Dating coach banned from several countries after internet feminist outrage over misogynist vid

[willwash]

If you're spending time learning PUA techniques, you're an idiot. Go to the gym instead. Learn how to cook a healthy meal. Get some sleep. Interview for a new job. All of those things will actually give you value, and they'll make you a better person. Why learn how to pretend to be better, when you can actually become better instead?

PUAs recommend all of these things in addition to their pickup techniques because, as you've noted, they also work.

 

[KingNothing]

I just typed a really long one, so instead of a really long one, just this basic idea.

Supply and Demand.

What your saying is fine. The problem is - it means a whole lot of men just aren't getting laid.

Because Betas being nice doesn't get them laid.

If women actually wanted betas, if women really wanted men to do what they are telling them to do, they'd have sex with them, but they don't.

So you have a whole bunch of women issuing instructions via the coalition of the awful, and they're not responding. What they're saying is "fuck off" don't talk to me, I'm crazy, I'd rather have sex with guys who are faking confidence because I'm just not that smart than have sex with the guys who actually like me and are following my instructions. This leads to a whole bunch of guys not getting laid.

Guys want to get laid - guys not getting laid is a bad outcome. Personally, I've given up. I'm on this thread in large part because it really didn't occur to me that being mean to chicks has been worked into a system of getting laid. Since I'm just often generally rude (when things suck, I say it. when someone's stupid or someone likes something that sucks, I'll say it) I'm thinking that this behavior might somehow work to my advantage. I always assumed that I could complain about the garbage state of the world because I gave up. I did not think that "all of your opinions suck, you're stupid, and here's why" or "there is nothing in your brain at all is there?" are actually used as pickup lines.

Supply and Demand. There is no demand for the betas who are responding to the "be nice to me or leave me alone" instructions. They don't get laid. There is no supply of alphas or fake alphas for the women who have to have that. Apparently, the alphas and the fake alphas all share among themselves a huge number of women who like to be either ignored or mistreated because that's what their crazy brains, hearts, loins are telling them.

Many here believe that's exactly how it works (this is something that I'm learning from this thread - I haven't thought about it much before this) - and the problem isn't what one guy should do, and how one guy should respond, it's a market problem.

Media (coalition of awful) creates passive betas (by request of the feminists, also coalition of awful), women have no Demand for passive betas. And the passive betas don't get laid. The problem is that passive betas aren't getting laid, and I'm sure they'd like to.

I can't really respond in any way but this: men who overcome beta-ness --whatever that is-- by adopting PUA habits are lying to themselves and to women, and will be unhappy in the long-term. What they should do, is work to become better people and then draw confidence from that. Anything else is insincere, lazy, over-thinking, nonsense.

 

[KingNothing]

PUAs recommend all of these things in addition to their pickup techniques.

Well, then their only shortcoming is a moral one, and it is massive. They should absolutely not preach "negging," and other rude nonsense. From my experience, when people throw negativity out into the universe it does them no good in the long run and does not help their confidence. I'd suggest they learn how to win people over by being optimistic and positive. Playing on someone's insecurities by making them feel even worse about themselves is horrific.

 

[dannno]

If you're an average-looking guy with a decent job, and you're only dating less-than-average-looking women, you either have a personality that is infuriating at best, or you're doing life wrong. ... or, you are more enlightened than I am and totally capable of ignoring physical attractiveness and able to focus on the things that actually matter about humans.

Interesting thing is all the girls that have paid attention or dated me in the last few years have been at least several years younger than me and several points higher up on the attractiveness scale. It is few and far between, and I don't bed them all..but they do all at least have that in mind which always gives me hope.

Girls who are at my level or below in attractiveness barely pay attention, even when I'm completely interested in them for their personality and the fact that I generally rate women at least 2 points higher than your average guy - I'd like to slay a hottie but in the end I'm really not that picky. My ex was way hotter than I thought I would ever end up with and we lived together 2 years, talked about marriage, kids, etc..

So I am definitely in the camp that less attractive women tend to fuck - 'up' and a lot of guys get left behind because of it. The more attractive ones see something else in me and they are over screwing guys who are just interested in them for sex. But again, very few and far between.

 

[Philhelm]

You cannot use an extremely limited sample (the online dating profiles you've read) to make generalizations about all women's criteria for a sexual encounter.

It was merely an example, and an extremely prevalent one at that.

The reason why women react so differently to an offer of casual sex from a man is because they generally perceive that the man will be terrible at sex, as well as concerns for medical safety (not "providing security" as you twisted it in the paragraph before this one) - it doesn't mean their checklist is longer.

Why don't men have the same concerns for medical safety? Furthermore, assuming women do have a greater concern for medical safety, wouldn't that be a factor in determining that women are the gatekeepers of sex, since men are oh so cavalier about their medical safety while women are cautious? Do you even understand the concept of gatekeeper? More sex would be had, but for the woman's caution - but they're not gatekeepers?

Regarding the checklist, you're trying to tell me that a man that is unemployed, doesn't own a car, and is living in his parents' basement is going to have the same ease of success at obtaining sex as a woman with similar circumstances? If so, why do you believe that (please don't cite that pissant study again - use your own words and thoughts)?

Bisexual women in the study were overwhelmingly more likely to accept an offer of casual sex from a woman instead of a man; are there different checklists for different genders, or what?

If a woman is a bona fide bisexual, it kind of falls outside the scope of this argument since other psychological factors must be weighed. Please stop obfuscating.

Remember, you're conveying the idea that women look for way more things than males before deciding to sleep with someone. Using your own logic, men on online dating sites are too choosy as well.

It isn't really that men are too choosy, but that it is harder for an individual to stomach dating down, although men will do so when push comes to shove. Women overestimate their sexual worth since it is easier for them to have casual sex with more attractive males. I will concede that physical attractiveness is a more important factor in online dating, since most women can't even bother to read the goddamn profiles. However, when they do meet, the other factors such as confidence will come into play.

The people who frequent online dating sites probably do so because they have some deep-rooted social anxiety that causes them to withdraw and make long lists of why they can't interact with people. The women on these sites therefore are not a great representative of women at large.

This is a side issue and could be worth a conversation on its own. However, I will say that online dating has become more mainstream as compared to, say, the 90's when there were stories of people falling in love despite never having met. It doesn't work that way. Have you ever used online dating?

Another part of the study that refutes the "status über alles" theory is that when women were asked to choose between sleeping with Donald Trump and sleeping with Johnny Depp (men were asked to choose between Angelina Jolie and Roseanne Barr), they were just as likely to choose the conventionally attractive person as the male was.

I don't care about this pissant study. Please use your own thoughts and reasoning capability. The study is flawed because the choice is obvious. Obviously men would prefer to be with Angelina Jolie (I hope I don't have to argue this point as well - please spare me). Obviously men would prefer to be with Johnny Depp as he is handsome, rich, and high status; his wealth would be sufficient for any gold-digger, so there would be no need to choose Donald Trump. Furthermore, I never stated that women do not care about physical attractiveness. What I did say is that women have a lot more factors that they weigh. A better study would be Donald Trump vs. a random, unknown man that is handsome like Johnny Depp. I'd bet that Donald Trump would get more hits in that scenario.

So the idea that women are attracted to status and the ability to care for prospective children at some deep-seated level, such that they "gravitate" or some such nonsense, is not supported by this study's findings.

See above. The only material variable was physical attractiveness, so the study was flawed from the outset.

The biology argument doesn't resonate with me in the era of ready access to contraception.

Just because a woman is seeking to get pregnant doesn't mean that she isn't trying to find an acceptable mate on a subconscious level. Technology doesn't really change this.

The entire point is that access to contraception is supposed to level the playing field for both men and women in terms of seeking casual sex (i.e., neither is the "gatekeeper," but there are still stubborn cultural barriers in the way.

What would really level the barrier is reliable male contraception, particularly a male equivalent of birth control pills. No more child support for unwanted, baseborn abominations.

And your assumption is completely wrong - women get more pleasure out of casual sexual encounters when they are sufficiently relaxed, which generally translates in having a partner that they trust. This doesn't exactly bode well for society's caricature of a dominant man, because men are told that in order to be dominant, they have to be downright psychologically abusive.

Being the dominant male does not mean being abusive. It could be simple things such as self-confidence, ambition, decisiveness, self-motivation, social standing, etc. There is no reason why a woman cannot be relaxed around a man with those characteristics.

Nice appeal to tradition there. You don't see a problem with this circumstance at all? Please continue belittling male rape victims and forcing everyone to conform to absurd stereotypes about sexual desire.

Are you blind? I conceded that men can indeed be raped and that society doesn't care, but that is a side issue that I don't really care to discuss within the context of this thread. For the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, why can't you ever stay on point without deliberate misrepresentation, deflection, and obfuscation? I don't believe that I've done that to your arguments; I try to meet you head on and be as straightforward as possible, but I am not extended the same courtesy.

I can't tell whether you actually believe that nonsense or you're just parroting what the conventional wisdom is. Again, the biological reasons for "gatekeeper" theory are just about completely obsolete by this point, leaving cultural explanations as the main factor.

I just don't buy that fear of STD's and not achieving orgasm accounts for the great disparity between a man's capacity to obtain sex and a woman's capacity to obtain sex.

This is only true if sex is zero-sum, and treats all sexual experiences as the same. Sex cannot be explained in terms of marginal utility.

I have to run now, but I may write more later.

Try to stay on point nex time. Cheers!

 

[parocks]

Since women demand a greater number of desirable traits, they tend to be the gatekeepers to sex,

I just wanted to hit this one point at this time.

"Since women demand a greater number of desirable traits, they tend to be the gatekeepers to sex,"

NO

"Since women GET PREGNANT AND HAVE BABIES, they tend to be the gatekeepers to sex,"

 

[pessimist]

This thread is absolutely amazing.

it is absurd, irrational, humorous (often unintentionally), educational (thanks for the book) but most of all entertaining. Keep it going.

 

[Philhelm]

I feel like this entire conversation has become much more complicated than it needs to be. There are some things that we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, because of rigorous experimentation and data analysis:

STUFF

That's pretty much it. It's just frustrating when people like Rothbardian Girl would try to argue against every point you have made. "Nah, women only like straight, white teeth because of the patriarchy!"

 

[Antischism]

I just wanted to hit this one point at this time.

"Since women demand a greater number of desirable traits, they tend to be the gatekeepers to sex,"

NO

"Since women GET PREGNANT AND HAVE BABIES, they tend to be the gatekeepers to sex,"

No, women are perceived to be the "gatekeepers" of sex due to social conditioning.

 

[KingNothing]

That's pretty much it. It's just frustrating when people like Rothbardian Girl would try to argue against every point you have made. "Nah, women only like straight, white teeth because of the patriarchy!"

I don't think that is what she's saying. I think she is probably struggling to deal with some of the more absurd points that have been made by men in this thread, and that she's coming off a bit differently than she intends.

Society certainly conditions people to state that they want certain traits in a mate, and it certainly conditions potential mates to act in certain ways. That isn't really deniable. But how strongly does it influence people? I think it has a stronger effect on their words and thoughts than on their actions, and may ultimately lead to some sort of existential disconnect -- "I was supposed to feel a certain way about this! But I don't! What is wrong with life?! Why don't the things that are supposed to make me happy actually make me happy?!" And she's ascribing sexual agency to women that they definitely do have. Generally, women like sex and do pursue it. However, I do think she misses the boat when she presumes (or at least, I think she does) that women are sexually attracted to a similar percentage of men as vice-versa. Most guys I know would have sex with virtually any female between the age of 18-50 who is not obese. I don't think the converse is true. Women can get sex whenever they want. Men can too, for the most part, but their pool of potential mates will be much smaller. But, even absent social conditioning, I don't think that is the sort of thing that the average woman truly desires. I'm not saying that they all want monogamy and a life-partner, but I don't think they dig one-night-stands nearly as much as men do, even assuming that their safety were always assured. Even in fuck-buddy relationships, studies have shown that women tend to put a far greater importance on the "buddy" part of that than men do.

So, I think there's probably some middle ground here where we have to acknowledge social conditioning and the impact it has on modern human sexual interaction but that we also have to admit that the dominating force is biology. If it weren't, there wouldn't be such a gigantic pile of evidence supporting the things sexually-desirable characteristics I listed above.

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

It was merely an example, and an extremely prevalent one at that.

I'm just curious - what else led you to your sage-like conclusions about what women really want? I mean, I'll admit I was stereotyping about the online dating thing. I'm sure not all of the partakers are awkward. I've never tried it myself; never felt the need to. But I thought about this a little more and I believe the real reasons women, and people in general, make huge-ass lists of what they want online is because an impersonal computer screen *allows* them to type whatever the hell they want by virtue of the medium. In face-to-face conversation, people's streams of consciousness are constantly interrupted because of the need to keep the conversation going. No one likes someone who rambles on forever. When I size up potential dates or partners, it's true that I look for a few things, but if I'm engaged in a conversation with them, I'm making decisions in real time and constantly reassessing my own checklist. Maybe the guy isn't enormously physically attractive and doesn't have other women flocking to him, but he has a cute jawline and he likes economics, so hell yeah. When the only thing I'm interacting with is a computer screen, of course I'm going to write a ton of shit. Similarly, if you and I were having this conversation face-to-face right now, I would only be making a fraction of the points I'm making right now. I've had more time to ruminate on what I'm going to say without the conversation lagging. In short, observations made online are probably the *worst* place you could start when trying to assess psychology.

Why don't men have the same concerns for medical safety? Furthermore, assuming women do have a greater concern for medical safety, wouldn't that be a factor in determining that women are the gatekeepers of sex, since men are oh so cavalier about their medical safety while women are cautious? Do you even understand the concept of gatekeeper? More sex would be had, but for the woman's caution - but they're not gatekeepers?

Men don't have the same general concerns for medical safety because women contract STDs at twice the rate that men do, and the entire point of my posts thus far has been to show that you have no proof that women are inherently gatekeepers, or naturally oriented towards being pickier than men. Currently we live in a world where female sexuality is highly regulated. Women are constantly being pushed and pulled in all different directions by men who can't make up their mind whether they want women to be sexy or demure. Likewise, certain cultural expectations push and pull men in all directions. As just one example, men who genuinely want to learn how to interact better with women are disdained or mocked in favor of some of the ugliest variants of PUA. Prudes are constantly mocked in our culture, but women can't go too far or else they'll magically become sluts. The only reason this expectation is present in our culture is because certain males want to maintain their stranglehold over dictating sexual relations, but the deepest irony is that they don't recognize the roadblocks this presents for them being able to get laid.

Regarding the checklist, you're trying to tell me that a man that is unemployed, doesn't own a car, and is living in his parents' basement is going to have the same ease of success at obtaining sex as a woman with similar circumstances? If so, why do you believe that (please don't cite that pissant study again - use your own words and thoughts)?

I see no reason why a conversation leading to sex has to involve talking about the man's life circumstances. Maybe depending on the setting, but there are plenty of informal settings where sex is the end goal and life circumstances are rarely the topic of conversation; you weren't specific as to which one you are discussing. Personally, I would feel as though I weren't being true to myself if a man assumed I was something I was not because he was just interested in having sex, as you claim is the mindset of many men. Without my fondness for discussing 1) econ 2) 70's films 3) math 4) Seinfeld, I am basically not interesting enough to carry a conversation with anyone (and thus no sex). My nerdiness works pretty well with fellow college students, but I am sure I would have a harder time if I were at a different age. I had a difficult time in high school for these reasons.

If a woman is a bona fide bisexual, it kind of falls outside the scope of this argument since other psychological factors must be weighed. Please stop obfuscating.

No, it does not. Your thesis is that women ultimately have more criteria for sleeping with a potential partner than men do. If bisexual women jump into bed with women far more readily than they do with men over and over again, that suggests there are more important factors at play. Of course bisexuality is more nuanced than I have presented it, but I don't like the implication of your "bona fide" remark. No, not all bisexual women are "going through a phase." Please don't stereotype.

I don't care about this pissant study. Please use your own thoughts and reasoning capability. The study is flawed because the choice is obvious. Obviously men would prefer to be with Angelina Jolie (I hope I don't have to argue this point as well - please spare me). Obviously men would prefer to be with Johnny Depp as he is handsome, rich, and high status; his wealth would be sufficient for any gold-digger, so there would be no need to choose Donald Trump. Furthermore, I never stated that women do not care about physical attractiveness. What I did say is that women have a lot more factors that they weigh. A better study would be Donald Trump vs. a random, unknown man that is handsome like Johnny Depp. I'd bet that Donald Trump would get more hits in that scenario.

Only reason I cited the study was to prove to you that some circumstances contradict your thesis about status playing a large role.

Just because a woman is seeking to get pregnant doesn't mean that she isn't trying to find an acceptable mate on a subconscious level. Technology doesn't really change this.

Gee, I really love when men try to explain female psychology. Females can't even explain the psychology of their own gender.

What would really level the barrier is reliable male contraception, particularly a male equivalent of birth control pills. No more child support for unwanted, baseborn abominations.

I have no objection to male contraception. Have at it.

Try to stay on point nex time. Cheers!

You were the one who implied the more sex a woman had, the less valuable it became to her. That's the definition of diminishing marginal utility. But since sex isn't a traditional economic good, it can't be analyzed meaningfully in this way.

 

[KingNothing]

if I'm engaged in a conversation with them, I'm making decisions in real time and constantly reassessing my own checklist.

I don't mean to nitpick one thing from a long and thoughtful post, but from a male perspective, that's pretty hilarious.

Here's the male checklist:
1.) I want her.
2.) There is no number 2.

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

I don't mean to nitpick one thing from a long and thoughtful post, but from a male perspective, that's pretty hilarious.

Here's the male checklist:
1.) I want her.
2.) There is no number 2.

I mean it could be the female one too (it also doesn't have to be the default male frame of mind) - not all women are created equal, nor are women always interested in the same outcome every time. It's likely the world would be a better place if everyone had the courage to say "Hey, wanna have sex with me?" and to dispense with pointless conversation. Even though women may be in that kind of mood a certain percentage of the time, a great number of them have been socially conditioned to deny their urges.

 

[ghengis86]

I mean it could be the female one too (it also doesn't have to be the default male frame of mind) - not all women are created equal, nor are women always interested in the same outcome every time. It's likely the world would be a better place if everyone had the courage to say "Hey, wanna have sex with me?" and to dispense with pointless conversation. Even though women may be in that kind of mood a certain percentage of the time, a great number of them have been socially conditioned to deny their urges.

Yes, that would make the world a better place. Once I found that being direct a) got me laid more and b) dispensed with the awkward chit-chat and cock-teasers, a great new world of honesty and happiness opened (for me and my partner). Now, I just straight up ask the old lady, "got time for a quickie?", or "after the kids are asleep, lets grab a bottle of wine and fool around in the hot tub". I don't know about all those lame dudes on TeeVee who complain about never getting laid once they're married, but shit, they just aren't doing it right or married the wrong woman for the wrong reasons!

 

[pessimist]

Yes, that would make the world a better place. Once I found that being direct a) got me laid more and b) dispensed with the awkward chit-chat and cock-teasers, a great new world of honesty and happiness opened (for me and my partner). Now, I just straight up ask the old lady, "got time for a quickie?", or "after the kids are asleep, lets grab a bottle of wine and fool around in the hot tub". I don't know about all those lame dudes on TeeVee who complain about never getting laid once they're married, but shit, they just aren't doing it right or married the wrong woman for the wrong reasons!

Isn't playful banter, physical tension, and flirting part of the whole human mating ritual? How boring would it be to walk up to man/woman in the street and say: "hey, wanna fuck? "Oh yeah, baby! You lead the way!".

Even if I had the bravado and confidence to do something like that and the woman accepted- it would still be lame, imo.

 

[parocks]

I can't really respond in any way but this: men who overcome beta-ness --whatever that is-- by adopting PUA habits are lying to themselves and to women, and will be unhappy in the long-term. What they should do, is work to become better people and then draw confidence from that. Anything else is insincere, lazy, over-thinking, nonsense.

I have no opinion about what men do regarding "adopting PUA habits".

These are just guys who are trying to get laid.

My argument is about Supply and Demand and the sex market and dysfunctions in it.

I don't think we are really arguing here.

 

[parocks]

No, women are perceived to be the "gatekeepers" of sex due to social conditioning.

You're making a joke, right?

I mean, making fun of the "gender is socially determined" people by arguing against something that is so clearly true?

 

[parocks]

I've a theory that men are just as likely to be rejected by a 4 as they are a 10, regardless of their own attractiveness. Due to the bell curve distribution of human attractiveness, they simply come across less 10's than 4's, and therefore experience less successes in total, if they even approach them.

I'm almost certain that I've thought "wow, why is this hot woman so into me," and "oh boy, this woman just rejected me? Yeesh," an equal percentage of times.

People also aren't walking around with accurate numbers on their chest. And different classes, different cultures value different things. Some have argued that men only care about looks, whether it's true or not it's more true with men than women.

 

[nobody's_hero]

This was removed from Youtube, NSFW, you are WARNED

Banned by Youtube, Not Safe For Work, and won't go over well with a lot of people here:

[video=vimeo;108818646]http://vimeo.com/108818646[/video]

I concede that a lot of the references to government authority undermine the message somewhat. Antichism mentioned that earlier but I think he may be 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater', as they say.

 

[ghengis86]

Isn't playful banter, physical tension, and flirting part of the whole human mating ritual? How boring would it be to walk up to man/woman in the street and say: "hey, wanna fuck? "Oh yeah, baby! You lead the way!".

Even if I had the bravado and confidence to do something like that and the woman accepted- it would still be lame, imo.

Oh, for sure it is skipping over some of the typical social interactions prior to tge act. You can still do all the flirting, foreplay and back and forth you want. But sometimes, you just need to get laid, and being direct is the best way. What the hell is lame about that?

That's like saying, "Isn't the back and forth, negotiating, haggling, and time wasting all part of the car buying ritual? How boring would it be to walk into a dealership and say "give me your absolute best price now, and you've got a dae", "ok, I'll get the paperwork started!""

I mean, if you know what you want - sex, car, bread, whatever - just straight up asking is the most direct route to getting what you want. It sounds like you don't just want to get laid; you want to enjoy some of the fun beforehand. Which is totally normal because it is fun and enjoyable. I'm just saying, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.