# In Defense Of PUA



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

Younger guys complain that if they arn't the hottest, they can't get into a relationship. 
Older single women complain they can't get into a relationship. They lost most of their value to men (and men lost most of their sex drive by that point), so care even less. 

In the big picture, it's fair. There just tends to be lots of unhappy people.


----------



## BarryO (Mar 13, 2013)

AriesLilith said:


> I don't know about PUA, but I get the feeling from the posts here that it rather fuels this feeling of perceived social injustice (making themselves feel even more like victims), while trying to improve themselves and make up a confident and charming mask in order to get laid.



Non of these guys are PUAs and if they are there not very good. PUAs don't talk like this. PUAs don't wine and complain about women, rather the things they complain about are: other guys just sucking, how much better they are than them, who has the best product, and whose product is a scam. 

It's quite comical in a different way


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Jennywocky said:


> Oooooo....... This thread should be fun!!


I just felt my IQ drop with a whopping 30 points. I'm now back at where I was when I was 14; just your average genius with very lovely facial features ♥

Try to pronounce "pua" really fast and numerous times with a Chinese accent while calling random people and Chinese take outs trying to score a date or chicken feet. I am having so much fun here!


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

I thought Patrice was so bitter from vagina-envy that he ought to get a sex change. Referring to potential sex partners as "pussy," "bitch" or "dick" is revolting. May as well spray yourself in shit-scent. I can just imagine a guy who makes the vagina go dry and then gets indignant that I won't make him a sandwich. Nothing screams omega like, 

"...I resent all the shit we gotta go through just to get pussy! That's how I feel about it..."

Okay, seriously now...



strangestdude said:


> In the Black Phillip show Patrice comes across as a borderline misogynist however...
> 
> His point is that most hetero women expect men to initiate communication and dating, and to qualify themselves to them - without considering that they also have to qualify themselves and develop social skills so that men will find them attractive beyond sex. And he's angry that women expect men to like them beyond sex when they don't bother developing their personality to be attractive to men.
> 
> PUA is about men developing an attractive personality and social skills to become more attractive to women in general.


This is a pet peeve of mine. Men (and women) dig in the dumpster for potential partners and then bitch about the opposite sex when they don't get the results they want. How many young men make the mistake of thinking luscious titties and ass make a woman a good catch? Do you see the irony of objectifying women as "pussies" and then complaining that the women you get act like pussies? A woman who respects herself won't put up with that bullshit.

But I can see the merit in instructing men to have better social skills. Some people seriously need it. If you misread a woman's signals, you might come across as a creeper or worse. If you act subservient to a woman, that is likely to be a turn-off to her. Etc. PUA game just comes across as manipulative and sexist. You understand that the majority of women want love/relationships and not just sex. (I would support legalizing prostitution for just-sex.) Tactics encouraged by PUA game might be death to a relationship. I have read the words of men who complain that women are bitches while instructing other men to behave in ways that drive women crazy (such as by deliberately making her feel insecure.)

There is a subset of game out there in internet-land that is in my opinion far superior to PUA game. That is relationship-oriented game, see: Married Man Sex Life


----------



## BarryO (Mar 13, 2013)

Nitou said:


> PUA game just comes across as manipulative and sexist. .


You have some distorted view on PUAs. PUA is a guy who is meets women through cold approach, i.e in public. There are many ways womens to meet women, but these guy choose meet women this way as opposed to through friends or friends, work, or online.

Since it is very difficult, but also has the opportunity of being very rewarding, they focus their time on becoming better at it.

Becoming better at it separates the Pickup guy from the artist


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Let me get this in as pithy way as possible: - evolutionarily, women are the selective race; so men can/must use PUA to gain the greater selection?

I don't really have a problem with PUA - as it happens, I think that it is socially maladjusted behaviour, and for a guy to make 'practice' about best 'technique' for picking up women is pretty dumb, but I'm not so concerned about it. It seems like a well-_reasoned_ approach, if a poorly _felt_ one, to a social problem. But it's not for me... I prefer traditional method 

And also while @strangestdude is not a moron, I get the idea that people like Nick Carraway are pretty much par for the course in the 'pua world', i.e. sexually frustrated teenagers with an extensive bitterness about an inability to get it in.


----------



## BarryO (Mar 13, 2013)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Let me get this in as pithy way as possible: - evolutionarily, women are the selective race; so men can/must use PUA to gain the greater selection?


Yes, men who aren't born into high social status. If you were born a Kennedy then you will never need to become a PUA for women. (rather if they did, just for fun). However, you can increase your social status in other ways, but even a doctor will still have to approach a girl. ( source: know pua dr's.) Guys who are famous are the only ones that will not have to approach a girl


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

BarryO said:


> Yes, men who aren't born into high social status. If you were born a Kennedy then you will never need to become a PUA for women. (rather if they did, just for fun). However, you can increase your social status in other ways, but even a doctor will still have to approach a girl. ( source: know pua dr's.) Guys who are famous are the only ones that will not have to approach a girl


 Idk, I have enough success without PUA cold approaches -- not an overwhelming amount obviously, but enough not to need to think about it.


----------



## L (Aug 12, 2011)

PUA has helped me. I'm just looking for Mrs. Right and I've gotten closer in the past week than I have in my first 21 years and x months/days of living thanks to looking several things up. Even if I haven't really come close... still closer than two weeks ago.

PUA to me is just learning how to talk to women. The other night my approach to a woman was this:
I came out of the elevator and heard this cute girl talking to her lab partner about something he got designated to do that was apparently somewhat dangerous (I'm not really sure what it was). I just playfully said maybe he should get a hug for risking life and limb and she said no and asked if I could have a hug instead (and I got my hugroud. Then I made a joke and he suggested she should take me to dinner and she declined and I just asked her to put her number in my phone instead. I now have her number. 

That's PUA, technically speaking. From what I understand, from everything I've ever read, THAT'S PUA and that's what it's about. I'm going to try and ask her to a museum close by I went to last weekend (but they were closed:sad sometime tomorrow. Without PUA I wouldn't even be this close to having my first date. 

It works. I'm only a beginner but I've seen it work plenty of times for my older cousin. You can't blame somebody for using a system that works. Anyone that thinks I'm a pig for using PUA to find Mrs. Right can suck the proverbial big one.


----------



## Seranova (Mar 1, 2013)

_This is gonna be interesting..._


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

I'm not so sure what is wrong with the traditional method that people have to go about practicing their conversational skills on total strangers. It's probably cultural though. If you asked a stranger for a hug where I come from it would be extremely creepy.

I can make conversation with friends of friends with whom I've been introduced, people at bars or other places when I am drinking, and people who I share some kind of calamity with (like being stuck on a train or watching a Quentin Tarantino film.)

I don't need to talk to random people going about their daily business to learn how to converse and neither should you.


----------



## Cephalonimbus (Dec 6, 2010)

I think the danger lies in the fact that a lot of guys enter the world of PUA out of insecurity or desperation, and instead of working on those negative traits first, they go for the techniques that teach you how to _appear_ confident, instead of actually improving your self-esteem. I'm not saying that these techniques don't work -- they definitely can -- but they lead to problems in the long run because you're forming attraction by pretending to be something you're not. That's inevitably going to lead to a clash between yourself and your projected self once you get beyond the superficial interaction, and is ultimately harmful to your self-esteem, because you're affirming the idea that the only way to be attractive is to not be you.

You should approach PUA as a form of self-help with a specific target audience. Improving yourself is a healthy aspiration, and there are plenty of useful tips out there on how to talk to women without being a manipulative douche... I think that as long as you have a decent sense of self and what kind of person you want to be, it's easy to stay true to yourself and find stuff that works for you while disregarding manipulative or "fake" techniques that would steer you in a direction you don't want to go.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

I think PUAs are kind of pathetic and have the sexuality of an abandoned warehouse. 
...however, if that's the only way they can get pussy, I can't say I blame them for doing it. fortunately, I am moderately attractive and flow naturally in intimate situations, but, if I were sexually awkward and/or physically repulsive, I would be doing exactly what they do. manipulating people makes me want to vomit, but if it's between that and never getting sex or intimacy ever again, wanting to vomit is the lesser of the two poisons. the desire for replication is a painfully strong instinct and has pushed people to do a lot more fucked up things than PUA when left unsatisfied. 

overall, I guess my opinion is that, regardless of your opinion of them, labeling them as shallow pricks who objectify women is missing the other side of the coin. it's sort of like saying "he robbed the grocery store because he was a bad person" when, in reality, said robber might have had to choose between robbing the grocery store or letting his family starve (among several other possible scenarios). Sex and dating are full of situations that will tempt you to do some pretty strange (and something dangerous) shit in order to get with a person you feel strongly for (whether we're talking about sheer, instinctual lust or something more intimate and special, both urges are pretty powerful). I would be willing to be plenty of PUAs have a lot of respect for women, but slaking their desperate lust trumps honest, natural communication. 
_that said_, I think the way they go about dealing with this desperation is extremely stupid. there are plenty of natural ways to increase your sex appeal that are also generally good for you as a person
such as 
- getting in shape
- improving your hygiene 
- getting acquainted with some cosmetics (general male culture thinks any kind of cosmetics are "gay" or "girly"....good luck picking up women when you look repulsive)
- improving your wardrobe
- improving your diet
- growing your character (and gaining things like discipline, confidence and a sense of "I love me!")
- work on your social skills. you don't have to turn into some sort of socialite or social networker, just learn how to have a normal, non-awkward conversation where you actually listen to them yet aren't afraid to say what you think. 
- if you have any facial deformities and can afford it, get plastic surgery

the last point is a bit more expensive, but, other than that, the rest of those points are things most people can start working on immediately and, if you do all of them (unless you are seriously deformed or disabled), plenty of women will find you attractive


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

snail said:


> This is a generalization based on sexist traditions.  It doesn't always work this way.


That's Patrice's point too. I'm guessing you didn't read the transcript.



> A pretty woman frequently has to deal with being rejected after a dishonest man has manipulated her in order to get the only thing he values her for, and being used in this manner is just as painful as being routinely unwanted.


Again that's Patrice point however unlike yourself he tells women to take responsibility for not developing attractive personalities and social skills to men. His point is if you just focus on making yourself physically attracitve, then that's what only what men going to be attracted to.



> If a woman doesn't conform to the social standards associated with prettiness, if she is disabled, if she is fat, if she shows any signs of aging, or if she has kids, she generally has to deal with a lot of the same kind of rejection men face.


I know plenty of fat, aging, women with kids who do just fine with men. Patice's and Dante's point (in the first part of the transcript) is that women can generally get men - just not necessarily to the standard they want. However a man can't generally just get women, partly due to the cultural norm that men have to approach women in hetero dating, and women refusing to deal with rejection by courting men they like.



> she is likely to be rewarded with rejection every time she takes the risk of initiating communication, or makes herself emotionally vulnerable with a man.


Then those women are known what it's like for non-famous, non-rich guys. 



> They do this because of their false assumption that women are somehow more powerful/privileged than they are,


 

*In this specific context* ie. hetero dating, women are in a privileged position. If by virtue of your genitalia the norm is that men have to approach *you* and qualify themselves for your attention then you are in a privileged position. 



> but they fail to see that the power they envy comes from our socially constructed (and usually unwanted) ability to get the kind of sexual attention most of us find annoying, hurtful and undesirable in the first place.


Again Patrice's point is the most women put time and energy into making themselves physically attractive to men (ie. pussy) but don't spend enough time making themselves internally attractive to men, and yet get annoyed when men treat them as anything other than pussy. How many women spend an age getting ready, how many of them spend an equal amount of time developing personality.



> This is not completely true. Women frequently struggle to make themselves appealing to men, sometimes unwittingly encouraging the very objectification most of us seek to avoid, because of deeply ingrained sexist social expectations about how we ought to present ourselves. While some men are struggling to seem confident, powerful, wealthy, or whatever else society tells them they must be, some women are struggling with all of their might to be pretty enough to attract a mate,


Again that is Patrice's point. However you seem to desire to absolve women of responsibility and agency by blaming it soley on society. Patrice is saying that if women are just spending time and energy making yourself externally attractive, then it should be *no surprise* that men only treat them as if you are externally attractive. 

As he said in another episode; "What are you bringing to the table bitch!? Other than your fucking pussy!?"


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

AriesLilith said:


> IMO, men complaining about women only being interested in what they can offer or their money is as annoying as women complaining about men only being interested in having sex with them.


You've missed Patrice's point. 

He's saying that due to the cultural norm in hetero-dating of men having to court women, men - consciously or unconsciously - develop attractive aspects of their personalities and social skills, whereas women don't. And he then says he's resentful that women feel angry about being treated as just pussy after not developing internally attractiveness.

Transcript;
_*
"Dante; From when you say 'I want this' you're not even taking into consideration that somebody might not even find you interesting.

Jacqueline; That's fine, then I don't want to be with him.

Dante; If you don't wanna be with someone who might be interesting, but doesn't find you interesting you don't wanna become interesting? You're not even considering how somebody looks at you. Because you don't have to.

Patrice; Now if I see you in the street Jacqueline here's what's gonna happen. I got 50 levels of rejection that I'mma go through. 

I say; hey how you doing? you say; (passive aggressive tone) hello, I get that; hello. And I go; 'Ok I've seen that before.' And I go; boom, boom, boom, boom, boom (saying others things to show I'm interesting).

Maybe 29, maybe 29 I might get the number, level 29.

Women don't even have a level 2. What you do is go - 'I don't like him'."*_

He's saying to women; look, from the beginning of the courtship - unconsciously or consciously - I've been showing you my internal attractiveness ie. sense of humor, pastimes, interesting stories, confidence, etc, whilst you just qualify me and flirt. And then as a result you like me internally but I only like you externally and get angry, without reflecting on the fact that I've been showing you my internal attractiveness whilst you haven't.

Transcript;

_*"Now where the resentment comes in, is now you look at me like I'm supposed to love you like you love me - and you've done nothing lovable! Not one fucking thing have you done loveable! Why should I love you because I'm lovable!? Because you're not giving nothing!*_"

*"I traded you the implication of my entire existence for your pussy. Fair trade. Thank you precious. I traded all the shit that you think you are gonna be with, I gave it to you to say; hey look I'm a funny muthafucka, hey look I can read I can write, I got credit, nice house, etc. You gave me some pussy. Nice trade, thank you sweetie!

What in there made me need to like you? When you were trading pussy for my existence? Why should I love you back? Now you need to work to love, to get the love you want!"*


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

BarryO said:


> Non of these guys are PUAs and if they are there not very good.


That episode of the show was supposed to be about PUA advice but Patrice began to talk about what frustrates men about hetero dating.

Here's a pic of the late Patrice with his widow who he used to have threesomes with (if we are judging based on looks);


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Nitou said:


> I thought Patrice was so bitter from vagina-envy that he ought to get a sex change. Referring to potential sex partners as "pussy," "bitch" or "dick" is revolting. May as well spray yourself in shit-scent.


I refer you to the post above.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Let me get this in as pithy way as possible: - evolutionarily, women are the selective race; so men can/must use PUA to gain the greater selection?


Even if I grant that hetero-women not initiating courtship is due to evolutionary inheritance, it's an inclination that can easily be overcome. Otherwise gay, bi or pan women would simply stand in corners waiting for other women to approach them and would die same-sex virgins.

Women can step up if they want to, but they don't.



> And also while @_strangestdude_ is not a moron, I get the idea that people like Nick Carraway are pretty much par for the course in the 'pua world', i.e. sexually frustrated teenagers with an extensive bitterness about an inability to get it in.


Sexually frustrated young men probably. I'm not sure why that's a surprise to you, or a put down. Men with attractive personalities and social skills wouldn't need PUA in the first place... It's a no-brainer.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> there are plenty of natural ways to increase your sex appeal that are also generally good for you as a person
> such as
> - getting in shape
> - improving your hygiene
> ...


Basic PUA advice. You obviously know nothing about what you are criticizing.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

Bleh, how boring. Honestly, here's my advice for PUAs: 
WANK. It's when you fiddle with your own bits. It's not as difficult as you might think.
Saves you a lot of effort and it saves other people having to cringe at your twisted view of the world.


----------



## Bardo (Dec 4, 2012)

I read The Game, I thought it was absolutely incredible from a detached perspective. I didn't like the intended PUA info or the description of the PUA scene at all.

There was a lot of psychological information packed into it, I found it interesting to analyze the two main dudes in the story; Style and Mystery. I also liked the view it gives you of the male and female mind generally and the perspective it lets you look at societal structure as a whole. There is a ton packed in there for an INFJ like moi, it is a unique book.



Good things from PUA - Style mentions that women tend to be more supportive of each other, open and have access to help regarding relationships, sex and other personal and/or sensitive subjects like life traumas because of it. 

Be it in media or just general conversation with each other there is access to personal advice and support that men don't have anything like, whatever you think of the trend PUA it is at least a prototype step towards men seeking to be more balanced, open and stronger in neglected areas. It should be basic conversation but it's not.

The reason a lot of men go to this is because there isn't much else, men don't discuss LAME SHIT LIKE EMOTIONS AND INSECURITIES YOU ***. While not the focus it seems the PUA scene at least takes a full step towards it.

A veteran PUA guru encountered in the book mentions that like half the guys he trains have come from abusive or neglectful backgrounds, they probably wouldn't have mentioned much of that to anyone or sought psychiatric help or anything. For some reason they seek to boost themselves by getting loads of HAWT CHIX, a lot of men consider it the answer to all their problems and of course never actually fix their wide ranging and subtle problems, Mystery and Style being grand personifications of this in my eyes. 
Mystery is supposed to be some mad genius trailblazer PUA casanova but he gets totally crushed by cardboard cut out glam women that he gets serious with. Style, the author of The Game and his prodigy, never describes the tiniest part of a females personality in the whole book. He gives up the player lifestyle for a certain woman and the deepest it goes for her is him finding an obscure CD of hers that he thinks is amazing. 
In some ways, the most important ways, I saw no development whatsoever in those two guys between the luckless chump stage and the grandmaster PUA level.


While most of the PUA stuff to me is pointed in the wrong direction, there are some points that aren't being covered anywhere else that a lot of men need to be aware of, just like basic conversational advice and self improvement advice. Again men don't really cover this while talking about sports. 
For example most men don't know how to wear clothes properly, we shouldn't be covering ourselves in guyliner and furry tophats in order to 'peacock' but we don't often discuss what kinds of upper and lower body items go together or anything like it, random sportswear and bad T-shirts are as far as it goes for too many people.

In short, a heavily polluted prototype for something good in the future, hopefully.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Eros_Passion said:


> No. In order to date a woman, she must be ATTRACTED to you. She must be intrigued to know more about you. Guy A would actually show Girl X a perfectly good time, but he doesn't know how to create that initial attraction.
> 
> That's when PUA comes in.





> It teaches you to believe in yourself and to step up your game with a few tricks and pointers.
> 
> PUA helps us hopeless guys polish ourselves a bit for the dating world. I don't see why you want to take that away as well.


You nailed it.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Bardo said:


> While most of the PUA stuff to me is pointed in the wrong direction, there are some points that aren't being covered anywhere else that a lot of men need to be aware of, just like basic conversational advice and self improvement advice.





> In short, a heavily polluted prototype for something good in the future, hopefully.


I agree with your assessment. 

I think an evolution of PUA (though still with flaws like 'negging' etc) can be found in Owen Cook's espoused 'game', teaching internal validation, mindfulness mediation, psychological state management, etc.


----------



## valentine (Feb 25, 2009)

Bardo said:


> I also liked the view it gives you of the male and female mind generally and the perspective it lets you look at societal structure as a whole.


The mind, as it is, works the same for both genders.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

valentine said:


> The mind, as it is, works the same for both genders.


The mind is easily influenced by the society at large, and its specefic social circle. Yes, the mechanics of our mind may be the same but since society plays a big role in the difference genders should hold or present, I would say the mind doesn't work the same for both genders in certain respects. Also since our bodies are different, the assumption can be made that our minds may also be different especially since the mind is still relatively not understood. Basically don't talk so certain about the mind for we have no clue what the mind really is, we just have a concept of what it may be.


----------



## valentine (Feb 25, 2009)

Shadow Logic said:


> The mind is easily influenced by the society at large, and its specefic social circle. Yes, the mechanics of our mind may be the same but since society plays a big role in the difference genders should hold or present, I would say the mind doesn't work the same for both genders in certain respects. Also since our bodies are different, the assumption can be made that our minds may also be different especially since the mind is still relatively not understood. Basically don't talk so certain about the mind for we have no clue what the mind really is, we just have a concept of what it may be.


You're confusing 'thought patterns' with the mind. And we have a great deal of information available about the mind. I mean there's a whole branch of science dedicated to it.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Psychology is dedicated to the mind but still psychology isn't as empirical as other sciences even to the point that some scientist consider psychology as a pseudoscience. Not that i agree, I love psychology but its true that its studies are hardly empirical. With there being so many different types of psyhology with different theories (some that even go counter to others), i have to say that we as a collective still are far away from knowing what the mind actually is and how it actually works. Also for my own curiosity, what's the difference in your words between a thought process and the mind?


----------



## valentine (Feb 25, 2009)

I was referring to Cognitive Science. A quick way to look at the difference between the two would be thinking of the mind as hardware and the thought patterns as software.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

valentine said:


> I was referring to Cognitive Science. A quick way to look at the difference between the two would be thinking of the mind as hardware and the thought patterns as software.


Even though I do like cognitive science as a whole it to has its flaws in an empirical sense since it uses psychology and philosophy to build off. I see where you're coming from but I share a different mindset, I see the mind as patterns of thought which are put together to create the personality. I see all of that as the software, while our brain and the rest of our body and its physical processes are the hardware. 

Btw, Op my bad for derailing you're thread.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> Then they need to learn to court, instead of relying on trying to spot sincere courtship from men.


What does skill of courting have to do with checking if a man is interested in more than sex?

Also, I don't think that dating is about women just sitting there and expecting men to do all the stuffs, including talking. Dating is about "exchanging", interacting in two ways, and not just some monologue. If a woman is interested then chances are she would be active as well.



strangestdude said:


> One of the great things about PUA is the self honesty - the guys know they are bad at courtship and have personality flaws.


I hope so, thought one thing is being honest with self and wanting to improve one's self as a person, another is to have a mindset of a victim and blame others for it. It's like the mentality of some women that says that men only wants sex and blames the lack of success for this.



strangestdude said:


> Bitch. :tongue:


*sshole. XD



strangestdude said:


> The difference you are ignoring is who has to pursue.
> 
> If you have to put in the effort of pursuit, if you have to put in the effort of initiating courtship *why would you go after women below a certain standard?
> 
> ...


Hmm I find this idea of "if I'm pursuing then why not go for higher standards?" weird. But then commenting on this - I guess that it's not news that if you go for the higher ones while you're just average, you might have higher chances failing anyways? And then this argument seems a bit contradictory to the argument of "men complaining about quantity over quality"...

I also find this idea of "if I'm not the one pursuing then I should have lower standards" weird. I don't think that just coz something is offered to you, then you should just accept it whether or not you like it.

Also, then there are also cruel guys who would complain or joke about the quality of women who have offered themselves too...



strangestdude said:


> Then why don't they practice initiating courtship?
> 
> Why don't they attempt to do what the lonely guys who flock to PUA do and learn how to court?


Women are more socially conditioned to work on their appearance in order to succeed in dates, and that women generally don't take initiative as it makes you seem like a slut or too easy, or that men might not value you for being so easy, or that if you need to take initiative then you are just not good enough as a woman.

Good thing is, when people grows up, they can start to see relationships more naturally instead of getting lost in all the society expectations, so I'm not saying this as a justification for women to not take initiative, but rather that social ideas are such a b*tch, yet men are not the only ones affected.



strangestdude said:


> I don't see how that change privilege. Privilege doesn't mean perfect circumstances.


What exactly is that big deal of a priviledge? Maybe you can check out why these society expectations are what they are by understanding the gender expectations since the past; and then how it affects each gender. Simply put, in the past, women had to depend their lives in their men, so that they would have to be very careful and picky, while evaluating how their men would care for them by checking how they treat them. Good thing is, there is more equality now, and women are more independent now, thought some things takes time to change.
But there will always be things that are not the same in both genders, even thought we can achieve more equality. Like how women have to worry more about not getting pregnant if casual dating goes wrong. Or how she has to be careful and not being taken advantage when a stranger man approaches her.

Sure, men still have to take initiative often, but then many women are fine with more equality in the relationship, and you only choose to date women who expects you to do all if you want. Nowadays, a woman that is genuinely interested in you and mature enough can be active as well, even if she might not take the initiative of getting your number or asking you to be her bf, or to marry her.
And then there are also other ways, like getting to know someone better and know about her feelings and expectations, before taking any romantic initiative.



strangestdude said:


> Patrice, and I were just pointing out the bullshit in hetero-dating from a male perspective. Women can - and do frequently - voice their own complaints.


I guess so, thought it would be annoying as well, if there are women blaming men for the lack of success in the dating world.

But then maybe how people voice their complaints is actually the main problem? I think that if on the other hand people would have voiced them more critically and less blaming, maybe other people would be more receptive and empathetic? Just like someone else in this thread already said, it's hard to be empathetic when people are just like that. When I've read the OP, I felt that there are more blaming and "dicks" "pussies" than objectively analyzing the issues.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Shadow Logic said:


> Btw, Op my bad for derailing you're thread.


I'm not someone who is bothered by threads being derailed too much. 

And the topic of gender identity almost always comes up in dating, so thanks for your contribution.


----------



## L (Aug 12, 2011)

FlaviaGemina said:


> Fair enough. But who says that that whole "dating" culture needs to be taken seriously?
> Also, I wasn't being contemptuous, I was only giving practical advice. It's as simple as this:
> 
> 1. If dudes (and girls) want a serious relationship between two mature adults, then they need to stop going on about "pussy" and "dick".
> ...


I follow that advice and I still use PUA. 

1) I don't really even use the word pussy... even when I'm calling someone a wimp and trash talking on the basketball court I use the word panzy (they all know me as a jokester anyways so nobody takes me seriously lol). 

2) If I get an itch I do just wank, to porn, once every few days. 

3) I don't really want to show off to members of my own sex, and only really want to show off to certain members of the opposite sex. 

Now what?


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

@strangestdude

I have a story my S/O told me that might amuse you. We work at the same job. There is a lady at work who is a stereotype with a big mouth and an attitude and long claw-like fingernails. S/O told me one day she was complaining that no rich man steps up to her. S/O told her that a rich man wants to be with someone his own level, and she is 60-ish, she's ghetto, so why would a rich man want her? Heh.

(And btw, I pursued him from the friend-zone for two almost two years, along with many discussions about women, before he finally came around to seeing me as a sex object. :kitteh


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

AriesLilith said:


> What does skill of courting have to do with checking if a man is interested in more than sex?


What I meant is they could go out and find the kind of guys they want. Rather than relying on the selection that comes to them without any internal development and effort on their part, and then complain about.



> Also, I don't think that dating is about women just sitting there and expecting men to do all the stuffs, including talking.


Yep. That's what expecting men to initiate courtship is. 



> Dating is about "exchanging", interacting in two ways, and not just some monologue. If a woman is interested then chances are she would be active as well.


True. However many women have 'pretty girl syndrome.' 



> I hope so, thought one thing is being honest with self and wanting to improve one's self as a person, another is to have a mindset of a victim and blame others for it. It's like the mentality of some women that says that men only wants sex and blames the lack of success for this.


Nothing wrong with venting on an internet forum. :happy:



> Hmm I find this idea of "if I'm pursuing then why not go for higher standards?" weird. But then commenting on this - I guess that it's not news that if you go for the higher ones while you're just average, you might have higher chances failing anyways? And then this argument seems a bit contradictory to the argument of "men complaining about quantity over quality"...


Because men are make the effort to develop attractive personality, social skills and have to deal with (at times) brutal rejection due to the cultural norm. Women who don't put in any effort to initiate courtship and complain about the men who initiate courtship with them are ungrateful. 



> I also find this idea of "if I'm not the one pursuing then I should have lower standards" weird. I don't think that just coz something is offered to you, then you should just accept it whether or not you like it.


An analogy;

A person has 100 bucks in their pocket and is hungry, and every 15 minutes people turn up at their front door offering them food for free. 

But the person turns away all those free offers because they aren't to their liking.

But not only do they turn away those offers they ring up their friend, and complains about the quality of the food being offered to them for free.

Their friend turns asks "why don't you go out and find some food that you want, because you have the money (the ability), to try to find (to court) the kind of food you want".

In response the person puts down the phone, sits down and waits for the door to knock. 

As the door knocks they roll their eyes and sigh.


There are people (often men) who can go a decade without a single person attempting to initiate courtship with them, and hetero woman complain! If you aren't putting any effort into courtship, why are you complaining? If the quality of men aren't what you desire, accept it and move on - be grateful that you have people attempting to court you.



> Also, then there are also cruel guys who would complain or joke about the quality of women who have offered themselves too...


True. 



> Women are more socially conditioned to work on their appearance in order to succeed in dates, and that women generally don't take initiative as it makes you seem like a slut or too easy, or that men might not value you for being so easy, or that if you need to take initiative then you are just not good enough as a woman.


Do you honestly think that the men who spend hundreds and thousands, and hours listening and watching PUA would mind women initiating courtship? 

It tends to be other women who criticize other women for going after the things they want in regards to casual and serious dating IME. Not saying men don't but I've seen women be incredibly spiteful about women who pursue casual or serious relationships aggressively.



> Good thing is, when people grows up, they can start to see relationships more naturally instead of getting lost in all the society expectations, so I'm not saying this as a justification for women to not take initiative, but rather that social ideas are such a b*tch, yet men are not the only ones affected.


I agree. Trans men, transwomen, gay men and women, and straight men are the demographics who have to consistently make an effort to find partners whereas women interested in men sit back and complain about the quality of the men making the effort to pursue them. :happy:

Transcript;

*"But see having a vagina almost makes you feel like being a celebrity. Having a vagina make you think that you are at my level of hard work! You walk out the house with sunglasses on, with earphones, the fucking i pods to not be bothered like; 'please don't bother me, no autographs, I'm a beautiful woman.' I've been doing this shit for 16 fucking years, and I've gotta use this to be able to say hello to you in the street!? 

...Let's say we had something women were after every second of the fucking day. What if god had cursed us or blessed us, every guy had 10 G's in his pocket every day. And every day women were out there saying; hello! And in our minds we are thinking; this bitch is just after my 10 thousand dollars. 

But here's the thing about my 10 thousand dollars, here's the thing about my 10 G's. I'm better than my 10 thousand dollars, understand. Bitch want my 10, take my 10 cos I've got 50 thousand dollars worth of shit that you don't know about up here. Bitches are not bigger than their pussy, their pussy drives their whole shit, be better than your pussy. Be better."*



> What exactly is that big deal of a priviledge?


C'mon don't play dumb. 

Maybe you can check out why these society expectations are what they are by understanding the gender expectations since the past; and then how it affects each gender. Simply put, in the past, women had to depend their lives in their men, so that they would have to be very careful and picky, while evaluating how their men would care for them by checking how they treat them.


> Good thing is, there is more equality now, and women are more independent now, thought some things takes time to change.


Part of this is telling women to step up, and stop playing to traditional gender roles. 



> But there will always be things that are not the same in both genders, even thought we can achieve more equality. Like how women have to worry more about not getting pregnant if casual dating goes wrong. Or how she has to be careful and not being taken advantage when a stranger man approaches her.


Way off topic.



> Sure, men still have to take initiative often, but then many women are fine with more equality in the relationship, and you only choose to date women who expects you to do all if you want.


Like I said. I'd bet money that even those women who talk about equality still have the 80:20 or 90:10 ratio in regards to initiating courtship throughout their life. Actions speak louder than words in regards to desiring equality in relationships.



> Nowadays, a woman that is genuinely interested in you and mature enough can be active as well, even if she might not take the initiative of getting your number or asking you to be her bf, or to marry her.


Then they aren't being active if they aren't initiating they are being *reactive*.



> And then there are also other ways, like getting to know someone better and know about her feelings and expectations, before taking any romantic initiative.


If you work in a profession with few women, and a social circle with few women then that's inapplicable advice.



> But then maybe how people voice their complaints is actually the main problem? I think that if on the other hand people would have voiced them more critically and less blaming, maybe other people would be more receptive and empathetic? Just like someone else in this thread already said, it's hard to be empathetic when people are just like that. When I've read the OP, I felt that there are more blaming and "dicks" "pussies" than objectively analyzing the issues.


It wouldn't have gotten so many responses if it wasn't sensational... Trust me.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Nitou said:


> @_strangestdude_
> 
> I have a story my S/O told me that might amuse you. We work at the same job. There is a lady at work who is a stereotype with a big mouth and an attitude and long claw-like fingernails. S/O told me one day she was complaining that no rich man steps up to her. S/O told her that a rich man wants to be with someone his own level, and she is 60-ish, she's ghetto, so why would a rich man want her? Heh.


Yep that's the basic message. Your SO has his head right.



> (And btw, I pursued him from the friend-zone for two almost two years, along with many discussions about women, before he finally came around to seeing me as a sex object. :kitteh


I'm skeptical, I reckon he asked you out in the end, whilst you indirectly flirted?


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> What I meant is they could go out and find the kind of guys they want. Rather than relying on the selection that comes to them without any internal development and effort on their part, and then complain about.


Thought women generally don't take the "official" actions like asking for the number or inviting men to go out first, I guess that women do take action in other ways too, it's not like all of them would just sit and wait for anything, specially if they are interested. Also, when they are interested, they might indirectly try to make things happen, like maybe asking for a friend's help to get them chances to meet and go out together, so that they can talk to each other and get closer. Or maybe even use some excuse to get to talk to the man they like.



strangestdude said:


> True. However many women have 'pretty girl syndrome.'
> 
> 
> Because men are make the effort to develop attractive personality, social skills and have to deal with (at times) brutal rejection due to the cultural norm. Women who don't put in any effort to initiate courtship and complain about the men who initiate courtship with them are ungrateful.


I don't know, but isn't "brutal" a bit too strong?? At least I've hardly have heard men using this adjective. Maybe it happens with b*tches...
Thought women can also get rejected even when they don't confess but the man knew by other ways that she was interested in him. And they can be cruel too.

But yeah, if a woman is not interested, then she doesn't have to be mean and complaining (unless he was causing discomfort in some way, like having been too forceful), it's not like she can't be sympathetic to someone else's feelings.




strangestdude said:


> Do you honestly think that the men who spend hundreds and thousands, and hours listening and watching PUA would mind women initiating courtship?
> 
> It tends to be other women who criticize other women for going after the things they want in regards to casual and serious dating IME. Not saying men don't but I've seen women be incredibly spiteful about women who pursue casual or serious relationships aggressively.


Thing is, it doesn't matter as much, if the PUA men actually liked women initiating courtship or not, since the society pressure is still there. And true, women can be cruel towards each other. But when you have something ingrained due to social conditioning, women would feel that they might be too easy or other wise not valued as much if they take initiative, just like men would feel that they might not be worthy as partners if they are not alpha guys with decent job and income, it makes things harder to overcome.

Some women might get so affected (like some men do), that they might feel that if a man isn't taking initiative then he might not have interest in her, since it's what expected and so they perceive it as some sort of interest barometer (or their own worth as partners barometer).

But again, good thing is that more and more women are less affected by such and are more independent and take more initiative, and are more active.



strangestdude said:


> Transcript;
> 
> *"But see having a vagina almost makes you feel like being a celebrity. Having a vagina make you think that you are at my level of hard work! You walk out the house with sunglasses on, with earphones, the fucking i pods to not be bothered like; 'please don't bother me, no autographs, I'm a beautiful woman.' I've been doing this shit for 16 fucking years, and I've gotta use this to be able to say hello to you in the street!?
> 
> ...


I don't like these scripts coz of the way of expressing. 

This is really a big generalization, many women don't feel like a celebrity just for being women, those who do and feel entitled to free worship (which is more adequate than saying courtship for these women? ) are b*tches anyways.



strangestdude said:


> Like I said. I'd bet money that even those women who talk about equality still have the 80:20 or 90:10 ratio in regards to initiating courtship throughout their life. Actions speak louder than words in regards to desiring equality in relationships.


Equality is not necessarily about doing the same things, but more about putting same amounts of efforts. A woman might not have asked for your number or invited you to go out for the first time, but she might invite you to go out from time to time, be the first to show that you are special, pay you a meal or a ticket for something, and so on.
Thought some might take initiative into arranging opportunities for both to meet and talk with each other and hang around too, even if indirectly.

Also, even if just for a short thing like meeting at a bar for one night stand, some women, even if few, might take initiative. And then they might be very active in seducing you if they are really interested. There might also have to have some effort from her part in order to get some men interested (but I'm not familiar with how this works since I have no experience in that area of dating).



strangestdude said:


> It wouldn't have gotten so many responses if it wasn't sensational... Trust me.


Maybe if it was a different kind of sensational, people might be more receptive I guess.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> Yeah you're very unfamiliar with PUA, one of the things it teaches is social skills, confidence building skills, and personality development.
> 
> You guys seem to have the idea that it's about walking up to women and spouting off pre-planned chat up lines.


 If PUA was just a programme to make men more attractive, I would be 100% behind it.

Unfortunately, it has a very nasty reputation of approaching sex in a calculating method that views women as some sort of game with escalating difficulty modes. The right combos win you the game. I mean I don't doubt its efficacy. 

In general the people who are attracted to PUA are too immature or stupid to see a woman as an equal partner who is basically just a human being, precisely like them, except with uh, idk, a vagina and stuff. That's why people don't like PUA.

If I have truly and severely misunderstood the meaning of PUA -- and btw, I believe you are selling it to be something it isn't -- can you link me to a good source that explains what it is?


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

strangestdude said:


> That's Patrice's point too. I'm guessing you didn't read the transcript.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If pick up artists hate pretty women so much, why are those the ones they tend to choose, excluding all others? Why aren't they selecting women for more meaningful qualities? They can complain all they want about how it is our fault they see us as mindless vessels for their genitals to fill, but that is what their actions indicate they are seeking. That is precisely how they choose to treat us. They don't choose women who aren't pretty, no matter how interesting those women may be. They pick women they don't respect who happen to conform to culturally defined beauty standards, and they see such women as things to use for sex, because seeing women that way is less complicated than getting to know us as human beings. We _all_ have personalities, whether or not we are arrogantly showing off to impress men the way they often show off for us. Pick up artists tend to treat women as though our personalities were mere obstacles in the way of getting laid. They are hypocrites, and they are the problem. They just choose to blame us for their failures in order to protect their pride. It gives them an excuse to dehumanize us. 

I believe that the pressures materialistic women put on men to be successful, rich, strong, and confident are very closely related to the pressures shallow men put on women to be pretty, and I don't think that being expected to be the assertive pursuer is any worse than the burden of being expected to be the ideal physical object for someone else's pursuit. I don't think anyone should be pressured to fulfill either role. I would like to see all of these unnecessary and harmful expectations eliminated, and I would like people to relate meaningfully as equals instead of treating each other as means to physical ends. People do not exist primarily to provide sex, status, or financial security. When pick up artists stop being shallow douchebags, maybe I will start taking their ridiculous whining seriously instead of seeing their complaints (about women supposedly not having personalities) as a cop out they use to excuse their own bad behavior against the class of women they exclusively prey on.


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> I'm skeptical, I reckon he asked you out in the end, whilst you indirectly flirted?


Not so! I told him straight that I had a crush on him, that I wanted a relationship with him and that I was not interested in FWB. I positioned myself as his friend and confidante. I made him sandwiches. But the time wasn't right and I kind of had the opposite problem to what you described. That is, plenty of intellectual attraction but not quite sexy enough. I pay more attention to my appearance now because it is important to him. And I make it a point to express my desire for him. A couple weeks ago he told me that he is glad I stuck with him.

I've asked guys out. I've been rejected on both ends. I offer to pay for dinner. Actually, I think it is better that I do the pursuing. Yes, women _should_ do the pursuing more often. Maybe women will be more satisfied with their relationships if _they_ do the choosing.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Well yeah if all you're after is meaningless sex with women you view as nothing but their vagina, then I guess PUA is right for you.

For someone who actually views women as human beings that they'd like to have a relationship with, not so much, and that's why it comes across as being so pathetic.

The whole tone has the implication that the world owes you free sex, and since you don't have the right to legally rape, that playing mind games with women is the only pathway to this free sex you believe the world inherently owes you.

The guys who do PUA, who think like this, who talk like this, have categorized women as creatures who have no use for them.

And the reasoning for that may have more to do with how the PUA thinks about and approaches women, and which women he approaches, than women as a gender.


----------



## niffer (Dec 28, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> Developing social skills to find adults who desire consensual sex, is the same as lying to someone that you love them in order to get money?


Nowhere in my post did I say they would be lying. I said they would be improving themselves and their social skills.

They are developing these aspects of themselves in order to find men who desire to consensually give their resources to a woman who they perceive is worthy.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

niffer said:


> What if it's not lying, but improving themselves and their social skills?
> 
> They are developing these aspects of themselves in order to find men who desire to consensually give their resources to a woman who they perceive is worthy.


As long as they aren't lying about their feelings for the guy, and the guy is willingly giving his money without being deceived... Cool.

What's wrong with that?


----------



## niffer (Dec 28, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> As long as they aren't lying about their feelings for the guy, and the guy is willingly giving his money without being deceived... Cool.
> 
> What's wrong with that?


Nothing, unless you count desiring something so superficial as being morally reprehensible. But given the motives of these women, you first made the assumption that they would've been lying in order to get money. Or at the very least, manipulating in some way. Which seems like reprehensible behaviour, does it not?

PUA, or at the very least the image of PUA, *potentially* involves a lot of deception in order to garner resources from others. Hence the backlash against it from most people.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

niffer said:


> Nothing, unless you count desiring something so superficial as being morally reprehensible.


I don't. I think we have hollywood romantic monogamy as the standard for relationships in our society, and I don't think it's healthy or provides other options that people can be content with. 

If they are both *happy* with the arrangement even if it's devoid of love, then they are in a better state than many relationships.



> But given the motives of these women, you first made the assumption that they would've been lying in order to get money. Or at the very least, manipulating in some way. Which seems like reprehensible behaviour, does it not?



The was a brilliant way of explaining why PUA probably has a negative perception. I'd give you two thumbs up if I could.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

niffer said:


> Nothing, unless you count desiring something so superficial as being morally reprehensible. But given the motives of these women, you first made the assumption that they would've been lying in order to get money. Or at the very least, manipulating in some way. Which seems like reprehensible behaviour, does it not?
> 
> PUA, or at the very least the image of PUA, *potentially* involves a lot of deception in order to garner resources from others. Hence the backlash against it from most people.


There' a big difference between wanting a person and wanting their stuff.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

I read it and my conclusion is that PUA is still misogynist self-help bullshit sold by hucksters and con artists to desperate and pathetic men because it reinforces their own misogynist views born out of bitterness and frustration, hope this helps OP.


----------



## niffer (Dec 28, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> I don't. I think we have hollywood romantic monogamy as the standard for relationships in our society, and I don't think it's healthy or provides other options that people can be content with.
> 
> If they are both *happy* with the arrangement even if it's devoid of love, then they are in a better state than many relationships.


I agree with you in the fundamental sense of this, even though I have my own idealism.



> The was a brilliant way of explaining why PUA probably has a negative perception. I'd give you two thumbs up if I could.


Always glad to shed a bit of light on the subject.

Happy PUAing while attempting to not look creepy! I wish you success and hope that you are able to refrain from being, and from encouraging others in being, a sleazy, lying sack of shit!


----------



## niffer (Dec 28, 2011)

android654 said:


> There' a big difference between wanting a person and wanting their stuff.


Yes. And your point in relation to my post...?


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

niffer said:


> Yes. And your point in relation to my post...?


Equating people who chase for money and people who chase for sex are not comparable.


----------



## niffer (Dec 28, 2011)

android654 said:


> Equating people who chase for money and people who chase for sex are not comparable.


Why?

Sex is a person? Sex can't be viewed as a resource?

I will agree that the dynamics involved in acquiring each are somewhat different. I fail to see how this opposes my point though.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

niffer said:


> Happy PUAing while attempting to not look creepy!


I'm gonna try this approach;


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

niffer said:


> Why?
> 
> Sex is a person? Sex can't be viewed as a resource?
> 
> I will agree that the dynamics involved in acquiring each are somewhat different. I fail to see how this opposes my point though.


A relationship, where sex is the foundation, at the very least provides a condition where people are wanted in equal measure by each other. Two or more people engage in and satisfy each other sexually is something that's not only plain spoken and fair, but mutually beneficial. In the event that you find someone and use them for their money or their resources, you make the relationship parasitic where there's an inherent imbalance of power which means that someone is always beneath the other person.

See the difference?


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> Like Patrice said; women don't even have a level 2 of rejection. They won't initiate things directly for fear of rejection.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah many guys have stories about being brutally rejected in a way that unnecessarily crushes them emotionally. But like Patrice said men generally have to deal with rejection on the front-end ("hi" Women looks him up and down and laughs to her friends) whereas as women deal with it after the man have auditioned their existence for a women's attention ('I like him why hasn't he called').


What is a level 2 rejection?? (sorry I still didn't see the video, it's just 2 hours is a lot lol)

Also, I'm not sure if getting rejected right away would be better than not sure about it until some good days have passed. But if you are talking about being rejected rudely or made fun of, women can get that as well. Thing is, if people avoid approaching people that have more potentials to be b*tches or *ssholes, and/or people that are so beautiful while they are just average (I'm tlaking about approaching total strangers that is, which is a bit different from getting to know someone better before making a move), then they might reduce such risks of meeting shallow selfish people.
But if you are into the game, then it's your choice...



strangestdude said:


> Anyone who complains about the standard of men trying to court them, whilst they aren't trying to court anyone has an entitlement mentality. If you aren't making an effort to pursue the kind of men you want whilst complaining about the dudes who are tap dancing to get your attention, then you have entitlement issues.


Again, why not filter your own choices then? There are many women in this world who are shallow, there are many men in this world who are shallow, there are shallow people everywhere. Thought generalizations to the entire genders seems unfair.



strangestdude said:


> Exactly women who have an 80:20 90:10 ratio aren't putting in the same amount of effort.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that if the women doesn't initiate courtship in every case then they don't believe in equality, I'm saying that if their overall dating life doesn't reflect a roughly equal effort (ie. 60:40) then their actions speak louder than words IMO.


80:20 90:10 ratio for initiatives taken, as in main initiatives like approaching, asking for the number and officializing the bf/gf status? I still can't see how this is such a big deal of efforts that other efforts made by the other seems little. I also still can't see what's the big priviledge it is for women to generally be the one waiting for approach. There are other things like how women need to be careful and not get used or forced into things, nor end up getting pregnant, and so on, yet I wouldn't point out how priviledged men are. :/

Thing is, if approaching or asking for a number is such a herculean effort, and then if the women you approach are just too passive and entitling, then maybe it's time to stop doing this game of dating, and try other ways (or at least filter the choices better). Thought some men worries too much about the numbers I guess. But people have to know their own choices, it's not like it's ok for women to also complain how the guys they met are all *ssholes, if she chose to have them (well it's ok to be clueless if you are inexperienced, but if you already have some experience, it's not like you're not responsible at all).


----------



## niffer (Dec 28, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> I'm gonna try this approach;


Well, good luck. This seems like a unique and fun method.

That said, if I believed they would always be like this and found out after several dates that they weren't, I'd feel very uncomfortable and like my dreams had been shattered.


----------



## niffer (Dec 28, 2011)

android654 said:


> A relationship, where sex is the foundation, at the very least provides a condition where people are wanted in equal measure by each other. Two or more people engage in and satisfy each other sexually is something that's not only plain spoken and fair, but mutually beneficial. *In the event that you find someone and use them for their money or their resources, you make the relationship parasitic where there's an inherent imbalance of power which means that someone is always beneath the other person.*
> 
> See the difference?


The bolded is false. Nothing about exchanging money for sex or other benefits suggests "using" or a parasitic dynamic. There is no inherent imbalance of power. Prostitutes do it all the time and it's not parasiting on the part of either the man or woman.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

niffer said:


> The bolded is false. Nothing about exchanging money for sex or other benefits suggests "using" or a parasitic dynamic. There is no inherent imbalance of power. Prostitutes do it all the time and it's not parasiting on the part of either the man or woman.


Seriously? Do you not see how a business transaction like prostitution is nothing like a relationship?


----------



## niffer (Dec 28, 2011)

android654 said:


> Seriously? Do you not see how a business transaction like prostitution is nothing like a relationship?


I don't see how wanting sex and nothing else from a person is any more like a fleshed-out (pun not intended) human relationship than that is.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Oh you frustrate me Aries! :wink: 



AriesLilith said:


> What is a level 2 rejection?? (sorry I still didn't see the video, it's just 2 hours is a lot lol)


In the transcript he talks about a scenario where he initiates courtship, tries talking to her and works past the initial passive-aggressive rejections that he gets. He says that men have many levels of rejection that they have to develop to successfully court a women. In contrast at the first overt sign of not being interested women give up.

Transcript;

*"Patrice; Now if I see you in the street Jacqueline here's what's gonna happen. I got 50 levels of rejection that I'mma go through. 

I say; hey how you doing? you say; (passive aggressive tone) hello, I get that; hello. And I go; 'Ok I've seen that before.' And I go; boom, boom, boom, boom, boom (saying others things to show I'm interesting).

Maybe 29, maybe 29 I might get the number, level 29.

Women don't even have a level 2. What you do is go - 'I don't like him'."*



> Thing is, if people avoid approaching people that have more potentials to be b*tches or *ssholes, and/or people that are so beautiful while they are just average (I'm tlaking about approaching total strangers that is, which is a bit different from getting to know someone better before making a move), then they might reduce such risks of meeting shallow selfish people.


Generally all women from average to very attractive have this attitude. But like Patrice says it's men's fault for not expecting women to 'bring something to the table' - which is partly why he talks about women's lack of personal development and entitlement mentality.



> But if you are into the game, then it's your choice...


Only alternative is dying lonely. We generally don't get courted remember. :happy:



> Again, why not filter your own choices then?


We don't have the quantity to filter for quality. 



> Thought generalizations to the entire genders seems unfair.


IMO there are generalization that can be applied to men in hetero dating, this is about generalization applied to women.



> 80:20 90:10 ratio for initiatives taken, as in main initiatives like approaching, asking for the number and officializing the bf/gf status? I still can't see how this is such a big deal of efforts that other efforts made by the other seems little.


It reflects that those women generally (not just basing it on a single courtship) expect men to take the lead in courtship, yet simultanously claim they desire equality. That's hypocrisy.



> I also still can't see what's the big priviledge it is for women to generally be the one waiting for approach.


Remember my analogy. Free food offered to you regularly, vs have to go out and find a place that serves food that more often than not turns you away.

Basically if we spend our life standing by women so they will talk to us we'll die alone. Whereas women will find a partner (or complain about the quality of men). That's privilege. 


> Thing is, if approaching or asking for a number is such a herculean effort,


I'm guessing you've one of those women whose never experienced a succession of rejections from initiating courtship. It can be brutal emotionally.



> and then if the women you approach are just too passive and entitling, then maybe it's time to stop doing this game of dating, and try other ways (or at least filter the choices better).


Then we'll die alone. Because no-one's coming for us, we are expected to reach out for them. (Are ya getting it?)



> Thought some men worries too much about the numbers I guess.


We don't have the quantity to discern quality. 

We have to generate quantity,* so we have a harder time finding good women*, that's one of the things explicit in Patrice's complaint. I've heard many women complain about the low quality of men approaching them, us dudes have to generate quantity and try to find quality.

Ask any guy who's experienced online dating or cold approach pick up in a bar, street, club, social setting... It's a numbers game. You get rejected far more times than you succeed in even getting women to respond to your initial communication.

Just accept that I'm right.


----------



## Jane the Ripper (Mar 19, 2013)

What is the real point of PUA? 

If all a man wants is pussy then what do you think brothels are for?

It is better this way because many a woman will be lead astray thinking they have found a good soul when in the end, all that was wanted was a good pussy. 

Save us your stupidity and go to a brothel.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Jane the Ripper said:


> What is the real point of PUA?


Sexual and casual relationships.



> If all a man wants is pussy then what do you think brothels are for?
> 
> It is better this way because many a woman will be lead astray thinking they have found a good soul when in the end, all that was wanted was a good pussy.


You can't (well rarely) get a genuine rapport and have a casual relationships with hookers. 



> Save us your stupidity and go to a brothel


A) That would cost a shit load of money.

B) It's illegal in most places.

C) PUAs want casual relationships as well as one night stands.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> Oh you frustrate me Aries! :wink:


lool I guess that we are arguing in circles, that's why. XP

Well I'll simplify my response towards your post instead of quoting the rest.

When men limit/filter their choices, they are not going to die lonely unless their filter is too high. But then they filter the appearance standards anyways, it's not that they are getting every single girl. So why not filter more, if that's what you desire? What's the point of approaching b*tches if you don't like b*tches?

My husband and some men in my life (family, friends and so on) might have or have had much less relationships, but they don't end up frustrated like this. They filter their choices and end up having relationships that fits their standards anyways. A lot are just averages in terms of looks and social skills. But if you really want many of them whether they fit your standards or not, then how can you complain about the shallowness? You were choosing shallow ones after all. If you are playing a shallow game, then don't be surprised when shallow qualities are required from you (charm, courtship skills and status), and that other players are shallow too. It would be like entering a clothes store, look around, dislike the style and say "why are you expecting me to pay for this??". Stop wasting time in a mall entering every store, start pay attention to the appearance of them and only approach those that seems to sell the clothes you like. 



strangestdude said:


> Just accept that I'm right.


I guess that in the over all, we have to agree to disagree in certain points.


----------



## Jane the Ripper (Mar 19, 2013)

What do you define as a casual relationship? 
I've always entertained the idea (observed in human males) that such a person seeks someone akin to their mother. A lover will cook, clean, and take care of them, only with the added benefit of sex (because we all know you can't have sex with your mother; something that is frowned upon based on ethical grounds as well as scientific ones). It is also my understanding that casual relationships are short-lived as many a man needs variety in the event that a relationship becomes too monotonous. 

(The mother idea comes from the idea that as a young male's first female role model, he will seek a partner emulating her ideals as well as roles. The same applies for a woman seeking a man.)

Why not the idea of engaging in a casual relationship with a hooker/prostitute? 

On the outside, I see PUA as a sacrifice of the self, much in the same way as money. Either way, you're giving something to get something. Although I would prefer to waste money as opposed to becoming a slave to pussy. What pride is there in knowing you must bow your head? 

And yes, brothels are illegal in most places. If you find yourself in a place that does not support mobility then, I understand your sentiment. I can't tell you to move to better grounds since I am thinking that you may or may not lack funds.

Like many unfortunate realities of the human life you can't have everything. This is in regards to your last response. A better example will be the following:

In a woman you can expect to find two things: beauty, brains, and sanity. Choose your pick.

Now, I do not expect the common PUA to seek brains, unless of course that is what is part of the casual relations equation. Sexual relationships, are in my opinion, purely physical. 


Only in the last few weeks have certain terms popped up over the net (either that or I've been oblivious to it). These being PUA, manginas, feminazi, MGTOW (I think that's how it's spelled), blue and red pill or the bitter one, and other things to which I put them under whatever category this is pertaining to. All I can say is:

Thank (no God you're not going here, lol) humans for the internet. I'd hate to go outside and be amidst a group of people discussing strange social conventions in regards to getting laid and not having a clue as to what is being said.


----------



## LoveAshley (Mar 31, 2013)

Jane the Ripper said:


> What is the real point of PUA?
> 
> If all a man wants is pussy then what do you think brothels are for?
> 
> ...


I'm thinking a part of it could be an ego thing too. They want the challenge and the victory of being able to nail chicks at bars that are probably (usually) too hot for them, but too drunk to really care.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

AriesLilith said:


> When men limit/filter their choices, they are not going to die lonely unless their filter is too high. But then they filter the appearance standards anyways, it's not that they are getting every single girl. So why not filter more, if that's what you desire?


Women complain about the quality of their quantity, even though they put no effort into getting that quantity - it's the cultural norm.

Whereas men have to generate their own quantity so we figure we might as well try to aim for quality too - seeing as we have to put effort into it.



> What's the point of approaching b*tches if you don't like b*tches?


Patrice and I were describing the average woman's games and attitude. Many, many women have the entitlement mentality, and complain about the quality of men trying to court them when they don't try to court themselves. 

Women sat at a computer on a dating website, or in a bar with friends; "I can't find a decent guy, all the men who want to date me are lame or creepy!"

Guy friend; "Do you try to find guys you like and ask them out?"

Her; "No."

Guy friend; "So these guys find you, and ask you out?"

Her; "Yes"

Guy; "Tough life."



> They filter their choices and end up having relationships that fits their standards anyways. A lot are just averages in terms of looks and social skills. But if you really want many of them whether they fit your standards or not, then how can you complain about the shallowness? You were choosing shallow ones after all. If you are playing a shallow game, then don't be surprised when shallow qualities are required from you (charm, courtship skills and status), and that other players are shallow too.


We don't have the luxury of not playing a shallow game because we have to initiate courtship and generate our own quantity. The majority of us have to play a numbers game, or settle with the chicks who are open to being in a relationship with us (which I think is what many guys do).

Transcript time;
*
And once you apply that to yourself you just go, you know what I'm just going to stick fly paper everywhere and see what sticks.*



> It would be like entering a clothes store, look around, dislike the style and say "why are you expecting me to pay for this??". Stop wasting time in a mall entering every store, start pay attention to the appearance of them and only approach those that seems to sell the clothes you like.


We can't tell if they have the clothes we like, because they won't let us look inside. 

Women play the 'hot and cold', 'aloof', 'chase me' games and then when we find out what they are like or get tired of the games, we leave them and they complain that we are 'shallow'. :happy:



> I guess that in the over all, we have to agree to disagree in certain points.


I don't agree to that.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

I'm skipping the oedipal shit...



Jane the Ripper said:


> Why not the idea of engaging in a casual relationship with a hooker/prostitute?


If you mean someone who works as a hooker. Yeah I wouldn't have a problem.

But if you are talking about paying to have a 'relationship' then it's not real it's an act. You're paying for them to pretend that they like you.



> In a woman you can expect to find two things: beauty, brains, and sanity. Choose your pick.


You mean; beauty sanity and brains. Pick two. 

Beauty and sanity.

Lack of beauty means no sex life. 

Lack of sanity means I will will go insane.

Lack of brains... I'll get some smart friends who I can talk to on a daily basis to make up for the deficit.



> Now, I do not expect the common PUA to seek brains, unless of course that is what is part of the casual relations equation. Sexual relationships, are in my opinion, purely physical.


Not true. You have to be able to generally like their company for you to have a casual relationship, and not just a one night stand or booty call.

Casual relationships are about sex, companionship and entertainment... But you aren't looking for your 'one and only', just someone who's a friend and fuck.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

LoveAshley said:


> I'm thinking a part of it could be an ego thing too. They want the challenge and the victory of being able to nail chicks at bars that are probably (usually) too hot for them, but too drunk to really care.


(Picking up chicks who aren't drunk)


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

PUA's ask women for advice on how to pick up women...


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> You mean; beauty sanity and beauty. Pick two.
> 
> Beauty and sanity.
> 
> ...


That's really fucking cynical.


----------



## Jane the Ripper (Mar 19, 2013)

There is no shame in admitting a lack of comprehension in regards to the "Oedipus shit" I do not think that many a person enjoys being taken apart and explained by psychology. Most of us seem to forget that we are animals, nothing more and nothing less. 

If it is a casual relationship that PUA seeks then why not hire escorts? I do not think that the PUA mentality is one that supports self growth, merely one that caters to the ego. 

You say that if you don't find the person's company bearable then you will not initiate a casual relation. Was it not their beauty that attracted you in the first place? How can it not be a purely physical relationship? 

I highly doubt in regards to companionship and entertainment that such a relationship has something other than sex involved. I don't think that there is anything of "value" that happens in a bond like that. 

It is an empty lifestyle, purely animalistic and devoid of rationale.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Jane the Ripper said:


> There is no shame in admitting a lack of comprehension in regards to the "Oedipus shit" I do not think that many a person enjoys being taken apart and explained by psychology.


*bows head* You exposed my soul. Until this day I had never heard of the Oedipus complex or read it's implication in literature. Thank you for educating us.



> If it is a casual relationship that PUA seeks then why not hire escorts?


Already explained why. You don't seem to care about the difference between someone liking you for real, and someone liking you because of money. 

You must work in management.



> I do not think that the PUA mentality is one that supports self growth, merely one that caters to the ego.


That's because you've never looked into PUA.



> You say that if you don't find the person's company bearable then you will not initiate a casual relation. Was it not their beauty that attracted you in the first place? How can it not be a purely physical relationship?


You must be demisexual. Most people have a minimum standard for physical attraction otherwise they won't entertain a relationship. I physically can't get an erection unless I'm physically attracted to my partner... Simply part of being non-demisexual.



> I highly doubt in regards to companionship and entertainment that such a relationship has something other than sex involved. I don't think that there is anything of "value" that happens in a bond like that.


You've never had a good casual relationship then. 



> It is an empty lifestyle, purely animalistic and devoid of rationale.


Most guys will take the emptiness of the PUA lifestyle, over the emptiness of spending their days and nights alone and masturbating.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

android654 said:


> That's really fucking cynical.


The reality of dating above 30.

I don't mind if I never find love, but I do care if I find good companionship.

NF till I die.


----------



## valentine (Feb 25, 2009)

strangestdude said:


> The reality of dating above 30.
> 
> I don't mind if I never find love, but I do care if I find good companionship.
> 
> NF till I die.


And what magic are you supposing happens at 30? People turning into pumpkins?


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> - first off, if we are talking about non-demisexuals here (ie, at least 97% of the population), physical attraction is an inborn, instinctual drive in us that is, frankly, shallow
> - the ideal is to have someone who is good looking _and_ a person one can form an intimate bond with. the difference is, one is much easier to screen for than the other (one takes less than 5 seconds; the other can take months). a man can easily look at a group of women and exclude 50-95% of them (depending on how picky he is) based on looks. from there, whether the man wants a quick fuck or something more, the next move is the same: approach. there is nothing wrong with filtering people based on looks (after all, you want to be turned on) and many people approach women and ask them on normal dates for the sake of getting to know them/seeing if they are a good match.
> 
> I know I'm shallow as hell when I first look for dates. it's not because I'm a snob, which I really can't afford to be, but because turning me on requires a specific kind of physical beauty present in a large degree. however, once I've confirmed that physical attraction is mutual, I slow down and take the time to get to see if we could really work together
> PS: on a side note, I can scan partially for personality as well in a first encounter given things like body language, speaking style and choice of clothing/style. a person's presentation and self expression can be considered a part of looks, yet also indicative of something deeper despite being observable within 30-60 seconds.


If a man is going to select based on looks at all, then complaining that women focus too much attention on looking pretty (and not enough on other qualities) puts us in a double bind. People who require something time consuming and difficullt that they also disrespect make it so women must behave that way in order to have a chance, but are punished for doing so. They will hate us for whatever we choose. If we put in the effort to look the way they want, they will hate us for concerning ourselves with looking desirable instead of being interesting, but if we spend our time showing off for them intellectually instead of trying to look good for them, they will reject us for failing to look the way they want. Also, the more personality a woman shows, the less approachable she usually seems to the kinds of men who just want to get laid without having to relate on a personal level. I am personally against changing my looks to attract shallow misogynists, but I understand why some women feel like they have to, and would also feel like revealing their inner complexity was a bad idea. It is because shallow men put them in an impossible situation. I refused to play along, because I consider shallow men completely revolting on a spiritual level and would rather burn off all of my skin than ever be touched sexually by someone like that. 



strangestdude said:


> You seem to want everyone to be demi-exual like yourself. Non demisexual people need a certain level of physical attraction in partners, it's not social construct it's a need. They simply can't be sexually aroused by someone who they don't find physically attractive.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I believe that beauty standards are culturally defined because they vary from culture to culture. In various places, women harm themselves (or are harmed by relatives) in very specific ways that are culturally dependent, trying to achieve the beauty standards demanded of them, whether by adding brass rings to elongate their necks, through scarrification, by tattooing their lips and chins, through force feeding, or by getting breast implants and liposuction. This isn't really about beauty at all. It is just one more form of domination, and has more to do with controlling women's bodies.










If you are going to state that there is nothing wrong with filtering partners based on looks, then you don't also get to say that women who put effort into meeting your demands deserve to be disrespected and defined wholly by the qualities you have influenced them to develop for your own selfish and controlling reasons. Women who conform to cultural beauty standards are still real people, with real personalities. They are not just genitals for you to use. Even if a woman has such damaged self-esteem that she considers herself worthless except as a sex object, and feels that being able to attract men with her looks is the only form of power she has, it would be dishonorable to use her that way, because her behavior would be a sign of serious emotional problems, and doing so would be taking advantage of her vulnerability.

Sure, some people get arrogant when they are treated like celebrities without having to do anything meaningful to earn respect, but if there are pretty girls who behave that way, it is only because looks are overvalued, and there are some men who would do anything to get laid by a pretty girl, even if it means acting as a servant for no good reason in hopes of winning sexual favors. This is not a case where women are in a privileged position over men. This is a case where shallow men's bad choices backfire on them and they blame women instead of blaming the imbalanced system they are contributing to with their own behaviors. They create monsters, then complain that they are surrounded by monsters. 

The system that thinks so little of women that we are treated as objects to pursue ends up also harming the men who don't like taking the active role in approaching women. Beyond this, it creates men who want the women they approach to be both sex objects and meaningful subjects simultaneously, and who justify their hatred for women by complaining when we are not able to be both. When they recognize that they can't have someone who is simultaneously an object to use and a meaningful person to connect with, they do not usually settle for selecting meaningful subjects who lack value as sex objects. They pick the women they view exclusively as objects, almost every time. If there is any reason for women to treat beauty as a default requirement for themselves, it is because it is more likely to prevent rejection than developing a talent for marketing their non-physical qualities to potential mates. I know that this isn't as it should be, but until we eliminate the demand for beauty, this situation isn't going to get any better. 

I think expecting women to be perfect goddesses, and to focus on beauty while also focusing on being interesting people is just as silly as telling men that it is their responsibility to focus on being rich while also focusing on being interesting people. Sure, it is sometimes possible, but it should never be required. Even if some people are able to do it, there is no reason why they should ever feel obligated to meet other people's materialistic expectations. We don't exist as means to physical ends. To see us that way is to objectify us, and to treat a subject as an object is harmful.

Thank you for not having bad feelings against me, and for making an attempt to keep this conversation respectful. It is a sensitive topic for both of us, perhaps because we have both been harmed by the current system. We just disagree about the source of the problem, and we have different ideas about the best way to fix it.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

valentine said:


> And what magic are you supposing happens at 30? People turning into pumpkins?


Off topic, we can start another thread. (I'm tempted to start one about the merits of settling)

In their 30's many people are already in long term relationship and the rest; have kids, multiple heartbreaks, have been through divorce, have been through traumatic events due to the nature of life, have become cynical, etc.

From what I've seen.

I'm not the only one who sees the merits of letting go of hollywood romance.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jan/24/women-stop-looking-mr-right


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@snail
I never assumed any of these things


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

snail said:


> This isn't really about beauty at all. It is just one more form of domination, and has more to do with controlling women's bodies.


There is no way I can even begin to approach breaking down that radical feminist man hating perspective.



> If you are going to state that there is nothing wrong with filtering partners based on looks, then you don't also get to say that women who put effort into meeting your demands deserve to be disrespected and defined wholly by the qualities you have influenced them to develop for your own selfish and controlling reasons.


You have all or nothing thinking. Having a minimum standard of beauty doesn't mean that we desire that to be the only attractive quality.



> Women who conform to cultural beauty standards are still real people, with real personalities. They are not just genitals for you to use.Even if a woman has such damaged self-esteem that she considers herself worthless except as a sex object, and feels that being able to attract men with her looks is the only form of power she has, it would be dishonorable to use her that way, because her behavior would be a sign of serious emotional problems, and doing so would be taking advantage of her vulnerability.


I genuinely think that feminists like you treat women as beings without agency. 

I don't think that's not developing an attractive personality and social skills is necessarily a sign of serious emotional problems, they simply haven't developed internal attractiveness. 

I've met many women who are pretty, happy, and successful in education, but aren't entertaining or interesting to be around. Being boring or having a weak personality isn't a mental illness.



> Sure, some people get arrogant when they are treated like celebrities without having to do anything meaningful to earn respect, but if there are pretty girls who behave that way, it is only because looks are overvalued, and there are some men who would do anything to get laid by a pretty girl, even if it means acting as a servant for no good reason in hopes of winning sexual favors. This is not a case where women are in a privileged position over men.


The simple reason why you don't believe that is because you are a feminist. You don't believe there is any context imaginable where a women is in a privileged position.

If the average guy doesn't initiate courtship they'll die alone.

If the average women doesn't initiate courtship they'll have potential partners attempting to court them (until they get to their 40's).



> This is a case where shallow men's bad choices backfire on them and they blame women instead of blaming the imbalanced system they are contributing to with their own behaviors. They create monsters, then complain that they are surrounded by monsters.


Again you absolve women of responsibility in creating a bad situation. You always blame men and attempt to minimize female contributions.

The system that thinks so little of women that we are treated as objects to pursue ends up also harming the men who don't like taking the active role in approaching women. 



> Beyond this, it creates men who want the women they approach to be both sex objects and meaningful subjects simultaneously, and who justify their hatred for women by complaining when we are not able to be both.


Yes. I've been in relationships with women who are both. I've met women who are both. There are women on this forum who are both.



> When they recognize that they can't have someone who is simultaneously an object to use and a meaningful person to connect with, they do not usually settle for selecting meaningful subjects who lack value as sex objects.


Yes because most people don't have your sexuality, they aren't demisexual. They require physical attraction to be aroused physically. I can't get an erection unless I find my partner sexually attractive.

In all honesty I think you are trying to impose your demisexuality or the rest of the population.



> I know that this isn't as it should be, but until we eliminate the demand for beauty, this situation isn't going to get any better.


The only way that will happen is if demisexuality becomes prevalent however most people aren't 'wired' that way. 

Standards of beauty have a cultural element however the common theme is physical attraction is important.



> Thank you for not having bad feelings against me, and for making an attempt to keep this conversation respectful. It is a sensitive topic for both of us, perhaps because we have both been harmed by the current system. We just disagree about the source of the problem, and we have different ideas about the best way to fix it.


I think you are probably more emotionally invested than I am in all honesty.

If I annoy you, stick your middle finger up at the screen and walk away. I can be an asshole, so treat me as one.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

@snail

Do you believe that everyone should attempt to become demisexual?


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> I think you are probably more emotionally invested than I am in all honesty.


*looks over past 18 pages of thread, along with your general posting trends over the past couple of months* Hmmm...


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Shahada said:


> *looks over past 18 pages of thread, along with your general posting trends over the past couple of months* Hmmm...


Was waiting for you.

Please. Please. Please, if you are going to troll... Be funny. 

I try to read every post, but please... No rambling.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> The reality of dating above 30.
> 
> I don't mind if I never find love, but I do care if I find good companionship.
> 
> NF till I die.


I'm NF too and I can't settle for bare minimum which is exactly what "good companionship" sounds like.



strangestdude said:


> Do you believe that everyone should attempt to become demisexual?


That's an unrealistic expectation to think people can kill their sex drives until they find a perfect person then switch into a full nympho. We've got sex drives and they're running all the time.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Nitou said:


> @_snail_
> 
> Why don't you call my mother a bitch while you're at it? You just threw a string of insults at my man, who you don't even know, who treats me very well and makes me feel safe and loved. Furthermore you are insulting me in telling me that my judgment is so poor that I would waste such effort building a relationship with a misogynist loser. You are out of line and an apology is in order.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry for being so harsh. I just re-read what I wrote and realized that my words came across as being a lot angrier than I had intended. I admit that I wrote it while angry because I felt that you were justifying something unacceptable, and that you were accusing men of being shallow by nature. This felt like an attack against all of the men I have ever known and loved who were not driven by some kind of innate need to objectify and dehumanize their partners. You are right that I don't know your partner. From what you have said about him so far, he sounds (to me) like he isn't treating you very kindly (by my standards), but if that is how you sincerely like to be treated, and isn't just something you are settling for because of his excuses, then I suppose that is your right. I apologize for being out of line.

If you enjoy being controlled and objectified in the context of a loving relationship, I guess I should probably think of this in the same way I think of any other fetish I find personally disgusting. I guess maybe it isn't wrong if neither of you are being hurt by it, and if you are both being completely honest about enjoying it, even though it isn't something I would ever be willing to tolerate. I'll have to think about this topic more. 

I guess, on one hand, it is okay to say "my partner cuts me during sex, and I like it," but a completely different matter to say, "I think it is normal and healthy for most men to cut their partners during sex, even if their partners don't like it." What you meant to say was probably closer to the first statement, but it sounded more like the second, in which you were removing something from its very limited appropriate context and trying to apply it universally as a rule. That is why I took such offense. 

This is difficult for me. I don't want to hurt your feelings. I feel terrible about affecting you in this manner, and I am trying to apologize without being dishonest. I don't know how to say these things without getting passive aggressive. I keep editing it to remove the things that could sound judgmental, and I am trying my best to make peace now. My intention wasn't to be cruel, but I definitely see how the things I said earlier were harsher than they needed to be. I hope my saying this doesn't make it worse.


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> I'm going to focus on this because this philosophical position is probably at the root of your moralizing against non-demisexuality. Because you don't have a sense of identity that includes your physiology and sensory experiences, you are unable to empathize with people who *do* have a sense of identity that includes their physiology and sensory experiences.
> 
> IMO and IME western intellectuals tend to primarily identify with their thought process and see their bodies as simply carrying around their heads. In mainstream western culture (influenced by intellectual and advertising) we seem to treat the body as tool or ornament, and rarely cultivate the internal awareness of our physiology ie. mindfulness.
> 
> ...



Um... You realize that the Triune Brain model is not considered scientific reality by pretty much anyone right? It's an overly simplified model based on the understanding of neuroanatomy we had back in the 60s...

It's helpful for people who want to think of how the brain may have developed but this post is pure psudoscience.

edit: Note that Paul McLean (the one who came up with the triune brain model), insisted that it be called just a model because even at it's height of popularity between 1970 and 1980 it never had the experimental evidence needed to be called a theory. 

But even if it had, your post would still be pseudo-scientific misrepresentation of that model and the ghost Paul McLean is going to haunt you in your sleep for it.


edit2: Note for those who don't believe me read this: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/09/07/revenge-of-the-lizard-brain/

Or this: http://bustedbrain.com/2012/11/29/is-the-triune-brain-still-a-reliable-model-of-human-behavior/


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Uviteru said:


> Um... You realize that the Triune Brain model is not considered scientific reality by pretty much anyone right? It's an overly simplified model based on the understanding of neuroanatomy we had back in the 60s...
> 
> It's helpful for people who want to think of how the brain may have developed but this post is pure psudoscience.
> 
> ...


I pretty much suspected it was a metaphorical and over simplified model (That's why I put it in quotation marks ie '3 brain') but thanks for pointing that out.

If you want a modern respected hypothesis about the connection between psychology and physiology check out polyvagal theory by Stephen Porges (He has a book that you and your wife might be interested in).


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

@_snail_ 

I'm guessing that you are listening to your husband and ignoring my post about disassociating your identity with your body. 

It's a shame because even in the first video the guy explicitly says the model is a metaphor. For the record that somatic therapy if comprised of anything other than hypotheses. I assumed that you are open to exploring hypothesis because you are on an MBTI website - and as I'm sure you know it has been tested and it is not a respected hypothesis.

My point still stands that I think your philosophical position of not including your physiology with your sense of identity is probably why you fail to have empathy for the perspective of non demisexuals.

If you want a modern respected hypothesis about the link between physiology and psychology that has been cited in scientific journals please research into polyvagal theory by Stephen Porges.

Home



> The theory has stimulated both researchers and clinicians. Researchers have used the theory to explain physiological reactivity and cited the theory in more than 200 peer reviewed journal articles. Clinicians who study trauma and other severe psychiatric disorders have used the theory to explain the unique behaviors and behavioral states that are frequently observed in clients who have experienced life threat.
> Professor Porges has applied the theory to develop new assessment and treatment tools for individuals with difficulties in social engagement behaviors and state regulation. For example, he has developed an intervention, based on the theory, to trigger spontaneous social engagement behaviors in individuals diagnosed with autism.
> .


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Jane the Ripper said:


> No, I haven't educated the third parties. It was a statement directed towards you and only you. It is only "us" since it was a response posted publicly. It is posted publicly because I wish to garner input from other fellows.
> 
> I do not work in management. Where do you even get the correlation between the two?
> 
> ...


I disagree.


----------



## L (Aug 12, 2011)

Jane the Ripper said:


> Can you not carry yourself in a respectful manner that you must resort to insults? Originally, I've held you in good regards. Pity that I must now chuck you in with the "rest"
> 
> Once again, I repeat my response of long ago: A great deal of people do not enjoy being taken apart and explained by simple concepts.
> 
> ...


I was calling bullshit on your theory. I don't care if you want to try and pick apart my psyche. In fact, if you really want to pick apart my psyche then feel free to visit my blog I have on here (just be sure to tell me what you think after reading it). Or possible any of my type me threads I've made on here, but again, do be sure to let me know what you think. I agree that human beings are just animals, but I still believe your Oedipian theory (or whatever the hell it is) is just plain wrong, and I said as much. 

Never did I insult you, unless you were addressing my 'amen' portion of my post in which I was honestly agreeing with you. I love that the internet can bring together such a vast amount of people and I enjoy the different memes because they make me laugh. But most people in real life aren't internet/forum dwellers like I am so the meme thing is lost on them and they don't understand them, I myself miss the majority of them at first and when I first got to this forum I didn't even know what a meme was:blushed: 

I'm assuming your last bit is sarcasm: "It is good that we can converse like civilized animals then." In which I also have to agree with, people (including myself) tend to get too worked up sometimes.


----------



## Jane the Ripper (Mar 19, 2013)

L said:


> I was calling bullshit on your theory. I don't care if you want to try and pick apart my psyche. In fact, if you really want to pick apart my psyche then feel free to visit my blog I have on here (just be sure to tell me what you think after reading it). Or possible any of my type me threads I've made on here, but again, do be sure to let me know what you think. I agree that human beings are just animals, but I still believe your Oedipian theory (or whatever the hell it is) is just plain wrong, and I said as much.
> 
> Never did I insult you, unless you were addressing my 'amen' portion of my post in which I was honestly agreeing with you. I love that the internet can bring together such a vast amount of people and I enjoy the different memes because they make me laugh. But most people in real life aren't internet/forum dwellers like I am so the meme thing is lost on them and they don't understand them, I myself miss the majority of them at first and when I first got to this forum I didn't even know what a meme was:blushed:
> 
> I'm assuming your last bit is sarcasm: "It is good that we can converse like civilized animals then." In which I also have to agree with, people (including myself) tend to get too worked up sometimes.


Oh, no. I do not make the theories that I present as my own. I don't know what to call it. I think it is stuffing. Or something that helps me understand another idea or a fellow. 

The only thing that is mines, however, is the last sentence. I really do think we are animals, animals that are way over their heads. 

Hmm, since you are willing I will take you apart then. 

I will take you apart like I do with a chicken drumstick.


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

snail said:


> I'm sorry for being so harsh. I just re-read what I wrote and realized that my words came across as being a lot angrier than I had intended. I admit that I wrote it while angry because I felt that you were justifying something unacceptable, and that you were accusing men of being shallow by nature. This felt like an attack against all of the men I have ever known and loved who were not driven by some kind of innate need to objectify and dehumanize their partners. You are right that I don't know your partner. From what you have said about him so far, he sounds (to me) like he isn't treating you very kindly (by my standards), but if that is how you sincerely like to be treated, and isn't just something you are settling for because of his excuses, then I suppose that is your right. I apologize for being out of line.


Thank you for for apologizing. 

The biological reality: Man sees pretty woman. Man gets pleasure from looking at pretty woman. Man's dick gets hard. That's not a moral issue that makes a man "wrong" for experiencing pleasure in his sexual drive. The mere fact that a man loves the sight of beautiful women and is turned on by women's bodies is not a moral issue. Some have a higher libido and are more sexually expressive than others, and that is related to the amount of testosterone he has. 

Note as of yet I have said nothing about behavior. A man who refers to potential dates as "pussies," or who yells at women randomly on the street, is in my opinion a loathsome creature, an untouchable. A man who conspicuously admires women he sees, I don't see anything wrong with that per se as long as the context is appropriate. (Not while at work or on a date.) A man who randomly gropes the woman he loves, to me that is hot. 



> If you enjoy being controlled and objectified in the context of a loving relationship, I guess I should probably think of this in the same way I think of any other fetish I find personally disgusting. I guess maybe it isn't wrong if neither of you are being hurt by it, and if you are both being completely honest about enjoying it, even though it isn't something I would ever be willing to tolerate. I'll have to think about this topic more.


Yeah I have a disgusting fetish. ^^ But given that a large number of women admit to having violent sexual fantasies and otherwise don't fit the feminist standard of how-you-should-be, my perspective on this isn't as strange as you might think. What is objectionable (even criminal) behavior outside of a relationship can be experienced as erotic and loving inside of a relationship. They're two different worlds. You don't allow just any man in, only one who you know to be trustworthy. Problem is, feminists don't distinguish between the yelling pig on the street and the trusted intimate partner. They tell us we should always be on guard against threats posed by men's needs and men's sexuality. 




Uviteru said:


> Um... You realize that the Triune Brain model is not considered scientific reality by pretty much anyone right? It's an overly simplified model based on the understanding of neuroanatomy we had back in the 60s...


*Facepalm.* Way to miss the point. The Western cultural paradigm teaches us that our bodies are separate from and "lower" than "us." That the body is "animal" and animal=bad. Probably comes from Christianity. I am just barely thinking to learn my way out of that mental prison through yoga, rough sex, etc., but it is hard to overturn a lifetime of habits. I have gotten the distinct sensation that my body "speaks to" and "listens to" my lover. Yet here some people are denying what others are telling them about their experience with body-mind. 

WE DON'T KNOW what other cultures have known about the body-mind. Western science has only just discovered the massive "second brain" located in the gut. We don't really know what it's for, but the ancient people in the East knew. They regarded it as a center of energy, "Dan Tien." Is that what we are talking about here? I don't know; in our culture, we don't know. And the emotional mind IS a separate organ from the cognitive brain and we don't know much about that either.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Nitou said:


> *A man who refers to potential dates as "pussies,"* or who yells at women randomly on the street, *is in my opinion a loathsome creature, an untouchable.*


That hurts.



> *Facepalm.* Way to miss the point. The Western cultural paradigm teaches us that our bodies are separate from and "lower" than "us." That the body is "animal" and animal=bad. Probably comes from Christianity. I am just barely thinking to learn my way out of that mental prison through yoga, rough sex, etc., but it is hard to overturn a lifetime of habits. I have gotten the distinct sensation that my body "speaks to" and "listens to" my lover. Yet here some people are denying what others are telling them about their experience with body-mind.
> 
> WE DON'T KNOW what other cultures have known about the body-mind. Western science has only just discovered the massive "second brain" located in the gut. We don't really know what it's for, but the ancient people in the East knew. They regarded it as a center of energy, "Dan Tien." Is that what we are talking about here? I don't know; in our culture, we don't know. And the emotional mind IS a separate organ from the cognitive brain and we don't know much about that either.


I've liked you more with every post, your SO is a lucky dude.


----------



## L (Aug 12, 2011)

Jane the Ripper said:


> Oh, no. I do not make the theories that I present as my own. I don't know what to call it. I think it is stuffing. Or something that helps me understand another idea or a fellow.
> 
> The only thing that is mines, however, is the last sentence. I really do think we are animals, animals that are way over their heads.
> 
> ...


Best of luck.


----------



## L (Aug 12, 2011)

Nitou said:


> WE DON'T KNOW what other cultures have known about the body-mind. Western science has only just discovered the massive "second brain" located in the gut. We don't really know what it's for, but the ancient people in the East knew. They regarded it as a center of energy, "Dan Tien." Is that what we are talking about here? I don't know; in our culture, we don't know. And the emotional mind IS a separate organ from the cognitive brain and we don't know much about that either.


Wait... the second mind is in the gut? Or do you mean the heart? Or are you talking about how there is actually brain related stuff in the stomach like in the heart!? 

Got any links?


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Nitou said:


> Thank you for for apologizing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Find yourself a good Tai Chi or Chi Kung teacher and you'll know what the Dan Tian is all about. Even Christianity (Christian meditation) and Sufism apply/were aware/are aware of this "principle" we call Dan Tian. I see that you filled out your enneagram type here so I am sure I don't need to explain what Sufism is. The principle of Dan Tian is well known in the West for many many centuries but our so called >19th century scientists did not approve and that's why you think only Ancient Eastern people know this. This is however not correct.

If I were in charge of handing out licenses (yoga, tai chi an chi kung), more than 98% of these self=proclaimed teachers would fail my test. This world is just filled with bad teachers. The combination of yoga and rough sex makes no sense.


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

I just think back to the lyric of Fleetwood Mac, "players only love you when they're playing, they say women they will come and they will go." And, I think that's why this is a Devil's Advocate project, should one choose to embark upon,because, a player, woman or man, treats the other like tissue paper, and if there's an organization that is making a buck on teaching others how to treat others like tissue paper, you're going to get a hostile reaction,from either sex.

It's like defending the cigarette industry, because, they help with the teenage rebellion.


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

I'm so sitting out of this...


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

L said:


> Wait... the second mind is in the gut? Or do you mean the heart? Or are you talking about how there is actually brain related stuff in the stomach like in the heart!?
> 
> Got any links?


I believe there is a triad of instinct, feeling and thinking. (Such as the 3 brain model or the Enneagram model.) And I believe so many arguments happen on PerC because some people approach sex initially from the instinct (more men) and others initially from feeling (more women) and there is misunderstanding between them. 

Here is an article about the "Gut Brain"
I think it is the same thing as the Dan Tien, but I can't recommend anything about that. It is related to Chi/Qi.

I recommend this book about the "heart:" A General Theory of Love 



All in Twilight said:


> Find yourself a good Tai Chi or Chi Kung teacher and you'll know what the Dan Tian is all about. Even Christianity (Christian meditation) and Sufism apply/were aware/are aware of this "principle" we call Dan Tian. I see that you filled out your enneagram type here so I am sure I don't need to explain what Sufism is. The principle of Dan Tian is well known in the West for many many centuries but our so called >19th century scientists did not approve and that's why you think only Ancient Eastern people know this. This is however not correct.
> 
> If I were in charge of handing out licenses (yoga, tai chi an chi kung), more than 98% of these self=proclaimed teachers would fail my test. This world is just filled with bad teachers. The combination of yoga and rough sex makes no sense.


Fair enough. I've been picking up bits of information here and there for awhile, including chi exercises, but lacking the discipline to apply it consistently. I might say that I experience my body as a bit like a concrete block and the sensations and challenges and close interaction with another help break it up.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Nitou said:


> Fair enough. I've been picking up bits of information here and there for awhile, including chi exercises, but lacking the discipline to apply it consistently. I might say that I experience my body as a bit like a concrete block and the sensations and challenges and close interaction with another help break it up.


From the way you've been writing I thought I'd present one of my favorite authors; Alexander Lowen. He talks so poetically and intuitively (appeals to me as an NF) about the problems of disassociation from our physiology. And although I'm a humanist, when he talks about spirituality it can taken metaphorically very easily;

*Freedom is the basis of joy. It is not just freedom from external restraints, although that is essential. More particularly, it is freedom from internal constraints. Those constraints stem from fear and are represented by chronic muscular tensions which inhibit spontaneity, restrict respiration and block self-expression. We are literally bound by these constraints. Every breakthrough represented by a surge of feeling is also a breakout to freedom.*

- Joy, Alexander Lowen.
*
The feeling of spirituality, like any other feeling, is a bodily phenomenon. The idea of spirituality is a mental phenomenon. This is the same distinction as the one I made earlier between belief and faith [non religious - a fundamental 'trust' that allows you to surrender to life].

... The feeling of faith is the feeling of life flowing in the body from one end to the other, from the center to the periphery and back again. When there are no blocks or constrictions that disturb and distort the flow, the individual experiences himself as a unity and as a continuity. The different aspects of his personality are integrated, not dissociated. He is not a spiritual person as opposed to a sexual person, nor is he sexual on Saturday night and spiritual on Sunday morning. He doesn't talk from two sides of his mouth. His sexuality is an expression of his spirituality because it is an act of love. His spirituality has an earthly flavor; it is the spirit of life that he respects as it is manifested in all earthly creatures. He is not a person whose mind dominates his body, nor is he a body that has no mind. He is a person who minds his body.*

- Depression and the body, Alexander Lowen






(But if you want more a more science based perspective I'd recommend Peter Levine and David Berceli's books)


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Nitou said:


> Thank you for for apologizing.
> 
> The biological reality: Man sees pretty woman. Man gets pleasure from looking at pretty woman. Man's dick gets hard. That's not a moral issue that makes a man "wrong" for experiencing pleasure in his sexual drive. The mere fact that a man loves the sight of beautiful women and is turned on by women's bodies is not a moral issue. Some have a higher libido and are more sexually expressive than others, and that is related to the amount of testosterone he has.


I don't think being a shallow jerk has to do with a biological predisposition, and it_ is_ an ethical matter that determines how a man views and treats women. It is sexist to say that men naturally dehumanize women, and it is dangerous to excuse such atrocious behavior as a natural part of being a man. If a man believes he can't help but treat women as though their bodies determined their worth, he will be less likely to try to change how he relates to women, and his relationships will always be shallow. This attitude is harmful to men and women alike, because it makes it harder to form relationships based on mutual respect, love and trust. A woman never knows if a man is just chasing her because he wants to have sex with her pretty body, and a man who sees superficial tendencies and sexual dominance as part of his masculine identity may feel little motive to seek out anything else. 




Nitou said:


> Note as of yet I have said nothing about behavior. A man who refers to potential dates as "pussies," or who yells at women randomly on the street, is in my opinion a loathsome creature, an untouchable. A man who conspicuously admires women he sees, I don't see anything wrong with that per se as long as the context is appropriate. (Not while at work or on a date.) A man who randomly gropes the woman he loves, to me that is hot.


I don't see any difference between the two, except that one is a more threatening, aggressive version of the other. Both are rooted in misogyny and are symptoms of a culture in which males are taught to view women as things for their use. Either behavior expresses the male's attitude of having dominance over women. If you are sexually excited by being dominated, it makes sense that you wouldn't be bothered.



Nitou said:


> Yeah I have a disgusting fetish. ^^ But given that a large number of women admit to having violent sexual fantasies and otherwise don't fit the feminist standard of how-you-should-be, my perspective on this isn't as strange as you might think. What is objectionable (even criminal) behavior outside of a relationship can be experienced as erotic and loving inside of a relationship. They're two different worlds. You don't allow just any man in, only one who you know to be trustworthy. Problem is, feminists don't distinguish between the yelling pig on the street and the trusted intimate partner. They tell us we should always be on guard against threats posed by men's needs and men's sexuality.


As long as your preference is something personal and consensual, it doesn't matter that I find it disturbing. I think most feminists agree that having a way to express our sexuality authentically (without reference to the traditional notions of sex that have commonly focused on male pleasure at the expense of female sexual fulfillment) is a good thing, and that if your actual sexuality just happens, by pure coincidence, to be aligned with the sexual practices that have traditionally focused on male pleasure, you have a right to express your sexuality in any way you see fit, as long as you are not imposing it on others or trying to universalize misogynistic tendencies as part of the most "natural" and beneficial way for men and women to relate to each other. It is your own choice. As long as you have carefully examined your reasons for being aroused by such things, to rule out the possibility that it is influenced by the surrounding culture, there is nothing wrong with it. It is important to approach your sexuality from a position of self-respect and personal freedom rather than to treat it as a compromise with the patriarchy. As long as you are certain that you are doing it for your own reasons, and that your ability to respect yourself is not harmed by it, then it is a valid form of sexual expression within your relationship, as long as you are not justifying it as being universally acceptable, or treating it as something all women should have to put up with (as I feel you are.)




Nitou said:


> *Facepalm.* Way to miss the point. The Western cultural paradigm teaches us that our bodies are separate from and "lower" than "us." That the body is "animal" and animal=bad. Probably comes from Christianity. I am just barely thinking to learn my way out of that mental prison through yoga, rough sex, etc., but it is hard to overturn a lifetime of habits. I have gotten the distinct sensation that my body "speaks to" and "listens to" my lover. Yet here some people are denying what others are telling them about their experience with body-mind.


I believe our bodies are objects. When people die, the bodies they leave behind are just things. The people who inhabit those bodies are not things. Even if this weren't the case, and if I believed that the body were part of the self, it would not be okay to determine a person's sexual value based on the body's aesthetic properties, which are not a relevant part of a person's identity, nor would it be acceptable to see a person as existing primarily for another person's sexual utility. My husband and I disagree about whether the body is part of the self, but we are both against deciding a person's worth based on what the body looks like. I see the mind/body distinction as one of my main reasons for being against the objectification of women, because I see it as a form of materialism, but that is not the only approach a person can have to this issue. Even someone who does not see the body as distinct from the person inhabiting it can see that it is not the part of a person that gives him/her his worth as a romantic partner or as a human being, because it is not the part of a person that makes active choices. The body is not the will that drives a person to be who s/he is.



Nitou said:


> WE DON'T KNOW what other cultures have known about the body-mind. Western science has only just discovered the massive "second brain" located in the gut. We don't really know what it's for, but the ancient people in the East knew. They regarded it as a center of energy, "Dan Tien." Is that what we are talking about here? I don't know; in our culture, we don't know. And the emotional mind IS a separate organ from the cognitive brain and we don't know much about that either.


I have a fascinatingly designed nervous system, which is part of the body that allows me to interact with the physical world. I believe the soul is the will that uses the body as a vehicle, activates the brain, and gives us the ability to interact physically. We can sense things, feel things, think about things, and it is because we were given these bodies as objects that make it possible for us to connect with the physical world around us. Even if I thought the self were contained somewhere in the body, not as a soul, but as the body itself, that fact still wouldn't justify seeing the aesthetics of the body as a relevant factor in determining a person's compatibility as a romantic partner, because how the body looks is the least important aspect of its existence.


----------



## Uviteru (Jul 30, 2012)

Nitou said:


> Thank you for for apologizing.
> 
> The biological reality: Man sees pretty woman. Man gets pleasure from looking at pretty woman. Man's dick gets hard. That's not a moral issue that makes a man "wrong" for experiencing pleasure in his sexual drive. The mere fact that a man loves the sight of beautiful women and is turned on by women's bodies is not a moral issue. Some have a higher libido and are more sexually expressive than others, and that is related to the amount of testosterone he has.
> 
> ...


Based on how you're speaking to me you must think this is the first time I've heard such things or that I've not studied this before. 

You are engaging in the typical western habit of being obsessed with (and cherry picking) various types of "mysterious" eastern thought. However it's not your fault, these views you espouse are very popular especially with middle and upper middle class Americans. 

I know about the bundle of nerves that traverse the intestinal track and have for years. But calling it a "second brain" is misleading and incorrect. 

You have one brain. Just one. 

I do not believe the body is bad. I believe the body is amazing and wonderful. Not "lower" or "animalistic" (although I don't see why being animalistic is so bad since animals are wonderful too unless by animalistic you mean something like "cruel" in which case you're not describing animalistic but rather a type of behavior that humans engage in and associating it with other animals who in no way resemble the human behavior).

I must say I'm at the same time amused and offended by your views of male sexuality. 

It's not very often in a patriarchal society that a female bodied person tells a male bodied person that he's wrong about how his body reacts sexually. 

It's usually the other way around: Male bodied people boldly and with no hint of irony informing female bodied people about how female sexuality works. 

Also, that's not how testosterone effects me but I'll leave that to your expert opinion.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

snail said:


> My husband and I disagree about whether the body is part of the self, but we are both against deciding a person's worth based on what the body looks like.





> Even someone who does not see the body as distinct from the person inhabiting it can see that it is not the part of a person that gives him/her his worth as a romantic partner or as a human being,


The thing is noone here is proposing that, that's what you keep claiming non demisexuals are doing.

What most are saying is that in the context of attraction, appearence is *part* of the reason why we are attracted to someone. Noone is advocating that someone has *no* worth.

But I think @_infpblog_ said it best (not saying he agrees with the OP).

*INFPs everywhere are protesting that we aren’t that shallow. I can’t believe how many times I’ve heard that my soulmate is just someone who “gets” me.
**My response is this: do you have to be physically attracted to your soulmate for them to be your soulmate? 

*
*What if he’s bald and noticeably shorter than you? What if she has bad teeth and a laugh that scares off harpies? Can they be your soulmate if they have horrendous hygiene and you find them disgusting?

*
*Have you even looked? Perhaps that urine smelling homeless man that’s old enough to be your father that you pass every day on the way to work is the one person in the whole world who understands you and will accept you completely. You’re never going to find out by giving him the occasional dollar bill as you walk by.

http://www.infpblog.com/favorites/myth-of-the-soulmate/

*


> because it is not the part of a person that makes active choices.





> The body is not the will that drives a person to be who s/he is.


Check out Polyvagal theory regarding how physiology influences psychology and behavior. That is if you agree with your husband's dismissal of pop psychology hypothesis (which is hypocritical seeing as you are both on a site based on pop psychology hypotheses).

But if you are still open to hypotheses check out Peter Levine, David Berceli and Alexander Lowen's books that make the case that our physiology influences the development of our psychology and overal character.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Uviteru said:


> Based on how you're speaking to me you must think this is the first time I've heard such things or that I've not studied this before.
> 
> You are engaging in the typical western habit of being obsessed with (and cherry picking) various types of "mysterious" eastern thought. However it's not your fault, these views you espouse are very popular especially with middle and upper middle class Americans.





> I must say I'm at the same time amused and offended by your views of male sexuality.
> 
> It's not very often in a patriarchal society that a female bodied person tells a male bodied person that he's wrong about how his body reacts sexually.


That was an incredibly condescending post, and I find you extremely hypocritical. 

You are criticizing our presentation of pop psychology hypotheses/models regarding the relationship between physiology and psychology, whilst you and your wife are active members on a forum *based *on pop psychology hypotheses. 

If you were merely criticizing them as having no value, or that simply you don't agree with them, then that would be ok - but you are criticizing them for being hypotheses with little supporting evidence. I assume you criticize MBTI on the same basis to the members here?


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

Uviteru said:


> I think we should be clear about what feminism is and what it's not.
> 
> The goal of feminism is to provide equal rights between men and women. The method is by challenging and eliminating patriarchy.
> 
> ...



Lies. Women have equal rights, at least they do where most of us are. Where women most need equality, the meddling and pillaging from the Western world is _not_ appreciated. They have to make their own brand of human rights campaign. The feminism you describe was killed and replaced by a doppleganger sometime in the 1960's. The feminist doppleganger has many heads like a hydra that cause confusion. You attack the doppleganger-hydra and feminists always play the same tape: "Feminism is about equality for men and women and we care about men too..." Since women already have equal rights, the doppleganger needed a new opponent: "The Patriarchy." The Patriarchy exists to give feminists something to bitch about.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Nitou said:


> *Some women may be made to feel ashamed of and repress desires that do not conform to the feminist paradigm. That is my own feeling.* Male dominance is not inherently evil or misogynistic. I like being with someone who is mentally and physically stronger than me and I like him to show it. It gives me a feeling of safety and eroticism, and I think many women share that sentiment. I _told_ my S/O that I wanted him to take charge (as it makes me feel more relaxed) and I told him what I want sexually. It suits his naturally dominant personality and we just kind of fall into archetypal masculine and feminine roles together. He is the only man with whom I have ever felt comfortable enough to do that.


I got a book today by Lori Gottlieb called Mr Good Enough (Marry Him - is the US title of the book), she agrees with your sentiment. I was thinking of one of your earlier posts as I read a chapter in her book entitled; How feminism fucked up my love life.

She made the observation that she, her social circle, and her generation has been pro-feminist, but in her observation - although they are grateful for the rights it has brought - modern feminism has harmed female love lives.

She argues (along with a journalist she quotes) that feminist culture has become about telling women what they *should *want, rather than asking the question; what *do* women want? 

She expresses that many women feel ashamed to express desires in courtship and relationships that conform to traditional gender dynamics. And she observed that many in her social circle who scoffed at traditional gender roles, naturally adopted them after having a child and are happy.

Basically she makes the point that many women simply want the *opportunity* to not abide by traditional gender dynamics, but it doesn't mean that they don't necessarily want to.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Uviteru said:


> Umm.... No. That's not how the dates I've been on go. Here is how a date tends to go when both people care about equality:





> *PS the guy in the video is a jerk. I've never met a feminist man like that. This video has nothing at all to do with feminism.


Thanks for your critique of that comedy sketch.

Star Wars... Fact or fiction?



> This is how real dates go in the real world. Not the PUA world.


Ouch.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

snail said:


> *Objectification is wrong even when it isn't expressed,* unless it occurs with the consent of the person you are objectifying.


Amongst non-demisexuals physical attraction is spontaneous. 

Like many psychologists say; moralizing an internal reaction (ie. emotions, sensations) is not only irrational but counter-productive to psychological well-being. Everybody has to right to experience whatever it is they are experiencing within their own body.

Shaming someone for objectifying without expression, is no different than a priest shaming someone for having 'lustful thoughts'.

To reiterate, in a nutshell; Morality applies to the interpersonal, not the interpersonal IMO. I'm free to imagine whatever I want inside my own head.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> Why do these threads invariably turn into these long-winded and dogmatic discussions about what the appropriate expression of male sexuality looks like according to women?


Because many feminists and their supporters seem to want control men's internal experiences and reactions. 

We've actually entered thought-crime territory.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Nitou said:


> Lies. Women have equal rights, at least they do where most of us are. Where women most need equality, the meddling and pillaging from the Western world is _not_ appreciated. They have to make their own brand of human rights campaign. The feminism you describe was killed and replaced by a doppleganger sometime in the 1960's. The feminist doppleganger has many heads like a hydra that cause confusion. You attack the doppleganger-hydra and feminists always play the same tape: "Feminism is about equality for men and women and we care about men too..." Since women already have equal rights, the doppleganger needed a new opponent: "The Patriarchy." The Patriarchy exists to give feminists something to bitch about.


This. A thousand times.

What was a human rights campaign, seems to have evolved into a campaign for cultural domination - telling women what they should do, and telling men what they shouldn't do. IMO.

Women who value and enjoy traditional gender dynamics in their own relationship seemed to be viewed with suspicion as a potential 'traitor' to feminist ideology... Fuck their personal happiness.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

strangestdude said:


> Women who value and enjoy traditional gender dynamics in their own relationship seemed to be viewed with suspicion as a potential 'traitor' to feminist ideology... Fuck their personal happiness.


They are only seen as traitors when they try to impose traditional gender roles on those of us who find such roles personally demeaning, and when they challenge those of us who reject the idea that those roles are universal, unchanging truths defined by nature. 

A person has every right to her own sexuality, even if she enjoys being dominated or humiliated, but that doesn't mean everyone else should be expected to happily put up with the same treatment, which would be disrespectful or even abusive without consent. 

That is the key:
It is only her _consent_ that makes it acceptable for any person to treat her that way. 

Yes, she may tolerate or even enjoy being dominated or objectified, but it would certainly be traitorous to excuse sexist behavior against any non-consenting women just because some women consent and happen to like it. 

I acknowledge that personal freedom is very important, as long as one's freedoms do not infringe on the basic rights and dignity of others.


----------



## Zeptometer (Dec 5, 2010)

I don't know why I'm bothering to get into this whole feminism dicussion, because it's the same crap again, but here goes.

Third Wave Feminism strikes me as a somewhat unfocused movement against what wikipedia seems to call kyriarchy: a social system where people are socially stratified in many different ways, i.e. one where people may be oppressed in one context but privileged in another. For example, a white woman may be "womanly", lending herself to subjection, but at the same time "white", which grants her other social privileges.

So that is something I support. I'd vouch for anything that realistically approaches systemic, "soft" oppression, if you will. However, third wave feminism is clouded by some people who are simply angry, and don't act constructively. We've all heard people who seek "revenge" of some sort against men, or at least you've heard people ridicule feminists as if they all possess this idea. That's just an extension of Sturgeon's Law: the worst part of the group is always the most vocal.

So, I vehemently disagree with you, @Nitou. This idea of "The Patriarchy" is the real hydra. It's not just a "man's world", it's also a white person's world, a straight person's world, a rich person's world, an attractive person's world, a company man's world, a world where in some way, everyone is discriminated against. The patriarchy is just one head. Don't ridicule feminism for bitching about something nebulous; feminism is just looking for the same thing everyone else is. Freedom from oppression.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

snail said:


> A person has every right to her own sexuality, even if she enjoys being dominated or humiliated, but that doesn't mean everyone else should be expected to happily put up with the same treatment, which would be disrespectful or even abusive without consent.


I just have to ask at what point people take responsibility for their own feelings and how they deal with them. The point being, the world is a messy place. There will simply be different people with different values, and their actions will hurt your feelings. Plain and simple that is the case. There is no changing that. Thought policing men because it doesn't feel good is extremely selfish. Sure, some guys go too far. I agree with that. However, I look. I might hold a look for longer than a girl is comfortable. _Any other girl could be okay with that length, and that's alright because it's subjective._

Like you said, certain women like it. Certain guys like to do it. They're just being who they are. Deal with it.


----------



## Zeptometer (Dec 5, 2010)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> I just have to ask at what point people take responsibility for their own feelings and how they deal with them. The point being, the world is a messy place. There will simply be different people with different values, and their actions will hurt your feelings. Plain and simple that is the case. There is no changing that. Thought policing men because it doesn't feel good is extremely selfish. Sure, some guys go too far. I agree with that. However, I look. I might hold a look for longer than a girl is comfortable. _Any other girl could be okay with that length, and that's alright because it's subjective._
> 
> Like you said, certain women like it. Certain guys like to do it. They're just being who they are. Deal with it.


As callous as saying deal with it sounds, I agree. It doesn't matter, though. You aren't the first person to accuse @snail of not being accountable for her own feelings and you won't be the last.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> I just have to ask at what point people take responsibility for their own feelings and how they deal with them.


I don't know. I'm still waiting for shallow people to take responsibility for their own feelings of materialistic attraction, and to deal with them in a way that doesn't dehumanize anyone. 



MegaTuxRacer said:


> The point being, the world is a messy place. There will simply be different people with different values, and their actions will hurt your feelings. Plain and simple that is the case. There is no changing that.


I agree that there are plenty of insensitive, disrespectful people out there, and that is why it is important to set boundaries. Letting them know that their actions are not okay is a valid way of dealing with them. I believe that promoting a defeatist attitude only allows problems to continue unchallenged. Being an idealist won't necessarily save the world, but it can help a bit. It isn't all or nothing.



MegaTuxRacer said:


> Thought policing men because it doesn't feel good is extremely selfish. Sure, some guys go too far. I agree with that. However, I look. I might hold a look for longer than a girl is comfortable. _Any other girl could be okay with that length, and that's alright because it's subjective._


Having self-control is much better than needing to have someone else police your thoughts to keep you from hurting people, using people, or treating them unfairly. If you are being disrespectful toward women who are not enjoying your prolonged gaze, your act is clearly more about dominance than about aesthetics. 



MegaTuxRacer said:


> Like you said, certain women like it. Certain guys like to do it. They're just being who they are. Deal with it.


If a specific woman has made it known that she likes, it, then I see nothing wrong with it. If she has not, then it is rude to assume that she wants it, and pushy to behave as though she ought to.


----------



## Zeptometer (Dec 5, 2010)

snail said:


> They are only seen as traitors when they try to impose traditional gender roles on those of us who find such roles personally demeaning, and when they challenge those of us who reject the idea that those roles are universal, unchanging truths defined by nature.


I can't believe you see anyone as a traitor. How about you see them as a human being and leave the judgement out? People don't develop those opinions in a vacuum. If they've truly internalized their suppression to that extent, clearly there's a reason for it.


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

Zeptometer said:


> So, I vehemently disagree with you, @Nitou. This idea of "The Patriarchy" is the real hydra. It's not just a "man's world", it's also a white person's world, a straight person's world, a rich person's world, an attractive person's world, a company man's world, a world where in some way, everyone is discriminated against. The patriarchy is just one head. Don't ridicule feminism for bitching about something nebulous; feminism is just looking for the same thing everyone else is. Freedom from oppression.


I see your point here. It is a "man's world," in some respects. But I have never felt that I was disadvantaged or oppressed because I am female. In fact, I think being female gives me a slight advantage, and being white is a huge advantage. Your (plural you) mileage may vary. But when I have discussed this before, even objective advantages were twisted around as philosophical disadvantages. That's the narcissism of modern feminism.


----------



## Zeptometer (Dec 5, 2010)

Nitou said:


> I see your point here. It is a "man's world," in some respects. But I have never felt that I was disadvantaged or oppressed because I am female. In fact, I think being female gives me a slight advantage, and being white is a huge advantage. Your (plural you) mileage may vary. But when I have discussed this before, even objective advantages were twisted around as philosophical disadvantages. That's the narcissism of modern feminism.


heh.

Yeah, fair enough. Still, this is _the internet..._


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Zeptometer said:


> As callous as saying deal with it sounds, I agree. It doesn't matter, though. You aren't the first person to accuse @_snail_ of not being accountable for her own feelings and you won't be the last.


Being accountable for one's feelings doesn't mean letting other people decide when and how I should experience them, and it certainly doesn't mean shutting them off just because somebody else hopes to shame me for not letting him get away with being disrespectful. I'm confronting people who are engaging in destructive behavior. I am not complaining about how that destructive behavior makes me feel.

I have been accused of this before, as have most idealists, because such accusations are one of the easiest ways to shut down communication when a topic makes people uncomfortable. It is easier to invalidate another person's feelings than to explain why that person's ideas are wrong.

I do not consider these arguments personal. This is not about me taking responsibility for my emotions. It is about you taking responsibility for your actions. It is about society taking responsibility for how its members are treated.



Zeptometer said:


> I can't believe you see anyone as a traitor. How about you see them as a human being and leave the judgement out? People don't develop those opinions in a vacuum. If they've truly internalized their suppression to that extent, clearly there's a reason for it.


I was using the word that the person I was arguing against chose. I probably would have selected a different one.


----------



## Zeptometer (Dec 5, 2010)

*lrn2Brational*



snail said:


> I have been accused of this before, as have most idealists, because such accusations are one of the easiest ways to shut down communication when a topic makes people uncomfortable.


If you think I'm uncomfortable with the topic, if you think I'm trying to shut down communication, I'll just refer you to the rest of my posts on this thread. Your post doesn't even warrant a proper response.

my posts: http://personalitycafe.com/sex-relationships/141389-defense-pua-14.html#post3603616
http://personalitycafe.com/sex-relationships/141389-defense-pua-13.html#post3600215


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

snail said:


> I don't know. I'm still waiting for shallow people to take responsibility for their own feelings of materialistic attraction, and to deal with them in a way that doesn't dehumanize anyone.


I know if only we could all be as deep as you. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Some people just have to be themselves.



> I agree that there are plenty of insensitive, disrespectful people out there, and that is why it is important to set boundaries. Letting them know that their actions are not okay is a valid way of dealing with them. I believe that promoting a defeatist attitude only allows problems to continue unchallenged. Being an idealist won't necessarily save the world, but it can help a bit. It isn't all or nothing.


It's not defeatist to decide what will and will not make one feel bad. It's empowering.





> Having self-control is much better than needing to have someone else police your thoughts to keep you from hurting people, using people, or treating them unfairly. If you are being disrespectful toward women who are not enjoying your prolonged gaze, your act is clearly more about dominance than about aesthetics.


I have plenty of self-control. I do it because I want to. Not for dominance, but because I want to test the waters. Women invariably do respond with body language, and I can take the hint. The point wasn't that I necessarily look at women for a particularly long period of time. The point was that different women will respond differently. Besides I am not just looking at their bodies. I am also looking at posture, complexion, expression, and a multitude of nuances about her to determine my level of intrigue. You can tell a lot about her from how she speaks through her body. It's also subjectifying her.





> If a specific woman has made it known that she likes, it, then I see nothing wrong with it. If she has not, then it is rude to assume that she wants it, and pushy to behave as though she ought to.


How about I make you a deal. I will never objectify you. Ever. However, every other woman on earth, I will objectify and subjectify just to test the waters. I will react appropriately according to their body languages. How's that.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

@snail I also wasn't necessarily stating that you don't take accountability for your feelings. Those are @Zeptometer's words and yours. What I am saying is that there simply is no way to eliminate systemic feel-bads for everyone. It is impossible, and everyone learns to deal with them. Nobody said anything about shutting feelings off. It's also not a means of shutting off communication. I am proving a point. I will continue on as I am, and I will invariably piss some people off. I am totally okay with that. I lived 23 years of my life trying to please everyone, and it doesn't work, period. That doesn't make it my goal, and I avoid it when I can. I just am myself.


----------



## Nitou (Feb 3, 2010)

snail said:


> I don't know. I'm still waiting for shallow people to take responsibility for their own feelings of materialistic attraction, and to deal with them in a way that doesn't dehumanize anyone.


Snail, I am in my late 30's. I always downplayed the importance of the physical attraction in my relationships. I didn't even notice my friend until the first time I heard him talk. I was drawn to his intellect, and then his heart, and then I noticed that his scent made me tingle between my legs. That instinctive physical response (what you call materialistic) is powerful stuff. It can be used in a way that is hurtful to others, or it can enhance the passion and bonding in a relationship. As I said, people should be respectful and appropriate. But I think it is unfair to tell people that they should inhibit their instinctive responses so much. (That is assuming they're not into pedophilia or something.) I just find it excessively controlling and potentially harmful.


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

snail said:


> They are only seen as traitors when they try to impose traditional gender roles on those of us who find such roles personally demeaning, and when they challenge those of us who reject the idea that those roles are universal, unchanging truths defined by nature.
> 
> A person has every right to her own sexuality, even if she enjoys being dominated or humiliated, but that doesn't mean everyone else should be expected to happily put up with the same treatment, which would be disrespectful or even abusive without consent.
> 
> ...


This is just a poisonous post. Calling other women, other human beings "traitors" demeans the word treason. Treason is a crime. Are we really content accusing others of a crime? Think about this? Also, Kant has said that we cannot know how another person wants to be treated, if they do not inform us. Sure we could use the golden rule. But it's like the Restore Honor Rally Glenn Beck had awhile ago,it's insulting to say the United States has had honor taken away from it that needs restoring, especially when it's defined by a racist, anti-Semitic right wing tv show host from FOX news. I mean former employed tv host from FOX news. I'm sure the dignity of others will survive. I don't think chasing down every little perceived slight is healthy for society, though.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Brian1 said:


> This is just a poisonous post. Calling other women, other human beings "traitors" demeans the word treason. Treason is a crime. Are we really content accusing others of a crime? Think about this? Also, Kant has said that we cannot know how another person wants to be treated, if they do not inform us. Sure we could use the golden rule. But it's like the Restore Honor Rally Glenn Beck had awhile ago,it's insulting to say the United States has had honor taken away from it that needs restoring, especially when it's defined by a racist, anti-Semitic right wing tv show host from FOX news. I mean former employed tv host from FOX news. I'm sure the dignity of others will survive. I don't think chasing down every little perceived slight is healthy for society, though.


Again, I will clarify that "traitor" was the word _strangestdude_ chose when making his point, and I just decided to keep using it for clarity. I agree that it is too strong. If it hadn't already been presented in this manner, I would have chosen a different word, but since he wanted to label it this way, I let him. Please read the original post in its context before accusing me of trivializing treason, being unpatriotic, or whatever else you believe I am doing.


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

snail said:


> Again, I will clarify that "traitor" was the word _strangestdude_ chose when making his point, and I just decided to keep using it for clarity. I agree that it is too strong. If it hadn't already been presented in this manner, I would have chosen a different word, but since he wanted to label it this way, I let him. Please read the original post in its context before accusing me of trivializing treason, being unpatriotic, or whatever else you believe I am doing.


I am the last person to go to when talking about feminism. That said, I know my way around Washington, K Street, and politics. You may be right that @strangestdude started it,however, Second wave feminism is known, particularly Gloria Steinman, as having say women who become pregnant can't be true feminists. In the context of what you're saying:



snail said:


> They are only seen as traitors when they try to impose traditional gender roles on those of us who find such roles personally demeaning, and when they challenge those of us who reject the idea that those roles are universal, unchanging truths defined by  nature.


 Being a feminist, on this forum, you're actively promoting the idea of don't stray from the sisterhood. I also detect a men are pigs scent from your posts. When Hillary Clinton ran for president, Barack Obama was running for president. America had a first black president choice, or the first woman choice. Women that liked Obama, were thought of disobeying the sisterhood. This is important to know, because while @strangestdude may've started it, he was actively using it as how Second Wave Feminism uses it. You are right you could've used a better word, but you wanted continuity. Really. By using it, you are defending some of the worst aspects of feminism. Is this really what you want? I do not think taking a defense for PUA, is worth it, but your idea here isn't any better.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Brian1 said:


> I am the last person to go to when talking about feminism. That said, I know my way around Washington, K Street, and politics. You may be right that @_strangestdude_ started it,however, Second wave feminism is known, particularly Gloria Steinman, as having say women who become pregnant can't be true feminists. In the context of what you're saying:
> 
> Being a feminist, on this forum, you're actively promoting the idea of don't stray from the sisterhood. I also detect a men are pigs scent from your posts. When Hillary Clinton ran for president, Barack Obama was running for president. America had a first black president choice, or the first woman choice. Women that liked Obama, were thought of disobeying the sisterhood. This is important to know, because while @_strangestdude_ may've started it, he was actively using it as how Second Wave Feminism uses it. You are right you could've used a better word, but you wanted continuity. Really. By using it, you are defending some of the worst aspects of feminism. Is this really what you want? I do not think taking a defense for PUA, is worth it, but your idea here isn't any better.


I would never say "men are pigs," or even think it. I have healthy, loving relationships with the men in my life. I am close to my father and my brother, most of my close friends are men, and I married a man. I even get along quite well with most of my ex-boyfriends. I am able to respect men a great deal. I would not select a political candidate based on anything as trivial as race or gender. When I vote, it is because a candidate shares my values, or comes closer than the other candidates. I am not loyal to a sisterhood that gives women preferential consideration, as you have accused. I am a feminist, but that is not what feminism is about. In the heat of debate, I took strangestdude's words, and discussed his points using his terms. Perhaps this wasn't the best choice, because it has now been taken out of context by at least two different people, and what I was saying has been ignored due to nit-picking about language.


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

snail said:


> I would never say "men are pigs," or even think it. I have healthy, loving relationships with the men in my life. I am close to my father and my brother, most of my close friends are men, and I married a man. I even get along quite well with most of my ex-boyfriends. I am able to respect men a great deal. I would not select a political candidate based on anything as trivial as race or gender. When I vote, it is because a candidate shares my values, or comes closer than the other candidates. I am not loyal to a sisterhood that gives women preferential consideration, as you have accused. I am a feminist, but that is not what feminism is about. In the heat of debate, I took strangestdude's words, and discussed his points using his terms. Perhaps this wasn't the best choice, because it has now been taken out of context by at least two different people, and what I was saying has been ignored due to nit-picking about language.


I'm just giving you a run down of the history on how the word you use is used, I am not exactly accusing you of anything. Know thy difference. When you do know thy difference, you'll know, that I thought you were parroting an idea that is used by many feminist thinkers in the mid-1970s. I do know you are highly sensitive. As a person, who has had experience in the polarizing area,I have read a lot of your posts where you go out on a limb to say that people might not share your views, so I keep a lot of this stuff in mind. And I want to say, people have called me out on words they thought were wrongly used by me,because there is a history to that word.


----------



## Luke (Oct 17, 2010)

It's essentially a scam. An industry selling an unproven product that is designed to capitalize on male insecurities. No wonder it's so widespread on the internet, the heartland of scams. Seems to provide a blueprint for a personality that guys can try to assume in the hopes of impressing women. It seems obvious that you shouldn't attempt to alter your personality to fit into something that a company is selling. I think people should just be themselves and if you're a good person, then there will be people who appreciate that. If you're not the most assertive person when it comes to flirting, there are plenty of women who are. If you're a sensitive and shy type, there are girls who like that too. There is no need to try and change yourself, it's unhealthy.


----------



## RetroVortex (Aug 14, 2012)

Luke; said:


> 06933]It's essentially a scam. An industry selling an unproven product that is designed to capitalize on male insecurities. No wonder it's so widespread on the internet, the heartland of scams. Seems to provide a blueprint for a personality that guys can try to assume in the hopes of impressing women. It seems obvious that you shouldn't attempt to alter your personality to fit into something that a company is selling. I think people should just be themselves and if you're a good person, then there will be people who appreciate that. If you're not the most assertive person when it comes to flirting, there are plenty of women who are. If you're a sensitive and shy type, there are girls who like that too. There is no need to try and change yourself, it's unhealthy.


XD

Maybe I should make a badge or sign explaining that! XD

[Hi. My name is ___]
[I'm shy. ]
[077****** ]


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Luke said:


> It's essentially a scam. An industry selling an unproven product that is designed to capitalize on male insecurities. No wonder it's so widespread on the internet, the heartland of scams. Seems to provide a blueprint for a personality that guys can try to assume in the hopes of impressing women. It seems obvious that you shouldn't attempt to alter your personality to fit into something that a company is selling. I think people should just be themselves and if you're a good person, then there will be people who appreciate that. If you're not the most assertive person when it comes to flirting, there are plenty of women who are. If you're a sensitive and shy type, there are girls who like that too. There is no need to try and change yourself, it's unhealthy.


Please read my posts in this thread for a response to practically everything you've written.


----------

