because the sexual interactions will ruin the objective perspective required for him to be my role model."  Instead, women *AUTOMATICALLY* want to sleep with male role models who fulfill all of those conditions. 

 

Furthermore, women have extraordinarily simple categories for men, two of which are Some Guy I'm Not Sleeping With versus Some Guy I'm Currently Sleeping With.  Women *DO NOT* make major life-altering decisions based on the recommendations of Men They're Not Sleeping With.  So, Matt, it's not that a man has to sleep with a woman before he introduces her to philosophy.  It's that no woman will simultaneously (1) want to listen to you about something important, like philosophy AND (2) not want to sleep with you. 

 

(I also mentioned that the one guy who laughed his ass off at my recommendation was married - (read: has everyday face-to-face interactions with a woman, and thereby knows her emotional proclivities).  And you just indicated that you're NOT married.) 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

The idea "fake it till you make it" implies that you have to manipulate until it doesn't feel like manipulation anymore. I'm not saying you are advocating that technique, I just wanted to point out the contradiction. If you have to fake it, even if only initially, then it's manipulative.

 

 

Your objection here rests on the assumption that Your True Self, (a.k.a. The Thing You're Trying To Connect To, Through Therapy), is both readily visible to her and the most valuable thing you can present to her. 

 

Unfortunately, no woman can possibly see Your True Self (and certainly NOT on the first three dates).  And, just as unfortunately, Your True Self IS NOT the most valuable thing you can present to her.  The most valuable thing you can present to her is a man who expertly and consistently knows how to meet her needs. 

 

In the initial stages of learning any skill, one's expertise is shallow - so one's performance isn't very good.  But, with time and commitment, a man can master any skill - and his mastery of that skill allows him to expertly and consistently meet her needs. 

 

 

 

I can't seem to understand the strategy for dating which says, "I'm going to intentionally not communicate my honest emotional experience with the girl until I can get her into bed with me, and then after that we're going to flip things around and be honest with each other." I just haven't seen this work out well between couples. More sex in the short term generally means less sex in the long term.

 

 

No doubt. 

 

But I can easily see how you use the language you've learned in therapy ("emotional authenticity", "integrity", "the authentic emotional experience of who I am") to look inside of yourself when you could be looking at her and what she wants.  It's not merely that What She Wants never crosses your mind, but also that "You can't see What She Wants by introspection." doesn't cross your mind.