Another PUA post...

[MMX2010]

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.

 

Right.  You're trying to have it both ways at the same time.

 

On the one hand you say, "I'm saying that it's my personal reaction to that specific circumstance" - (meaning you're just explaining your own personal preference, just like Sigma Tau is explaining his own personal preference). 

 

But on the other hand you finish the sentence with, "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" - (meaning that you're NOT just explaining your own personal preference, you're in fact arguing that your personal preference makes you morally upright, personally superior, deserving of all happiness that everyone who disagrees with you is doomed to not possess). 

 

Those contradictions cannot be simultaneously held without bringing misery upon yourself and everyone else who listens to you.  Because you either ARE morally superior - (in which case, you're weakening your moral superiority by disguising it with tolerance for those who disagree with you) - or you're NOT morally superior - (in which case, you're self-aggrandizing by using moralistic language to describe something that merely makes you different, not BETTER). 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Of course he said that.  He also said that his knowledge of Pick-Up Artistry is limited, because he never studied it in depth.  So he has the problem of, "Okay, I didn't really study this stuff at all, and I may have only picked and chose what I wanted to focus on, rather than studying it seriously BUT here's my very strong opinion, given with utterly supreme confidence anyway...." problem. 

 

Furthermore, he behaves like he wants to "reduce" PUA to "a bunch of stuff that he doesn't like", rescue the aspects of PUA that he does like and cal it by a happier name.  In my call-in show, (1) he called the high-IQ woman "rude" for using the line, "You look like you're begging for something but I don't know what it is.  (2) I pushed back, "If I wanted to view it as rude, I could have.  And I could've said, 'I find what you said extremely rude and sad.' - but I chose to find it funny instead by saying, 'Why did you go and say that? If you didn't say anything, I would've believed that you didn't see my hand.  But when you say stuff like that, I've gotta turn my hand over!"  (3) He said, (something like), "Well, what you're describing there sounds like playfulness." 

 

While I accept that I didn't perform as well as I wanted to in the call-in show, that exchange above shed a lot of light on the problem with anti-PUAs.  You want to comment on something you haven't deeply studied.  You want to assert that you know more about it than those who have studied it.  And you want to re-frame the parts of PUA that you like into "not really PUA". 

[Frosty]

Right.  You're trying to have it both ways at the same time.

 

On the one hand you say, "I'm saying that it's my personal reaction to that specific circumstance" - (meaning you're just explaining your own personal preference, just like Sigma Tau is explaining his own personal preference). 

 

But on the other hand you finish the sentence with, "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" - (meaning that you're NOT just explaining your own personal preference, you're in fact arguing that your personal preference makes you morally upright, personally superior, deserving of all happiness that everyone who disagrees with you is doomed to not possess). 

 

Those contradictions cannot be simultaneously held without bringing misery upon yourself and everyone else who listens to you.  Because you either ARE morally superior - (in which case, you're weakening your moral superiority by disguising it with tolerance for those who disagree with you) - or you're NOT morally superior - (in which case, you're self-aggrandizing by using moralistic language to describe something that merely makes you different, not BETTER). 

 

No, I'm not trying to have it both ways. You asked if it was my preference and I answered, yes it's my personal preference because I have a preference at this point in my life to seek virtuous women (if any women at all), however that was not always the case, at other points in my life I cared less about virtue and simply was interested in friends with benefits type of relationships, there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion, as long as you're honest about your intentions.

 

You're attempting to tie these two things together and they're not related strongly in that way, the kind of thing you seek out doesn't necessarily reflect your own virtue, HOW you go about getting what you want is what reflects your own virtue. If you want someone who isn't interested in virtue in her partner then that's fine that itself doesn't make you morally inferior, but if you're manipulating people using the more heavy handed PUA tactics then hell yes that's immoral, I think it has been established now that some strong PUA tactics are violations of the NAP.

 

You've incorrectly extrapolated my argument to things like "deserving of happiness", I of course never said such a thing and quite frankly I'm more than a little frustrated you're representing it this way, I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth.

 

 

Of course he said that.  He also said that his knowledge of Pick-Up Artistry is limited, because he never studied it in depth.  So he has the problem of, "Okay, I didn't really study this stuff at all, and I may have only picked and chose what I wanted to focus on, rather than studying it seriously BUT here's my very strong opinion, given with utterly supreme confidence anyway...." problem. 

 

Furthermore, he behaves like he wants to "reduce" PUA to "a bunch of stuff that he doesn't like", rescue the aspects of PUA that he does like and cal it by a happier name.  In my call-in show, (1) he called the high-IQ woman "rude" for using the line, "You look like you're begging for something but I don't know what it is.  (2) I pushed back, "If I wanted to view it as rude, I could have.  And I could've said, 'I find what you said extremely rude and sad.' - but I chose to find it funny instead by saying, 'Why did you go and say that? If you didn't say anything, I would've believed that you didn't see my hand.  But when you say stuff like that, I've gotta turn my hand over!"  (3) He said, (something like), "Well, what you're describing there sounds like playfulness." 

 

While I accept that I didn't perform as well as I wanted to in the call-in show, that exchange above shed a lot of light on the problem with anti-PUAs.  You want to comment on something you haven't deeply studied.  You want to assert that you know more about it than those who have studied it.  And you want to re-frame the parts of PUA that you like into "not really PUA". 

 

I've made it quite clear that some PUAs are moral and some are immoral, I don't need to have studied all the moral tactics to make the claim that some PUA tactics are immoral.

 

I've started listening to the linked show but your section must be further in and I haven't got to it yet, I will do when I have time and probably comment. Given what you written there are plenty of conversations between people who are sexually interested in each other which require reading through the lines and teasing out if you're both on the same page with the double meaning, it's often done as playfulness. If you have a fairly strong reason to believe that you're both being playful and there is a level of subtext (which is something you can reasonably test in conversation) then we can consider the manipulation or the game at play to be consensual.

 

But there's also a number of other things we've already covered which are clearly not acceptable such as outright lies and more insidious forms of manipulation. So we can say with some confidence that there is some things we can take from PUA which are good and some which are bad, you don't need to study PUA in great depth to understand that.

 

For the record I'm not anti-PUA, I'm just of the opinion that the NAP is valid and that some PUA tactics are in violation of the NAP. That the rest of the tactics are fine morally speaking but will probably lead you to find people who are less interested in virtue because people more interested in virtue will probably recoil against them rather than be manipulated by them. Basically use the right tool for the job, if you're after someone who is themselves interested in virtue, then just be yourself, don't try and manipulate the situation, be honest and forthright.

[MMX2010]

No, I'm not trying to have it both ways. You asked if it was my preference and I answered, yes it's my personal preference because I have a preference at this point in my life to seek virtuous women (if any women at all), however that was not always the case, at other points in my life I cared less about virtue and simply was interested in friends with benefits type of relationships, there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion, as long as you're honest about your intentions.

 

Okay.  I think I get it now.

 

 

 

 

I've made it quite clear that some PUAs are moral and some are immoral, I don't need to have studied all the moral tactics to make the claim that some PUA tactics are immoral.

 

I've started listening to the linked show but your section must be further in and I haven't got to it yet, I will do when I have time and probably comment. Given what you written there are plenty of conversations between people who are sexually interested in each other which require reading through the lines and teasing out if you're both on the same page with the double meaning, it's often done as playfulness. If you have a fairly strong reason to believe that you're both being playful and there is a level of subtext (which is something you can reasonably test in conversation) then we can consider the manipulation or the game at play to be consensual.

 

But there's also a number of other things we've already covered which are clearly not acceptable such as outright lies and more insidious forms of manipulation. So we can say with some confidence that there is some things we can take from PUA which are good and some which are bad, you don't need to study PUA in great depth to understand that.

 

For the record I'm not anti-PUA, I'm just of the opinion that the NAP is valid and that some PUA tactics are in violation of the NAP. That the rest of the tactics are fine morally speaking but will probably lead you to find people who are less interested in virtue because people more interested in virtue will probably recoil against them rather than be manipulated by them. Basically use the right tool for the job, if you're after someone who is themselves interested in virtue, then just be yourself, don't try and manipulate the situation, be honest and forthright.

 

 

When you listen to the call-in show, focus on: (1) the concept of poisoning the well, (2) Stefan's initial, and secondary, and tertiary reaction to my story about the McDonald's chick, and (3) Stefan's initial reaction to, and then reverse reaction towards, the second chick - described as High IQ. 

 

Those are his strongest reactions to PUA tactics, so they'll be the focus of the next phase of our discussion. 

[David Ottinger]

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.

 

I read your posts, and I'm not really sure what your thesis was/is.   I suppose you're arguing that a woman is the final arbiter of sexual intercourse and the family.  Was that your premise?

 

Personally, I don't find that there is a hierarchy of arbiters, let alone any at all unless we're talking about an arranged marriage.  But, even then, I don't see how there is an arbiter unless we're not talking about a voluntary association.  Arbiters are great for resolving a conflict, not arranaging a relationship. 

 

Now, if you want to say that women are the gate keepers (to put it metaphorically) of sex and family, then I would have to disagree with that.  The woman is only one interested party in a consensual relationsip.  She can only present her interests -- which will be disclosed throughout the courtship, sometimes subtly and sometimes bluntly.

[J. D. Stembal]

I read your posts, and I'm not really sure what your thesis was/is.   I suppose you're arguing that a woman is the final arbiter of sexual intercourse and the family.  Was that your premise?

 

Personally, I don't find that there is a hierarchy of arbiters, let alone any at all unless we're talking about an arranged marriage.  But, even then, I don't see how there is an arbiter unless we're not talking about a voluntary association.  Arbiters are great for resolving a conflict, not arranaging a relationship. 

 

Arbiter is a poor choice of word, I now realize. Thank you for pointing it out here. I had realized that I was misusing the word last night.

 

The more accepted definition of Briffault's Law is:

 

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

 

Association between the woman and the man is completely voluntary, but it is 100% the final decision of the female, not the male.

 

You may disagree, believing that familial relationships are more egalitarian post-Feminism (I'm not sure what your counter argument is.), but human civilization does not totally erase millions of years of evolution. Women are the only gatekeepers of sex because they have the eggs.

 

Why do you think the female membership is around 5% on the forums? Philosophy ain't all that important to them! Why? What a woman says has the power of a curse. If a woman shames you, she is using the power of her eggs to put a curse on your genes, attempting to prevent you from breeding. This is some very powerful mojo, and comes out of our tribal past. Stefan talked about the insanity of the tribe and genetic ostracism in a recent show, and I found it very useful.

 

 

Yes, of course not all women are like that, but the female membership and participation within the realm of philosophy is extremely low. How many of those women are trawling the meetups and message boards for intelligent sperm, meaning philosophy is of secondary importance?

[MMX2010]

Why do you think the female membership is around 5% on the forums? Philosophy ain't all that important to them! Why?

 

True. 

 

But also false.  If the men who were most interested in philosophy were the most sexually desirable, then the women would at least try to mimic philosophical understanding in order to attract us.  Some of these women would, (either quickly or eventually) become genuinely philosophically-rigorous through the constant mimicry. 

 

All you've discovered is that very few women will independently become philosophically rigorous and virtuous without the daily personal interaction with philosophically rigorous and virtuous men.  Hence, the "Don't engage with any woman who isn't philosophically rigorous!  Shame and ostracize!" argument is extremely impedimentary to philosophy. 

[J. D. Stembal]

 

True. 

 

But also false.  If the men who were most interested in philosophy were the most sexually desirable, then the women would at least try to mimic philosophical understanding in order to attract us.  Some of these women would, (either quickly or eventually) become genuinely philosophically-rigorous through the constant mimicry. 

 

All you've discovered is that very few women will independently become philosophically rigorous and virtuous without the daily personal interaction with philosophically rigorous and virtuous men.  Hence, the "Don't engage with any woman who isn't philosophically rigorous!  Shame and ostracize!" argument is extremely impedimentary to philosophy. 

 

I am having trouble accepting the premise that emulation (mimicry) is a genuine expression of the self. If a woman doesn't already value philosophy, or at least logic, she will not change for the sake of advancing her understanding of a higher order concept. She's playing along so that the man will mate with her.

 

See Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Security of the self and the family come three levels before philosophy.

 

 

[MMX2010]

I am having trouble accepting the premise that emulation (mimicry) is a genuine expression of the self. If a woman doesn't already value philosophy, or at least logic, she will not change for the sake of advancing her understanding of a higher order concept. She's playing along so that the man will mate with her.

 

So, on the one hand, Stefan says things like, "Women are biologically pre-disposed to surrender to the strongest ape in the room."  And you also believe that women "believe in" the State, because the State gives them resources.  And you see women mimic-repeat pro-State talking points all the time. 

 

But, on the other hand, when I suggest, "A philosophically strong man who is also sexy can get the same result through mimicry.", you're like, "No, man.  I'm worried about her mimicry, because it is mimicry." 

[J. D. Stembal]

 

So, on the one hand, Stefan says things like, "Women are biologically pre-disposed to surrender to the strongest ape in the room."  And you also believe that women "believe in" the State, because the State gives them resources.  And you see women mimic-repeat pro-State talking points all the time. 

 

But, on the other hand, when I suggest, "A philosophically strong man who is also sexy can get the same result through mimicry.", you're like, "No, man.  I'm worried about her mimicry, because it is mimicry." 

 

No, that's not what I believe. Women are the State.

 

Women have the power to determine whether your genes are ostracized or accepted. Isn't that the ultimate manifestation of argumentation? They don't need logic at all to make a great case.

 

If a woman decides to mate with the strongest ape, it is because that is what she (and her egg) wants. This is why cuckolding persists.

 

I'm worried about emulation because it is not genuine insofar as motivation is concerned. The female motivation is to reproduce, first and foremost. If we take a woman who has pursued a successful career over children, because she does not wish to reproduce, would you still be able to mold her into embracing philosophy through game?

 

I don't know the answer for certain, but I have my suspicions. Usually, the woman who has forsaken childbirth to climb the ladder will only want to mate with a man who has climbed higher than her, meaning her priority is material acquisition, and not fertility or reproduction. These two realms aren't mutually exclusive, of course.

[MMX2010]

No, that's not what I believe. Women are the State.

 

Women have the power to determine whether your genes are ostracized or accepted. Isn't that the ultimate manifestation of argumentation? They don't need logic at all to make a great case.

 

 

 

Do you think we're surrounded by Ubermenschen?  Utterly awesome, highly philosophically rigorous, ultra-sexy men who simultaneously trigger a woman's hypergamic needs and her fantasies for shelter and child-rearing? 

 

No?  Well then how do you know whether women's usage of the State is designed to make up for a lack of what men could provide, but don't?

 

 

 

I'm worried about emulation because it is not genuine insofar as motivation is concerned. The female motivation is to reproduce, first and foremost. If we take a woman who has pursued a successful career over children, because she does not wish to reproduce, would you still be able to mold her into embracing philosophy through game?

 

I don't know the answer for certain, but I have my suspicions. Usually, the woman who has forsaken childbirth to climb the ladder will only want to mate with a man who has climbed higher than her, meaning her priority is material acquisition, and not fertility or reproduction. These two realms aren't mutually exclusive, of course.

 

Aesthetically, I don't pursue 30-something career women. 

[David Ottinger]

The more accepted definition of Briffault's Law is:

 

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

 

Association between the woman and the man is completely voluntary, but it is 100% the final decision of the female, not the male.

 

 

I don't see how that logic follows.  How can I be half the relationship but also have zero percent of the decicion power?  That would be a one sided arrangement, thus not a voluntary exchange.  

 

If I am half the relationship, then I have half the deciding power.  There is no first decider or final decider or any sort of hierarchy like that.   I decide my commitment to a relationship.  No one can do that for me, unless I am under duress.

 

 

 

You may disagree, believing that familial relationships are more egalitarian post-Feminism (I'm not sure what your counter argument is.), but human civilization does not totally erase millions of years of evolution. Women are the only gatekeepers of sex because they have the eggs.

 

 

 

No, I disagree for the same reason that there is no final decider in a buyer/seller arrangement.  It's a mutual agreement. 

 

 

Why do you think the female membership is around 5% on the forums? Philosophy ain't all that important to them! Why? What a woman says has the power of a curse. If a woman shames you, she is using the power of her eggs to put a curse on your genes, attempting to prevent you from breeding. This is some very powerful mojo, and comes out of our tribal past. Stefan talked about the insanity of the tribe and genetic ostracism in a recent show, and I found it very useful.

 

 

Yes, of course not all women are like that, but the female membership and participation within the realm of philosophy is extremely low. How many of those women are trawling the meetups and message boards for intelligent sperm, meaning philosophy is of secondary importance?

 

Are you really asking me to speculate why there aren't many women participating on this forum? 

 

 

I disagree with Stefan.  He is essentially arguing that women have a monopoly on genetics because of collusion.  However, he's already negated his point in the following video:

 

[J. D. Stembal]

Women and sex != free market capitalism.

 

What do you call it when you ask a woman out on a date and she says no? What do you call it when you buy a woman dinner and flowers and she doesn't give you access to the eggs? Do you see a lot of vendors refuse business to their customers, as long as the customers are paying?

 

Men propose and women dispose.

 

If a man is asking a woman out, it is generally assumed by the woman that he wants to have sex with her unless he's gay and wants a beard, or some other less obvious motivation.

 

That video is great, but it has nothing to do with vagina unless I am missing something.

 

Yeah, I'd love for you to speculate why there aren't more women on the FDR forums, but only if you want to do so. It is a very thought-provoking question!

[shirgall]

I disagree with Stefan.  He is essentially arguing that women have a monopoly on genetics because of collusion.  However, he's already negated his point in the following video:

 

That's not Stef's argument. He certainly places a higher emphasis on the value of eggs, and the natural monopoly that affords women, as well as the economic need to sustain pregnancy, childbirth, and child raising. It is no surprise that women naturally gained control over selection of breeding partners, use social pressures to keep the price of egg access high (to ensure economic vitality for child-raising), and intense social pressure to stop women who subvert the dominance paradigm.

[David Ottinger]

Women and sex != free market capitalism.

 

What do you call it when you ask a woman out on a date and she says no?

 

 

 

Market principles are in effect anywhere there is an exchange.  Using your example, if a guy asks a girl on a date, then he has made an offer.  If the lady declines, then she did not accept the offer.  That's it. 

 

The lack of formalities in romantic discourse does not mean that market dynamics are not in play.  It is still a negotiation where consideration is paramount.  How else is consent achieved?  

 

 

What do you call it when you buy a woman dinner and flowers and she doesn't give you access to the eggs? Do you see a lot of vendors refuse business to their customers, as long as the customers are paying?

 

 

I call it a really bad assumption.   Why would anyone assume that dinner and flowers automatically leads to sex?   More importantly, if I'm the one that has offered to host a date, why would I setup the courtship so that a dinner and flowers constitutes as payment for sex?  And, just to be clear, the whole premise of me paying for sex bugs me.   That's way too complicated of an ordeal when I can just go to a hooker.   I mean, that is if youre looking for a vendor for sex. 

 

 

 

Men propose and women dispose.

 

I appreciate your response, but I have to point out that I find this is simply a reassertion of your premise.  I'd like to hear your reasoning behind this conclusion.    

 

 

 

 

If a man is asking a woman out, it is generally assumed by the woman that he wants to have sex with her unless he's gay and wants a beard, or some other less obvious motivation.

 

That video is great, but it has nothing to do with vagina unless I am missing something.

 

Sexual intercourse is a given in all romantic matters.  So much so that any focus on it is really not necessary.   So, I'll give you that sexual desire is a safe assumption by women, but that extends to men as well.  Women do make offers, but again, it would be presumptuous to assume the offer is sex.   Like wise, with any woman that I chat up for romantic interests, it would be highly presumptuous of her to treat my discourse as a forgone conclusion for sex, let alone a serious relationship. 

 

 

The video has to do with market dynamics.  And, we are discussing a market despite it not being a business venture.  It's a romantic venture. 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I'd love for you to speculate why there aren't more women on the FDR forums, but only if you want to do so. It is a very thought-provoking question!

 

It's certainly an interesting question, and I'd be happy to hear what women think about FDR, especially the ones who participate and even lurk.  That's really as far as I can go with it right now. 

 

But, I do not buy the notion that it's because the majority of women are not appreciative of philosophy or lack any use for it.  If anything, I'd be more inclinded to argue that cultural expectations have influenced women to refrain from such intellectual pursuits just as they have been with science and math.    

[David Ottinger]

That's not Stef's argument. He certainly places a higher emphasis on the value of eggs, and the natural monopoly that affords women, as well as the economic need to sustain pregnancy, childbirth, and child raising. It is no surprise that women naturally gained control over selection of breeding partners, use social pressures to keep the price of egg access high (to ensure economic vitality for child-raising), and intense social pressure to stop women who subvert the dominance paradigm.

 

There is no such thing as natural monopolies.  All monopolies arise as a result of force whether directly or indirectly.  So, I can agree that collusion among women can lead to set standards and when those standards are enforced by a group, then I agree that a monopolistic organization can be achieved.  

 

Other than that, someone is going to break ranks because people, regardless of gender, are willing to take risks for better living standards. 

[Frosty]

Women have a monopoly on sex because of biological programming guiding their behaviour to be reserved, cautious and selective. The hypergamy of women evolved because it benefited the spread of the genes to be selective for mates which could provide/protect, men who were good provider/protectors got to mate and pass on their genes so men are predisposed to take pay over the odds to breed and pass on their genes.

 

The problem is that our environment changed relatively fast (in evolutionary time scales) and our biology hasn't caught up since genetic changes are normally quite slow, so we have these biological predispositions left over. We no longer have the stress of our environment selecting our genes because as intelligent beings we've managed to control the environment and everyone is basically provided for no matter how their genes turn out or really how they behave. So we have

 

Collusion wouldn't work in the free market as sustaining collusion requires everyone to participate, and not everyone will there's just too much variance in people and their behaviour.

 

Womens general bias for a lack of interest in philosophy and other similar intellectual pursuits is likely just biological as well, this sort of stuff just doesn't interest and stimulate women in the same way it does men, in the main they much prefer emotional experience over intellectual satisfaction. A lot of that is to do with testosterone I think, an over exposure for anyone during foetal development including women is what creates a stronger preference for systems compared to people and compels things like STEM study, womens lack of testosterone leaves them desiring more empathetic pursuits, dealing with and helping people, that's why they tend to be care workers, nurses and things like that. We're just wired differently despite what the SJWs and feminists would have us believe.

[shirgall]

There is no such thing as natural monopolies.  All monopolies arise as a result of force whether directly or indirectly.  So, I can agree that collusion among women can lead to set standards and when those standards are enforced by a group, then I agree that a monopolistic organization can be achieved.  

 

Really? What gender has all the eggs? That's the natural monopoly I'm referring to.

[J. D. Stembal]

Women have a monopoly on sex because of biological programming guiding their behaviour to be reserved, cautious and selective. The hypergamy of women evolved because it benefited the spread of the genes to be selective for mates which could provide/protect, men who were good provider/protectors got to mate and pass on their genes so men are predisposed to take pay over the odds to breed and pass on their genes.

 

The problem is that our environment changed relatively fast (in evolutionary time scales) and our biology hasn't caught up since genetic changes are normally quite slow, so we have these biological predispositions left over. We no longer have the stress of our environment selecting our genes because as intelligent beings we've managed to control the environment and everyone is basically provided for no matter how their genes turn out or really how they behave. So we have

 

Collusion wouldn't work in the free market as sustaining collusion requires everyone to participate, and not everyone will there's just too much variance in people and their behaviour.

 

Womens general bias for a lack of interest in philosophy and other similar intellectual pursuits is likely just biological as well, this sort of stuff just doesn't interest and stimulate women in the same way it does men, in the main they much prefer emotional experience over intellectual satisfaction. A lot of that is to do with testosterone I think, an over exposure for anyone during foetal development including women is what creates a stronger preference for systems compared to people and compels things like STEM study, womens lack of testosterone leaves them desiring more empathetic pursuits, dealing with and helping people, that's why they tend to be care workers, nurses and things like that. We're just wired differently despite what the SJWs and feminists would have us believe.

 

These are great observations! I'm eager to go into story time.

 

I'm going to lay down a couple anecdotes about women in STEM fields. My last romantic relationship with a woman was the first caller from FDR 2733. A Ph. D. in Physics, she was probably one of the smartest people I have dated in my life, with an IQ higher than mine. However, her natural ability to use logic (math) when it came to sex and the family was largely irrelevant.

 

I can still remember the first night we met for swing dancing. Some of the first words I recall her saying were, "Oh, you're cute!" Her eggs were all over me before I had said one word, but when I started preaching the voluntary family to her a year later, the eggs soured to my presence. I am become Stefbot.

 

Without getting into details, there were emotional hangups within her family that she wasn't reasoned into, so therefore, we could not rely on reason to remedy them. She was going to call in with a completely different, yet related question, or so I was informed, but we broke up before she got to the front of the call queue.

 

As a footnote, it is interesting to consider that the physicist was also doing crossfit, which raises testosterone levels in women (and men). You mentioned testosterone in early development, and that's what made me think of her.

 

This week, I met a mining engineer who was renting out my spare room. Not only was she a remarkably easy-going, intelligent woman, but also incredibly empathic. We talked for several hours about my struggles with self-esteem, my hypercritical father and alcoholism, and she was completely rapt with attention, hanging on almost every word. Nothing that I said was boring or uninteresting to her.

 

This is the opposite of my parents, who pretended not to hear me much of the time, unless I was doing something wrong.

 

I don't think I've talked to any person who showed me that level of respect and empathy before. I know that our relationship was strictly business, but I had to consciously ignore the EGGS! siren going off in my hind brain. When we parted ways, she hugged me and said, "I have never learned so much in a day than as I have from you." I had the sense that if we had met under different circumstances, we could have easily enjoyed the same quality of conversation over a coffee.

 

That's all I got regarding women in STEM fields as of now.

[MMX2010]

 

This week, I met a mining engineer who was renting out my spare room. Not only was she a remarkably easy-going, intelligent woman, but also incredibly empathic. We talked for several hours about my struggles with self-esteem, my hypercritical father and alcoholism, and she was completely rapt with attention, hanging on almost every word. Nothing that I said was boring or uninteresting to her.

 

 

She was at least thirty-five, not interested in marriage or children, a 5 or below in physical attractiveness - (with my guess being a 3) - and didn't sleep with you.  Am I right? 

 

If I am wrong, it's probably because you took the conversation to "therapeutic language", where the therapy language is focused on yourself and your struggles.  This is a huge no-no, as it puts the man into the Child-role, with her being in the Mother-role. 

[J. D. Stembal]

She was at least thirty-five, not interested in marriage or children, a 5 or below in physical attractiveness - (with my guess being a 3) - and didn't sleep with you.  Am I right? 

 

If I am wrong, it's probably because you took the conversation to "therapeutic language", where the therapy language is focused on yourself and your struggles.  This is a huge no-no, as it puts the man into the Child-role, with her being in the Mother-role. 

 

You are correct on every point except that I rate her as a 6-7 physically. I did say that the EGGS! alarm was going off, right? I wouldn't have had sex with her under any circumstance.

 

I don't know if I used therapeutic language, but I was discussing Nathaniel Branden a bit, so probably. If she was mothering me, then I couldn't see it, because she's the exact opposite of my mother.

 

Your observation is very useful to me, though. I have recently realized that I have a long history of pushing the mommy button to get attention from women. I have been working mommy-baby game (if there is such a thing) on women for years. It's useful to note that, sexually, women key off the same hormonal circuits when socializing with their mate as they do when socializing with an infant. Pets tend to have a similar attraction to women, which is why dogs and cats have quickly displaced children in the Golden Age of Fiat Currency.

[MMX2010]

 

 

I don't know if I used therapeutic language, but I was discussing Nathaniel Branden a bit, so probably. If she was mothering me, then I couldn't see it, because she's the exact opposite of my mother.

 

You don't get to decide whether she was in the Mother-role or not; she does.

 

And every time you use "therapy-based language" - such as self-esteem, childhood struggles, and dating-struggles - when conversing with a woman, you're putting her in the Mother-role. 

[J. D. Stembal]

You don't get to decide whether she was in the Mother-role or not; she does.

 

And every time you use "therapy-based language" - such as self-esteem, childhood struggles, and dating-struggles - when conversing with a woman, you're putting her in the Mother-role. 

 

I am in total agreement with your assessment, but in the moment, I could not perceive her in the mother role, as I understand it through my childhood experience. My mother is completely emotionally aloof. This woman was well tapped into her emotional needs. The drive to talk to her was magnetic.

 

I was not running game on her, of course. There was a moment, after just meeting her, where we were talking about the health benefits of broccoli. Reportedly, it enhances testosterone levels conferring substantial benefits in men. Thank Elliot Hulse for this information.

 

As I was saying this, her eyes drifted off to the right and down a little as if she was thinking about something verboten (probably whether or not I wanted to sleep with her), and I quickly interjected, "Oh, it's not what you're thinking about! I'm talking about using it to add more lean muscle mass." She laughed, and threw it back at me, "That's what I was thinking about. What were you thinking?" I was demonstrating to her in that moment that I was extremely uncomfortable with the subject of sex, and she could tell.

 

She was very clever, but I didn't bite, although I could have recovered if I was trying to run game. I explained the obvious, that higher testosterone correlates with sexual drive as well as gaining lean muscle mass quickly. She looked at me with an expression on her face, as if to say, "Well, duh." I failed the shit test on purpose to dissipate any possible sexual tension because I didn't want any of that with a house guest.

[MMX2010]

I am in total agreement with your assessment, but in the moment, I could not perceive her in the mother role, as I understand it through my childhood experience. My mother is completely emotionally aloof. This woman was well tapped into her emotional needs. The drive to talk to her was magnetic.

 

 

I know the drive to talk to her was magnetic, but there are certain things that you shouldn't do, one of which is tell her about your childhood struggles, your self-esteem struggles, and your current relationship struggles.  It puts her into the Mother-role, whether you see it or not.  And it prevents her from wanting to have sex with you. 

 

(All of this is why Stefan's "Go to Therapy" advice is harmful to the men who follow it while in a relationship with a woman - which damages the relationship.) 

[J. D. Stembal]

I know the drive to talk to her was magnetic, but there are certain things that you shouldn't do, one of which is tell her about your childhood struggles, your self-esteem struggles, and your current relationship struggles.  It puts her into the Mother-role, whether you see it or not.  And it prevents her from wanting to have sex with you. 

 

(All of this is why Stefan's "Go to Therapy" advice is harmful to the men who follow it while in a relationship with a woman - which damages the relationship.) 

 

Oh, I get it. That was my goal. If she had wanted to fuck me, we probably would not have had such a great conversation, so thank baby Jesus she didn't. I was purposefully seeking to value her for her mind (and the money she was paying me), not her eggs, although my natural inclination would be to press for the eggs with gusto.

 

If you are trying to run game on a woman, I don't think that playing patient is as damaging to your chances as trying to play therapist. Like you said, the real players know enough to not do either. If a woman comes to you, looking for you to solve her emotional problems, you have to run away because she's about to latch upon you like a parasite. I knew this in my early twenties, in theory, and experience.

 

I've got daddy issues should be like a banshee scream that drives away all men in a three-hundred yard radius, but it takes some of us a bit of time to see this. I has taken me a lot longer to see the opposite problem.

 

If in the future, I want to attract a woman sexually, I will know to keep my "mommy game" tendencies under wraps, but at some point, I will have to reveal my weaknesses, especially if they hold such a powerful sway over me. My goal is to minimize the effect of my parents screwed up parentage on my well-being. I am currently figuring out how to draw strength from it instead. Do you agree that this would be far more attractive than appealing to the mothering instinct?

 

I thank you for you continued input, MMX. This has been helping me explore the ideas that I am still trying to formulate for my next wellness video, the one I was supposed to record last night.

 

Edit: I realized that I may have confused you by making two contradicting statements. Originally, when discussing STEM women, I stated that under different circumstances, I could have met the mining engineer over coffee, but then later, I said that I wouldn't have had sex with her under any circumstance. The reason for this is because money was being exchanged from her to me, and not the other way around.

 

If she pays me, and then also sleeps with me, that would put me in the position of a reverse-provider mate, which is roundly characterized as exploitive or parasitical when it manifests in men (because of EGGS!). No matter how sexually attractive a man is, or successful the woman is, she will have a mental block about paying a man in order to sleep with him. This is why there are so few stay-at-home fathers in the world, and why they would rather cram their brood in the daycare or public school system.

[MMX2010]

 

I thank you for you continued input, MMX. This has been helping me explore the ideas that I am still trying to formulate for my next wellness video, the one I was supposed to record last night.

 

You're welcome.

 

 

 

Oh, I get it. That was my goal. If she had wanted to fuck me, we probably would not have had such a great conversation, so thank baby Jesus she didn't. I was purposefully seeking to value her for her mind (and the money she was paying me), not her eggs, although my natural inclination would be to press for the eggs with gusto.

 

 

Lately, I've been focused on Black-or-White / Gamma thought processes, so I recognize them immediately.   Gamma creates the false dichotomy of "Should I choose A or B?", while anti-Gamma says, "Both, dude!  BOTH!" 

 

For example: why did you set up the goal, "I wanted to value her for her mind BUT NOT her eggs?"  What goal besides, "I want a man to value me for my mind AND my eggs?" do you think she has? 

 

I blame your decisions entirely on Stefan, by the way.  His rhetoric against beautiful women, coupled with his unwillingness to consider that he himself simultaneously triggers a woman's hypergamous desires AND is philosophically-rigorous, makes him closed-minded against the possibility that hypergamic-triggering plays a large role in spreading philosophy. 

 

 

 

I've got daddy issues should be like a banshee scream that drives away all men in a three-hundred yard radius, but it takes some of us a bit of time to see this. I has taken me a lot longer to see the opposite problem.

 

 

You'd better be careful with that rhetoric, too. 

 

After all, if "I've got daddy issues." is bad in women, then "I've got mommy issues." is bad in men, right?  So what percent of men on this forum have mommy issues?  Over 90%, right?  (Just ask them for their ACE scores, and a brief summary of their parents' relationships.) 

 

Now, I understand that Stefan has always had huge goals for himself, which means he wants a wife who requires minimal emotional management.  But since every other man's goals are not that high, then he has both the time and skill-level with which to manage women's silliness. 

 

 

 

 

 

If in the future, I want to attract a woman sexually, I will know to keep my "mommy game" tendencies under wraps, but at some point, I will have to reveal my weaknesses, especially if they hold such a powerful sway over me. My goal is to minimize the effect of my parents screwed up parentage on my well-being. I am currently figuring out how to draw strength from it instead. Do you agree that this would be far more attractive than appealing to the mothering instinct?

 

 

Do you think women are so stupid that you have to "reveal" your weaknesses to them?  Or do they just pick up on those weaknesses as a natural consequence of hanging out with you? 

 

Revealing your weaknesses is infinitely weaker than expecting her to discover those weaknesses herself.  

[David Ottinger]

Really? What gender has all the eggs? That's the natural monopoly I'm referring to.

 

A lot of good that does without sperm to activate the egg.   And, because of that simple fact, I don't find that it is a monopoly.  The eggs only represent half the reproductive process.  Therefore, I cannot reasonably claim that women have a monopoly on reproduction.

 

 

Women have a monopoly on sex because of biological programming guiding their behaviour to be reserved, cautious and selective. The hypergamy of women evolved because it benefited the spread of the genes to be selective for mates which could provide/protect, men who were good provider/protectors got to mate and pass on their genes so men are predisposed to take pay over the odds to breed and pass on their genes.

 

The problem is that our environment changed relatively fast (in evolutionary time scales) and our biology hasn't caught up since genetic changes are normally quite slow, so we have these biological predispositions left over. We no longer have the stress of our environment selecting our genes because as intelligent beings we've managed to control the environment and everyone is basically provided for no matter how their genes turn out or really how they behave. So we have

 

Collusion wouldn't work in the free market as sustaining collusion requires everyone to participate, and not everyone will there's just too much variance in people and their behaviour.

 

Please read my above comment to shirgall.  All I can add to my above comment is:  Women endure great risk by being biologically responsible for carrying the child.  So, I fail to see how their particular risk management requirements due to having a womb creates a monopoly on reproduction.   Women sacrifice their own body to house a child.  The very *least* a man can do is provide a house over their heads.  Granted, due to the development of capital goods, this requisite on men is no longer as stringent.

 

In short, women assume great risk when they have sex because the man can always leave without return.  Given the degree to which women are biologically required to endure such risk, it would be a lot easier to argue that men can gain all the benefits of sex while assuming none of the responsibility.  Thus, framing the dilemma in such terms (i.e. is it a monopoly or not?) is disingenuous.  

 

 

 

Womens general bias for a lack of interest in philosophy and other similar intellectual pursuits is likely just biological as well, this sort of stuff just doesn't interest and stimulate women in the same way it does men, in the main they much prefer emotional experience over intellectual satisfaction. A lot of that is to do with testosterone I think, an over exposure for anyone during foetal development including women is what creates a stronger preference for systems compared to people and compels things like STEM study, womens lack of testosterone leaves them desiring more empathetic pursuits, dealing with and helping people, that's why they tend to be care workers, nurses and things like that. We're just wired differently despite what the SJWs and feminists would have us believe.

 

Time is of the essence for women due to their biological clock.  Thus, I assume there is pressure on women to develop their somatic mind more thoroughly so that they can, for starters, empathize with men much more rapidly in order to deduce their qualities, as well as what role the particular man can play in her life.  

 

When it comes to memory, the intellectual mind is faulty.  However, emotional response to patterns is consistent.  So, my guess is that the inclination for focusing strongly on the development of the somatic mind is actually a pursuit of intellectual consistency.

 

This development of the somatic mind also allows one to have an empathetic response to society.  Thus, this development edifies the intellectual mind because it provides insight into the cultural environment.  

 

Thus, I find women are very much involved in philosophy.  Although, they are more likely inclined to express their perspective via narration rather than argumentation.  

 

However, given that women are typically not respected intellectually, my guess is that women turn to story telling instead of argumentation because their is a prejudice.  In other words, it's very similar to literature that served as allegories because the state oppressed free thought.  

 

 

My guess is that there are plenty of women lurking these boards.  However, my guess is that they don't feel welcome.  

 

And, at the risk of the following commentary coming off as an attack (It's not):  My guess is that women are reluctant to participate here because claims like "Women have a monopoly on sex" is construed as immaturity as it signifies that there is a lack of responsibility among the participants here.  In other words, it's too risky for women given that time is of the essence. 

 

And, to put it more bluntly: Women are looking to become a mother, albeit not your mother.  

 

 

[MMX2010]

However, given that women are typically not respected intellectually, my guess is that women turn to story telling instead of argumentation because their is a prejudice.  In other words, it's very similar to literature that served as allegories because the state oppressed free thought.  

 

 

My guess is that there are plenty of women lurking these boards.  However, my guess is that they don't feel welcome.  

 

 

 

Do you have access to the "Members List" portion of the forums?  I do.  And when I look up all of the new members (and ignore the gender-ambiguous names) for around seven pages, I'd estimate that less than 10% (or even less than 5%) of forum members are women. 

 

So when you speculate that "Plenty of women lurk on these forums.", what do you mean by "plenty" and what do you mean by "lurk"?  (I suppose you could argue that tons of women do not register as members or register as non-gender-identifying names such as MacDav, noisy, unlimitself, It1961, far43, and Oniw17 - but that would make your assertion non-falsifiable by any form of physical evidence.) 

 

So I'm quite curious what you mean by "plenty" and "lurk"? 

[David Ottinger]

If I had that sort of evidence, then I wouldn't need to speculate.  Hence, my hesitancy to speculate in the first place.  

What I mean by 'plenty' is that there are women participating on here to gain insight into the female perspective on various topics if needed.  But, it is not really necessary because whether something is true or not is irrespective of one's gender.  

"Lurkers" is forum slang for forum readers that don't post or post so infrequently that calling them participants might mislead someone into thinking they're active contributors when they are not.   

Given that this is a philosophy forum and not a dating site, my guess is that there is no point for women to advertise their "eggs".  Is that even welcome here?

Not that I think it would be unwelcome, but maybe there is some fear or concern that making one's femininity known would detract from the intellectual pursuits, not just for oneself but for others as well.  After all, there is an unfortunate cultural phenomenon that requires women to fight harder to be taken seriously on an intellectual level, not just because some men will buy into the cultural myth that women are bad at logic and reason (e.g. math and science), but also because a bias can arise from guys turning into 'yes men' because they want the eggs.  And, all of this is easily side stepped by remaining anonymous.

Thus, I'm more inclined to think that the 5 to 10 percent (whatever the number actually is) are simply the select few brave enough or possibly foolish enough to disclose that information rather than a representation of the actual gender demographic on here.

Also, on a side note, this is one of the few times where the distinct female perspective is necessary to see how welcome they feel on this board.  Personally, I welcome all the ladies to join in and share their thoughts openly.  But, I can't hold it against those that choose to remain anonymous.  

Hopefully more women will find this place a lot more liberating than they have thus far.

[MMX2010]

 

If I had that sort of evidence, then I wouldn't need to speculate.  Hence, my hesitancy to speculate in the first place.  

What I mean by 'plenty' is that there are women participating on here to gain insight into the female perspective on various topics if needed.  But, it is not really necessary because whether something is true or not is irrespective of one's gender.  

 

So "plenty" isn't even tied to a specific number of women on the board?  Nor is it tied to a specific percentage of women either on the board or listening to Stefan's podcasts?  If I choose to take you absolutely literally, your statement is true as long as two women are either posting on this board, or listening to FDR.  Since that statement is so unhelpful, I don't choose to take you absolutely literally, which means I have to take you figuratively, which means you have to very concisely explain your figurative language. 

 

 

 

"Lurkers" is forum slang for forum readers that don't post or post so infrequently that calling them participants might mislead someone into thinking they're active contributors when they are not.   

Given that this is a philosophy forum and not a dating site, my guess is that there is no point for women to advertise their "eggs".  Is that even welcome here?

 

 

You're contradicting yourself.  First you said, "What I mean by 'plenty' is that there are women participating on here to gain insight into the female perspective on various topics if needed."  (To behave like this, women would indeed need to identify themselves as female.)  But then you say, "my guess is that there is no point for women to advertise their "eggs". 

 

 

 

Not that I think it would be unwelcome, but maybe there is some fear or concern that making one's femininity known would detract from the intellectual pursuits, not just for oneself but for others as well.  After all, there is an unfortunate cultural phenomenon that requires women to fight harder to be taken seriously on an intellectual level, not just because some men will buy into the cultural myth that women are bad at logic and reason (e.g. math and science), but also because a bias can arise from guys turning into 'yes men' because they want the eggs.  And, all of this is easily side stepped by remaining anonymous.

Thus, I'm more inclined to think that the 5 to 10 percent (whatever the number actually is) are simply the select few brave enough or possibly foolish enough to disclose that information rather than a representation of the actual gender demographic on here.

 

But there's no way you can provide objective evidence to support this speculation, because people are hiding their gender from you.

 

 

 

 

Also, on a side note, this is one of the few times where the distinct female perspective is necessary to see how welcome they feel on this board.  Personally, I welcome all the ladies to join in and share their thoughts openly.  But, I can't hold it against those that choose to remain anonymous.  

Hopefully more women will find this place a lot more liberating than they have thus far.

 

 

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think you have very specific criticisms against certain things Stefan says that you believe are anti-female AND not based in any empirical reality.  My advice is to call-in. 

 

Speculation that cannot possibly be supported with objective evidence isn't going to settle the issue.  Nor is getting into arguments with men who've internalized and implemented specific elements of Stefan's advice that you perceive to be anti-female and non-empirical. 

[David Ottinger]

 

You're contradicting yourself.  First you said, "What I mean by 'plenty' is that there are women participating on here to gain insight into the female perspective on various topics if needed."  (To behave like this, women would indeed need to identify themselves as female.)  But then you say, "my guess is that there is no point for women to advertise their "eggs". 

 

 

 

I could've written that a lot better.   I meant:  There are plenty of women on here for one to gain insight into the female perspective if needed.  Hopefully that clears it up for you. 

 

 

Also, if you're going to quote me, at least put some elipses where you cut out the rest of my sentence, otherwise I'm going to assume you're deliberately trying to take me out of context. 

 

So, if you still think I'm contradicitng myself, you're welcome to explain how such advertising allows one to determine the logical accuracy of a statement. 

 

 

 

But there's no way you can provide objective evidence to support this speculation, because people are hiding their gender from you.

 

 

If I could, it would cease to be speculation. 

 

 

 

 

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think you have very specific criticisms against certain things Stefan says that you believe are anti-female AND not based in any empirical reality.  My advice is to call-in. 

 

Speculation that cannot possibly be supported with objective evidence isn't going to settle the issue.  Nor is getting into arguments with men who've internalized and implemented specific elements of Stefan's advice that you perceive to be anti-female and non-empirical. 

 

 

I don't have any such criticisms.  I was simply pointing out how the percieved lack of female presence on the forum might be a presumption. 

 

Women have to check it out to turn it down, right?  Unless you all are saying that women aren't being exposed to the content. 

[MMX2010]

 

 

 

I was simply pointing out how the percieved lack of female presence on the forum might be a presumption. 

 

 

It's not a presumption. 

 

If you click on the members' list and scroll through about ten pages (ignoring the gender-neutral and non-gender-revealing names), you'll see that less than 10% of posters are identifiable as female. 

 

Furthermore, the NYC FDR Meet-Up Group has been in existence for over a year.  And it had only one regularly-attending female member, and less than five "only showed up once or twice" members.  This is out of over 80 people. 

 

So replace "presumption" with "excellent educated guess, based on limited-but-available evidence".