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

[willwash]

This is, without a doubt, the best post in this thread.

Concur. This is the only thread in my 7+ years on these boards that has made me wish we were actually out at a bar having this discussion right now. That makes it the best post in the best thread.

 

[KingNothing]

"Joining the army and going off to war" is something you should be ashamed of

Go fuck yourself. That's just not an acceptable thing to say.

 

[Antischism]

For what it is worth, I hate ALL progressive feminists. The way they seem to totally disregard evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology, and science, and math, and really anything logical, is infuriating.

You should probably read this.

 

[KingNothing]

@philhelm

as an experiment i am going to try to pick up this cute waitress.

what technique should i use?

should i walk on in with swagger and say: "hey baby, what do you say i pick you up off work and we do a little sumthin sumthin?"

or should i pull "the nice romantic guy" routine?

*smile* "you have such beautiful eyes- they are as a pretty as a rainbow on a hot sunny day". "hey, would like to go to dinner and movie sometime?"

what about the "witty" guy?

*make a joke about packed restaurant as she takes order*

here is me in that situation...

*walks in...gets food...pays...leaves*

"have good day"

"you too"

Do whatever comes naturally. And then do it to the next pretty girl you see, too. And then the one after that, and the one after that, and the one after that. After a while, you'll figure out what is best for you and the situation, and you'll lose any fear or insecurities you have about interacting like that.

 

[KingNothing]

You should probably read this.

Haha, I can't tell by the title -- is this something that will make me angry, or something I will like?

 

[KingNothing]

is it possible for an alpha guy to be intimidated by a beta guy? what if the beta guy is making the females laugh and the alpha guy just can't mentally keep up? is that possible?

If he's intimidated, he loses. If he lets the beta guy make the women laugh, but ultimately leaves with one of the girls while the funny guy leaves with nothing but a story about making people laugh, he wins.

 

[KingNothing]

A hilarious and mostly accurate, in not generalizing, take on women and the kind of men they like.

 

[specsaregood]

Women (including mothers) will always give bullshit advice such as be nice, be yourself, and other panty-drying crap.

Mostly true. However, the best advise I ever got was from my dear lesbian friend.

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

First, I never stated that women don't desire sex as much as a man. The difference is that women tend to be far more discerning as to whom they will bed. The average male will have sex with 33% of the female population given the opportunity, since his yardstick has far fewer criteria. 33% of the male population is far less attractive to women based on their standards.

I've just shown that depending on the way the requests are framed, women also tend to have far fewer criteria for having a sexual encounter than one would stereotypically assume. You keep harping on how picky women supposedly are, but you've made no attempt to explain why, except resort to something that was debunked in the study I referred to. Discerning women are that way because they're concerned about safety and whether the guy will be good, not about how much money the guy makes or what his name is. In other words, it's not because they're hardwired to prefer status or money; neither is it because they have intrinsically less sexual desire.

...Otherwise, explain why the vast majority of involuntarily celibate people are males? I've seen the nastiest cows with children, so presumably they've had sex at least once, while there are some men with average looks that have horribly depressing sex lives.

This, once again, has to do with the risk vs. reward thing, as I detailed in my last response (medical as well as the larger one in this day and age, cultural). Also, men are generally perceived as incapable of providing orgasms in casual sexual encounters, while women are; that could certainly contribute to loneliness.

What I'm basically saying is that there are no discernible natural reasons why women are "gatekeepers," especially in an era of access to birth control and generally high levels of health care. Every explanation you have given hinges on subjective male preferences that aren't really all that logical, given that sex is a two-way activity. Culture is the sole driving force of women's gatekeeper position at this point.

Men often are the pursuers, at least on planet Earth.

And you're apparently incapable of figuring out why this is. Your confirmation bias is showing. Of course you're going to think all men are the pursuers when that's all you have observed because of specific societal expectations of how men and women pursue sex.

There is a price to pay.

At this point, only in stupid reputational terms.

Which is precisely why women slut-shame other women. Men love sluts; maybe not to marry, but certainly for casual fun.

There is no logical reason for this preference. I can't think of a reason why "sluts" aren't marriageable outside of very prejudiced assumptions about female sexual desire, or the supposed lack thereof in comparison to men. They may or may not have undesirable personality traits, but I have seen no evidence of those traits being connected to their sex drive. If other factors are involved, why the need to specifically denigrate their sexuality?

The double standard in slut-shaming is due to the fact that it is so much easier for a woman to get laid (being the gatekeeper and all...). Even a fat, unattractive woman can stand on a bar top and announce that she's hosting a gang bang at her house...if she so chooses (since women are the gatekeepers of sex). I guarantee you that she will get several men to follow her home. A man simply does not have that option. Therefore, when a man brags about partner count it is based upon the fact that he managed to convince X number of women to have sex with him. When a woman brags about partner count it would be like me bragging about how many times I've masturbated - there is simply no challenge worth taking pride in.

I think there are a lot more lonely women out there than you're assuming, first of all. Women don't always have that option. What if we remove alcohol from the equation - does it still hold true? Probably not. So if your entire model breaks down when one variable is removed, I would say it's not a particularly great model.

Since it is so easy for women to get an astronomical partner count if she so chooses, a man doesn't want to be one of a thousand cocks. A woman with only five sexual partners will likely place more value upon the man whom she marries than the woman who had a gang bang in the club restroom.

I'm not sure that any of these statements logically follow. Not everything can be reduced to simple metaphor. Economic models of marginal utility are simply those - models. Models are approximations of reality, but reality should not be approximated to look like a model. No commodity actually behaves like the behavior given by a typical supply-demand model, let alone such nebulous and complicated issues as sex and marriage.

 

[Antischism]

Haha, I can't tell by the title -- is this something that will make me angry, or something I will like?

It'll offer you a different perspective at the very least, but I think it's a pretty vital piece of literature for anyone interested in the subject.

 

[KingNothing]

Mostly true. However, the best advise I ever got was from my dear lesbian friend.

They might give bad advice, but "be yourself," is absolutely never a bad move. If being yourself doesn't work, become a better person.

And,

 

[KingNothing]

I think there are a lot more lonely women out there than you're assuming, first of all. Women don't always have that option. What if we remove alcohol from the equation - does it still hold true? Probably not. So if your entire model breaks down when one variable is removed, I would say it's not a particularly great model.

On the slut-shaming double standard:

 

[Christian Liberty]

Go fuck yourself. That's just not an acceptable thing to say.

Explain on principle why its wrong... If he had said he was a police officer most of the people here would have agreed with me...

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

I've just shown that depending on the way the requests are framed, women also tend to have far fewer criteria for having a sexual encounter than one would stereotypically assume. You keep harping on how picky women supposedly are, but you've made no attempt to explain why, except resort to something that was debunked in the study I referred to. Discerning women are that way because they're concerned about safety and whether the guy will be good, not about how much money the guy makes or what his name is. In other words, it's not because they're hardwired to prefer status or money; neither is it because they have intrinsically less sexual desire.


This, once again, has to do with the risk vs. reward thing, as I detailed in my last response (medical as well as the larger one in this day and age, cultural). Also, men are generally perceived as incapable of providing orgasms in casual sexual encounters, while women are; that could certainly contribute to loneliness.

What I'm basically saying is that there are no discernible natural reasons why women are "gatekeepers," especially in an era of access to birth control and generally high levels of health care. Every explanation you have given hinges on subjective male preferences that aren't really all that logical, given that sex is a two-way activity. Culture is the sole driving force of women's gatekeeper position at this point.




And you're apparently incapable of figuring out why this is. Your confirmation bias is showing. Of course you're going to think all men are the pursuers when that's all you have observed because of specific societal expectations of how men and women pursue sex.




At this point, only in stupid reputational terms.



There is no logical reason for this preference. I can't think of a reason why "sluts" aren't marriageable outside of very prejudiced assumptions about female sexual desire, or the supposed lack thereof in comparison to men. They may or may not have undesirable personality traits, but I have seen no evidence of those traits being connected to their sex drive. If other factors are involved, why the need to specifically denigrate their sexuality?




I think there are a lot more lonely women out there than you're assuming, first of all. Women don't always have that option. What if we remove alcohol from the equation - does it still hold true? Probably not. So if your entire model breaks down when one variable is removed, I would say it's not a particularly great model.


I'm not sure that any of these statements logically follow. Not everything can be reduced to simple metaphor. Economic models of marginal utility are simply those - models. Models are approximations of reality, but reality should not be approximated to look like a model. No commodity actually behaves like the behavior given by a typical supply-demand model, let alone such nebulous and complicated issues as sex and marriage.

I respect all your calm reasoning, but the statements you're replying to, I think you're giving way too much credit. There's more self-loathing sexism in this thread than a 9th grade locker room in West Virginia.

 

[parocks]

First, may I just say, GOD I love this thread! I really want to go out for beers with Dannno, PhilHelm, Rothbardian Girl and Pessimist and engage on this all night. Everyone should read the book "Why beautiful people have more daughters" as well.

I think there is some confusion about what women "want". They don't *want* to be treated badly. They *want* to mate with alphas, just as males want to mate with alpha females. I want to mate with alpha females. Philhelm wants to mate with alpha females. Sola Fide wants to mate with alpha females. Pessimist, tell yourself whatever you want, you want to mate with alpha females. Rothbardian girl, you want to mate with alpha males (assuming everyone I just mentioned is heterosexual and I got all the genders right). Yes there are competing considerations and that desire to mate with alphas is not the end all be all, but it is there, and it is there universally for physically and psychologically healthy human beings. All things (ie, those competing considerations) being equal, one will ALWAYS choose an alpha over a beta if the option is there.

So as I've said, women don't want to be treated badly. It's just that quite a large proportion of them are willing to *tolerate* being treated badly if it means a chance to mate with an alpha. This is why polygyny exists but not polyandry. Also, everything Philhelm has said about it not being about PUAs not treating them badly, just as disposable, is correct. I've read the PUA literature, and nowhere does it recommend treating women "badly." It does recommend "negging" which is just a deliberate advertisement of a male's alpha status. A neg is not treating women badly....it's not an insult. It's a backhanded compliment said in an utterly uninterested way that a desperate, p***y-on-a-pedestal beta would NEVER say. "Oh, is that dollar store nail polish?" Executed by an amateur pua, yes, Rothbardian Girl, it is obvious and easy to defend against. Executed by a true alpha you will never know it happened until he doesn't call the next day.

An alpha female is immediately evident. It is almost entirely based on physical appearance, though there are some mannerisms that go along with it too, like the way they delicately swing their wrists as they walk. A female does not need to exert any social effort to demonstrate her alpha-ness. She wins automatically.

Males have to project their alpha-ness through dominant social interaction. Successful PUAs are simply betas who have learned how to fake it until they make it, and graduate into alphas.

I think there is, as has been previously discussed on this thread, a sizeable percentage of women who do want to be treated badly for their own psychological needs. It's nice to be able to subsume all of this under the framework of alpha vs beta, but it's more likely that a lot of women simply have mental problems.

There's just a lot more diversity out there. You have what women want vs what women say they want. And a whole host of other things that make it impossible to speak generally about women.

Really abusive total scumbags are the biggest alphas in the world? Or some women are nuts? Because there's no doubt that really abusive total scumbags are not lacking in mates. I mean, they're not entirely lacking in mates. Half the women are of below average intelligence, you have to factor that in as well.

PUAs are successful because men are systematically being told not to do what a lot of women really want, and they listen and there creates a shortage of men who do what they want. PUAs are rare, not common, and PUAs succeed because there's clearly a lot of pent up demand for what the specific things that they're doing.

There are a wide variety of Alpha type things that people could do. The PUAs seem to recommend treating women badly - treating women badly is what seems to work the best from the perspective of the PUA.

Again, all of this talk of PUAs and Alphas is new to me, as are conversations along these lines.

But I did catch on that many women are nuts, not rational. And that's something that is also contained in popular culture, as is the idea that women like to be treated badly. see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick_Cancer - and also see Dannnos observations earlier in the thread, which seem probably more spot on than anyone elses here.

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

Also, you're wrong about women wanting to be treated like shit. Women want to be treated with respect, but not put on a pedestal. Sure, they might like being treated differently in bed, but that remains in the bedroom, not outside of it.

I agree with pretty much everything you've posted, but I'd like to challenge you on this point. There seems to be a pervasive modern fallacy that the type of sex you are into has zero to do with your character "outside the bedroom." I've been ostracized a thousand times over for dissenting on this, but I'm more inclined to think that sexuality is a reflection of values and not something that exists separately from your identity as a person.

For instance "hardcore" BDSM advocates will blow off any moral objections by saying "it's just role-play." But they overlook that the roles are being chosen by the participants in a way that expresses their wishes and desires. To fantasize about calling my girl a "stupid whore" is self-defeating and demonstrates a retarded, anti-individualistic view of the entire experience. For my girl to fantasize about it would be equally lame, especially if she demands to be "respected" the rest of the time -- what does it mean to respect someone until you have your most intimate experiences together, whereupon you "play the role" of an insecure 11 year old idiot who hates them (and yourself)?

The worst part is that dominance/submission are often brought up as synonymous with "abuse" role-playing. The implication is that any woman who likes to be controlled in a sexual scenario is turned on stupid macho posturing and abuse. Likewise, any male given the opportunity to dominate a woman will (of course) want to shout irrational insults at her while pissing all over the place. I don't think it follows. I also don't think it's a matter of personal taste. No matter how subtle or extreme, misogynist words and ideas are morally objectionable whether you have your clothes on or not.

This isn't an argument against fetishism, it's an attempt at rational dissent against puritanical and stupid modes of expression. Sex doesn't have to be a fart in three acts, nor does it have to apologize for itself. There's a better way.

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

Really abusive total scumbags are the biggest alphas in the world?

Nah, they're the biggest betas in the world. We would all do well to remember that posing, preening, sleazy male whores are not often happy people, or secure in who they are. I mean, Vince Neil is now running a poser strip club in Las Vegas. He's been in failed marriages and another one of his girlfriends killed herself. In ten years he'll be drunk and miserable, in twenty he'll probably be dead. If bopping a million chicks while beating your chest about it was the key to lasting happiness, he'd be exuding more joy than Bob Ross by now.

We're all looking at it like "those pricks have all the luck" when the reaction should actually be pity.

 

[parocks]

Sometimes Alphaness can be situational. You throw Johnny Football Hero into a research and development lab, and suddenly he's the Beta Bitch. At least to an extent, since he would still have Alpha traits presumably, but he wouldn't have much standing in the new hierarchy.

Yeah. Which makes your math problem with Suzie 7 and Trevor 10 and Tammy 10 just a little bit over simplified. It's a good example to show the mechanics of it.

Is the best looking, richest guy in retardland an Alpha, really? What exactly is an Alpha? We can say - oh, he's can bang any girl in that one particular bar, but that other bar, he gets nothing. And vice versa. Because upper middle class people and other than that simply have different cultures. What is it exactly?

In a world where in one bar there's one type of person and another bar has another type of person - what are alpha characteristics? Beyond, of course, the willingness to treat women badly. Someone used "pack". There isn't a pack. There are many packs, and people find themselves mixed into many different packs.

What's confidence? If women like confidence, what are the behaviors that women can look at to determine confidence? Confident ivy league grads are going to act differently than confident fishermen. If women only know how fishermen act, alphas and betas, how can they determine which of the ivy league grads is the confident one?

 

[parocks]

Nah, they're the biggest betas in the world. We would all do well to remember that posing, preening, sleazy male whores are not often happy people, or secure in who they are. I mean, Vince Neil is now running a poser strip club in Las Vegas. He's been in failed marriages and another one of his girlfriends killed herself. In ten years he'll be drunk and miserable, in twenty he'll probably be dead. If bopping a million chicks while beating your chest about it was the key to lasting happiness, he'd be exuding more joy than Bob Ross by now.

We're all looking at it like "those pricks have all the luck" when the reaction should actually be pity.

The point was that alphas got the chicks. Or that was the theory. It is clear, right, that these people are not alphas. But they have chicks. The theory is that women are drawn to alphas. These are not alphas. The better theory is that because they're nuts, women like to be mistreated, at least in this case, the case of the total scumbags.

I'm talking total scumbags. Vince Neil has money and fame. The total scumbag does not. Vince Neil is an alpha, lead singer of Motley Crue and all. James Woods in Casino, maybe.

 

[parocks]

First, I never stated that women don't desire sex as much as a man. The difference is that women tend to be far more discerning as to whom they will bed. The average male will have sex with 33% of the female population given the opportunity, since his yardstick has far fewer criteria. 33% of the male population is far less attractive to women based on their standards.

Also, women haven't gained power in all respects. Marriage did indeed help reign in the Alpha male and female advantage since most men were able to find a mate. Today, there are de facto harems in which the tip-top tier of men are bedding far more than their fair share of women. Otherwise, explain why the vast majority of involuntarily celibate people are males? I've seen the nastiest cows with children, so presumably they've had sex at least once, while there are some men with average looks that have horribly depressing sex lives.



No kidding. Women are capable of a partner count that I could only dream about in an Icelandic saga.



Okay...



So...women are the gatekeepers of sex? Of course men would bang their female friends...duh! But male friends are simply disposable assets for the female who strings the men along while sleeping with higher value men.



So...you're saying that women are the gatekeepers of sex?



So...they're the gatekeepers of sex and they prefer a guy that is famous and has high status over an equally unknown attractive male.



Most of the slut-shaming I've heard in my life comes from...other women.



Men often are the pursuers, at least on planet Earth. Also, women have higher value then men, which is why men die in wars, are generally shit on, and are the ones to put the pussy on the pedestal. A young, beautiful woman is of the highest value.



There is a price to pay.



Which is precisely why women slut-shame other women. Men love sluts; maybe not to marry, but certainly for casual fun.



The double standard in slut-shaming is due to the fact that it is so much easier for a woman to get laid (being the gatekeeper and all...). Even a fat, unattractive woman can stand on a bar top and announce that she's hosting a gang bang at her house...if she so chooses (since women are the gatekeepers of sex). I guarantee you that she will get several men to follow her home. A man simply does not have that option. Therefore, when a man brags about partner count it is based upon the fact that he managed to convince X number of women to have sex with him. When a woman brags about partner count it would be like me bragging about how many times I've masturbated - there is simply no challenge worth taking pride in.

Since it is so easy for women to get an astronomical partner count if she so chooses, a man doesn't want to be one of a thousand cocks. A woman with only five sexual partners will likely place more value upon the man whom she marries than the woman who had a gang bang in the club restroom.

Good argument. I had no idea what she was talking about. Sounded a lot like feminist blah blah blah - not on point.

Even fat ugly women can get laid all they want. We all know this. That makes them the gatekeepers. I can't get how this well known fact can be disputed.