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

[Antischism]

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?

I'm absolutely not joking. If you think it's anything other than social conditioning (entirely or at least significantly), you need to pick up a book and read or show me the biological data detailing what inherently makes women "gatekeepers" of sex. I've noticed a lot of people are stuck on the fallacious commodity model.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm absolutely not joking. If you think it's anything other than social conditioning (entirely or at least significantly), you need to pick up a book and read or show me the biological data detailing what inherently makes women "gatekeepers" of sex. I've noticed a lot of people are stuck on the fallacious commodity model.

It's social conditioning based on ancient biological reality. Being pregnant isn't a lot of fun. (At least it doesn't look like it). The throwing up, limited mobility towards the end, pain of childbirth etc. It only makes sense that the female species would want the male that got her pregnant on some sort of lock down (relationship) before giving him any realizing the consequences. Now eons later the consequences are somewhat avoidable (completely avoidable if you're okay with abortion) and easier to mitigate (cars so you don't have to walk 3 miles to the well to get water when pregnant for example). But the social conditioning based on the biological reality that was there until relatively recently remains.

 

[PRB]

he should make his own catcalling video

 

[pessimist]

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.

Well, since I'm not a sex crazed maniac, masturbation can alleviate sexual desire. I mean, if I absolutely wanted to have sex with a woman I met on the street- I think going through the whole "ritual" would be a lot more appealing and organic.

Let's say I would see a woman on the street whom I never met before. I am instantaneously attracted to her, not just physically either- she gives off a certain 'aura' or 'vibe' that draws me in. I have a few options...

I could be the cocky "bad boy" who swaggers on up to her with a shocking lack of self-awareness and bravado and say: "Hey bitch, you have to be finest piece of ass I've seen in a while, how about you come to my pad and I tap that ass?"

Or I could proposition her in a "nice guy" way.

"Hi, my name is Pess; you are the most beautiful woman I have ever seen... I can't take my eyes off of you, would you want to come to my place and have sex with me?"

Or

I could strike up a conversation, see how the chemistry is, and let the natural flow of things take over. Seduction, flirting, foreplay, and frolicking are all part of things that enhances a sexual experience. Even in relationships.

They need to legalize prostitution for the folks (I mean, men. seriously, I do agree with you guys here, if a woman wants sex she WILL have willing men lol) who only want sex.


EDIT: I meant to say "aura" not "aurora"

EDIT II: I have now changed "aurora" to "aura"

EDIT III: I have no idea why I said "aurora".

 

[ghengis86]

Well, since I'm not a sex crazed maniac, masturbation can alleviate sexual desire. I mean, if I absolutely wanted to have sex with a woman I met on the street- I think going through the whole "ritual" would be a lot more appealing and organic.

Let's say I would see a woman on the street whom I never met before. I am instantaneously attracted to her, not just physically either- she gives off certain 'aurora' or 'vibe' that draws me in. I have a few options...

I could be the cocky "bad boy" who swaggers on up to her with a shocking lack of self-awareness and bravado and say: "Hey bitch, you have to be finest piece of ass I've seen in a while, how about you come to my pad and I tap that ass?"

Or I could proposition her in a "nice guy" way.

"Hi, my name is Pess; you are the most beautiful woman I have ever seen... I can't take my eyes off of you, would you want to come to my place and have sex with me?"

Or

I could strike up a conversation, see how the chemistry is, and let the natural flow of things take over. Seduction, flirting, foreplay, and frolicking is all part things that enhances a sexual experience. Even in relationships.

They need to legalize prostitution for the folks (I mean, men. seriously, I do agree with you guys here, if a woman wants sex she WILL have willing men lol) who only want sex.

Oh, I hear what you're saying. I'm just pointing out that directness has its place when you want something, be it a good price on a used car or getting laid.

Re: prostitution, agreed. And it will be safer too, for all parties involved. And one way or another, you're 'paying' for sex. Or I should say there is a cost or consequence to every action.

 

[pessimist]

Oh, I hear what you're saying. I'm just pointing out that directness has its place when you want something, be it a good price on a used car or getting laid.

From a woman's perspective, I am fairly certain she knows that a guy who approaches her in a bar or club or street or coffee shop is after her body. As what was pointed out in this thread, the "PUA" tactics are mostly transparent.

So are the "nice romantic guys". Do women really buy into that cheesy romcom stuff? I doubt it. Some probably do though.

Anyway, what I am trying to say is, (in my opinion) in most cases the guy doesn't even need to be direct because all signs (at least from her POV) is "I wanna have sex with you".

 

[pessimist]

Most people who go to a car dealership know they're being placated and lied to. Swindled even.

 

[pessimist]

The problem is you are basing the rating on looks. Looks have less to do with attraction for women.

I disagree. I think women can be just as visual as men.

If they 'try hard enough', or maybe have a couple drinks, get a good buzz on and let loose with some interesting conversations they can temporarily become or at least imitate a 7 or 8 and get lucky.

Anyone who goes to a bar or club has a chance to "get lucky". That's why they were created.

 

[pessimist]

Actually, I agree that the female sexual strategy stems from safety. Biologically, the typical woman will be attracted to men that display dominant traits, confidence being one of the most widely acknowledged of such traits

Define "dominate" traits?

I'm a skinny dude who is not "macho" in anyway. I'm not the beer-guzzling sports fan with a beer gut or the axe body spray wearing frat douche with 6-pack abs and a gym membership. However, I'm not effeminate or girly in my appearance or speech patterns.

In the looks department, I'm not a prime Brad Pitt but I'm not Steve Busesmi either. I'm not ugly, but I wouldn't turn heads in a room full of male models.

Personality wise- I’m an introvert in real life, but can be quick witted at times. The internet provides me an outlet to express myself without experiencing sensory overload from external stimuli. Suddenly, I become the ENTP rather than the INTP. My extroverted intuition becomes dominate while my introverted thinking goes down a few pegs.

Around people I don't know and in public, I am externally stoic but internally anxious.

I'm quiet and observational in social situations but not awkward.

I can read and understand body language. I can empathize with people. And I have a theoretical understanding of social skills and charisma but do not know how to apply it to the real world.

Basically, I'm in purgatory. I have a messed up nervous system. I’m insecure, yet arrogant. I’m restrained, but yet have a highly opinionated personality.

I’m a complicated mess that doesn't fit into any of these boxes you put men in. That is why I have trouble understanding you.

 

[ghengis86]

From a woman's perspective, I am fairly certain she knows that a guy who approaches her in a bar or club or street or coffee shop is after her body. As what was pointed out in this thread, the "PUA" tactics are mostly transparent.

So are the "nice romantic guys". Do women really buy into that cheesy romcom stuff? I doubt it. Some probably do though.

Anyway, what I am trying to say is, (in my opinion) in most cases the guy doesn't even need to be direct because all signs (at least from her POV) is "I wanna have sex with you".

Maybe they don't want to buy into all that "cheesy romantic stuff", but women like that same playfulness, flirting and foreplay too. They like the feeling of being pursued, just as men enjoy the pursuit. Hell, it's fun!

So, since the PUA tactics are supposedly transparent, and being direct is transparent, I guess you're only going to get what you're going after, or only be satisfied with what the endgame of your personal PU tactics bring i.e. a little playful banter, flirting, pursuit, conversation, laughing, etc., women looking to reciprocate in that communication method will respond likewise.

Re:your last thought

Yes, I'm fairly certain women instinctively know that the majority of the time, a random guy walking up to start a conversation has the endgame in mind of hitting the sack. Not that plutonic relationships are impossible, but the sexual aspect is very, very dominant in most cases (and why shouldn't it? Right?)

 

[pessimist]

Maybe they don't want to buy into all that "cheesy romantic stuff", but women like that same playfulness, flirting and foreplay too. They like the feeling of being pursued, just as men enjoy the pursuit. Hell, it's fun!

Yeah, I know. My ex gf and I became a couple based on that playfulness. I just meant the "romantic"- the guy that lays it on really thick will be sniffed out in seconds. I mean, if I can spot these guys instantaneously I would have to imagine most women can as well.

I don't think most women are under the delusion that they'll meet prince charming on the streets of NYC. I would assume flowers, chocolate, poems, and cheap wine would become eye rolling after a while.

So, since the PUA tactics are supposedly transparent, and being direct is transparent, I guess you're only going to get what you're going after, or only be satisfied with what the endgame of your personal PU tactics bring i.e. a little playful banter, flirting, pursuit, conversation, laughing, etc., women looking to reciprocate in that communication method will respond likewise.

I am 'playful' by nature around people I KNOW. I like wordplay, verbal sparring, pop culture references, etc. A lot women do as well, that is how I am able to relate them (not in calculated way either, just naturally).

However, I COULD NOT do this or "be that guy" around total strangers or in any dating environment. My nervous system wouldn't allow it. That is why I suck at dating and COULD NEVER employ "PUA" techniques which seemed to be centered (at least on the youtube vids I seen) on aggression, forced bravado, and juvenile vulgarity.

I will never understand the "alpha" male; I'm also not threatened by them because I don't want what they do.

Yes, I'm fairly certain women instinctively know that the majority of the time, a random guy walking up to start a conversation has the endgame in mind of hitting the sack. Not that plutonic relationships are impossible, but the sexual aspect is very, very dominant in most cases (and why shouldn't it? Right?)

I have female friends I’m not sexually attracted to, but yeah, I do agree with that. If the physical attraction is there and you start to add in the flirty playfulness, then yeah, sex enters the equation pretty quick.

 

[parocks]

I'm absolutely not joking. If you think it's anything other than social conditioning (entirely or at least significantly), you need to pick up a book and read or show me the biological data detailing what inherently makes women "gatekeepers" of sex. I've noticed a lot of people are stuck on the fallacious commodity model.

I wasn't arguing any sort of commodity model whatever that is.

Women get pregnant. Men don't.

This basic fact that can't be wished away or ignored has huge consequences.

Maybe you don't know what the word "pregnant" means. Or what a "baby" is?

And that women get "pregnant" and have "babies".

And that men don't.

This is the baseline here, everything follows from that.

And 1000s of people can write 1000s of words, to which you can tack on "because women have babies and men don't"

The specifics of culture can change, and people can pretend that those specifics really matter, but the bottom line
is pregnancy and babies - women have that, men no.

Sex has consequences for women, it does not for men.

That's where "gatekeeper" comes from.

"Hey, let's have sex. It's fun for both of us."
"Yes, it's fun for both of us - but I'm the one who gets pregnant, and you're not. It has consequences for me, and not for you."
"You're right. Let's have sex. It's fun for both of us."

This is so extraordinarily simple that it does require more than that.

Discussions of alphas and betas and PUAs and studies and questionaires - it's all something that might be interesting (yeah it is)
but it's all overlaid on the basic, impossible to change fact

Women get pregnant and have babies - a huge burden and responsibility which every woman knows - and men don't.

 

[parocks]

It's social conditioning based on ancient biological reality. Being pregnant isn't a lot of fun. (At least it doesn't look like it). The throwing up, limited mobility towards the end, pain of childbirth etc. It only makes sense that the female species would want the male that got her pregnant on some sort of lock down (relationship) before giving him any realizing the consequences. Now eons later the consequences are somewhat avoidable (completely avoidable if you're okay with abortion) and easier to mitigate (cars so you don't have to walk 3 miles to the well to get water when pregnant for example). But the social conditioning based on the biological reality that was there until relatively recently remains.

The biological reality is still there. It's just not an unfixable problem. Women are the only ones who get pregnant. They're the ones who have to deal with that. Men don't. Cost / benefit analysis. Men - cost - nothing / benefit - get laid is fun. Women - cost - might get pregnant / benefit - get laid is fun. His cost/benefit analysis says - Yes! have sex. Her cost/benefit analysis says No! Might get pregnant. And that makes the women the gatekeepers.

"But the social conditioning based on the biological reality" I don't know what you mean here about "social conditioning based" on ... means. It's something based on the biological reality. But I don't know if "social conditioning" is right. And the biological reality is still there. The biological reality is that women get pregnant and men don't. The biological reality isn't that there is or isn't a high tech way to kill a little baby.

 

[pessimist]

Biological this, social conditioning that...blah blah blah

 

[pessimist]

http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/4981/Pop-star-Ke-ha-has-a-near-genius-IQ


[h=3]

Pop star Ke$ha has a near genius IQ![/h]
Ke$ha reportedly scored a 1500 on her SAT’s, a near perfect score, and has an IQ of over 140 which puts her near the genius category. Learn more about Ke$ha and her success by clicking the source.
(Source)

http://www.wwd.com/fashion-news/trends/kesha-sebert-hard-candy-2248492

 

[ghengis86]

I wasn't arguing any sort of commodity model whatever that is.

Women get pregnant. Men don't.

This basic fact that can't be wished away or ignored has huge consequences.

Maybe you don't know what the word "pregnant" means. Or what a "baby" is?

And that women get "pregnant" and have "babies".

And that men don't.

This is the baseline here, everything follows from that.

And 1000s of people can write 1000s of words, to which you can tack on "because women have babies and men don't"

The specifics of culture can change, and people can pretend that those specifics really matter, but the bottom line
is pregnancy and babies - women have that, men no.

Sex has consequences for women, it does not for men.

That's where "gatekeeper" comes from.

"Hey, let's have sex. It's fun for both of us."
"Yes, it's fun for both of us - but I'm the one who gets pregnant, and you're not. It has consequences for me, and not for you."
"You're right. Let's have sex. It's fun for both of us."

This is so extraordinarily simple that it does require more than that.

Discussions of alphas and betas and PUAs and studies and questionaires - it's all something that might be interesting (yeah it is)
but it's all overlaid on the basic, impossible to change fact

Women get pregnant and have babies - a huge burden and responsibility which every woman knows - and men don't.

The biological reality is still there. It's just not an unfixable problem. Women are the only ones who get pregnant. They're the ones who have to deal with that. Men don't. Cost / benefit analysis. Men - cost - nothing / benefit - get laid is fun. Women - cost - might get pregnant / benefit - get laid is fun. His cost/benefit analysis says - Yes! have sex. Her cost/benefit analysis says No! Might get pregnant. And that makes the women the gatekeepers.

"But the social conditioning based on the biological reality" I don't know what you mean here about "social conditioning based" on ... means. It's something based on the biological reality. But I don't know if "social conditioning" is right. And the biological reality is still there. The biological reality is that women get pregnant and men don't. The biological reality isn't that there is or isn't a high tech way to kill a little baby.

While not 100% effective - ask me how I know! - there is a thing called the condom. And the pill. And the unfortunate abortion.

So not disagreeing with you, just that its not like we're in the 1800's.

Point taken

 

[parocks]

While not 100% effective - ask me how I know! - there is a thing called the condom. And the pill. And the unfortunate abortion.

So not disagreeing with you, just that its not like we're in the 1800's.

Point taken

Not like we're in the 1800's, or 10,000 BC. Absolutely.

Women still are the ones who get pregnant.

That makes them the gatekeepers. Men have no costs, women have costs. It doesn't get inverted, it can't get inverted.
No one (no rational person) thinks that biological facts that give the women the costs and the men not can ever change.

The costs are lower now than before, but the costs are borne by the woman. That can't change.

 

[specsaregood]

Men have no costs, women have costs.

I'm quite certain that isn't true.

 

[roho76]

Seriously? 12 pages of this shit?

 

[ghengis86]

I'm quite certain that isn't true.

Ok, sure. But women bear more the majority of the costs