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

[KurtBoyer25L]

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.

I think you nailed the PUA fallacy on the head. Men's Rights Greaseball claims to have "Asked 20 women to fuck me in the past month, and they all said yes!". Yeah, but which women? There are billions of human beings in the world and it's not like a PUA goes around picking people at random. Selecting people out of a crowd who are diseased in some way is easier than our cultural bromides and slogans make it out to be, so it's not hard for a sleazy guy to avoid girls who would laugh in his face.

In total agreement, and admiration for your stand against one-night-stands. It's frustrating how basic logic and psychology are dismissed by self-righteous people who avoid judging anything or anyone at all costs. "Maybe a one-night-stand is what she/he is looking for," they say, but WHY? Barring an incident or rude behavior, why would any reasonable individual find someone attractive one day and undesirable the next? All effects have causes, despite society's neurotic refusal to look for them.

 

[jmdrake]

I think you nailed the PUA fallacy on the head. Men's Rights Greaseball claims to have "Asked 20 women to fuck me in the past month, and they all said yes!". Yeah, but which women? There are billions of human beings in the world and it's not like a PUA goes around picking people at random. Selecting people out of a crowd who are diseased in some way is easier than our cultural bromides and slogans make it out to be, so it's not hard for a sleazy guy to avoid girls who would laugh in his face.

In total agreement, and admiration for your stand against one-night-stands. It's frustrating how basic logic and psychology are dismissed by self-righteous people who avoid judging anything or anyone at all costs. "Maybe a one-night-stand is what she/he is looking for," they say, but WHY? Barring an incident or rude behavior, why would any reasonable individual find someone attractive one day and undesirable the next? All effects have causes, despite society's neurotic refusal to look for them.

I'm not sure what definition of "one night stand" you are using, but I don't believe it means "Someone you find attractive one day and undesirable the next" but rather someone you sleep with when you have no long term commitment. You can, in my opinion, have a "one night stand" with the same person multiple times if there is no attachment afterwards. And some of the PUA vids address the "guy who wants to get back with his ex girlfriend" (not sure if that works). The bottom line is that a lot of guys would like to have sex with attractive women without having to put out a lot of up front effort and without having to have a lot of back end commitment. I'm not saying that's a good thing. I'm just saying I can see why that's appealing. I agree that not being attracted to some sexy woman just because you've had sex with her seems silly. But a guy may run from a woman he's slept with once because deep down he knows she probably wasn't someone he should sleep with in the first place and that if he keeps it up he might get hooked.

 

[dannno]

Barring an incident or rude behavior, why would any reasonable individual find someone attractive one day and undesirable the next?

Maybe they are both desirable to have sex with by the other but not desirable to have a relationship with. Maybe neither person is interested in a monogamous relationship at that time. Maybe they were horny the day before, had sex with someone only somewhat desirable, and then they can go a month or two or so without having anxiety and obsessing over getting laid constantly. Maybe it was fun.

Who cares?? As long as nobody is leading the other person on, I see no problem with this.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Maybe they are both desirable to have sex with by the other but not desirable to have a relationship with. Maybe neither person is interested in a monogamous relationship at that time. Maybe they were horny the day before, had sex with someone only somewhat desirable, and then they can go a month or two or so without having anxiety and obsessing over getting laid constantly. Maybe it was fun.

Who cares?? As long as nobody is leading the other person on, I see no problem with this.

The point is you're not supposed to do that. I suppose you think it's okay for people to go around acting like animals, but we're supposed to be human beings with self control here.

Besides, the whole idea that you can sleep with someone, and then just walk away without consequences is actually sort of a fallacy. The emotional consequences can be tremendous, both for you, and for the other person. It's almost like you're doing emotional violence to them, and to yourself. If you drink, you're gonna have a hangover, if you sleep around, you're gonna have some heartbreak. If you drink obsessively for years, you're gonna have some long term mental damage, and if you sleep around for years and years, you're gonna have some long term emotional damage.

We're not supposed to be running around indulging our every impulse. In the short term it's great but it just isn't healthy. There's a better way to live.

My point here is that society doesn't have to bend over backwards to accommodate this type of behavior. It should be in every way ostracized, shunned, and punished. I feel like I'm the first one to introduce you to the concept of morals.

 

[jmdrake]

My point here is that society doesn't have to bend over backwards to accommodate this type of behavior. It should be in every way ostracized, shunned, and punished. I feel like I'm the first one to introduce you to the concept of morals.

I'm all cool with the concept of "morals". Not so cool with the concept of society "punishing" people for not accepting its "morals". Taliban?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I'm all cool with the concept of "morals". Not so cool with the concept of society "punishing" people for not accepting its "morals". Taliban?

The "punishment" I had in mind was more along the lines of free association. Like breaking off a friendship, refusing a job offer, withholding a birthday card, disapproving words, accusing glances, the entire neighborhood speaking badly on the person.

Envision a 1950's neighborhood with a strong community spirit guiding people down a certain path.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The "punishment" I had in mind was more along the lines of free association. Like breaking off a friendship, refusing a job offer, withholding a birthday card, disapproving words, accusing glances, the entire neighborhood speaking badly on the person.

Envision a 1950's neighborhood with a strong community spirit guiding people down a certain path.

I agree with this, at least to a point.

 

[jmdrake]

The "punishment" I had in mind was more along the lines of free association. Like breaking off a friendship, refusing a job offer, withholding a birthday card, disapproving words, accusing glances, the entire neighborhood speaking badly on the person.

Envision a 1950's neighborhood with a strong community spirit guiding people down a certain path.

So how do you propose to refuse job offers to people who have one night stands when most people don't go around wearing a t-shirt that says "Hey everybody! I just had a one night stand!" And should people who don't approve of the morals of their gay relatives withhold birthday cards? Or is it only the stuff that you think should be held up as "moral" that's important? (I guess that goes along with the gay person applying for a job).

 

[jmdrake]

I agree with this, at least to a point.

In today's society who's morals are to be socially enforced? Sorry but I'm sending birthday cards to sinners.

 

[Christian Liberty]

So how do you propose to refuse job offers to people who have one night stands when most people don't go around wearing a t-shirt that says "Hey everybody! I just had a one night stand!" And should people who don't approve of the morals of their gay relatives withhold birthday cards? Or is it only the stuff that you think should be held up as "moral" that's important? (I guess that goes along with the gay person applying for a job).

I wouldn't be inclined to tell people what to do, but here's my personal thought.

If a person is "of the world" than it doesn't really matter. Associate with them, love them, and care for them no matter what.

On the other hand, if a professing Christian is engaging unrepentently in an activity that is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:11-13

sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler

Mind you, in a world that is full of cultural Christians, many of whom are obviously non-Christians, this isn't really as easy to apply as it was in 1st century Corinth, but I think the principle is in some sense applicable, though I'm not sure how to apply it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

In today's society who's morals are to be socially enforced? Sorry but I'm sending birthday cards to sinners.

I added another response afterward.

I think that at a community level ostracization for certain extremely immoral but nonetheless non-violent behaviors could be justified, but I'm not sure exactly which. I'm not nearly as big on social ostracization as someone like Kevin Craig would be, but I'm not entirely against its use.

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

Maybe they are both desirable to have sex with by the other but not desirable to have a relationship with. Maybe neither person is interested in a monogamous relationship at that time. Maybe they were horny the day before, had sex with someone only somewhat desirable, and then they can go a month or two or so without having anxiety and obsessing over getting laid constantly. Maybe it was fun.

Who cares?? As long as nobody is leading the other person on, I see no problem with this.

This falls into the usual, postmodern/moral relativist argument though. You won't find anyone more sex-positive and open minded than me, but I refuse to accept a non-explanation as an explanation. When someone says "I found someone attractive for sex but not for a relationship" they are betraying a view of sexuality in general that is not rational. Puritans gave us the concept of mind vs. body. It's not axiomatically true and it's not based on reason. Some of us believe that sexual-romantic expression is a reflection of a person's character traits, not something that can be separated like that.

Keep in mind that the issue of monogamy throws a big can of worms into this entire thing. Yes, most spurious sexual activity probably occurs because people don't realize there's another world out there, or they do, but they're scared of it. A one-night-stand becomes the alternative to being trapped in a traditional relationship situation, and I understand that, but if people think the only two choices are monogamous/Christian marriage or shallow, empty flings then they have to take responsibility for the failure to consider deeper.

Is it even psychologically healthy to "obsess about getting laid"? It's contradictory to be consumed with the desire to feel affection from other people while at the same time loathe to continue that affection in any way once it happens.

I'm not claiming to have all the answers or anything, and I'm not trying to lay down a strict paradigm of choices that everybody has to follow. But it's amusing that we can't all see the fallacy in these backhanded dismissals of any secular commentary on relationship mores in a society clearly plagued with social frustration, anger, violence, misogyny, divorce etc.

For context, take something that most everyone DOES agree to apply judgement on - race relations. What if I said "I'm just not interested in ever talking to a black person, or anyone who isn't white french-canadian like me." Far less people would be willing to say, okay, he's not interested, who cares. They would assume there's a reason why. They would (correctly) infer that there are deeper issues and problems in how I relate to other people.

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

I'm not sure what definition of "one night stand" you are using, but I don't believe it means "Someone you find attractive one day and undesirable the next" but rather someone you sleep with when you have no long term commitment. You can, in my opinion, have a "one night stand" with the same person multiple times if there is no attachment afterwards. And some of the PUA vids address the "guy who wants to get back with his ex girlfriend" (not sure if that works). The bottom line is that a lot of guys would like to have sex with attractive women without having to put out a lot of up front effort and without having to have a lot of back end commitment. I'm not saying that's a good thing. I'm just saying I can see why that's appealing. I agree that not being attracted to some sexy woman just because you've had sex with her seems silly. But a guy may run from a woman he's slept with once because deep down he knows she probably wasn't someone he should sleep with in the first place and that if he keeps it up he might get hooked.

I agree with much of what you say. Truly, the churchy moralists among us bear a lot of the responsibility for Tinder, etc, because for centuries they've painted a false dilemma -- be celibate until monogamous marriage, or be a guilty lowlife. Of course men crave a "no strings attached" setup when "strings" is supposed to mean a female owns your cock and you have to abide by an unwritten set of obligations to her, forsaking all other love interests.

A good deal of confusion could be cleared up around the word "relationship." Perhaps it would be better defined as a continuum, not a line in the sand. By the actual meaning of the word, everyone who interacts has "a relationship." You and I, right now, have a relationship. But society has created a monolithic box of what "being in a relationship" is supposed to mean and it's stupid and self-defeating in 100 ways, so of course people squirm to avoid being in one.

 

[pessimist]

lol @ this entire topic.

maybe i just have a twisted sense of humor but this entire thread is the funniest thing i have read in a long time. most of the people who participated in this thread are simply not normal human beings (including myself). average people simply do not talk, act, intellectualize, philosophize, moralize or viciously ridicule the subject matter in here.

no sane or reasonable person would believe that those tactics of pick up artists work on anyone other than street walkers, crack addicts, strippers, or an unconscious college student at a frat party. those tactics would get you arrested as they're harassment and assault.

i swear i must live on a different planet than most men. maybe i am a woman?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I agree with much of what you say. Truly, the churchy moralists among us bear a lot of the responsibility for Tinder, etc, because for centuries they've painted a false dilemma -- be celibate until monogamous marriage, or be a guilty lowlife. Of course men crave a "no strings attached" setup when "strings" is supposed to mean a female owns your cock and you have to abide by an unwritten set of obligations to her, forsaking all other love interests.

A good deal of confusion could be cleared up around the word "relationship." Perhaps it would be better defined as a continuum, not a line in the sand. By the actual meaning of the word, everyone who interacts has "a relationship." You and I, right now, have a relationship. But society has created a monolithic box of what "being in a relationship" is supposed to mean and it's stupid and self-defeating in 100 ways, so of course people squirm to avoid being in one.

I was about to disagree, but on second thought-you have a good point. Like all social studies/humanities-type issues, "relationships" and their nature are subjective.

 

[dannno]

Is it even psychologically healthy to "obsess about getting laid"?

No, it isn't, that's the whole point and why a lot of people have one night stands... it allows you to step out of that zone of being obsessive over sex for a while. For me it's like being on a vacation for at least a month afterward.

There are plenty of women out there who don't want to find a committed relationship at the moment, they are having fun living life floating around and meeting lots of new people trying to find their place in the world.

Just because you have sex with somebody as a one night stand doesn't mean that you are necessarily hurting somebody's feelings. In fact, I think that experience can be relatively fulfilling in itself.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

No, it isn't, that's the whole point and why a lot of people have one night stands... it allows you to step out of that zone of being obsessive over sex for a while. For me it's like being on a vacation for at least a month afterward.

There are plenty of women out there who don't want to find a committed relationship at the moment, they are having fun living life floating around and meeting lots of new people trying to find their place in the world.

Just because you have sex with somebody as a one night stand doesn't mean that you are necessarily hurting somebody's feelings. In fact, I think that experience can be relatively fulfilling in itself.

You ought to try a meditation/thoughtfulness art that allows you to control/channel your libido. Buddhists traditionally have a good understanding of this. Your libido is not just a sex-drive. It is an internal energy that can manifest itself in creative arts/sciences, sport, ascetic practices, and a number of other things that transcend your physical manifestation.

ETA: when you do this, you'll most likely find that it adds new dimensions to your personality, mind, and spirit. This makes you more charismatic and attractive to all people.

 

[jmdrake]

I wouldn't be inclined to tell people what to do, but here's my personal thought.

If a person is "of the world" than it doesn't really matter. Associate with them, love them, and care for them no matter what.

On the other hand, if a professing Christian is engaging unrepentently in an activity that is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:11-13



Mind you, in a world that is full of cultural Christians, many of whom are obviously non-Christians, this isn't really as easy to apply as it was in 1st century Corinth, but I think the principle is in some sense applicable, though I'm not sure how to apply it.

I'm assuming DevilsAdvocate was talking about society at large as opposed to a closed Christian community. In 1st century Corinth an ostracized Christian could find plenty of pagans to hire him or send him Christmas cards.

 

[parocks]

Absolute bullshit. This notion that people who disagree with the fucking INSANITY in this thread doesn't mean they're 'pandering' to women. I couldn't give two shits if every woman on this site agreed with dannno, I'd STILL disagree- I do not live in the world that he lives in.

Are you suggesting that reality could somehow be determined by a poll.

I'm saying that if there a poll, I'd vote with Dannno on this.

And I use that poll mechanism to indicate that I'm in near total agreement, and that Dannno seems to know more about this, and expresses it better.

I'm not suggesting at all that the results of any poll are indicative of what the truth is.

You aren't right though.

 

[parocks]

I wanna take you all the wwaaaayyyy bbbaacckkkk.....bbbaccckkk......baackkk.... (*echoes*)

People received their biological imperatives before there was a such thing as houses or wives. I'm talking about tribal times when it was absolutely essential that women be protected by a strong man in their tribe, as well as being a part of a tribe which is strong. Women were not doting housewives, they helped gather and prepare food, heal with medicine, make blankets and other items and most importantly raise children.

Men hunted and protected the tribe and their women. While no doubt optimally they would want to be with a guy who was nice to them but dominated the tribe and helped their tribe dominate other tribes, or at least ward them off, women were in fact often better off with a man who dominated them, told them what to do and protected them over a man who let his woman or children be kidnapped, raped, tortured and/or killed by an opposing tribe. So they looked for these traits primarily in their sexual selections for millions of years for their own protection. They want a guy who is strong and can organize or lead other men to help create a larger group to protect each other. We just started growing grain like 10,000 years ago and that was around the time societies began growing much bigger, and humans have not had a lot of time to evolve beyond that.

No doubt there were women in tribal times who may have wanted to hunt or even fight, although it was probably pretty rare that they would. So ya, everybody is different, but in order to understand humanity as a whole and why people act the way they do is by finding commonality.





That may be because these women have been with men who have these traits before and the men dominated them and they have learned to avoid those traits, even if they may find that at their base sexual attraction it was a benefit. Their conscious mind learned to stay away. Even though this new guy may not dominate women and may only dominate through intellectualism, wealth, status, they may see those traits as being intimidating still.

The science your talking about is Sociobiology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology

While the term "sociobiology" can be traced to the 1940s, the concept didn't gain major recognition until 1975 with the publication of Edward O. Wilson's book, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis.