Another PUA post...

[WasatchMan]

If I'm fighting an argument you're not making, then you're not communicating your argument very well. 

 

When you say, "The purpose of having sex is making babies!", is that a universal, objectively true statement or a subjective, emotionally true-for-only-you statement? 

 

For some reason you keep dropping the word biological.. which is the context.. very strange.

[MMX2010]

For some reason you keep dropping the word biological.. which is the context.. very strange.

 

No, WastachMan, biological is not "the context word".

 

Biology is EITHER: (1) a universal, ever-present drive that everyone must fulfill OR (2) a universal, ever-present drive that technology allows us to circumvent by making individual-choices. 

 

This means, in the first case, BIOLOGY IS TRUE FOR EVERYONE.  But, in the second case, BIOLOGY IS HARDLY TRUE FOR EVERYONE. 

 

Which is it?  

For some reason you keep dropping the word biological.. which is the context.. very strange.

 

 

 

Biology isn't the context word, WastachMan.

 

Biology is either: (1) a universal drive that everyone has to fulfill, thereby making it a universal truth OR (2) a universal drive that can be circumvented through technology, thereby making it NOT a universal truth.

 

Which is it? 

[David Ottinger]

 

Interesting argument, but it has a gigantic problem with it.

 

John uses PUA on Aimee.  Aimee loves it and sleeps with John.  Phil cries, "MANIPULATION!" 

 

How can it NOT be sophistry for Phil to yell, "MANIPULATION!"? 

 

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

 

Notice, there's a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge difference between Phil saying, "Personally speaking, I find John's actions to be manipulation, so I never engage in them.  But if John likes doing it, and Aimee likes receiving it, then they can voluntarily do whatever they want." and Phil saying, "MANIPULATION!" - (while either expecting or hoping that Aimee will dump John because of his accusation). 

 

Do you understand the difference?

 

You said there is a gigantic problem with my argument, but you don't actually point it out.  You have shown me no understanding of my argument here.   Instead, you redirected the focus of the convo to reassert your qualms with calling this behavior manipulation. 

 

And, as far as your point goes, I already addressed that perception.  Twice even.  For the third time:  Two fighters getting into the Octagon are still behaving violently despite it being a voluntary exchange. 

 

More importantly, with sports there is full disclosure.  With seduction -- whether from the female side or male side -- not so much.  But, nonetheless, I still recognize it as a game, albeit a game that truly emphasizes the inherent 'buyer beware' nature of a free market -- which I also briefly covered in my last post, but not in those terms. 

 

More so, because there is no defined play ground, and understandablly so, the risk of violating the principle of equal consideration is very high.  The moment that principle is violated you have immorality.   

 

 

 

 And do you understand how your first reply to this thread looks exactly like the second action, where Phil yells "MANIPULATION", while hoping every chick hears him and resists PUA?

 

Does it *look* exactly or *is* it exactly like?   It only *seems* that way if you put words in my mouth -- which you insist on doing instead of actually addressing my argument.  Your presumptions aren't my problem.  And your lip service to my arguments aren't productive to discovering the truth here. 

 

 

My response here is to dispell the illusions you're throwing up so that others can see your sleight of hand tactics -- whether you're aware you're doing it or not. 

[MMX2010]

You said there is a gigantic problem with my argument, but you don't actually point it out.  You have shown me no understanding of my argument here.   Instead, you redirected the focus of the convo to reassert your qualms with calling this behavior manipulation. 

 

And, as far as your point goes, I already addressed that perception.  Twice even.  For the third time:  Two fighters getting into the Octagon are still behaving violently despite it being a voluntary exchange.

 

 

Do you know the difference between Objective and Subjective?  Objective means directly observable with the senses, and examples include the punches, kicks, elbow strikes, and grappling holds that occur in the Octagon.  The major consequence of pointing to Objective Evidence is that anyone who doesn't agree that the Objective Evidence exists is rightfully dismissed as delusional. 

 

Subjective, however, means that it's NOT directly observed with the senses, but rather inferred within the mind.  And examples of these include feelings of attraction, feelings of love, and feelings of manipulation.  The two major consequences of pointing to Subjective Evidence are: (1) Because Subjective Evidence is inferred in the mind, and because everyone's mind is unique to some degree, every individual is free to determine whether he'll follow or reject Subjective Evidence without being labeled delusional.  (2) Because Subjective Evidence is not Objective Evidence, people who use Subjective Evidence as a means to control, influence, or look down upon others are deemed oppressive, intolerant, and non-libertarian. 

 

 

 

 

My response here is to dispell the illusions you're throwing up so that others can see your sleight of hand tactics -- whether you're aware you're doing it or not. 

 

*grins*

 

Nothing is more sleight-of-hand that using Subjective Evidence as if it were Objective Evidence. 

 

If you understood what Subjective Evidence was, you'd only say, "Personally, I find PUA to be manipulative, but if other people want to use it, then I have no problem with it." 

 

You'll also notice that Sigma Tau expertly argued along these lines.  Quoting Sigma Tau directly, "I tried PUA, but the only women (in my experience) I attracted with it,))) well..... I feel silly looking back at that period of my life.. If you use it, I wish you all the best."

 

He is merely giving his personal experience with PUA.  He is NOT implying nor asserting that there are any moral violations that are guaranteed to happen when PUA is used - (moral violations are universal truths based on Objective Evidence).  And he is NOT implying that he's objectively "better than" anyone who currently uses PUA.  He allows any one who wants to use PUA to use PUA, and he doesn't chase them down with moralistic arguments nor accusations that they violate moral arguments. 

 

You, on the other hand?  You use moralistic language that hinge upon the confusion of Subjective Evidence and Objective Evidence.  And that makes you the one using sleight-of-hand. 

[PatrickC]

Two of the best and most insightful lines from this thread thus far in my opinion.

 

Yes, it is manipulation. However, there is an unspoken rule about the manipulation. A Fight Club analogy comes to mind. Except, instead of fighting, the outcome is sex. It is a game. The question is whether you want to play it or not.

One of the goals of philosophy is to determine what is objectively the optimal for truth, virtue, and happiness; especially in spite of our biological programming.

[Frosty]

Okay, so how about this?

 

John has been a highly depressed individual for many years, and he determines that being highly depressed isn't sexually attractive.  Through the work of some self-help books and podcasts, he (hopefully!) has acquired a small amount of insight into his childhood wounds and (he hopes!) has gotten rid of the depression.  I say, "he hopes" because he doesn't know how much he really understands nor how much he's gotten rid of the depression, because he's been depressed for years and has achieved "understanding" for two days.

 

He spots this beautiful woman, hits on her under the frame of his new-found "awareness", and she falls in love with him.  Fraud, or not Fraud? 

 

It's not fraud in that case because the example you gave doesn't have an explicit lie in it therefore can't be fraud and can't be immoral.

 

If the prior depression in this example is supposed to be the thing being hidden then it would be fraud if you were directly asked if you had a good childhood and you lied and said yes when in fact you know you didn't. If the other person fell in love with you or an aspect of you which they had made assumptions about such that your childhood was good then that's their erroneous assumption.

 

I'm genuinely unsure why you're asking this hypothetical, but it gives me the impression of what I was talking about before, where virtuous people would be cautious about how they represent themselves and wouldn't look for opportunities to gain that edge, where it seems like some people (maybe or maybe not yourself) which look to push that boundary, if you need to ever inquire about where the line is then you're looking to walk it as finely as possible? I don't know - that's not an accusation by the way.

 

Put into a hypothetical reverse station to illustrate a point, if you were a female interested in me, but we got into a discussion about some virtue like what kinds of actions are considered cheating, is having sex with another person cheating? What about flirting with them? What about touching their arm a little, what about a cheeky wink, getting more and more gentle until we tease out that line of appropriateness...that would SCREAM alarm bells to me that you likely want to misbehave and want to know where that line is so you can walk it, where as I'm more interested in a woman who is going to be faithful to an arbitrarily high degree and consider all those things as inappropriate.

 

To me this would be a bad indicator of faithfulness and in turn be a bad indicator of virtue in general, so I'm wary of this behaviour. I hope that analogy made sense, and again I genuinely don't know why you framed that hypothetical, I don't know if it's for clarity on what I'm saying or to try and tease out the line of where PUA might be fraudulent or not, if it's form then I guess that was all redundant, but I think it illustrates my point.

[MMX2010]

 

Two of the best and most insightful lines from this thread thus far in my opinion.

 

Quoting lines out-of-context, and ignoring the argument I used to challenge their assertion that they're doing so, and (perhaps) downvoting me? 

[J. D. Stembal]

Nothing exotic, funny, cocky,  stuff from David D'Angelo, Mystery,.(long time ago 2009, I am not sure about names). opening with a little neg and tease,.... It got me over my terrible "approach fear"..   in the end I found it silly because I had to jump to all the hoops ,.., and I found it an incredible waste of time.  But my personal choices and feelings are mine, so this is not meant as a generic statement. I have changed lifestyle now,   I work out a lot, do a lot of self-study/reading. I have no time for clubbing whatsoever.

 

Insulting a woman in order to assuage or minimize your fear of rejection? Does that seem like a winning strategy in retrospect? Rejecting someone first doesn't mean you are safe from rejection. I'd say that it increases the odds that you get rejected or tested sooner.

 

By jumping through hoops, I take that to mean that you were faced with a series of shit tests by the woman you teased? Yeah, it's not fun, and while many PUAs will cook up witty or clever responses for facing the tests, responding to a female mind game with anything other than a firm negative is largely unwise. However, you have to identify the shit test first.

 

For example, there was a woman, eleven years my junior, I was courting. Her eggs had an argument that was very compelling to me! We made plans for one date, which was a swing dancing class, and she cancels. A week or two pass, and I make very specific plans for another date (not dinner, mind you), and she cancels again the day of the date. The first cancellation was fine, but two in a row? I was upset, and I had to be firm with her about never asking her out again.

 

Months later, I ran into her at the place that we had first met, and she makes a snarky comment under her breath about "how you ruined it between us," at least I think that is what she said. I looked at her with wide eyes, asking her to repeat herself, and she refused. I never got access to the eggs, but I can accept that I was never getting there without plenty of shame and groveling, and I can be very thankful for avoiding eggs that were probably also extremely bothersome to date.

 

I politely, yet firmly, expressed my boundaries to her, and she couldn't resist to shame me for it months later, waving her eggs in my face. To throw flak back at her, I later asked her elder sister out as if to demonstrate to her that she cannot keep me out of swimming in her gene pool, but her sister played it by the book. I was shut down immediately. The reason was not explicitly stated, but it was obvious that it was because I didn't play along like a good boy with her younger sister.

 

The moral of my story is that some women aren't worth the time and effort, now matter how beautiful and intelligent, and the sooner you find out whether they are worthy of your time, the saner you will feel about interacting with the female of the species.

 

Plus rep for deciding to be mindful of working out, reading and learning!

 

I can tell you with some authority that the club scene is very hollow, so you are a very quick study to see that it should be avoided. I spent a long time there because 1) alcohol, 2) club drugs, 3) unlimited access to sex. This is my unholy trinity for biochemical addictive self-coping mechanisms. I may have pointed it out before in another thread, but I've had not one of the three in the past year, so I am consciously celibate and sober.

 

This last question goes out to the general thread - why are we still talking about morality and virtue? This topic is APA, not UPB, is it not?

 

Social justice warriors and rape culture activists aside, the non-aggression principle factors not one bit into PUA because it involves sex or intimacy between consenting humans. To suggest that a violation of universal morality factors into it is to suggest that woman are not capable of self-ownership and determination as the final arbiters of sex and family (a stark contradiction), but I have already explained the argument earlier in the thread.

 

There is also more than one purpose to sexual activity. It's not just for making more humans. I pointed out two books in my first reply that go into great detail about how the sex hormones have multiple biological functions. The same chemical circuits that bond a woman to her mate are also the same hormones that bond her to her future infant child to encourage her to feed the baby instead of eating him. Therefore, if you want to know how a woman will mother her child, you should observe how she treats you and judge accordingly.

 

More footnotes for Sigma Tau:

 

One of the great filtering abilities that you can cultivate to save time with women is to see and understand how they react to seeing you, or meeting you. It has been said many times that a woman has already dismissed you as egg-worthy or not within ten seconds of seeing you for the first time before you even get a chance to run verbal game on her.

 

This is why "peacocking" is so valuable. Wear a child's Burger King paper crown hat around in public or some other unique article. Wear women's clothing. I bought a second hand woman's knit sweater with a polar bear on the front. The sweater caused quite a stir the first night I wore it. This makes you more visible to women who may have otherwise dismissed you in the mix.

 

Exhibit A:

 

 

 

 

This is also where exercise or strength training pays dividends. Not only is it good for your long term health, women prefer men who treat their bodies like a temple because it means that you are more likely to value her bodily assets, the eggs, her fertility, and respect that no means no.

[David Ottinger]

 

Nothing is more sleight-of-hand that using Subjective Evidence as if it were Objective Evidence. 

 

 

Show me specifically where I did that. 

[MMX2010]

 

Show me specifically where I did that. 

 

 

(1) I already did.

 

(2) It was when you implied (or asserted) that Violence in the Octagon is the same thing as the manipulation that PUA uses. 

 

Violence in the Octagon is Objective: you see with your senses the punches, kicks, and elbow strikes used. 

 

Manipulation in PUA is Subjective: you only infer it with your mind, and not nearly everyone infers the same thing as you.  YOU scream, "Manipulation", chicks say, "Manipulation?  What, really?  Where?  Oh that?!  You don't know what you're talking about." 

 

They're correct because Manipulation is Subjective, meaning no one is compelled to agree with you lest they be dismissed as delusional.  

[David Ottinger]

 

 

(1) I already did.

 

(2) It was when you implied (or asserted) that Violence in the Octagon is the same thing as the manipulation that PUA uses. 

 

Violence in the Octagon is Objective: you see with your senses the punches, kicks, and elbow strikes used. 

 

Manipulation in PUA is Subjective: you only infer it with your mind, and not nearly everyone infers the same thing as you.  YOU scream, "Manipulation", chicks say, "Manipulation?  What, really?  Where?  Oh that?!  You don't know what you're talking about." 

 

They're correct because Manipulation is Subjective, meaning no one is compelled to agree with you lest they be dismissed as delusional.  

 

(1) No, you haven't.  Clearly you have various misconceptions as to what it is I'm saying.  How many more times do I have to tell you that you're not hearing me? 

 

(2) No, violence is not the same as manipulation.  I don't know how you came to the conclusion as that's not the context of that example.  The point of that example was to show how certain acts which would otherwise be deemed as acts of aggression, i.e. violations of the NAP, can still occur without them being immoral.  We see this in sports all the time.  Or, in a broader sense, we can say: Games.   That's all I was giving you evdience of.

 

 

 

So, again, show me specifically where I gave you "subjective evidence" of manipulation. 

[thebeardslastcall]

They're correct because Manipulation is Subjective, meaning no one is compelled to agree with you lest they be dismissed as delusional.  

 

Whether or not you like the taste of pizza or apple more is subjective. But it also has an objective reality to it on more than one level. For one, which one you eat matters, whether you subjectively like one more than the other or not, it's going to impact your health which you choose. Saying your taste is subjective doesn't erase the objective reality of eating the pizza over the apple. Also doesn't erase the objective reality of the mental and chemical processes that occur with the consumption and desire for each one. Second, you could say you like one more than the other, but that doesn't mean it is the one you actually like better, even if the person believes you. We may not be able to tell whether or not you're being honest about your preference, but that doesn't change whether or not you are lying. Which one you prefer and whether or not you're honest about your preference or not is also irrelevant as to which is healthier for your body to consume.

 

You're saying "But you don't know what my preference is and you don't know whether or not I'm being honest about my preference and you don't know if the other person believes if I'm being honest about my preference and you don't know which one the other person prefers I'd prefer", but I'm saying I don't care about all that crap. The apple is still generally the healthier choice, like it or not, whether or not you're eating for nutrition or to enjoy the pleasure of eating, it still makes a difference which you eat. It makes a difference which you smell, which you say you like to others, which you buy at the store, and in other ways too. It makes a great difference and the fact that there are some subjective elements to the equation don't detract from all those interconnected impacts and realities. Whether or not you realize or know what those realities are or can measure or judge them also doesn't mean they don't matter. You're getting dangerously close to saying subjective things don't matter and don't impact things outside of a small subjective sphere. If life were that simple I doubt many people would care what you do with others. It's because life is complicated that we feel the need or desire to judge each other and carry on talking in these topics to try to influence each other (and ourselves) about these activities and their potential impact and how other people feel about them.

 

If two people are having a "nice little moment of mutual pleasure" that doesn't mean it's healthy or good or that it doesn't disgust someone else. Can someone else be disgusted by what two people are doing, sure, doesn't mean what they are doing is right or wrong, but it says they don't like something about the activity. Maybe that comes from personal greed or maybe it comes from a recognition that something ugly is going on whether they realize it or not or maybe the person who is displeased is just some morally pretentious idiot getting all in a bind over nothing bad making more of the situation than can fairly or kindly be made. Whether there is manipulation or not also or whether or not either party is okay with it or not, I will say again, doesn't change all the related facts of the situation. Also just because we can't know or observe all the facts of the situation doesn't mean all those facts don't exist. Subjective does have an objective reality that creates the subjective feelings. They're just more intangible, but still very real and objective if only for a moment, and their effects ripple outward onto the world around them giving people a desire to accept or reject them.

 

And yes I realize this can apply in reverse and people who 'reject PUA' could be doing themselves a disservice by rejecting potential happiness that you think it can bring. Which is why I was suggesting a repacking and re-branding deal, to deliver the good parts without those viewed as bad by people who reject PUA, but this stuff wasn't really addressed.

 

I'm not even sure what this thread is talking about any more. Are you trying to defend yourself from hostilities for using "PUA" techniques or are you trying to get people to accept some parts of PUA to help themselves in their interactions and lives? I'll direct this to the original poster too. Perhaps if we're more clear about our objectives here we can talk across each other a bit less.

[MMX2010]

(1) No, you haven't.  Clearly you have various misconceptions as to what it is I'm saying.  How many more times do I have to tell you that you're not hearing me? 

 

(2) No, violence is not the same as manipulation.  I don't know how you came to the conclusion as that's not the context of that example. 

 

If you say, "MMX2010 isn't hearing me!" you're making this personal.  And if you want to make this personal, I'll respond in kind, but that detracts from the boards. 

 

Two, if "violence is not the same thing as manipulation", then why mention violence at all?  Mentioning "violence" and then complaining, "You're not understanding the context of what I'm saying!" is hilarious.  Why not refuse to use words like "violence", "conquest", and "the principle of equal consideration", and then make your point anyway? 

[WasatchMan]

Biology is EITHER: (1) a universal, ever-present drive that everyone must fulfill OR (2) a universal, ever-present drive that technology allows us to circumvent by making individual-choices. 

 

 

One hint to what it would mean "biologically speaking" is that in biology they are called "reproductive organs". Not sure where you got that concept of biology. 

[MMX2010]

Put into a hypothetical reverse station to illustrate a point, if you were a female interested in me, but we got into a discussion about some virtue like what kinds of actions are considered cheating, is having sex with another person cheating? What about flirting with them? What about touching their arm a little, what about a cheeky wink, getting more and more gentle until we tease out that line of appropriateness...that would SCREAM alarm bells to me that you likely want to misbehave and want to know where that line is so you can walk it, where as I'm more interested in a woman who is going to be faithful to an arbitrarily high degree and consider all those things as inappropriate.

 

To me this would be a bad indicator of faithfulness and in turn be a bad indicator of virtue in general, so I'm wary of this behaviour. I hope that analogy made sense, and again I genuinely don't know why you framed that hypothetical, I don't know if it's for clarity on what I'm saying or to try and tease out the line of where PUA might be fraudulent or not, if it's form then I guess that was all redundant, but I think it illustrates my point.

 

As long as you're speaking personally, for yourself, I've no objection to what you're saying.  This is because you're explaining your own subjective emotional reaction to the situation AND NOT expecting everyone else to follow it - on condition that, if they refuse, they're delusional and immoral. 

 

If, however, you're saying that your experience is universally true for everyone, I promise you that it is not.  (Just ask around, and you'll find a sizeable chunk of people who disagree with you, myself included).  Once you do this, you have to make an argument based on Objective Evidence.  Failing that, your reply becomes "Not An Argument", and so I'll do what I want.  No hard feelings to you, of course - but those are the rules of philosophy.  

[thebeardslastcall]

One hint to what it would mean "biologically speaking" is that in biology they are called "reproductive organs". Not sure where you got that concept of biology. 

 

Well that's certainly different from calling them "funny bits".

[MMX2010]

I asked, "Biology is either (1) a universal, ever-present drive that everyone must fulfill OR (2) a universal, ever-present drive that technology allows us to circumvent by making individual-choices.   Which is it? 

 

WastachMan replies, "One hint to what it would mean "biologically speaking" is that in biology they are called "reproductive organs". Not sure where you got that concept of biology."

 

I reply:  Look, WastachMan.  If, given two choices, you can't pick one or the other, preferring instead to "hint" at what your answer is, then you're behaving in a highly evasive, trolling manner.  As such, you present yourself as "not preferring a discussion wherein the truth is discovered as quickly as possible", in which case, go talk to someone else. 

[MMX2010]

Whether or not you like the taste of pizza or apple more is subjective. But it also has an objective reality to it on more than one level. For one, which one you eat matters, whether you subjectively like one more than the other or not, it's going to impact your health which you choose. Saying your taste is subjective doesn't erase the objective reality of eating the pizza over the apple. Also doesn't erase the objective reality of the mental and chemical processes that occur with the consumption and desire for each one. Second, you could say you like one more than the other, but that doesn't mean it is the one you actually like better, even if the person believes you. We may not be able to tell whether or not you're being honest about your preference, but that doesn't change whether or not you are lying. Which one you prefer and whether or not you're honest about your preference or not is also irrelevant as to which is healthier for your body to consume.

 

 

The biochemical processes associated with certain diets are objective, and that the respective life-spans associated with certain diets can be objectively scientifically studied.  Also, (and this is ultra-important, so you might have to read it more than once), we can all agree that Rational People Should Prefer To Be Healthy, and so we agree to Frame all of the dietary results identically.  (In other words, if it is revealed that Diet A leads to a longer life-span than Diet B, we'll all agree that Diet A should be preferred, unless some other unknown considerations weren't taken into account.) 

 

However, PUA isn't like that at all.  The emotional reactions that a woman has to PUA have been scientifically studied - (and the conclusion is, "PUA works, because women like it.") - but you're trying to first Frame the results as, "Who cares if PUA works, it's lying!" and then acting legitimately surprised when people disagree with you. 

 

 

You're saying "But you don't know what my preference is and you don't know whether or not I'm being honest about my preference and you don't know if the other person believes if I'm being honest about my preference and you don't know which one the other person prefers I'd prefer", but I'm saying I don't care about all that crap. The apple is still generally the healthier choice, like it or not, whether or not you're eating for nutrition or to enjoy the pleasure of eating, it still makes a difference which you eat.

 

 

Your comparison of dieting to PUA is flawed, so your conclusions are flawed.

 

 

 

And yes I realize this can apply in reverse and people who 'reject PUA' could be doing themselves a disservice by rejecting potential happiness that you think it can bring. Which is why I was suggesting a repacking and re-branding deal, to deliver the good parts without those viewed as bad by people who reject PUA, but this stuff wasn't really addressed.

 

That's being done as we speak.

 

 

 

I'm not even sure what this thread is talking about any more. Are you trying to defend yourself from hostilities for using "PUA" techniques or are you trying to get people to accept some parts of PUA to help themselves in their interactions and lives? I'll direct this to the original poster too. Perhaps if we're more clear about our objectives here we can talk across each other a bit less.

 

I began this thread by trying to get people to accept some parts of PUA to help themselves in their interactions and lives. 

 

But now I'm not sure whether that's possible, because of people's tendencies to "Accuse, and Play Defense". 

 

It doesn't matter whether I use jokes to hint, "You know, I may not be able to prevent you from Accusing and Playing Defense, but  I can, with great humor hint that you ought not do that if you're pursuing the truth about PUA."  And it doesn't matter whether I use direct questions to ask people like WastachMan what the heck he means, (because he doesn't answer them directly).  And it doesn't matter whether I give succinct arguments as to why you need to be careful when using moralistic language to control other peoples' behavior, (because David Ottinger doesn't get it). 

 

So, seriously, why am I here?  I don't know. 

 

At best, I can talk about your responses with OmegaHero09, and we'll definitely have a stronger sense of Who We Are and Why We Do What We Do.  But, at worst, I'm wasting my time.  (Well, not really, since I have a much firmer understanding of how Gammas/Omegas debate, but I'm still not sure whether the time I invested in this thread was worth the return I got.)

[SigmaTau]

Insulting a woman in order to assuage or minimize your fear of rejection?

 

 

 

"Negging" is not insulting a women, its playfull banter) (aT least thats how i did it)

It has nothing to do with my previous rejection fear,..... wow)

 

Anyway .., I am MGTOW, I might be interested in a women if she ambitious as  I am, otherwise  I don't really care, ..

 

Yeah women look at you if you work out,..,some will look at you if you also drive a nice car (or whatever)  but who cares... 

 

[David Ottinger]

 

If you say, "MMX2010 isn't hearing me!" you're making this personal.  And if you want to make this personal, I'll respond in kind, but that detracts from the boards. 

 

Two, if "violence is not the same thing as manipulation", then why mention violence at all?  Mentioning "violence" and then complaining, "You're not understanding the context of what I'm saying!" is hilarious.  Why not refuse to use words like "violence", "conquest", and "the principle of equal consideration", and then make your point anyway? 

 

 

Since you refuse to substantiate your accusation, I don't think there is anything left for me to say here.

[WasatchMan]

I asked, "Biology is either (1) a universal, ever-present drive that everyone must fulfill OR (2) a universal, ever-present drive that technology allows us to circumvent by making individual-choices.   Which is it? 

 

The science of biology is described by neither of your choices.  Biology describes them as reproductive organs, which is a name that also desribes their purpose

[MMX2010]

Since you refuse to substantiate your accusation, I don't think there is anything left for me to say here.

 

Now, you're picking and choosing what you wish to respond to, rather than responding to my argument.

 

For example, you ignored my question, "Why not refuse to use words like "violence", "conquest", and "the principle of equal consideration", and then make your point anyway?"

 

Which is a challenge, David.  CAN YOU make your argument about PUA without: (1) resorting to confusing language like "violence", "conquest" and "the principle of equal consideration" and then (2) complaining that people aren't hearing you?  OR is your argument style dependent upon using that confusing language and then complaining when other people are confused? 

 

Respond to my argument, David.  Don't run away with dismissive language. 

The science of biology is described by neither of your choices.  Biology describes them as reproductive organs, which is a name that also desribes their purpose

 

WastachMan, my testicles produce sperm and my penis gets hard, then ejaculates sperm.  That is an observation.  However, the argument, "Because my testicles produce sperm, then therefore every woman ought to want to accept my sperm." is an attempt to universalize everyone's sexual reactions - which is either a valid argument based on Objective Evidence OR an invalid argument based on no evidence at all, which means it's an intolerant, oppressive, non-libertarian approach to life.

 

WastachMan, when you say, "The purpose of sex is to have babies!" do you mean: (1) That this is a universal statement that applies to every individual and every sex act OR (2) That this is merely an observation that cannot be used to judge, ostracize, or otherwise classify people who use birth control to prevent sex from leading to reproduction? 

[WasatchMan]

WastachMan, my testicles produce sperm and my penis gets hard, then ejaculates sperm.  That is an observation.  However, the argument, "Because my testicles produce sperm, then therefore every woman ought to want to accept my sperm." is an attempt to universalize everyone's sexual reactions - which is either a valid argument based on Objective Evidence OR an invalid argument based on no evidence at all, which means it's an intolerant, oppressive, non-libertarian approach to life.

 

WastachMan, when you say, "The purpose of sex is to have babies!" do you mean: (1) That this is a universal statement that applies to every individual and every sex act OR (2) That this is merely an observation that cannot be used to judge, ostracize, or otherwise classify people who use birth control to prevent sex from leading to reproduction? 

 

Again.. Context.  I wasn't trying to universalize purpose (I have already told you the context was the whole paragraph not that one sentence), I was stating that the biological purpose is reproduction.  I don't get why this is so hard (no pun intended).

[MMX2010]

Again.. Context.  I wasn't trying to universalize purpose (I have already told you the context was the whole paragraph not that one sentence), I was stating that the biological purpose is reproduction.  I don't get why this is so hard (no pun intended).

 

You don't get why this is so hard?

 

Hmm, let's re-quote you, "I know this is fallacious, but it seems like PUA exists so men can stroke their ego. Maybe it is just me, but I don't prefer lots of recreational sex because I know that is not the purpose of sex (however, I also experienced some of the consequences of this recreational sex mentality in my early 20s)."

 

Notice the passive-aggressive comment that PUA exists so men can stroke their ego?  Such a comment is only objectively true if you can objectively prove that the purpose of sex isn't to stroke a man's ego.  However, once you've admitted (after some degree of tooth-pulling) that "you're not trying to universalize purpose", I'm glad that you'll be retracting that passive-aggressive comment about PUAs.

 

Oh, unless, you're "perfectly happy to ostracize for aesthetic reasons".  In which case, don't retract your statement, and we'll let everyone else decide whether they find it pleasant to interact with you. 

[shirgall]

Neutral corners. Go read "The Bonobo and the Atheist" and resume, please.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Bonobo-Atheist-Search-Humanism-Primates-ebook/dp/B007Q6XKEY/

[MMX2010]

Neutral corners. Go read "The Bonobo and the Atheist" and resume, please.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Bonobo-Atheist-Search-Humanism-Primates-ebook/dp/B007Q6XKEY/

 

 

Could you briefly summarize the book's thesis and how you think it relates to this topic?

 

Also, have you heard Vox Day's sociosexual hierarchy definitions?

 

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

 

I have a great deal of respect for Roissy's analysis of the female psyche. Even the mere terms he applies, in addition to being hilarious, provide tremendous insight for the average, clueless man who finds himself bewildered by the behavior of women around him. After all, what man could possibly assign much importance to the logical conclusions of a woman's "rationalization hamster". And many of the techniques he recommends will significantly increase the average man's ability to get off on the right foot with women regardless of whether a casual encounter or marriage is the goal.

 

However, it must be kept in mind that Roissy's social construction of Game is intentionally limited in two ways. The overly simplistic division of men into Alphas and Betas is the natural result of his laser-like focus on scoring vs not scoring. Either you score or you don't score; scoring is Alpha and not-scoring is Beta. QED. And this singular, binary focus also leaves out the many other applications of the male social hierarchy that have nothing to do with women, much less sex. Note that this is not a criticism of Roissy's construct or his conclusions, but rather a tangential expansion of it. Whereas in Game there are only Alphas who score and Betas who don't, except for the Betas who learn the secret of becoming synthetic Alphas, I have come over time to view things in the following manner:

 

Alphas - the male elite, the leaders of men for whom women naturally lust. Their mere presence sets women a-tingle regardless of whether she is taken or not. Once you've seen beautiful married women ignoring tall, handsome, wealthy, and even famous men because that ugly old troll Henry Kissinger walked in the room, you simply can't deny the reality of Alphadom. Example: Captain Kirk, Big from Sex in the City. Suggestion: Do you see a scoreboard? Right, so relax already!

 

Betas - the lieutenants, the petty aristocracy. They're popular, they do well with women, they're pretty successful in life, and they may even be exceptionally good-looking. But they lack the Alpha's natural self-confidence and strength of character. They're not leaders and they're not the men to whom women are helplessly drawn. Most men who like to think they're Alphas because of their success are actually Betas. Most Betas won't change their game because they don't really have any need or reason to do so. This is probably the easiest social slot in which to find yourself, since the Beta enjoys many of the benefits of Alphadom without being trapped in the Alpha's endless cycle of competition. Example: Brad Pitt Suggestion: Have some compassion for the less naturally fortunate. Try to include them once in awhile.

 

Deltas - the great majority of men. These are Roissy's Betas. Almost all of you reading this are Deltas despite the natural desire to believe that you are a brave and bold Alpha snowflake notwithstanding. Deal with it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a Delta, it's just a simple statistical and observable reality. The sooner you accept the truth about yourself, the sooner you will be able to control your unconscious inclinations and modify your behavior in a manner that will help you achieve your goals. I've gone out of alphabetical order here because delta symbolizes change, which most Deltas are capable to some extent. Hence the synthetic alpha instruction set known as Game. Example: Probably you. Suggestion: Never forget that there are plenty of girls on the girl tree.

 

Gammas - the obsequious ones, the posterior puckerers, the nice guys who attempt to score through white-knighting, faux-chivalry, flattery, and omnipresence. All men except true Alphas will occasionally fall into Gamma behavior from time to time, this is the behavior and attitude that Roissy is attempting to teach men to recognize and avoid. The dividing line between a Gamma and a Delta is that the Gamma genuinely believes in the Gamma reality to the very core of his soul whereas the Delta is never truly comfortable with himself when he behaves in this manner despite being thoroughly indoctrinated in it by his culture. Example: Probably you if you've found yourself complaining about your lack of female companionship over the last two years. Suggestion: Remember that the statement "all are fallen" applies to women too. She isn't any more naturally pure or holy or ethereal than you are.

 

Lambdas - the gays. They have their own social hierarchy. They can fill any role from Alpha to Omega, but they tend to play the part rather than actually be it because the heterosexual social construct only encompasses the public part of their lives. Example: Neil Patrick Harris. Suggestion: Straights will be more tolerant if you keep the bathhouse behavior behind closed doors.

 

Sigmas - the lone wolves. Occasionally mistaken for Alphas, particularly by women and Alphas, they are not leaders and will actively resist the attempt of others to draft them. Alphas instinctively view them as challenges and either dislike or warily respect them. Some Deltas and most Omegas fancy themselves Sigmas, but the true Sigma's withdrawal from the pack is not a reaction to the way he is treated, it is pure instinct. Example: Clint Eastwood's movie persona. Suggestion: Entertain the possibility that other people are not always Hell. The banal idiocy is incidental, it's not intentional torture.

 

Omegas - the losers. Even the Gamma males despise them. That which doesn't kill them can make them stronger, but most never surmount the desperate need to belong caused by their social rejection. Omegas can be the most dangerous of men because the pain of their constant rejection renders the suffering of others completely meaningless in their eyes. Omegas tend to cluster in defensive groups; the dividing line between the Omega and the Sigma is twofold and can be easily recognized by a) the behavior of male Betas and Deltas and b) the behavior of women. Women tend to find outliers attractive in general, but while they respond to Sigmas almost as strongly as they do to Alphas, they correctly find Omega males creepier and much scarier than Gamma males. Example: Eric Harris Suggestion: Your rejection isn't entirely personal. Observe the difference in your own behavior and the way the Betas act. And try not to start off conversations with women by sharing "interesting facts" with them.

 

I'm not claiming that this hierarchy is science or incontrovertible fact, it's merely the lens through which I tend to view the current sexual-social hierarchy. I think it is a little more broadly useful from a theoretical perspective than the Game construct, even if it is less immediately applicable from a tactical point of view.

[David Ottinger]

Now, you're picking and choosing what you wish to respond to, rather than responding to my argument.

 

For example, you ignored my question, "Why not refuse to use words like "violence", "conquest", and "the principle of equal consideration", and then make your point anyway?"

 

Which is a challenge, David.  CAN YOU make your argument about PUA without: (1) resorting to confusing language like "violence", "conquest" and "the principle of equal consideration" and then (2) complaining that people aren't hearing you?  OR is your argument style dependent upon using that confusing language and then complaining when other people are confused? 

 

Respond to my argument, David.  Don't run away with dismissive language.

 

 

^And folks, this right here is exactly what's wrong with this PUA crap -- which he is practicing right now.  Posture, reframe, and 1 up your target.  Don't be truthful; don't be real is the motto.  It's a show/an illusion, and the show must go on!

 

By throwing down the gauntlet like he has, he has esscalated from passive aggressive to aggressive in attempts to keep me engaged.  Make a move, and if it fails, then step back, reframe, and make another move.  Practice it everyday because soon enough you'll be a regular trickster and none will be the wiser. 

 

However, practie logic and reason and you will see the charlatans for the frauds that they are.  

 

 

For example:

• He addressed me, but turns around and claims I'm ignoring his argument.
• He admits he is confused by my argument, but then turns around and says he has given me a rebuttal. 

 

 

Where is the integrity?  Where is the philosophy? 

 

 

In short, honor among thieves doesn't make anyone any less of a thief. 

[MMX2010]

^And folks, this right here is exactly what's wrong with this PUA crap -- which he is practicing right now.  Posture, reframe, and 1 up your target.  Don't be truthful; don't be real is the motto.  It's a show/an illusion, and the show must go on!

 

By throwing down the gauntlet like he has, he has esscalated from passive aggressive to aggressive in attempts to keep me engaged.  Make a move, and if it fails, then step back, reframe, and make another move.  Practice it everyday because soon enough you'll be a regular trickster and none will be the wiser. 

 

Nope, David. 

 

I don't care whether you remain engaged or not. 

 

If you make your anti-PUA argument without using words like "violence", "conquest", and "the principle of equal consideration", I will respond to that. 

 

If not, I'll just write you off as having failed the challenge.  Meaning, the reason that you didn't try to formulate your anti-PUA argument WITHOUT using those words, is because you can't formulate your anti-PUA argument without using those words. 

 

 

 

 

Where is the integrity?  Where is the philosophy?  In short, honor among thieves doesn't make anyone any less of a thief.

 

Personal attacks like, "He's moving from passive-aggressive to aggressive in order to keep me engaged.", and "In short, honor among thieves doesn't make anyone less of a thief." have no place on this forum. 

 

I know you'll convince some people that you're acting with "integrity" and "philosophy" here, but you should take those words much more seriously by NOT using them, and focusing more on Making Your Arguments. 

[J. D. Stembal]

I am now experiencing frustration.

 

How could man have fallen so far to reject his very sexuality? (so says the celibate)

 

Until someone acknowledges my previous thesis (let alone attempting a dismissal, corroboration or refutation), I'll be exploring other threads.

 

Thank you for the conversation, such as it was.

[MMX2010]

Until someone acknowledges my previous thesis (let alone attempting a dismissal, corroboration or refutation), I'll be exploring other threads.

 

Which post number in this thread, J. D.? 

 

Also, could you answer my questions in the FDR2993 - Incomprehensible Bravery thread? 

[WasatchMan]

You don't get why this is so hard?

 

Hmm, let's re-quote you, "I know this is fallacious, but it seems like PUA exists so men can stroke their ego. Maybe it is just me, but I don't prefer lots of recreational sex because I know that is not the purpose of sex (however, I also experienced some of the consequences of this recreational sex mentality in my early 20s)."

Again, you leave out the first two sentences of this paragraph that give the context that I was talking about the biological purpose to counter another biological argument.  I have even quoted the whole paragraph to you and clarified that I did in fact mean for the context to be biological. Where you then led me on a path of some abnormal interpretation of the word biological to only come back to this again.

 

Notice the passive-aggressive comment that PUA exists so men can stroke their ego?  Such a comment is only objectively true if you can objectively prove that the purpose of sex isn't to stroke a man's ego.  However, once you've admitted (after some degree of tooth-pulling) that "you're not trying to universalize purpose", I'm glad that you'll be retracting that passive-aggressive comment about PUAs.

 

 

 

I don't see how it was passive-aggressive, since I displayed my full humility that I was making a fallacious statement, vulnerably submitting my emotional experience of it for all to see.  Completely separating my argument from my emotion.  To me that is being honest of my experience in the moment, not passive aggressive.

 

Oh, unless, you're "perfectly happy to ostracize for aesthetic reasons".  In which case, don't retract your statement, and we'll let everyone else decide whether they find it pleasant to interact with you. 

 

I admit I am.  I ostracize the Denny's down the street from me because I aesthetically don't like their food. Man I am just terrible, aren't I.  Please people, be warned, I ostracize eating establishments because I aesthetically dislike their food, I must not be a pleasant person to interact with at all.

[MMX2010]

I don't see how it was passive-aggressive, since I displayed my full humility that I was making a fallacious statement, vulnerably submitting my emotional experience of it for all to see.  Completely separating my argument from my emotion.  To me that is being honest of my experience in the moment, not passive aggressive.

 

Strange.  I never make fallacious statements that make an entire group of people look bad. 

[J. D. Stembal]

Which post number in this thread, J. D.? 

 

Also, could you answer my questions in the FDR2993 - Incomprehensible Bravery thread? 

 

45, 48, 51 - My back and forth with Patrick, and 78, the SigmaTau interaction.

 

The reply within FDR2993 is in limbo, so expect it soon.

[MMX2010]

45, 48, 51 - My back and forth with Patrick, and 78, the SigmaTau interaction.

 

The reply within FDR2993 is in limbo, so expect it soon.

 

Okay, I'll look into it, but it'll take a while. 

[Frosty]

As long as you're speaking personally, for yourself, I've no objection to what you're saying.  This is because you're explaining your own subjective emotional reaction to the situation AND NOT expecting everyone else to follow it - on condition that, if they refuse, they're delusional and immoral. 

 

If, however, you're saying that your experience is universally true for everyone, I promise you that it is not.  (Just ask around, and you'll find a sizeable chunk of people who disagree with you, myself included).  Once you do this, you have to make an argument based on Objective Evidence.  Failing that, your reply becomes "Not An Argument", and so I'll do what I want.  No hard feelings to you, of course - but those are the rules of philosophy.  

 

With respect to the response about mentality I'm saying that it's my personal reaction to that specific circumstance but I would also argue that these warning signs are the kind of things that people would look for if they're after a virtuous partners. If you're not concerned with this then you probably not after someone terribly virtuous, which is why I've said in the past that PUA is good for picking up specific types of women but more virtuous women with self knowledge are likely to be aware of these tactics and see them as off putting.

 

With respect to explicit lies in some PUA tactics it remains my argument that these are fraud and hence immoral by the standards of the NAP and UPB.

 

I just want to clarify I'm talking about 2 different things in the same post, I'm talking about some PUA actions being immoral and in addition I'm talking about PUAs tactics not being appropriate when looking for virtuous women (people, really), I think Stefan has made that point in past videos, that a virtuous woman is going to have a bit of self knowledge and she's going to avoid the obvious players.