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

[KurtBoyer25L]

Women do not like wimps. Women want a man. Women want a man who takes charge, regardless of time and place in the world.

These neo Candid Camera things on Youtube have been done to death, but this guy is sometimes funny.

Take charge and you'll get a date.

Most communication is nonverbal, and most basic judgements of others happen in the first 5 seconds. As our pedestrian-brained, fraternity numb-nut approached that chick she saw immediately that he was body-beautiful and probably just as shallow as she is about dating. So yeah, he got her number. Try it on a woman out of your demographic and see if that smooth "Um, yeah..." scores at all.

 

[dannno]

It's you who is implying that tribal people are less evolved. Viewing today's tribes as remnants of an ancient past is a large part of much-discredited, nineteenth-century beliefs at the heart of racial anthropology. Racial anthropology suffers from many of the same flaws as your arguments. For one, why assume the lives of people in these tribes at all resemble those of ancient humans? They've had 50-100,000 years to develop, and no one would claim modern societies resemble the societies of even 10,000 years ago.

I did not imply that tribal people are less evolved, you seemed to imply that women had evolved pass their primal urges.

When I was referring to tribal ancestors, I really meant tribal and pre-tribal, I didn't really think that there was a pre-tribal period. Apes don't have official tribes but they do reside in a type of colony or group so I would assume once humans evolved they were always in a tribe of sorts. But anyway, what you're saying doesn't refute what I'm talking about, these traits were always beneficial for women's survival, I would think any time before 100 years ago but even more so the further you go back.

Sex is relatively cheap nowadays

If sex was easy to come by and cheap for all men, these PUAs would not be making money hand over fist and rape would be down significantly, although it is already down quite a bit in the last 30 or 40 years it could go down a lot more.

What you are saying is it is easy for YOU to get laid.

I wish I could link you to one of Joe Rogan's stand up shows from 2005, it would be a lot easier than me typing this out.. but essentially he says, "it's easy for women to get laid, all you have to do is say "who wants to have sex" and pretty much every guy will stand up and be like (in his retarded cave man accent) "I DO I DO!!!"

It's easy for women to get laid, not nearly as easy for men. "We have to put in a lot of ground work.." and Joe Rogan is, I would presume, a fairly attractive guy. There are plenty of guys who can't get laid, for them sex is not easy or cheap, they are the ones giving these PUA guys all their money..

 

[dannno]

I am fiercely opposed to this entire paradigm of relationship thinking. "My meaningful relationship provides me with a steady supply of sex." Like everything you do for someone is based around a separate commodity you receive and value selfishly in return. It's more honest to hire a prostitute than to think of your girlfriend that way.

Sex isn't 'everything you do for someone is based around a separate commodity you receive', it is just a piece of the entire relationship puzzle.

It's true women will generally leave if there is no sex as well, unless they are being provided with some major support or are staying together for the kids... and many times in those cases they will cheat eventually, so will men.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I sure wouldn't offer up any of my nieces to someone taking cliff-notes from Julien Blanc.

And to suggest "a Filipino" to a guy who talks that way is just irresponsible.

Sorry, but you didn't read it well. I didn't say I took cliff notes, I said maybe I should have.

I believe we were discussing whether the stuff PUA's teach works, and it does. People have been taking offense to the fact that it works since page one of this thread. There seems to still be a great deal of disagreement over whether it's the women's fault that it works, or the men's. I think it is unfortunate that it works, because as Dr. 3D said a while back, the jerks are basically out-breeding anyone with a lick of decency.

I tell you what doesn't work, though. Going to college. Focusing on hobbies. Bettering yourself. Those are things that people tell you to do when you're down on your luck with women. What they really are, are distractions. Eventually you do have to come to grips that you have a college degree, hobbies, your own house, and yet still have absolutely no idea how to approach women in an age when saying 'hi' could potentially get you arrested. Thanks feminists.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Here, feminists should lay off the Julien Blancs and learn something about what's really ****ing up society:



and if your mind didn't blow over that vid:

 

[ghengis86]

I am fiercely opposed to this entire paradigm of relationship thinking. "My meaningful relationship provides me with a steady supply of sex." Like everything you do for someone is based around a separate commodity you receive and value selfishly in return. It's more honest to hire a prostitute than to think of your girlfriend that way.

I think you've misinterpreted my post. It isn't an if>then statement or a tradeable commodity or a reward for doing something right. Relationships are composed of more than just the physical; there is the emotion, spiritual and intellectual components as well. I think Danno overlooks this a little bit in his more primal analysis I.e. the role of emotional, intellectual and spiritual connections between two people and how it relates to the sexual component. *

My point being, sex isn't what you 'get' out of the relationship, it is a very integral part of it. Addressing sex like the PUAs and/or just getting laid bc you need it biologically to keep from going crazy misses the wholistic nature of successful, healthy relationships. Are the PUAs living fulfilling lives, slaying chicks night after night? At some point they'll grow up and realize life isn't about how much pussy you can get.

*i acknowledge the instinctual urge for sex/intimacy with the opposite sex and the detriment of not getting laid occassionally.

 

[ghengis86]

Sex isn't 'everything you do for someone is based around a separate commodity you receive', it is just a piece of the entire relationship puzzle.

It's true women will generally leave if there is no sex as well, unless they are being provided with some major support or are staying together for the kids... and many times in those cases they will cheat eventually, so will men.

Didn't see this. I think you need to expand on the "entire relationship puzzle" as it relates to the instinctual need to get laid.

 

[jmdrake]

Dude, you're 28 and talking like this? The world is your oyster. If you guys on here don't stop this talk all the time, then I am going to have my wife log into my account and talk with some of you. She will matchmake you with one of my many nieces overseas. Now, don't make me do that because she does not even know my user name here. But, if one you guys would seriously get together with one of my nieces, then I could use some help paying the bills.

Now, let me tell you. Women are women everywhere, so don't forget it. But, I think you'd have a better shot with a Filipino. My in-laws are much more acquainted and familiar with freedom than most Americans will ever taste in a lifetime. My wife got into it with 6 other co-workers at one time. Around election time. Her co-worker asks the usual dipshit question of whether my wife is a Repub-tard or a demo-libtard. She told her co-workers that she's libertarian. Funny thing is--she couldn't care less about politics. Wants to be left alone, just like the people here. Imagine that--my dumbass bad attitude actually rubbed off on her. So then, she says to her co-workers, "Where is your freedom in America? Huh? Where is it?" Man, that made of couple of them pretty mad, but screw them. Hatin' on the dirty foreigner. lol

You know, of all of my male cousins the one that I know ended up with a happy marriage married a Korean. You may be onto something.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I sure wouldn't offer up any of my nieces to someone taking cliff-notes from Julien Blanc.

And to suggest "a Filipino" to a guy who talks that way is just irresponsible.

The Filipinos are projecting a 2015 volcanic eruption. Which of my nieces should I offer up to the volcano gods, Neil Clark Warren?

I am fiercely opposed to this entire paradigm of relationship thinking. "My meaningful relationship provides me with a steady supply of sex." Like everything you do for someone is based around a separate commodity you receive and value selfishly in return. It's more honest to hire a prostitute than to think of your girlfriend that way.

Yet the steady sex is a consequence of a healthy and monogamous relationship. Less so with girlfriends and whores.

As our pedestrian-brained, fraternity numb-nut approached that chick...

Ha ha, I knew at least one RPF member would be jealous of that guy.

Try it on a woman out of your demographic and see if that smooth "Um, yeah..." scores at all.

Smart people realize that you associate with people who are similar to you. Even the person you call numb-nut recognizes his odds are better in his own demographic.

You sound like the sour grapes guy who always says, "Yeah, okay, that worked that time, but let's see him try that with [fill in the blank here].







.

 

[jmdrake]

Sorry, but you didn't read it well. I didn't say I took cliff notes, I said maybe I should have.

I believe we were discussing whether the stuff PUA's teach works, and it does. People have been taking offense to the fact that it works since page one of this thread. There seems to still be a great deal of disagreement over whether it's the women's fault that it works, or the men's. I think it is unfortunate that it works, because as Dr. 3D said a while back, the jerks are basically out-breeding anyone with a lick of decency.

I tell you what doesn't work, though. Going to college. Focusing on hobbies. Bettering yourself. Those are things that people tell you to do when you're down on your luck with women. What they really are, are distractions. Eventually you do have to come to grips that you have a college degree, hobbies, your own house, and yet still have absolutely no idea how to approach women in an age when saying 'hi' could potentially get you arrested. Thanks feminists.

QFT! It's funny this thread has gone on so long with the simple truth is that guys try stuff like this because sometimes it works. Meanwhile we have idiots cheerleading the "iHollaBack" witches for suggesting that a man telling a woman to "smile" or "good evening" is equivalent to stalking her. It's really simple. Rothbardian girl, if you're reading this, you want to put the PUA coaches out of business? Start approaching more nice nerdy guys. Then get them to make a video.

 

[nobody's_hero]

QFT! It's funny this thread has gone on so long with the simple truth is that guys try stuff like this because sometimes it works. Meanwhile we have idiots cheerleading the "iHollaBack" witches for suggesting that a man telling a woman to "smile" or "good evening" is equivalent to stalking her. It's really simple. Rothbardian girl, if you're reading this, you want to put the PUA coaches out of business? Start approaching more nice nerdy guys. Then get them to make a video.

That, or even better:

Maybe the next time Rothbardian girl sees another girl swooning over some PUA's antics, she should yank that girl to the side and slap some sense into her instead of gearing towards the 'men are pigs' BS. That would shut down PUAs better than any ban. I REFUSE to take feminists seriously until they start tending to their own gender.

I'm not saying rothbardian girl is a feminist (at least not the genre that floods the MSM). I pretty much assume any girl on RPF to be level-headed enough to think outside the box. So, just entertain the idea that PUA's might not be all there is to a two-sided equation.

I told myself a few pages back that I should have stopped posting. I run the risk of saying too much when simpler and better phrased arguments have been made, if not acknowledged.

 

[ghengis86]

Sorry, but you didn't read it well. I didn't say I took cliff notes, I said maybe I should have.

I believe we were discussing whether the stuff PUA's teach works, and it does. People have been taking offense to the fact that it works since page one of this thread. There seems to still be a great deal of disagreement over whether it's the women's fault that it works, or the men's. I think it is unfortunate that it works, because as Dr. 3D said a while back, the jerks are basically out-breeding anyone with a lick of decency.

I tell you what doesn't work, though. Going to college. Focusing on hobbies. Bettering yourself. Those are things that people tell you to do when you're down on your luck with women. What they really are, are distractions. Eventually you do have to come to grips that you have a college degree, hobbies, your own house, and yet still have absolutely no idea how to approach women in an age when saying 'hi' could potentially get you arrested. Thanks feminists.

Not sure I totally agree with this, save for your last two sentences. That's spot on. However, the odds of saying "hi" to the feminazi who would actually call the cops on you is slim (but a possibility nonetheless). In my experience, striking up a casual conversation, being genuinely nice and humorous and not trying to get in her pants after 10 minutes will generally get you at minimum a nice encounter without her thinking you're a rapist. I've even unwittingly hit on the feminazi and didn't wind up in jail. In fact, those type of girls have some REALLLLY messed up, repressed urges (again, in my experience, trying not to generalize).

 

[ghengis86]

I did not imply that tribal people are less evolved, you seemed to imply that women had evolved pass their primal urges.

When I was referring to tribal ancestors, I really meant tribal and pre-tribal, I didn't really think that there was a pre-tribal period. Apes don't have official tribes but they do reside in a type of colony or group so I would assume once humans evolved they were always in a tribe of sorts. But anyway, what you're saying doesn't refute what I'm talking about, these traits were always beneficial for women's survival, I would think any time before 100 years ago but even more so the further you go back.



If sex was easy to come by and cheap for all men, these PUAs would not be making money hand over fist and rape would be down significantly, although it is already down quite a bit in the last 30 or 40 years it could go down a lot more.

What you are saying is it is easy for YOU to get laid.

I wish I could link you to one of Joe Rogan's stand up shows from 2005, it would be a lot easier than me typing this out.. but essentially he says, "it's easy for women to get laid, all you have to do is say "who wants to have sex" and pretty much every guy will stand up and be like (in his retarded cave man accent) "I DO I DO!!!"

It's easy for women to get laid, not nearly as easy for men. "We have to put in a lot of ground work.." and Joe Rogan is, I would presume, a fairly attractive guy. There are plenty of guys who can't get laid, for them sex is not easy or cheap, they are the ones giving these PUA guys all their money..

That Rogan bit was so funny and so true!

 

[Grenadine]

Andrew Hales is pretty funny.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I think some of you guys are mistaken here. Yeah, some women do like to be jumped on, in particular women who were abused or neglected or sexualized early. But the woman is going to put out certain signals if she's one of those, and after a certain amount of time, you can tell. You need to learn to communicate properly and keep your eye out for the signals. Not all women fall for this, and some would be just as quick to scream and run away if you tried this stuff on them. You've got to know when to back off, and I think this was a major gap in what this guy was teaching.

The problem is how a lot of guys are generalizing women based on the psychology of a few. They realize that a few women like to be treated badly, therefore ALL women must be inferior creatures who deserve to be dominated. You run into these really perverse lines of thinking that are kind of scary, and I believe a lot of feminists are rightfully worried when they see this going on. I think you'll agree that teaching hordes of young men to force themselves on women isn't a good thing.

In my opinion, "one night stands" are a perversion anyway, something which is a symptom of a sickness in the society. Yes, part of the problem is on the female side, and part of the problem is on the male side, but the answer isn't to go around pointing fingers and try to justify your own morally bankrupt position. We can work together to engender understanding on both sides, and to get as many people as we can involved in healthy relationships.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I hope the forum mods will tolerate this, since it shouldn't be considered solicitation in the sense that the authors are not making a profit. The E-Book is free.

The Principles that Govern Social Interaction

I would post excerpts but the authors request that the book be reposted in full, or not posted at all.
I guarantee you will learn a lot if you manage to keep your mind open. I for one am having to unwind my mind of years of being raised by a single mother so I can actually manage to learn this stuff. You might understand why I'd have a hard time coming down on the side of feminists against the PUAs. In fact, the more I think of it, the feminists actually paved the way for the PUAs so it's a little bit laughable that they want to ban them.

And that's all I've got/all I need to say.

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

The Filipinos are projecting a 2015 volcanic eruption. Which of my nieces should I offer up to the volcano gods, Neil Clark Warren?

I have no idea how that plays into the issue exactly, but as this was prior to your hostile, condescending reply I was just being snarky about the preponderance of sexist/evangelical/weird guys who order their brides in the mail, often from the Philippines.

Yet the steady sex is a consequence of a healthy and monogamous relationship. Less so with girlfriends and whores.

I don't think you're capable of seeing this issue from the POV I am actually proposing, and that's okay. But why do people always express the status-quo American "understanding" of relationships as if we've got things figured out? We obviously don't.

Smart people realize that you associate with people who are similar to you. Even the person you call numb-nut recognizes his odds are better in his own demographic.

You sound like the sour grapes guy who always says, "Yeah, okay, that worked that time, but let's see him try that with [fill in the blank here].

You sound like the guy who thinks reality TV is an accurate reflection of real life. I don't have a problem with people teaching direct and (politely) aggressive tactics in meeting women, but the most crucial point is that he's a good-looking "standard" guy asking out a good-looking "standard" girl, not that he asked her so directly. I see plenty of ordinary people hooking up in all kinds of awkward and strange ways and their lips come together just the same. Some people might even find it romantic to be less direct. I guess I'm arguing for diversity and for thinking of women as individuals and not "odds," but feel free to continue to embarrass us both by psychoanalyzing a message board poster whom you don't know at all.







.[/QUOTE]

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

Ha ha, I knew at least one RPF member would be jealous of that guy.

To be jealous of someone, you have to want what they've got, right? I don't want what he's got. I mean I don't know the guy, but the question "are you single?" places both parties outside of the paradigm that I'm even interested in. Without getting into personal stuff, I'm thrilled with my "love life" (putting it in quotes because I think the phrase separates sexuality from people in already-described fashion) and have no interest in monogamists of either sex. Besides, she's got pointy shoulders and an angular face, and she's into smug dudes who make reality TV. Three strikes.

You mistake my misanthropy for secretly having a crush on a checkout girl from a random YT vid? Okay, but that's rather convenient in this context, isn't it.

 

[jmdrake]

I hope the forum mods will tolerate this, since it shouldn't be considered solicitation in the sense that the authors are not making a profit. The E-Book is free.

The Principles that Govern Social Interaction

I would post excerpts but the authors request that the book be reposted in full, or not posted at all.
I guarantee you will learn a lot if you manage to keep your mind open. I for one am having to unwind my mind of years of being raised by a single mother so I can actually manage to learn this stuff. You might understand why I'd have a hard time coming down on the side of feminists against the PUAs. In fact, the more I think of it, the feminists actually paved the way for the PUAs so it's a little bit laughable that they want to ban them.

And that's all I've got/all I need to say.

Downloading now. Thanks!

 

[dannno]

I think some of you guys are mistaken here. Yeah, some women do like to be jumped on, in particular women who were abused or neglected or sexualized early. But the woman is going to put out certain signals if she's one of those, and after a certain amount of time, you can tell. You need to learn to communicate properly and keep your eye out for the signals. Not all women fall for this, and some would be just as quick to scream and run away if you tried this stuff on them. You've got to know when to back off, and I think this was a major gap in what this guy was teaching.

The problem is how a lot of guys are generalizing women based on the psychology of a few. They realize that a few women like to be treated badly, therefore ALL women must be inferior creatures who deserve to be dominated. You run into these really perverse lines of thinking that are kind of scary, and I believe a lot of feminists are rightfully worried when they see this going on. I think you'll agree that teaching hordes of young men to force themselves on women isn't a good thing.

You're missing the whole concept.

All of my posts on the topic separated out "what women want" from "what women are naturally sexually attracted to". "What women want" is a huge array and completely different for all, but what women's base sexual attractions are pretty much the same. I also stated that it isn't that women want to be dominated, it is that they are sexually attracted to the traits of those who dominate 'life' so to speak - they recognize the trait when they become dominated and this naturally turns them on sexually if they don't have a conscious mechanism which repels them from these attractions. I explained that it is possible for them to change or alter sexual attraction, although it is also easy for them to potentially fall back into the old base sexual attraction.

So PUA techniques will not get any woman into bed, but they do hit at the base sexual attractions of all women, it is how that woman recognizes and responds to various signals, how that translates into recognized traits and whether she has consciously decided to avoid those traits or whether she will instinctively see them as attractive. Some women are ok with men who are dominating within their environment but not ok with men who dominate them and control them because they have made a conscious decision to look for traits where the male dominates her specifically. Other women avoid men with dominating traits entirely - maybe they dated/engaged/married a guy who was dominating within his environment, but didn't dominate her until months or even years into the relationship and so she decides to avoid that trait altogether.