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

[parocks]

If PUAs weren't getting laid - even by the smallest minority of women - we'd never hear about it. But they do, and it does work on some women. Banning them from countries is not the way to shut down PUAs; not banging them will.

The feminists banging the PUAs will say they want to be treated nicely. "Save me from myself! Ban the guys I don't want to be attracted to!"

 

[parocks]

I bet PUA's would have a higher batting average if they acted like normal humans rather than douchebags, though.

My guess is that PUAs push a technique which allows guys to have a gameplan and a set of instructions, so that they don't have to think on their feet or consider their own self-worth. They have confidence in the approach, and that's it. That confidence gives them the ability to actually converse with strange women. I posit that if, instead of learning a stupid technique, the guys actually focused on building a successful career and a personality, and went to the gym every day, and adopted a philosophy of talking to every woman they found attractive, they'd eventually do far better than any PUA.

All of the stuff that is involved in the PUA noise is just a lame shortcut. Do the real work to become a great man.

EDIT: If not yet apparent, I really hate pick up artists, and douchebags, and "nice" guys.

Nope - what would effect the PUAs batting average would be if there were more PUAs.

There are very few PUAs, and a whole lot of women who like PUA behavior.

The demand, by women (probably subconsciously) for PUAs exceed the supply of PUAs.


Your theory about what PUAs are doing missed the point - which is - treat women badly. That's the core of what they're doing.

It's not "any ol roadmap". It's "it might seem crazy to all of you who are told just to treat women like normal people, but there's something wrong with the mental / emotional wiring of many women, many more than you think, that makes them respond to being treated badly, and we've figured out a series of tricks to use that fact to get you laid right away."

But it's fact that 1) women like being treated badly and 2) many men are being bullied (even banned from countries) from acting in a way that works, has always worked, and has a biological foundation (men who sit around pretending to listen to how the women's day was are more likely to be eaten by a sabre tooth tiger) for working.

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

To me, the most hilarious thing about PUA tactics is how many PUA adherents seem unable or unwilling to recognize that the industry dehumanizes men just as much as it does women. PUAs use obviously scripted behavior and techniques, which makes them so robotic. It just adds to the general perception that straight males are utterly predictable. (http://straightwhiteboystexting.tumblr.com/ - you will not regret it.) Seriously, it's really easy as a female to keep a mental checklist of typical PUA behavior (what they think is flirty touching, negging, etc.) and either laugh or cry as every item in your checklist is checked off in the course of a single social interaction.

When PUA behavior isn't hilarious, it's often downright sad. It seems as though for some reason, there is a cultural standard that says men have to resort to trickery or reverse psychology in order for them to get laid. And yes, this despicable behavior does work on some women, and the women choose poorly in terms of mates and whatnot, but another issue is that a lot of workshops don't seem to offer any advice for men on what to do after a close. So the assumption is that men are just looking to sleep with as many women as possible, which in turn reinforces a number of negative stereotypes about male sexuality (the more women, the better when that is *not* true for all men). The standard wisdom is, men are suckers if they commit. But why can't it also be that some of the males who engage in hookup after hookup also have unresolved emotional issues, or are generally clueless about how to approach any relationship they may want? Again, males and females are not being held to the same standards because of some shoddy assumptions about biology, which have yet to be proved outside of using fallacious reasoning.

I can't help noticing that a significant percentage of the people in this thread defending pickup "artistry" have said that they had no great male role models growing up. The same people tend to believe that dominance and maleness means emotional abuse and reverse psychology, and in the meantime, they have literally no idea how to act around women. There are ways to create attractive tension without becoming a "nice guy" ... I think mysteriousness is key, but it's certainly not the same thing as abusive trickery or reverse psychology tactics.

The issue is that most men who do the PUA thing are IMO at their core socially awkward, and unwilling to take a good hard look at themselves, and cultivate changes in their personality. I used to be frightfully awkward too, but I've been getting better as I have matured, and my social life this year is better than it was in any of my previous 20 years of existence. I've made a conscious effort to become more interesting to people instead of resorting to, in my case, impersonal pleasantries that don't make anyone interested in getting to know me more. I've discovered that people apparently find my quirkiness endearing, and at some point I just have to accept how weird I am and just go with it. Memorizing social cues and routines is not the way to make relationships work.

The difference between PUA and natural charisma is that in the former case, these men are so focused on getting something they want that they miss the big picture. They're too outcome-driven. OTOH, natural charisma focuses on creating chemistry rather than using women for self-validation. Reliance on PUA is a sign of deep-seated psychological issues IMO, and men turn to it when they're uninterested in some self-reflection.

 

[parocks]

Doesn't that account for everyone then?

He described a middle ground where he believes everyone thrives and succeeds.

 

[parocks]

Dude...I think you're letting a little bit of the crazy out.

I'm not trying to be mean, but given your legendary thread asking for manly advice, in which you didn't even know whether you should call a woman whom you wanted to meet again (The answer is, "Duh!"), you act like you have everything figured out about women, dating, and sex. Multiple people tell you what the score is, yet you'll go to the grave thinking that a woman wants a charming nerd-boy above all else. You're almost 30 years old and have views that about women and sex that I would expect from an 18-year-old.

I was a hopeless nerd once too, and moved around so much that I went to ten schools in twelve years. I didn't even kiss a fucking woman until after high school. How pathetic is that? But I eventually got my shit together and have slain maybe 60-ish women. I did this by realizing that women didn't want the nice, shy, nerdy shit that I was peddling.

Actually, that poor = sex is probably one of the only things on this thread that was true.

And it's not really poor, as much as not having gone to college. They really teach a lot of feminism in colleges. Not so much in high schools. They just didn't get the whole "all sex is rape" BS. But people in college did. 2 drunk people screw, her friends don't like the guy, the guy could be in serious trouble. People never heard of that idea unless they went to college. And typically, poor people didn't go to college. Add on law school to that, and you learn quite a lot about all the things that you thought were normal, but actually mean you could go to jail. Poor people, dumb people, uneducated people - they typically just go for it.

And that leads to the Idiocracy outcomes.

 

[dannno]

To me, the most hilarious thing about PUA tactics is how many PUA adherents seem unable or unwilling to recognize that the industry dehumanizes men just as much as it does women. PUAs use obviously scripted behavior and techniques, which makes them so robotic. It just adds to the general perception that straight males are utterly predictable. (http://straightwhiteboystexting.tumblr.com/ - you will not regret it.) Seriously, it's really easy as a female to keep a mental checklist of typical PUA behavior (what they think is flirty touching, negging, etc.) and either laugh or cry as every item in your checklist is checked off in the course of a single social interaction.

When PUA behavior isn't hilarious, it's often downright sad. It seems as though for some reason, there is a cultural standard that says men have to resort to trickery or reverse psychology in order for them to get laid. And yes, this despicable behavior does work on some women, and the women choose poorly in terms of mates and whatnot, but another issue is that a lot of workshops don't seem to offer any advice for men on what to do after a close. So the assumption is that men are just looking to sleep with as many women as possible, which in turn reinforces a number of negative stereotypes about male sexuality (the more women, the better when that is *not* true for all men). The standard wisdom is, men are suckers if they commit. But why can't it also be that some of the males who engage in hookup after hookup also have unresolved emotional issues, or are generally clueless about how to approach any relationship they may want? Again, males and females are not being held to the same standards because of some shoddy assumptions about biology, which have yet to be proved outside of using fallacious reasoning.

I can't help noticing that a significant percentage of the people in this thread defending pickup "artistry" have said that they had no great male role models growing up. The same people tend to believe that dominance and maleness means emotional abuse and reverse psychology, and in the meantime, they have literally no idea how to act around women. There are ways to create attractive tension without becoming a "nice guy" ... I think mysteriousness is key, but it's certainly not the same thing as abusive trickery or reverse psychology tactics.

The issue is that most men who do the PUA thing are IMO at their core socially awkward, and unwilling to take a good hard look at themselves, and cultivate changes in their personality. I used to be frightfully awkward too, but I've been getting better as I have matured, and my social life this year is better than it was in any of my previous 20 years of existence. I've made a conscious effort to become more interesting to people instead of resorting to, in my case, impersonal pleasantries that don't make anyone interested in getting to know me more. I've discovered that people apparently find my quirkiness endearing, and at some point I just have to accept how weird I am and just go with it. Memorizing social cues and routines is not the way to make relationships work.

The difference between PUA and natural charisma is that in the former case, these men are so focused on getting something they want that they miss the big picture. They're too outcome-driven. OTOH, natural charisma focuses on creating chemistry rather than using women for self-validation. Reliance on PUA is a sign of deep-seated psychological issues IMO, and men turn to it when they're uninterested in some self-reflection.

You're right, I feel like using PUA techniques is a bit demeaning for men. I like reading about all this stuff but I can only employ it in a very limited way. I guess, if men are demeaning themselves so much then why are you not concerned for them as well? Why do you mock them?

But ultimately, most men who are alphas don't use PUA techniques, they live them. Some of them are very goofy, others not at all. PUAs simply attempt to imitate this behavior to a degree.

On the contrary, a lot of the PUA stuff I've read talks about bettering yourself, involving yourself in more activities so you have more things to talk about, letting conversation flow more naturally and less awkwardly, etc.

There is also a lot of PUA material on what to do after closing, how to keep a girl you like around. Julien Blanc in his CNN interview said that he gets tons of success stories from his customers who end up getting married, and he has even been invited to and attended several weddings of his clients.

 

[Philhelm]

There are ways to create attractive tension without becoming a "nice guy" ... I think mysteriousness is key, but it's certainly not the same thing as abusive trickery or reverse psychology tactics.

In a long-term relationship, how can a man truly cultivate an air of mystery? In fact, what is the value in this to begin with (rhetorical question, since I'm aware that women tend to be attracted to this)? A man simply does not care whether a woman is mysterious; that's a female hang up. Unfortunately, it means that women often become bored with men and indeed they initiate the vast majority of divorces (although part of the reason is that the marriage contract is so unfavorable to men to begin with).

The issue is that most men who do the PUA thing are IMO at their core socially awkward, and unwilling to take a good hard look at themselves, and cultivate changes in their personality. I used to be frightfully awkward too, but I've been getting better as I have matured, and my social life this year is better than it was in any of my previous 20 years of existence. I've made a conscious effort to become more interesting to people instead of resorting to, in my case, impersonal pleasantries that don't make anyone interested in getting to know me more. I've discovered that people apparently find my quirkiness endearing, and at some point I just have to accept how weird I am and just go with it. Memorizing social cues and routines is not the way to make relationships work.

The difference between PUA and natural charisma is that in the former case, these men are so focused on getting something they want that they miss the big picture. They're too outcome-driven. OTOH, natural charisma focuses on creating chemistry rather than using women for self-validation. Reliance on PUA is a sign of deep-seated psychological issues IMO, and men turn to it when they're uninterested in some self-reflection.

I don't know anything about PUA, but I imagine that many men that look to it are desperate (and remember, desperation, or any other weakness demonstrated by a man is reviled by women; men cannot receive the same level of sympathy that women tend to enjoy). Even an unattractive woman can easily find validation from a willing male, but the reverse is not true. A minority of men are fulfilling the sexual/validation needs of 50+ percent of the women, which means that the lower tier males suffer more than the lower tier females. Most women will never know, understand, sympathize, or empathize with the crushing, debilitating lonliness that many men experience. They're just a bunch of sad sacks that are invisible to most women and barely even worthy of contempt.

The thing that pisses me off about modern feminism is how fucking easy women have it in life in comparison to men.

-Divorce? Cash and prizes for the woman.
-War? Men can die for the women.
-Work? Men can do the heavy lifting (figuratively and literally).
-Baby born? Women can spend time with their family.
-Unemployed? No problem - homemaker.
-No car? The man will drive.
-No home? Find a man.
-Feeling down? People will feel sorry for the woman.
-Need financial help? Uncle Sam is here to help!

-Divorce? Lose the kids, the house, and 50% of everything and then some.
-War? Do your duty, soldier!
-Work? Better have a good career.
-Baby born? Go ahead, take a couple of days off.
-Unemployed? Fucking loser.
-No car? Pathetic piece of shit.
-No home? Get a job, bum!
-Feeling down? Suck it up, pansy.
-Need financial help? Get a job, bum!

 

[Philhelm]

He described a middle ground where he believes everyone thrives and succeeds.

It was a joke...

 

[Philhelm]

Actually, that poor = sex is probably one of the only things on this thread that was true.

And it's not really poor, as much as not having gone to college. They really teach a lot of feminism in colleges. Not so much in high schools. They just didn't get the whole "all sex is rape" BS. But people in college did. 2 drunk people screw, her friends don't like the guy, the guy could be in serious trouble. People never heard of that idea unless they went to college. And typically, poor people didn't go to college. Add on law school to that, and you learn quite a lot about all the things that you thought were normal, but actually mean you could go to jail. Poor people, dumb people, uneducated people - they typically just go for it.

And that leads to the Idiocracy outcomes.

Idiocracy was based upon having unplanned children, not sexual frequency. Rich people are obviously having as much sex as they could ever want.

 

[parocks]

Who says that I'm normal? The difference is that I had a goal and realized that women were never going to like me for being me., regardless of how often that is stated or how unfair the reality is. Real life isn't like the movies in which one day Pointdexter shows Susie Cheerleader how great he is and she ends up falling for him. Wish it was, but it isn't. Sure, I was above-average looking, intelligent, funny, etc., but I was geeky and shy, and was 135 lbs. soaking wet. It took a few years to achieve my goal, but it happened. I ditched the glasses for contacts, I got a more trendy haircut, I started trying to dress better, I started socializing myself so that I was more comfortable in social settings, I lifted; hell, I even joined the Army and went to war. Got home from Iraq and a month later I was getting a BJ from some girl that I obsessed over for a couple of years. The point being that I realized that I needed to improved myself in order to become attractive to women rather than banking on the hope that the hot unicorn with a love of losers would one day sweep me off of my feet.

I think you're getting off track here. Not to say you're wrong. But you're basically just saying "improve". "So, I became incredible looking and rich and an army guy and I had no troubles after that".

Being an asshole, treating the ladies badly is one of the things that women like. Some women like army guys. Other women like guys with muscles. Or army guys with muscles. If you joined a popular rock band, that would've probably worked as well.

Be more desirable is what you're saying? I think many would agree with this - but it's not really on the topic of whether more women than you think like being treated badly.

Not saying what you're saying isn't useful.

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

The thing that pisses me off about modern feminism is how fucking easy women have it in life in comparison to men.
-Divorce? Cash and prizes for the woman.
-War? Men can die for the women.
-Work? Men can do the heavy lifting (figuratively and literally).
-Baby born? Women can spend time with their family.
-Unemployed? No problem - homemaker.
-No car? The man will drive.
-No home? Find a man.
-Feeling down? People will feel sorry for the woman.
-Need financial help? Uncle Sam is here to help!

-Divorce? Lose the kids, the house, and 50% of everything and then some.
-War? Do your duty, soldier!
-Work? Better have a good career.
-Baby born? Go ahead, take a couple of days off.
-Unemployed? Fucking loser.
-No car? Pathetic piece of shit.
-No home? Get a job, bum!
-Feeling down? Suck it up, pansy.
-Need financial help? Get a job, bum!

Why would that be something that pisses you off about modern feminism? Plenty of feminists claim that the conditions you speak of are themselves part of the patriarchy, because patriarchy places unreasonable assumptions and expectations on men just as much as it does women. The whole point is that a lot of women don't *want* to be coddled by staying at home and raising kids. There is plenty of feminist literature discussing these issues out there, if you care to look instead of just relying on feminism's representations in the media.

A man simply does not care whether a woman is mysterious; that's a female hang up.

My understanding is that this sometimes isn't true, especially if we're measuring "mysteriousness" by how much sex a woman's had. I've seen too much slut-shaming to assume that a good percentage of men don't care. By a similar token, it's also a shame because to me mysteriousness also implies intelligence and self-confidence. Women like it when men display authentic and/or positively-valenced confidence (in other words, negging is horrible, and we can smell insecurity from a mile away). Sometimes good-natured teasing and cockiness works, as was mentioned earlier in the thread - playful verbal sparring is one of the most fun things about flirtation to me.

Being an asshole, treating the ladies badly is one of the things that women like.

This is generally wrong. I'm sure emotionally well-adjusted women would prefer the confident man over the asshole every single time. The problem is when, as in your case, men can't differentiate between the two.

 

[Antischism]

In a long-term relationship, how can a man truly cultivate an air of mystery? In fact, what is the value in this to begin with (rhetorical question, since I'm aware that women tend to be attracted to this)? A man simply does not care whether a woman is mysterious; that's a female hang up. Unfortunately, it means that women often become bored with men and indeed they initiate the vast majority of divorces (although part of the reason is that the marriage contract is so unfavorable to men to begin with).



I don't know anything about PUA, but I imagine that many men that look to it are desperate (and remember, desperation, or any other weakness demonstrated by a man is reviled by women; men cannot receive the same level of sympathy that women tend to enjoy). Even an unattractive woman can easily find validation from a willing male, but the reverse is not true. A minority of men are fulfilling the sexual/validation needs of 50+ percent of the women, which means that the lower tier males suffer more than the lower tier females. Most women will never know, understand, sympathize, or empathize with the crushing, debilitating lonliness that many men experience. They're just a bunch of sad sacks that are invisible to most women and barely even worthy of contempt.

The thing that pisses me off about modern feminism is how fucking easy women have it in life in comparison to men.

-Divorce? Cash and prizes for the woman.
-War? Men can die for the women.
-Work? Men can do the heavy lifting (figuratively and literally).
-Baby born? Women can spend time with their family.
-Unemployed? No problem - homemaker.
-No car? The man will drive.
-No home? Find a man.
-Feeling down? People will feel sorry for the woman.
-Need financial help? Uncle Sam is here to help!

-Divorce? Lose the kids, the house, and 50% of everything and then some.
-War? Do your duty, soldier!
-Work? Better have a good career.
-Baby born? Go ahead, take a couple of days off.
-Unemployed? Fucking loser.
-No car? Pathetic piece of shit.
-No home? Get a job, bum!
-Feeling down? Suck it up, pansy.
-Need financial help? Get a job, bum!

One of the keys to keeping a relationship alive is to not get stuck in a routine or get too comfortable in your situation. Basically, trying to perpetuate the "dating stage" and being flirty often enough that things don't get stale. It can be as simple as spicing up your sex life by trying new things or getting toys if you're into that, or having date nights once a week at different restaurants, parks, museums, locations, etc.. Nothing Earth-shattering, really. But it's definitely easy to forget and get too comfortable once you're "tied down." It's one of the reasons people "let go" of themselves and start to maybe put on some extra weight or disregard their appearance. The person you initially were when you first started dating can quickly become someone else, or rather, who you actually are. It's no secret that people put on their best face in order to attract a mate and go the extra mile during the honeymoon phase. Once that wears off and people get comfortable knowing they succeeded in attracting the other person enough to be in a relationship, they stop going the extra mile.

 

[Philhelm]

I think you're getting off track here. Not to say you're wrong. But you're basically just saying "improve". "So, I became incredible looking and rich and an army guy and I had no troubles after that".

Being an asshole, treating the ladies badly is one of the things that women like. Some women like army guys. Other women like guys with muscles. Or army guys with muscles. If you joined a popular rock band, that would've probably worked as well.

Be more desirable is what you're saying? I think many would agree with this - but it's not really on the topic of whether more women than you think like being treated badly.

Not saying what you're saying isn't useful.

The Army thing isn't that important, although when I returned and we ended up dating, she stated that our relationship was like "The Notebook." There was a certain romantic element that was appealing to her, I'm sure.

Other than that, my point was that I experimented in changing and improving myself rather than hoping that a unicorn would one day just fall out of the sky.

 

[Antischism]

If anyone is actually interested in reading a compelling work on the subject, I'd suggest Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference by Cordelia Fine. It's not the only, or even the best, book on the subject matter, but I've found it's very easily accessible for most anyone. I've seen a lot of "biotruths" nonsense around lately.

pdf here if you don't want to pay.

 

[parocks]

I don't believe that women want to be treated badly. Given a choice, they would prefer a man who is nice to them, which is different from a Nice Guy (tm). A Nice Guy is usually a spineless, thirsty Beta who puts the p****y on the pedestal since he is often deprived of it; he is spineless since he allows women to take advantage of him due to his desperation. An Alpha can treat a woman well, but since he can have his pick of the litter he has no need or desire to bend over backwards for a woman when he can just as soon find a replacement. When the Alpha is done F'ing her, she will then go to her flock of admirers who act as emotional tampons; they are the ones who listen to her talk about her day, her friends, her feelings, and all of the other bullshit that the Alpha can't be bothered with. Of course, the Beta flock never/rarely gets to have sex with this women; in essence, the typical woman uses men since the men so readily allow themselves to be used. It's so prevalent that many women act like entitled princesses, since why shouldn't they? Even if one were to call out a woman on her shit, there would be plenty of White Knights to take up lance and shield in her defense, never to actually sleep with her though.

Regarding feminist advice, the fisherman never asks the fish how to catch other fish. Women (including mothers) will always give bullshit advice such as be nice, be yourself, and other panty-drying crap.

"I don't believe that women want to be treated badly."

Which women? The core of this PUA argument is that more of them do like being treated badly than you'd think. Screw with their heads, and they'll love it. We aren't talking about "women". We're talking about some women. A lot more than most think. Conventional wisdom says to not treat women like shit. All women will say that. But, when push comes to shove, they do like it. Some of them. A lot more than we think. And that's what this story is about. (Except the part where women can ban guys from countries for telling that secret)

Apart from that one sentence, everything you're saying sounds exactly right. You're providing good insight there. I think what you're saying is that hot girls have guys who want to have sex with them, but can't. They'll only only have sex with Alpha's right? But couldn't one of her beta friends start with the PUA tricks, which, if she has the right mentality, could somehow make her think that the beta is an alpha, maybe? I mean, we're talking about 2 different things. Alphas might or might not treat women "badly", but they don't want to listen to her talk about her day. It seems that the PUA trick is one that betas can use that says "you ever a beta do this before? no, well then I must be an alpha, right". If an alpha treats women differently than all of her beta friends treat her, and the PUA is clearly not acting like her beta friends, he's an alpha. He might have nothing in common with an alpha, except that he's different than the typical beta.

Maybe, the woman doesn't want to be treated badly, but she'll accept being treated badly if it means she's being treated badly by an alpha. In her experience, all betas treat her very well. This person isn't treating her well, therefore, he's an alpha.

Maybe the PUA tricks are the easiest way to say to a girl "I'm an alpha" extremely quickly. So, the women that a PUA attracts are either 1) naturally wanting to be treated badly or 2) tricked into thinking the guy is an alpha, because betas don't treat her badly and alphas sometimes do. The tricking factor increases the odds of success for the PUA.

 

[dannno]

Maybe the PUA tricks are the easiest way to say to a girl "I'm an alpha" extremely quickly. So, the women that a PUA attracts are either 1) naturally wanting to be treated badly or 2) tricked into thinking the guy is an alpha, because betas don't treat her badly and alphas sometimes do. The tricking factor increases the odds of success for the PUA.

I think Phil has it right, it's not that they want to be treated badly.. They would likely be just as attracted if not more if the man was able to display those alpha traits in his environment rather than by domineering her, but by domineering her she sees those traits being displayed and is sexually turned on, she then makes a conscious decision whether to act on those impulses or not.

The issue is that many women would RATHER be treated badly by a guy who displays his alpha traits against her than by a guy who treats her well but shows weakness... and in fact, treating a woman well can be a sign of weakness. Alpha males don't have to treat women well, they treat them as disposable and this is an attractive trait for women, though some make a conscious decision at some point to stop being with an alpha type...they will often fall back onto a beta and often will not give them the same type of sexual attentiveness that they gave their alphas.

 

[parocks]

Idiocracy was based upon having unplanned children, not sexual frequency. Rich people are obviously having as much sex as they could ever want.

I dunno. "I'm gonna fuck all y'all" said the football player pretty much says it all for me, but they did spend about a minute with a chart and I can't remember all of the details of the chart except that the upper middle class college educated folks didn't have as many kids as the poorer less educated ones.

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

I think Phil has it right, it's not that they want to be treated badly.. They would likely be just as attracted if not more if the man was able to display those alpha traits in his environment rather than by domineering her, but by domineering her she sees those traits being displayed and is sexually turned on, she then makes a conscious decision whether to act on those impulses or not.

The issue is that many women would RATHER be treated badly by a guy who displays his alpha traits against her than by a guy who treats her well but shows weakness... and in fact, treating a woman well can be a sign of weakness. Alpha males don't have to treat women well, they treat them as disposable and this is an attractive trait for women, though some make a conscious decision at some point to stop being with an alpha type...they will often fall back onto a beta and often will not give them the same type of sexual attentiveness that they gave their alphas.

I really have no idea where you and Phil are getting this stuff from. One can argue that it's a stretch to even assume that a woman is actually turned on by this sort of behavior. It's fundamentally harder to tell what excites women than men for a whole host of reasons - physiological as well as cultural. What people claim they are attracted to and what they actually are attracted to oftentimes don't match up, and I'm sure outside observers are even less good at reading signs. I don't think it's an alpha-beta thing, I think it's that sexual attraction is fundamentally more difficult to read in females than it is in males. Daniel Bergner has several fascinating articles and books that touch on this very topic - see the NYT review of his book for a fairly good summary. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/b...nt-by-daniel-bergner.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (there's some evolutionary/animal-analogy arguments in there that I don't necessarily agree with, but overall it's still a good read.)

 

[parocks]

The Army thing isn't that important, although when I returned and we ended up dating, she stated that our relationship was like "The Notebook." There was a certain romantic element that was appealing to her, I'm sure.

Other than that, my point was that I experimented in changing and improving myself rather than hoping that a unicorn would one day just fall out of the sky.

People don't really "know" what is improving. What's lacking. What needs improvement. What's valuable and what isn't. The geek could reasonably think that geek is fine and geek with muscles might not be an improvement. "I should be able to get laid who I am" isn't the same thing as saying "unicorn's a comin". There is no list, where you can be guaranteed any success if you make 1,2,3 simple changes. Theoretically, having a better degree than anyone in almost any room you walk in to should, somehow, convert to value. If that's untrue, at least it's not unreasonable to think that it should. So, you could make that improvement, based on a reasonable guess as to what an improvement is, and it could just not work at all. What I'm saying is - what's an improvement? Where is that book? We have a PUA book that says - treat women like shit. You have the feminist doctrines which apparently teach you beta behavior, but no real clue as about the the improvement you make that will work.

This is all a very useful conversation a long time ago.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Who says that I'm normal? The difference is that I had a goal and realized that women were never going to like me for being me., regardless of how often that is stated or how unfair the reality is. Real life isn't like the movies in which one day Pointdexter shows Susie Cheerleader how great he is and she ends up falling for him. Wish it was, but it isn't. Sure, I was above-average looking, intelligent, funny, etc., but I was geeky and shy, and was 135 lbs. soaking wet. It took a few years to achieve my goal, but it happened. I ditched the glasses for contacts, I got a more trendy haircut, I started trying to dress better, I started socializing myself so that I was more comfortable in social settings, I lifted; hell, I even joined the Army and went to war. Got home from Iraq and a month later I was getting a BJ from some girl that I obsessed over for a couple of years. The point being that I realized that I needed to improved myself in order to become attractive to women rather than banking on the hope that the hot unicorn with a love of losers would one day sweep me off of my feet.

The fact that this country is so military-worshipping that this type of post even finds its way onto RPF is just sick. "Joining the army and going off to war" is something you should be ashamed of, not something you should say was part of you improving yourself.

Of course, the average person, man or woman, would agree with you on that point, but that shows how messed up our culture is.