Why is there no "male resources for attracting women" aisle at the store?

[DaVinci]

If men are primarily attracted to youth and beauty, and women are primarily attracted to resources/money then why do women get an entire department geared towards looking young and beautiful, but there is no "resources aisle" for men? I can't go into Walmart and pick up a tube of glossy green money. ...Well, I can, but that's called "theft". 

 

It seems like for men to get money, and thus resources, they have to work much harder comparable to the money and application time cost of makeup. Granted, some might say "every aisle is the resources aisle" or "men have it waaaayyyyy easier" but do they? 

 

I'd like to hear some thoughts on this. I haven't got my mind completely wrapped around these ideas and would like to hear some other perspectives.

 

 

[shirgall]

[Nima]

^ LMFAO. GOOD ONE! 

In seriousness, I think it imitates biology and evolution that men have to work harder until they have impressed a fertile young female to inseminate. On the flip side, they get to bounce after that's over with and inseminate the next female, well at least biologically, while the female is stuck with the aftermath of the sexual act.

[aviet]

There are fewer people in relationships:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183515/fewer-young-people-say-relationship.aspx

From surveying the landscape I think that a lot of this has to do with different expectation between young men and women. I saw a survey (which I can't find) that shows that while men are generally happy with someone who is good looking, modern women are more increasingly wanting men who are better looking than them, have better jobs than them and are more confident. This is in conjunction with the trend of young men seemingly increasingly dropping out of society. That would be one explanation for the above Gallup findings - supply does not meet demand.

 

Given that men are programmed and typically act on the drive to find an attractive mate combined with the relative ease in which fairly ugly and average looking women can transform themselves into 7s, 8s and 9s ( see https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=goar+avetisyan&biw=1680&bih=910&source=lnms&tbm=isch#imgrc=), yes, it is obvious that it's much easier for women to upgrade than men, as rising through pay grades is very time consuming and has various requirements that most people can't meet.

But conversely there is probably a large pool of not particularly attractive women (who haven't figured out how to cake themselves in makeup in the right way etc.) in a similar position. These women are not that able to increase their sexual market value via confidence and jobs etc., as men are not so interested in such things.

Though beyond a baseline of attractiveness, I think for men, particularly with younger women (which they prefer in general), that the air of status - a certain type of confidence - is what attracts the most women. My thoughts on this are that the confidence status would only have been held by people who had the best access to resources in society. But now young people are in an increasingly nihilistic, living in the moment world that is to a large extend decoupled from resources this status is earned partly from manipulating oneself up social hierarchies and partly by baseless exuberance.

That is the reactionary world. There is, of course, people who are driven more by thought.

I think this guy has fairly-well summed up what are good characteristics to look for:

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/49014-recommended-dating-sites-for-pro-liberty-people/?p=445905

As there are so few women around that are aware of the sort of topics that are discussed here (especially outside of the United States) it is best to look for markers of things that could suggest a viable pasture for a relationship that contains the building blocks of civilization and not the wrecking ball of its destruction. And these types of women, although probably looking for a guy with good financials, are also looking for attributes which you are more likely to have.

[meetjoeblack]

If men are primarily attracted to youth and beauty, and women are primarily attracted to resources/money then why do women get an entire department geared towards looking young and beautiful, but there is no "resources aisle" for men? I can't go into Walmart and pick up a tube of glossy green money. ...Well, I can, but that's called "theft". 

 

It seems like for men to get money, and thus resources, they have to work much harder comparable to the money and application time cost of makeup. Granted, some might say "every aisle is the resources aisle" or "men have it waaaayyyyy easier" but do they? 

 

I'd like to hear some thoughts on this. I haven't got my mind completely wrapped around these ideas and would like to hear some other perspectives.

 

There are resources but, its all underground, and even a guy like Stefan that is part of the men's movement is against.Most of it is underground. It is niche, hidden, tucked away or you got more mainstream resources like askmen.com or mens health which is basically socially conditioned nonsense.

 

There are resources, groups, individuals that will come through a local city near you but, it is so damn rare and for the most part, you got to jup on a flight to go halfway across the planet in order to find this sort of content. In order to transcend, to change, and become that more attractive man, it takes absurd amount of life changing actions. Most men are not willing to go to that length. Most will find any sort of woman willing to pay him the time a day and he will swear away half his resources.

 

There are women into dating, into underground dating advice but, most of the world will freak the fuck out seeing the reaction to actual real content. Red Pill Project said a lot of stores should carry pickup material. Then again, it goes against social conditioning. How to rope men into marriage is fine. How to look younger and hold onto sexual market value is fine but, how to get girls? How to approach in a coffee shop? How to be a man in a society that demonizes everything manly.

 

The basic consensus is that, women are good and man is bad.

[M.2]

By "women", I assume you are talking about "quality women" (pardon the term, I can't think of a better one), because let's face it, almost every man ends up with a woman sooner or later.

 

My mother is very much a "quality woman", but my father was dirt-poor when they married, and not only poor, but also short, temperamental, a foreigner, and most tragically, quite uneducated. So I asked my mother some years back what she saw in him, and she said - "I saw the fire of ambition in him". Now, after 25 years of marriage, my father is a successful entrepeneur, highly respected in his milieu, can afford to send his children to top universities in western Europe.

 

So, rephrasing the question of DaVinci, do we have an aisle where I can purchase ambition?

[thecurrentyear]

By "women", I assume you are talking about "quality women" (pardon the term, I can't think of a better one), because let's face it, almost every man ends up with a woman sooner or later.

 

My mother is very much a "quality woman", but my father was dirt-poor when they married, and not only poor, but also short, temperamental, a foreigner, and most tragically, quite uneducated. So I asked my mother some years back what she saw in him, and she said - "I saw the fire of ambition in him". Now, after 25 years of marriage, my father is a successful entrepeneur, highly respected in his milieu, can afford to send his children to top universities in western Europe.

 

So, rephrasing the question of DaVinci, do we have an aisle where I can purchase ambition?

Yes! This is it exactly. Men don't need to acquire wealth and resources prior to attracting a woman. They need to demonstrate potential and drive and commitment to do so during the marriage. The woman is needed to solidify that ambition and support him in staying motivated. Babies certainly help to keep him motivated.

[Iron Horse]

Men have exactly the same resources available to them to appear more attractive and desirable to women.  It is just often the case that they lack motivation to obtain then which bleeds over to other aspects of life rendering them unattractive.

[DaVinci]

I thought someone might bring up cars, but isn't that the conundrum? If you get a car then you don't need to get a car to show you have resources. But you can't just "go get a car" like you can go buy a tube of lipstick. You don't just walk down the BMW aisle and get a couple different colored BMW's for $20.

[shirgall]

I thought someone might bring up cars, but isn't that the conundrum? If you get a car then you don't need to get a car to show you have resources. But you can't just "go get a car" like you can go buy a tube of lipstick. You don't just walk down the BMW aisle and get a couple different colored BMW's for $20.

 

Sure you do, you just qualify for financing by having a stable income. If your credit isn't so good they'll want a little more up front.

[aviet]

You don't just walk down the BMW aisle and get a couple different colored BMW's for $20.

 

Sure you do, you just qualify for financing by having a stable income. If your credit isn't so good they'll want a little more up front.

 

Still a lower bar to entry to find out how to cake your face in makeup. I'm looking at financing for a £31,500 BMW, which has a £5,500 deposit with £299 / month repayments. Including myself, of my circle of friends, who were mostly privately educated and about 30 years old, only two could afford the deposit and the monthly repayment is roughly what they pay in rent. They don't really have any disposable income. Their earnings are roughly average for their age.

 

To do this:

 

 

will cost £5,500 + £299 monthly maintenance = £8,600 for first year and £3,600 / year thereafter; and still look like a fat waster; to make it look like you are in the top 20%, because you probably are in the top 20%

 

But to do this:

 

£250 one-off beauty consultancy + £50 monthly maintenance = £850 for the first year and £600 thereafter to make it look like you are in the top 5%, when you're actually in the bottom 33%.

 

Less effort, present and future = better returns based on the above strategies.

 

Though men also have 'game', which costs virtually no money to acquire. But like makeup its a facade designed to mimic desired characteristics: makeup (beauty) and game (resources).

[thecurrentyear]

So sad to be bitter about the biological differences between men and women

[DaVinci]

So sad to be bitter about the biological differences between men and women

 

I certainly recognize the differences, but, if you were pointing that comment at me, I wouldn't say I'm bitter about it. 

 

Why are men the overwhelming majority of people who rob banks, stores, and gas stations? Couldn't it be argued that there is a biological drive for men to acquire resources, and that in some cases this drive is coming from the earlier developed parts of the brain that tend to act that drive out in a violent or aggressive manner? 

 

Isn't part of the issue now that it is not okay (by law) for men to just take what they want? 10,000 years ago if you wanted a shelter and the best boulder on the street you would just walk into your neighbors hut and smash his head open. You would get the resources , the woman, and make babies. Now that is frowned upon. Yet people still do it. Why? 

 

People commit crimes for resources, go to jail, get out, and go right back to committing crimes for resources. There must be a biological reason why. If suddenly basic makeup cost hundreds or thousands of dollars and we locked it up in vaults and heavily monitored areas, would women risk as much as men do to steal it? 

 

I think if you compare makeup for women to resources from men historically to currently, resources have gotten much harder to obtain and makeup has gotten easier to obtain. Couldn't it be argued that this is slowly destroying men, and thus (potential) fathers, and thus (potential) families? 

[aviet]

If suddenly basic makeup cost hundreds or thousands of dollars and we locked it up in vaults and heavily monitored areas, would women risk as much as men do to steal it? 

Interesting trains of thought, particularly this last analogy.

 

It seems the motivations for property and violent crime are: resources, control and status. Over time men evolved to create channels where these can be better attained through civilised means. Those who commit property crime appear to be those who can't access the resources they desire via the market and are prepared to take risks and violate other's acquired resources.

 

Studies show women who wear makeup have much better access to men (resources, control and status by proxy) and that it also increases status among other women. Thus makeup will likely lead to confidence among both men and women and the same for wealth for men.

 

Men with wealth and women who make themselves look much more attractive than they naturally are attract.

 

There is a study that was widely published today that showed the millennial generation has 56% less wealth than the baby boomer generation, adjusted for inflation, during the same period of their lives. They also have much more debt. On top of that the wage gap between men and women below 30 has become much smaller. Young men increasingly don't have much that makes them attractive to women. Yet women are still attracted to men and apparently increasingly attracted to just confidence (at least in their 20s), which in increasingly a mimic of wealth. This appears to be borne out in CDC statistics which show men have more sexual partners than women, i.e. a smaller number of men servicing a larger number of women.

 

This is one of a number of trends that I think can only begin to reverse with austerity, a return to living within our means.

 

On your idea of locking makeup up in vaults. This would be a good premise for a TV series or film. Given that women weren't particularly violent in the days when there was no makeup, I doubt it would cause a crime wave. It would just reveal who is actually naturally attractive, realign the ridiculous beauty standards that makeup has created and realign confidence levels between men and women. There is a notion that women are more physically attractive than men, but I think this is just due to distortion from makeup and other beauty accessories.

 

Personally I have become more adverse to makeup recently. As you can see from the above before and after, it can be used to make someone who has really bad fertility markers into a A-list goddess. Thus, you are liable to being duped into a relationship with a woman who is considerably below your sexual market value. As men, I feel it is incumbent upon ourselves to filter such people out. Just as women need to filter out PUA types etc.

[meetjoeblack]

Personally I have become more adverse to makeup recently. As you can see from the above before and after, it can be used to make someone who has really bad fertility markers into a A-list goddess. Thus, you are liable to being duped into a relationship with a woman who is considerably below your sexual market value. As men, I feel it is incumbent upon ourselves to filter such people out. Just as women need to filter out PUA types etc.

 

I was approached today by a woman. She began by questioning my age, if I had any children, marital and relationship status etc.

 

She disappeared for a short period of time and when she returned, she had her makeup all done up, and she did up her hair. She looked great before and even better then. It was definitely an attempt to improve her appearance. As a man, he must "vet a good woman," and I think part of that included screening out dishonesty, single moms, and female predators. The problem that I find is that, the girls are not filtering what so ever if you are good looking. It doesn't matter then. There is always photoshop and delusion in the form of social media and online dating to resort to if everything in reality fails.

[aviet]

I was approached today by a woman. She began by questioning my age, if I had any children, marital and relationship status etc.

 

She disappeared for a short period of time and when she returned, she had her makeup all done up, and she did up her hair. She looked great before and even better then. It was definitely an attempt to improve her appearance. As a man, he must "vet a good woman," and I think part of that included screening out dishonesty, single moms, and female predators. The problem that I find is that, the girls are not filtering what so ever if you are good looking. It doesn't matter then. There is always photoshop and delusion in the form of social media and online dating to resort to if everything in reality fails.

Is that a true story?

 

 

The problem that I find is that, the girls are not filtering what so ever if you are good looking.

 

 

I don't understand what you mean here.

[Mykaelous]

If men are primarily attracted to youth and beauty, and women are primarily attracted to resources/money then why do women get an entire department geared towards looking young and beautiful, but there is no "resources aisle" for men? I can't go into Walmart and pick up a tube of glossy green money. ...Well, I can, but that's called "theft". 

 

It seems like for men to get money, and thus resources, they have to work much harder comparable to the money and application time cost of makeup. Granted, some might say "every aisle is the resources aisle" or "men have it waaaayyyyy easier" but do they? 

 

I'd like to hear some thoughts on this. I haven't got my mind completely wrapped around these ideas and would like to hear some other perspectives.

Because women(and by extention society) find the idea of men manipulating(don't think of this in the negative connotation) women into liking them as a threat to their natural hypergamous intentions. It's ok for women to manipulate men with makeup and breast augmentation, but for a man to augment who he is to attract women is deemed reprehensible.

 

Neil Strauss in the book The Game has a good quote on this I can't find that basically talks about how it's silly how if people want to learn how to fix a car, or learn jujitsu society encourages people to learn, but if you want to learn how to be more attractive to women, society scorns you for it because being able to attract women is considered to be an innate part of being a man, and to admit you cannot attract women is to admit that you are not a man thus deserving of ridicule.

[meetjoeblack]

Is that a true story?

 

 

 

I don't understand what you mean here.

 

If you are a male model, they spread their legs but, if you are beta and unattractive, "not like that" nonsense. Same girl will be doing a three way with a model.

 

Not sure what the question is? Sexually active and aggressive women will engage a man. I was enthusiastic, high energy, funny, and just being myself. Small talk turned into chatter about coffee, about little cafes, gems, hidden places or dine dining as well as the things we do. In came the bombardment of questions, Age, marital status, kids?

 

The patterns are so repetitive and redundant. No e brag but I have honestly approached more women in a day then most do in their life. You see patterns of behavior and after it happens an abundance of times, you see a sequence of actions, responses, and ways to problem solve. I do the same thing with women when out, in their workplace or while shopping. Women are receptive but, the dating is no easier because everything is tinder, online validation through social media or just male orbiters.

 

If you take the Bruce Lee quote, "expose yourself to various conditions and learn," it becomes an adventure.

 

 

My friend, when I am on my death bed, I swear, I will look back and honestly be able to say, I did everything in my power to vet a good woman. Still, despite my best efforts, it is not easy, and I am shocked by much of my experiences. For instance, a married woman propositioned me last year. She would text and tell me to come over when her husband is out.

 

I don't want to live on this planet anymore

[Mykaelous]

Not sure what the question is? Sexually active and aggressive women will engage a man. I was enthusiastic, high energy, funny, and just being myself. Small talk turned into chatter about coffee, about little cafes, gems, hidden places or dine dining as well as the things we do. In came the bombardment of questions, Age, marital status, kids?

 

The patterns are so repetitive and redundant. No e brag but I have honestly approached more women in a day then most do in their life. You see patterns of behavior and after it happens an abundance of times, you see a sequence of actions, responses, and ways to problem solve. I do the same thing with women when out, in their workplace or while shopping. Women are receptive but, the dating is no easier because everything is tinder, online validation through social media or just male orbiters.

 

If you take the Bruce Lee quote, "expose yourself to various conditions and learn," it becomes an adventure.

 

 

My friend, when I am on my death bed, I swear, I will look back and honestly be able to say, I did everything in my power to vet a good woman. Still, despite my best efforts, it is not easy, and I am shocked by much of my experiences. For instance, a married woman propositioned me last year. She would text and tell me to come over when her husband is out.

 

I don't want to live on this planet anymore

From experience I can tell you that it is easier to bed a married or "committed" woman for a one night stand than it is to bed a single woman. The reason being that single women want to extract resources from you so they will try to hold out on sex. "Committed" women already have a flow of resources and simply desire better genetics. 

 

My current plan is to find a woman 8-10 years younger than myself who has a history of strong pair bonds(her parents are in a long committed relationship) and form a community which reinforces the ideals of monogamy.

[Caley McKibbin]

I don't know where people get the idea that women are primarily attracted to resources.  Money can buy things.  Women happen to be a thing.  That is all there is to it.  It's not as if you could say you are a billionaire but you won't give up a penny and still get the time of day if you are not hot.  The only reason for such idiocy as buying expensive things to show how much money you had before you spent it on that junk instead of simply buying women is to circumvent anti-prostitution laws.  Those laws in turn were erected by poor men to prevent rich men from monopolizing.  Monogamy is sexual communism.  Precisely because buying cars actually makes you instantly less wealthy it hinders rather than helps in any other situation.

 

By the way, the chick in the before/after photo looks much better before to me.  A great face turned into an overexposed piece of photoshopped plastic.

[meetjoeblack]

Because women(and by extention society) find the idea of men manipulating(don't think of this in the negative connotation) women into liking them as a threat to their natural hypergamous intentions. It's ok for women to manipulate men with makeup and breast augmentation, but for a man to augment who he is to attract women is deemed reprehensible.

 

Neil Strauss in the book The Game has a good quote on this I can't find that basically talks about how it's silly how if people want to learn how to fix a car, or learn jujitsu society encourages people to learn, but if you want to learn how to be more attractive to women, society scorns you for it because being able to attract women is considered to be an innate part of being a man, and to admit you cannot attract women is to admit that you are not a man thus deserving of ridicule.

 

He is a bit of a worm IMHO but, that was my eye opener for seeing that there is a alternative way of life instead of following the beaten path. I like the asking of question. No kidding it was a NY Times best seller. It reaches a level of curiosity in every man that like a video game, there is a stage, and levels to reach. It hits that part of the ego to acknowledge, you don't know, and that there is a better way of going about dating. I see no harm in approaching however, I don't think pretending to be a magician or using fake mustaches is ideally the best way to attract a woman. He wrote a book on the Truth about serial monogamy, open relationships, and simply, he could not find a way to make it work. Not shocking. Its interesting that, manipulation is only bad if it is man as the perpetrator which then allows women to identify with being a victim. That is a role that men cannot play even if they are the victim. 

 

If you never settle down, you are met with man boy, party boy, can't keep dick in pants, and a bunch of other forms of manipulation or shaming language. When I see it, I recognize it more and more, and I want to remove myself from the predicament. I question at times why men involve themselves a lot of time and why more men don't go MGTOW? I feel the pull and I refrain I enjoy dating too much to go that way but, there is a lot at stake if you mistakenly get it wrong with marriage or children.

 

Youth seems to be the answer. If a woman is not dedicated in this time frame, I don't feel she is trust worthy.

From experience I can tell you that it is easier to bed a married or "committed" woman for a one night stand than it is to bed a single woman. The reason being that single women want to extract resources from you so they will try to hold out on sex. "Committed" women already have a flow of resources and simply desire better genetics. 

 

My current plan is to find a woman 8-10 years younger than myself who has a history of strong pair bonds(her parents are in a long committed relationship) and form a community which reinforces the ideals of monogamy.

 

Good luck my friend. I am trying and it is not easy. I am nearly 30 in a few years. The last girl I dated was 23. The next one is 25. I feel like there is a secret to youth and that a woman's willingness to dedicate that time to a man is a indication of commitment as well as what to expect int he future. Most women I know have children out of wedlock, have wasted their youth, and are quick to play the victim. The one thing I dislike about Stefan is that, I feel like he uses shame, a typical female tactic when discussing dating and age. I think he is correct that with a huge gap, the likelihood for a divorce or breakup is present. Then again, what is the alternative? Dating elderly? Dating woman who has plummeting sexual market value?

 

I am not sure your experience with approaching. I just try to put my best foot forward, be enthusiastic, leave an impression, and I approach life that way. I have no agenda, no magic tricks or fake mustaches. I am genuine. I like to laugh. I bring that into an approach but, my friend it is unreal what you come across. I have been propositioned by married women before. One woman tried to get me to come over when her husband is out. This man could try to kill me later. I have far too much anxiety for that and I hate that a woman would try to tempt me with putting me in a dangerous predicament.

 

I always noticed, women being hard up on ladies nights, and very entitled yet, when out running into a group of women celebrating a bachelorette party, many are in LTRs willing to hookup. I try to make some sort of sense of it all and rationalize it. One of the last girls I was romantically involved with is a single mother after we dated. This is the life she chose. I remember running into her. She could not even make eye contact and it just reinforces the fact that I made the right decision to stop seeing her. Thank God.

I don't know where people get the idea that women are primarily attracted to resources.  Money can buy things.  Women happen to be a thing.  That is all there is to it.  It's not as if you could say you are a billionaire but you won't give up a penny and still get the time of day if you are not hot.  The only reason for such idiocy as buying expensive things to show how much money you had before you spent it on that junk instead of simply buying women is to circumvent anti-prostitution laws.  Those laws in turn were erected by poor men to prevent rich men from monopolizing.  Monogamy is sexual communism.  Precisely because buying cars actually makes you instantly less wealthy it hinders rather than helps in any other situation.

 

By the way, the chick in the before/after photo looks much better before to me.  A great face turned into an overexposed piece of photoshopped plastic.

 

I agree, there is a lot of misunderstandings here with respect to hypergamy.

 

The phrase goes, "beta bucks and alpha fucks." Women spread for the alphas. The betas got to pay and swear away half of everything on a marriage after a woman has plummeted in sexual market value and the alphas stop coming. This is another reason why more and more men are becoming adverse to marriage. What value does it offer at this point when the same girl was just out at the bar shaking her ass and going home with random alphas willing to look her way?

 

Photoshop is basically what tinder and online dating is. I see many women i recognize using it to make herself look thinner, airbrushed, better looking. I have never heard of men cat fishing but I have heard lots of women doing it. I have experienced it pretty recently as did some friends. I am not vain and prioritize just her looks. The problem is dishonesty. A woman was huge but, she posted pics that made her look thin and athletic. I dislike how then someone dishonest would make a man feel bad for being turned off.

 

Anyway, I appreciate your input on the topic and your perspective. Resources seem important once it is playing for keeps but, the same woman in her hay day would not be giving the beta the time a day when alphas are hovering. I am again reminded that, youth seems to be the key, and if a woman is not willing then, I am not trusting. I think this is the only chance for myself and most men.

[Gavitor]

I don't know where people get the idea that women are primarily attracted to resources.  Money can buy things.  Women happen to be a thing.  That is all there is to it.  It's not as if you could say you are a billionaire but you won't give up a penny and still get the time of day if you are not hot.  The only reason for such idiocy as buying expensive things to show how much money you had before you spent it on that junk instead of simply buying women is to circumvent anti-prostitution laws.  Those laws in turn were erected by poor men to prevent rich men from monopolizing.  Monogamy is sexual communism.  Precisely because buying cars actually makes you instantly less wealthy it hinders rather than helps in any other situation.

 

By the way, the chick in the before/after photo looks much better before to me.  A great face turned into an overexposed piece of photoshopped plastic.

 

[Mykaelous]

I don't know where people get the idea that women are primarily attracted to resources.  Money can buy things.  Women happen to be a thing.  That is all there is to it.  It's not as if you could say you are a billionaire but you won't give up a penny and still get the time of day if you are not hot.  The only reason for such idiocy as buying expensive things to show how much money you had before you spent it on that junk instead of simply buying women is to circumvent anti-prostitution laws.  Those laws in turn were erected by poor men to prevent rich men from monopolizing.  Monogamy is sexual communism.  Precisely because buying cars actually makes you instantly less wealthy it hinders rather than helps in any other situation.

 

By the way, the chick in the before/after photo looks much better before to me.  A great face turned into an overexposed piece of photoshopped plastic.

Are you sure they were erected by poor men and not women? It seems that the prohibition of prostitution was imposed by the preferences of women who wanted to have a monopoly on sex within a relationship to guarantee continued resources and obedience from men. The greatest modern day critics of prostitution are feminists and the fervently religious. Under this theory as sex becomes easy the pressure for men to participate in marriage and long term relationships is diminished. In our post sexual revolution society, this is certainly the case.

He is a bit of a worm IMHO but, that was my eye opener for seeing that there is a alternative way of life instead of following the beaten path. I like the asking of question. No kidding it was a NY Times best seller. It reaches a level of curiosity in every man that like a video game, there is a stage, and levels to reach. It hits that part of the ego to acknowledge, you don't know, and that there is a better way of going about dating. I see no harm in approaching however, I don't think pretending to be a magician or using fake mustaches is ideally the best way to attract a woman. He wrote a book on the Truth about serial monogamy, open relationships, and simply, he could not find a way to make it work. Not shocking. Its interesting that, manipulation is only bad if it is man as the perpetrator which then allows women to identify with being a victim. That is a role that men cannot play even if they are the victim. 

 

If you never settle down, you are met with man boy, party boy, can't keep dick in pants, and a bunch of other forms of manipulation or shaming language. When I see it, I recognize it more and more, and I want to remove myself from the predicament. I question at times why men involve themselves a lot of time and why more men don't go MGTOW? I feel the pull and I refrain I enjoy dating too much to go that way but, there is a lot at stake if you mistakenly get it wrong with marriage or children.

 

Youth seems to be the answer. If a woman is not dedicated in this time frame, I don't feel she is trust worthy.

 

Good luck my friend. I am trying and it is not easy. I am nearly 30 in a few years. The last girl I dated was 23. The next one is 25. I feel like there is a secret to youth and that a woman's willingness to dedicate that time to a man is a indication of commitment as well as what to expect int he future. Most women I know have children out of wedlock, have wasted their youth, and are quick to play the victim. The one thing I dislike about Stefan is that, I feel like he uses shame, a typical female tactic when discussing dating and age. I think he is correct that with a huge gap, the likelihood for a divorce or breakup is present. Then again, what is the alternative? Dating elderly? Dating woman who has plummeting sexual market value?

 

I am not sure your experience with approaching. I just try to put my best foot forward, be enthusiastic, leave an impression, and I approach life that way. I have no agenda, no magic tricks or fake mustaches. I am genuine. I like to laugh. I bring that into an approach but, my friend it is unreal what you come across. I have been propositioned by married women before. One woman tried to get me to come over when her husband is out. This man could try to kill me later. I have far too much anxiety for that and I hate that a woman would try to tempt me with putting me in a dangerous predicament.

 

I always noticed, women being hard up on ladies nights, and very entitled yet, when out running into a group of women celebrating a bachelorette party, many are in LTRs willing to hookup. I try to make some sort of sense of it all and rationalize it. One of the last girls I was romantically involved with is a single mother after we dated. This is the life she chose. I remember running into her. She could not even make eye contact and it just reinforces the fact that I made the right decision to stop seeing her. Thank God.

A lot of good insights there my friend. I think there are many misconceptions about the pickup community especially how it was presented in the game, because the book was never meant to be a how to book and it emerged before the community had the opportunity to really understand the social dynamics underlying techniques(it was a book more about the journey(his personal growth) than the destination(getting with women)). The reason those funny mustaches and card tricks worked was because it was a source self-amusement. Women are at least 10 times more perceptive and influenced by a mans attitude and congruence with his actions than they are to his words. I could tell a woman I wanted to do a plethora of uncouth things to her within minutes of meeting her(that would send any SJW into a convulsive rage) and if my body language and vocal tonality were congruence with my actions she would absolutely love it. We only evolved the capability for speech a few hundred thousand years ago(we invented fire and tools before that) and therefore it's impact on sexual dynamics and communication would be minimal at best. Scott Adam's blog from time to time touches on the subject in relation to persuasion.

 

I would really like Stefan to have Neil Strauss on the show to talk about relationships, because I think Neil could re-frame the negative image Stefan has of it. I think that especially with Neil's new book "The Truth" that there is a message that they both share when it comes to love, peaceful parenting(in relation to the childhood traumas that shaped Neils life), and the benefits of self knowledge and therapy.

[Caley McKibbin]

Are you sure they were erected by poor men and not women? It seems that the prohibition of prostitution was imposed by the preferences of women who wanted to have a monopoly on sex within a relationship to guarantee continued resources and obedience from men. The greatest modern day critics of prostitution are feminists and the fervently religious. Under this theory as sex becomes easy the pressure for men to participate in marriage and long term relationships is diminished. In our post sexual revolution society, this is certainly the case.

Feminist women did not originate any of their own theory.  Feminists oppose prostitution only because it is deemed exploitation of workers lacking capital, from Marxist theory.  All theory was originally invented by men, all law passed by men, and men enforced everything.  The benefit for women is the inverse.  Men will choose top tier women first, then work their way down, so if he can choose only one it will always be the 10.  It's widely recognized that beautiful women are more resistant to the exploitation theory because they get more money from the beauty industry.  But most people that point this out ignore the fact that in this political game beautiful or rich men have the opposite interest of beautiful or rich women, and that rich men also oppress beautiful men or men with genes that are valued in some regard by prohibiting sperm sale, because genes ultimately win by "stealing" away the power of the entrenched and undeserving.

 

Most modern political phenomena are second order effects with no rational explanation because people don't think past the ends of their noses and see the big picture.  That's what politics is all about: hiding true purpose, such as disguising individual interest as collective interest.  Feminism has always been a morass of confusion torn between understanding the actual oppression of women, attributed to "patriarchy", where patriarchy is really a subset of men that also oppress other men, and smuggling capitalist exploitation theory into public consciousness.  Most feminists probably don't understand the origins and implications of what are saying.

 

I would really like Stefan to have Neil Strauss on the show to talk about relationships, because I think Neil could re-frame the negative image Stefan has of it. I think that especially with Neil's new book "The Truth" that there is a message that they both share when it comes to love, peaceful parenting(in relation to the childhood traumas that shaped Neils life), and the benefits of self knowledge and therapy.

Neil Strauss is a PUA marketing affiliate that used the shill tactic to sell books and boost his PUA affiliates.  The main trick I found with PUA is that they build credulity in the audience by saying mostly obvious things that everyone already knows, then smuggle absurdities in with that, namely that a 1/10 can trick a 10/10 into bed (without money).  Of course, people will often take snake oil over no hope, but having snake oil salesmen on the show is hardly good intellectual business.

 

As for the photo with that fat guy that won the lottery, that is a fake news photoshop.  A married man named Larry Ross won the $181.5m.  But suppose it was true.  Obviously he is directly buying things for her.  But the headline is false.  She doesn't love him.  It's like saying that someone that speaks to you politely while you have a gun pointed at his head is a nice guy.  He's not a nice guy.  There is no such thing as a nice guy.  It just seems prudent to play nice in that situation.  Likewise, women will play a role for a rich guy while secretly desiring to separate him from the money.  The woman in the photo is thinking "Please have a heart attack and leave your money to me ASAP."  A relationship in which the thing that keeps your partner is external to you is one that requires eternal vigilance.  Rich men are at the mercy of plotting wives that at the slightest dissatisfaction will work to stealthily sabotage the relationship, conniving at divorce to hasten a settlement payout.

[meetjoeblack]

A lot of good insights there my friend. I think there are many misconceptions about the pickup community especially how it was presented in the game, because the book was never meant to be a how to book and it emerged before the community had the opportunity to really understand the social dynamics underlying techniques(it was a book more about the journey(his personal growth) than the destination(getting with women)). The reason those funny mustaches and card tricks worked was because it was a source self-amusement. Women are at least 10 times more perceptive and influenced by a mans attitude and congruence with his actions than they are to his words. I could tell a woman I wanted to do a plethora of uncouth things to her within minutes of meeting her(that would send any SJW into a convulsive rage) and if my body language and vocal tonality were congruence with my actions she would absolutely love it. We only evolved the capability for speech a few hundred thousand years ago(we invented fire and tools before that) and therefore it's impact on sexual dynamics and communication would be minimal at best. Scott Adam's blog from time to time touches on the subject in relation to persuasion.

I would really like Stefan to have Neil Strauss on the show to talk about relationships, because I think Neil could re-frame the negative image Stefan has of it. I think that especially with Neil's new book "The Truth" that there is a message that they both share when it comes to love, peaceful parenting(in relation to the childhood traumas that shaped Neils life), and the benefits of self knowledge and therapy.

 

I understand that and I am more intrigued by natural game, approaching lots, presence, meditation, chasing yourself not the girl, and having a dream. I am fascinated by Mystery as a character, the mental health, and yet, how some worm like Neil stole basically his style and monopolized it. RSD preaches all the self amusement, bringing your own party rather then being in her party. Then again, they got kicked off planet earth and deported some time ago. Its funny how women seducing men rubbish is fine but, men seducing women is demonized and Mr Mackey, "drugs are bad."

 

There is a lot of fight club, raw raw, Tony Robbins, pump state, a lot of pseudo science, pop culture, Darwinian philosophy and brutal truth. I think when you approach versus mental masturbating as to what that would be, when in fact, you don;t know until you approach. I then approach a lot, I date more, I don't question or think about rejections but, I have a lot and it doesn't faze me in the slightest. I just see the repetitions of sequences, patterns of female behavior, dishonesty, cheating, sly behavior, and I realize how difficult it is. Then again, what is the alternative? What other choice does a man have if any at all? Wait for a woman to pick him when women date up? Wait for chance for friends to introduce which has never been the case? For circumstances to be perfect and eyes meet across a room? Or how about I just keep approaching until i meet my wife or don't.

 

I would rather Julien Blanc or Owen Cook discuss with Stefan. Owen is a chronic mental masturbator and just the twists and turns would be a bit much. Julien had the media fiasco and scandal. He has since gone more new age and hippie like but still gets girls. The journalist that filmed him was eye opening because naturally, you doubt the reality and authenticity of these characters as your money is involved but, he was blown away by their ballsy approach and game. I thought the guy was a fraud that Owen was just pedaling but, I saw for myself several times how bad ass he is and what he can do.

[meetjoeblack]

Most modern political phenomena are second order effects with no rational explanation because people don't think past the ends of their noses and see the big picture.  That's what politics is all about: hiding true purpose, such as disguising individual interest as collective interest.  Feminism has always been a morass of confusion torn between understanding the actual oppression of women, attributed to "patriarchy", where patriarchy is really a subset of men that also oppress other men, and smuggling capitalist exploitation theory into public consciousness.  Most feminists probably don't understand the origins and implications of what are saying.

 

Neil Strauss is a PUA marketing affiliate that used the shill tactic to sell books and boost his PUA affiliates.  The main trick I found with PUA is that they build credulity in the audience by saying mostly obvious things that everyone already knows, then smuggle absurdities in with that, namely that a 1/10 can trick a 10/10 into bed (without money).  Of course, people will often take snake oil over no hope, but having snake oil salesmen on the show is hardly good intellectual business.

 

As for the photo with that fat guy that won the lottery, that is a fake news photoshop.  A married man named Larry Ross won the $181.5m.  But suppose it was true.  Obviously he is directly buying things for her.  But the headline is false.  She doesn't love him.  It's like saying that someone that speaks to you politely while you have a gun pointed at his head is a nice guy.  He's not a nice guy.  There is no such thing as a nice guy.  It just seems prudent to play nice in that situation.  Likewise, women will play a role for a rich guy while secretly desiring to separate him from the money.  The woman in the photo is thinking "Please have a heart attack and leave your money to me ASAP."  A relationship in which the thing that keeps your partner is external to you is one that requires eternal vigilance.  Rich men are at the mercy of plotting wives that at the slightest dissatisfaction will work to stealthily sabotage the relationship, conniving at divorce to hasten a settlement payout.

 

You are smart. I like your posts and I am glad there is a female presence here and aware of Stefan/FDR.

 

I agree. Then again, despite the notion of "fuck boy can't keep dick in his pants," the lifestyle is hard to maintain even more so then lets say MGTOW. I never tried games or tactics, magic, and fake mustaches. Still, I approach a lot. I do my best to be enthusiastic, to be present to the moment; here and now, share something of passion, something I love, and offer value. In doing so, I have dated more, I have slept with more women, and while it has not brought me a wife or children, the alternative is what? Wait for a woman to pick me? Marry the single mother? Wait for a woman with plummeting sexual market value after years of riding the carousel to be my wife?

 

Its kind of dark. I went from really beta to approaching a lot and going home with women. I saw a different world and gained new insight. I try my best to just enjoy the experience for what it is, to embrace the moment, whatever that brings, and to let go when it ends. This is hard because my beta male upbringing kicks in. I want to hold on. I want to fight and make it work. Approaching has shown me there is an alternative way of life. I don't have to follow the beaten path. I don't have to wait forever for a date. I don't have to be the water boy until the girl gets bored of being a one night stand. I can pick and i can handle being rejected. I can handle going home with a woman and I can accept her not returning my call.

 

I saw a cosmo magazine about how to seduce men. Imagine, if pua magazines were right in the window next. Its always the same pretentiousness about amped up sex appeal and vagina bombing men into submission for the ring. Its again, false advertising to women since they don't look like Mila Kunis or Lauren Conrad on the cover. Then again, with photoshop and tinder, she can airbrush herself and get male validation. They want sex but she can talk herself into something else.

[Gavitor]

As for the photo with that fat guy that won the lottery, that is a fake news photoshop.  A married man named Larry Ross won the $181.5m.  But suppose it was true.  Obviously he is directly buying things for her.  But the headline is false.  She doesn't love him.  It's like saying that someone that speaks to you politely while you have a gun pointed at his head is a nice guy.  He's not a nice guy.  There is no such thing as a nice guy.  It just seems prudent to play nice in that situation.  Likewise, women will play a role for a rich guy while secretly desiring to separate him from the money.  The woman in the photo is thinking "Please have a heart attack and leave your money to me ASAP."  A relationship in which the thing that keeps your partner is external to you is one that requires eternal vigilance.  Rich men are at the mercy of plotting wives that at the slightest dissatisfaction will work to stealthily sabotage the relationship, conniving at divorce to hasten a settlement payout.

 

I know, it was meant to be funny...

 

That's the point of it though, women will date older (in some cases decrepit) and/or ugly men just because they have lot of money. I know its not love, everyone who looks at that picture knows its not love. But hey its not all bad, after all if the fattest man in the world can get a wife surely you can too.

 

[Copper_Heart]

I don't know where people get the idea that women are primarily attracted to resources.  Money can buy things.  Women happen to be a thing.  That is all there is to it.  It's not as if you could say you are a billionaire but you won't give up a penny and still get the time of day if you are not hot.  The only reason for such idiocy as buying expensive things to show how much money you had before you spent it on that junk instead of simply buying women is to circumvent anti-prostitution laws.  Those laws in turn were erected by poor men to prevent rich men from monopolizing.  Monogamy is sexual communism.  Precisely because buying cars actually makes you instantly less wealthy it hinders rather than helps in any other situation.

 

By the way, the chick in the before/after photo looks much better before to me.  A great face turned into an overexposed piece of photoshopped plastic.

 

I must say here few things. The Hollywood's, Woman and man journal's lifestyle is all about that. There is a population that has seen nothing else in their lifetime. You live in a city, mom and dad have no time for you, so kids are basically being "taught" by their peers in public schools.

 

• A school which imitates prison society(prisons and public schools have the same architecture), breeds an internal society similar to Lord of Flies.
• In this micro-society tribal rules apply. Guys who are not socially acceptable are outcast and don't get female attention.

 

It all then makes sense for them when they see a typical "everything will be alright when she sees the car" movies. Obviously, those guys then start complaining loudly about it. That's how I see it, but does it clarify your doubts?

 

I am confused about your argument:

 

1. Because of prostitution laws, man can't buy sex
2. They take alternative route by providing different resource than money for women or having different contracts(sugar daddy is strictly saying a trick)

It's the first part and I agree, but then you say:

1. Those laws in turn were erected by poor men to prevent rich men from monopolizing
2. Precisely because buying cars actually makes you instantly less wealthy it hinders rather than helps in any other situation.
3. Monogamy is sexual communism.

I am not sure what are those laws? Yes, it hinders rich people from buying a cheap prostitute, but they still have money to get other offers women make, while poor men are totally out of that market. Meanwhile, monogamy does not mean much except that man and woman are not supposed to have long term public relationship with many men/women at the same time. If you read about rich guys, they a are usually having a few girlfriends at a time.

 

So far monogamy and prostitution laws only, defacto, apply to poor man.

[thecurrentyear]

Women are at least 10 times more perceptive and influenced by a mans attitude and congruence with his actions than they are to his words. I could tell a woman I wanted to do a plethora of uncouth things to her within minutes of meeting her(that would send any SJW into a convulsive rage) and if my body language and vocal tonality were congruence with my actions she would absolutely love it. We only evolved the capability for speech a few hundred thousand years ago(we invented fire and tools before that) and therefore it's impact on sexual dynamics and communication would be minimal at best. Scott Adam's blog from time to time touches on the subject in relation to persuasion.

 

Just re-posting for emphasis and to add in my agreement with this argument. And, not an argument, but perhaps of relevance to some: I am a woman.

[aviet]

> Women are at least 10 times more perceptive and influenced by a mans attitude and congruence with his actions

 

Just re-posting for emphasis and to add in my agreement with this argument. And, not an argument, but perhaps of relevance to some: I am a woman.

 

This is my general conclusion also. Beyond a baseline of attractiveness - confidence, game, mannerism etc. tend to be what opens up romantic relationships with women.

 

When I was much younger me and my friends (generally low in confidence with the opposite sex) had two groups of female friends. From time to time I would either hear or be told that X girl has said Y is cool and physically attractive, followed by a disparaging remark about Y's personality as the reason they don't have a girlfriend. Over a short period of time, the one group of girls started to pick up older, higher status males as boyfriends and within a short amount of time me and my friends essentially never heard from them again. We weren't even fit as a friend-zone shoulder to cry on as less attractive, less intelligent guys cycled through them. Myself and my friends, who are in attractiveness, family background and intelligence terms, better choices, were made useless by lower quality guys who had confidence, game, mannerism etc. Now about fourteen years later, quite a few of that group are single mums with degrees and yes ... pink hair. I saw one of them in 2015. She was probably the most attractive, but she's turning into a flaccid Guardian reader, with a daughter and student debt. Her face lit up as I walked into the room. A beta-cuck to pay off my student debt and raise my child? I didn't say anything.

 

And of the guys they went for that I still know of, the one who was the bee's knees despite having a pair of ears like mug-handles - he's an alcoholic who had to write a begging letter to keep his job bringing screws and other bits of metal to people at a checkout after the booze conflicted too much with his working hours. Another lives in a camper van in London. He has nothing.

 

I've found that when I am interested in a girl, I get nowhere, but when I am not interested in a girl, there is a good chance she will like me. I've only realised the reason for this recently: when I am not interested, I probably come across as confident, unattainable and probably the dark brooding type that some women like; but when I am interested I probably come across more as a cute guinea-pig or beta-phag. From what I have read the unattainable thing really works.

 

However, I'd like to find someone who isn't interested in me because of a few primordial, reactionary, instant attractions based on things that have no value like winning their shit-tests, flirting and sticking my chest out. And I am realising more and more (this post has been good inspiration) that while women are driven by their primordial desires (as above), I have been too driven by female beauty. I am interested in someone who isn't interested in things that don't even matter in the present, but someone who is interested in things that will matter next year and after we are dead.

 

I guess I should consider myself lucky that my romantic ineptitude has kept me away from all the Guardian-reading and single mum train-wrecks I would have otherwise ploughed into like a giant civilisation destroying twat.

[Caley McKibbin]

I must say here few things. The Hollywood's, Woman and man journal's lifestyle is all about that. There is a population that has seen nothing else in their lifetime. You live in a city, mom and dad have no time for you, so kids are basically being "taught" by their peers in public schools.

 

• A school which imitates prison society(prisons and public schools have the same architecture), breeds an internal society similar to Lord of Flies.
• In this micro-society tribal rules apply. Guys who are not socially acceptable are outcast and don't get female attention.

 

It all then makes sense for them when they see a typical "everything will be alright when she sees the car" movies. Obviously, those guys then start complaining loudly about it. That's how I see it, but does it clarify your doubts?

I'm not exactly certain how that pertains to what I said.  I find your grammar slightly difficult to understand, which makes it more difficult to guess what your thesis is.

 

I am not sure what are those laws? Yes, it hinders rich people from buying a cheap prostitute, but they still have money to get other offers women make, while poor men are totally out of that market.

All laws prohibiting buying or selling anything sexual.  Money aside, a less recognized aspect of this scheme is age of consent.  I've been hit on by tons of under-age girls, all the way down to about 12 I estimate.  So that made me wonder.  Originally it was allegedly set at 12 to avoid cases of Stockholm Syndrome with children that have not reached puberty, and it applied only to girls.  But it has ratcheted up over time obviously in a desperate attempt to shore up the "social conservative" model.  I've been told that I have ethereal male beauty and anyone would be lucky to date me, but there is room for improvement.  So I imagine a perfected version of myself would be a menace.  A man with super athletic ability, super intelligence and super beauty could go from orphan to instant millionaire in a free market via direct utilization, and sperm and cloning commerce.  The established order of the world would be eviscerated by random genetic recombination.  The undeserving rich also need the state to stamp out competition.

 

Meanwhile, monogamy does not mean much except that man and woman are not supposed to have long term public relationship with many men/women at the same time.

It doesn't even mean that.  What most people call monogamy is a dichotomy where seeing multiple people in, say, 1 year rotating intervals is called monogamous, while seeing multiple people in 1 hour rotating intervals is called polygamy or polyamory or promiscuous.  The distinction is practically worthless.  The only definition of monogamy with any analytical worth is 1 partner in a lifetime.  Almost nobody in the real world could tolerate that.  Trying to distinguish 1 hour from 1 year intervals is rhetoric that evolved from being unable to accept being permanently locked to 1 person while trying to ward off bullying by old church culture. 

 

If you read about rich guys, they a are usually having a few girlfriends at a time.

It's the don't ask, don't tell system.  A man's money will mysteriously find itself in a woman's pocket for no fathomable reason while the woman will mysteriously find herself in his bed also for no fathomable reason.  Nothing to see here, officer.

 

That's the point of it though, women will date older (in some cases decrepit) and/or ugly men just because they have lot of money.

I'm not sure how that pertains specifically to what I said.  A few people have been vague when quoting me.

 

I've found that when I am interested in a girl, I get nowhere, but when I am not interested in a girl, there is a good chance she will like me. I've only realised the reason for this recently: when I am not interested, I probably come across as confident, unattainable and probably the dark brooding type that some women like; but when I am interested I probably come across more as a cute guinea-pig or beta-phag. From what I have read the unattainable thing really works.

We don't know enough about you and those other people to confirm your narratives.  So your post could taken as sour grapes.  However, one thing I can say for sure is that you can't ultimately pretend to be unattainable.  That is easily rooted out.  E.g., if I'm a woman and you try to play that with me, I can say "Fine. Next".  At that point you have no option left but to show your true colours, while I still have the option of changing my mind.

[meetjoeblack]

I've found that when I am interested in a girl, I get nowhere, but when I am not interested in a girl, there is a good chance she will like me. I've only realised the reason for this recently: when I am not interested, I probably come across as confident, unattainable and probably the dark brooding type that some women like; but when I am interested I probably come across more as a cute guinea-pig or beta-phag. From what I have read the unattainable thing really works.

 

However, I'd like to find someone who isn't interested in me because of a few primordial, reactionary, instant attractions based on things that have no value like winning their shit-tests, flirting and sticking my chest out. And I am realising more and more (this post has been good inspiration) that while women are driven by their primordial desires (as above), I have been too driven by female beauty. I am interested in someone who isn't interested in things that don't even matter in the present, but someone who is interested in things that will matter next year and after we are dead.

 

I guess I should consider myself lucky that my romantic ineptitude has kept me away from all the Guardian-reading and single mum train-wrecks I would have otherwise ploughed into like a giant civilisation destroying twat.

 

I know what you mean. I was approached by a beautiful young woman. The kind that would intimidate me. I ran into her at the bar one night. Made small talk and then went around approaching other girls. I was on fire that night and needless to say, I am not usually that smooth lol Sure enough, the beautiful young woman approaches me some more, asks if the girl is my gf or if i am single. I had to keep saying it and then she got embarrassed and left. She was drinking so, I never really made a move but, I should have took her number. I ended up leaving with a different girl. That was a nightmare. Good night. Crazy given my past with women to be the man going home with a cute young girl. I saw the beautiful girl and took her number. She then said something about being busy or school. I took it as a shit test. I then text immediately to make sure the girl gave the right number and no nonsense, she texts me immediately. I kept it casual. No doubt, she knows I like her. Nothing happened. I tried. I did everything I could. Fast forward a few years later. She started to drunk dial me. I never came. I would have gave my left nut for her back then but now its baby rabies. I wanted her when she was young, when she had options, and was spoiled for choice. She was awkward when I ran into her because she drunk dialed me. Then the next time I saw her she tried to bring up her drama and I just cut her off that I g2g. She thought when she was ready she could call her white knight. I am just not that guy anymore.

 

I found it better to be aloof. When she ran off embarrassed, it took every ounce of my being to not be the beta male provider, and chase her down. She ran that night, I turned away, took the girls hand next to me, told her lets go, and we left. I dropped her off, played tight game, she invited me in for coffee, and I took my pants off when I came in. It was 7am when I left her place, past sun rise, and I could hear the birds cherping. I love game. I love that aftermath of a night like that but, sometimes I feel like I am losing myself because I truly want to get married, have my wife, someone I can grow old with, and have children without having the fear of being cucked.

 

Despite all this, I feel like I have so much more potential but, it just has not materialized and I don't mean this out of ego. I am just so dedicated to self knowledge, self awareness, liberty, reason, and evidence. I just do not see someone like minded. It is usually the girl that wants to party, wants the carousel ride with the alpha, has children with different men, and still wants the white dress plus ring. No doubt, without Stefan and game, I would have been cucked. I would be with  single mom, the good little beta provider, and just taken to the cleaners. 

 

For this, for even the read Stefan has put me on, the game, pua, approaching, overcoming my fears and rejections, self awareness, and everything in between, I am grateful for.

[Brazilda]

The women in my family wont even admit that make up is used to attract men. They just say they do it for themselves because it makes them feel good. Then I explain to them thats only half the equation and the reason it makes them feel good is because they know they look better to other people. If they were on an island by themselves there is no way in hell they would put on make up "because it makes them feel good". It doesn't matter if you have make up on if no one else will see it. 

 

It actually pisses me off so much that they can't follow my simple logic. Intellectual dishonesty runs deep in my family. 

[adamNJ]

What do you guys think about Corey Waynes approach to seduction?

[Mykaelous]

I've found that when I am interested in a girl, I get nowhere, but when I am not interested in a girl, there is a good chance she will like me. I've only realised the reason for this recently: when I am not interested, I probably come across as confident, unattainable and probably the dark brooding type that some women like; but when I am interested I probably come across more as a cute guinea-pig or beta-phag. From what I have read the unattainable thing really works.

Not saying that the following applies to you, but something I would keep in mind. Sometimes for those of us who didn't quite get relationships at a young age we fall into a pattern of yearning for women who find us unattractive. I know for myself I have noticed sometimes that when I like a girl and suddenly gain her interest some part of me looses interest in her, or finds something small like "ohh her nose is bigger than I thought" to get all worked up about in my mind and dismiss her. I try to recognize that unloved child in my brain and tell him not to fear being loved.