Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Why You Shouldn’t Take Relationship Advice From Players
-By Caleb Jones
During the filming of the cop show, the producers hire William Shatner, portraying a fictionalized version of himself, to teach the two cops how to act like TV cops, because of Shatner’s experience playing TJ Hooker back in the 80s.
Shatner does things like show them how to taste cocaine with your tongue to make sure it’s real. DeNiro, a real cop, demonstrates how stupid this is, because it could be cyanide, ricin, anthrax or other poison. Shatner spends lots of time showing the two cops how to do “hood jumping,” jumping onto the hood of a car. DeNiro points out that it’s a stupid, useless and dangerous “skill” that no real cop would ever need to use. On and on this goes.
In other words, Shatner teaches the two cops skills and techniques that feel good and look good to others, but don’t actually work in the real world. Moreover, in many cases, these things were not only useless, but dangerous.
While DeNiro is pointing all of this out, Eddie Murphy ignores all of it, is hugely excited and a big fan of Shatner. He slurps up all of Shatner’s stupid “advice” with gusto and full agreement, because being a fake TV cop is much more exciting than real police work, which is often boring and tedious. Being a TV cop also looks more impressive to friends, family, and the public, which, being very outcome dependent, is important to Murphy.
Let's switch to another illustration. Tony Robbins has been a distant mentor for me for many years. I respect him and think he has really good stuff to teach. His advice on NLP, changing your emotional state and physiology, and general success is among the best I’ve ever read/heard. I’ve used those techniques in my own life and received good results from it.
As many of you already know, Tony Robbins became very famous for this advice in the early 90s. He made hundreds of millions of dollars and became a household name. This is great, and he deserves his money. He’s helped a lot of people, including me.
There was just one problem. Once he became this famous, he started giving advice about other things outside his wheelhouse of NLP and general success principles. As just a few examples...
1. He started giving advice regarding how to marry the woman of your dreams and stay married forever. Then he got divorced. Oops.
2. He started giving advice on time management. I purchased his time management program and it was terrible. I’m a time management expert myself, and I can tell you for a fact his time management advice was ridiculous.
3. He started giving advice on investing. I purchased one of his investment advice CDs, listened to it, and puked. I seriously wanted my money back. It was the single worst audio program on investing I’ve ever heard in my life. His entire advice was pretty much, “buy stocks.” Jesus.
When this was happening, I was shocked that a guy with such quality information started putting out such garbage. Only later did I realize why: since he was now famous for giving one set of advice, he was taking advantage of this and was now giving out advice he didn’t know anything about. So of course it sucked and didn’t work.
Over the years I’ve seen many other gurus in many areas of self improvement do the same thing; get notoriety for giving advice about A, which is good, then start giving advice about B, C, and D, which is terrible and doesn’t work.
Since moving into the self improvement space myself many years ago, I've done my very best to not make this mistake. For those of you who have been following my work for many years, you know I have been very careful not to give advice about things I know nothing about, even when I’m asked, which happens somewhat often.
When I started giving PUA advice, I stuck very closely to the three areas I knew well, and didn’t talk much about anything else. These were (and to a degree still are):
1. Online dating
2. Nonmonogamous relationships
3. Older men dating younger women
That’s it. During those years, and to this day, when discussing dating/relationship topics, I’ve only spoken about those three areas and kept any discussion outside of those areas minimal. I’ve never talked about night game because I’ve never done it. I’ve barely talked about daygame since I did it briefly many years ago, but don’t consider myself an expert. I never give relationship advice to men in monogamous relationships because I am not qualified to give such advice. Etc.
You may argue that my advice in those three areas can apply to other areas I'm not focused in. That's true to a degree, but it doesn't matter. I've stuck with just those three areas, since I didn’t want to do a “Tony Robbins” and start giving advice about some area I didn’t know much about just because I’m good with online dating and open/poly relationships.
This principle of mine extends into my business life, where as a consultant I give time management advice, business management advice, and marketing advice. But that’s it. I never give advice regarding things like human resources, inventory management, or team building. I don’t know about these things, so I keep my mouth shut about them, even when I’m asked about them, which I often am.
If you’ve followed me for a long time, you know that when someone asks me for advice on a topic that I have no expertise in, I will say, “I really don’t know anything about that, you should ask someone else.” This is done on purpose.
Getting Advice from Players Regarding Relationships
For the past 10 years, I have seen men in the PUA community, and now the manosphere, who are really good at laying lots of chicks, suddenly turn around and give relationship advice. This advice is wrong almost 100% of the time. That figure is not an exaggeration. When a player who’s good at banging lots of chicks via one night stands or very short term fuck buddy stints gives you advice regarding ongoing relationships or marriage, it’s dead wrong almost 100% of the time. He will tell you things that will simply result in drama, conflict, confusion, cheating, and breakups or divorces.
It won’t seem like the advice is wrong. After all, clearly this guy understands women, right? Clearly he’s successful with women, right? Clearly this guy is Alpha, right? So his advice about relationships or marriage should be accurate, right?
As I’ve talked about before, pickup/getting laid and relationships are two completely different skill sets. They’re both about women, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t very different. Networking and programming are both about computers, but they’re both radically different skills. You don’t want your IT networking guy writing software for you, just like you would never put a software developer in charge of your corporate computer network. Two different skills.
The proof is all around you. Famous players, like Mystery, Neil Strauss, Adam Lyons, and countless others you and I could both name, have long histories of failed, high drama relationships and/or marriages, one after the next. Other guys like Roosh usually don’t have any relationships that last longer than about three months.
Yes, these guys know how to get laid. Many PUA/players on forums and blogs have better pickup skills than even I do and lay more women than me. But when it comes to ongoing relationships with women, these guys are dreadful. The relationships they attempt are so cluster fucked that even clueless beta males with no game would often do a better job. I'm being 100% serious about that.
The Horrible Manosphere Marriage Advice
This brings me to one area in particular where I think many well meaning manosphere gurus are actually hurting men, and hurting them badly.
This is when manosphere guys present long-term traditional marriage as the endgame goal of men, particularly Alpha Males.
As you know, for years I have given very specific, detailed, massively field tested, step-by-step advice on how to have a long lasting relationship with a woman (including serious, pair bonded relationships) in a way conducive to modern day realities. I’ve discussed this stuff at length here at this blog (check out the archive) and in my books. Long-term pair bonding is wonderful and I recommend it to experienced Alphas over the age of 35 who desire it. But you have to do it correctly, otherwise the odds are overwhelming you’ll end up getting divorce raped, losing your kids, losing your retirement, or best case scenario, you will experience mountains of drama that will make you very unhappy.
Are the pro-traditional marriage manosphere guys and PUAs giving very specific, detailed, field tested advice regarding how to get married and stay married in the modern era? No. Every time I see this “advice,” it boils down to three steps:
1. Find a young, pure virgin (or close to it) who will make a great wife.
2. Get legally married and monogamous.
3. Stay Alpha.
That’s it. That’s always their advice.
The problem is that if that advice worked, you’d have older Alphas and ex-players all over the manosphere and PUA community in long, 15+ year monogamous marriages who are still with their wives, still not cheating (and not being cheated on), and still very happy. Do you see any gurus like that? Other than maybe Dalrock or Althol Kay, I don't think I can name even one. Even if you can name one or two, you've proven my point. One or two out of hundreds? If the get-traditionally-married-and-be-Alpha advice actually worked, there should be tons of these guys all over the place.
That three step “advice” is just like the William Shatner advice. It looks good to society. It makes you feel good (temporarily). It appeals to the more right-wing conservative readership of your blog or forum. But it doesn’t work.
If you’re an experienced Alpha/player and have fucked 50 or 100 women, and then stupidly marry that Unicorn Woman virgin (or near virgin) in a traditional, legal, monogamous marriage in the Western world, you’re going to end up divorced or at least in major drama in less than five years, certainly less than ten. If you don't believe that, then take a deep breath, calm down, turn on your brain, and read this, this, this, and this to get the facts. Once again, you’re taking advice from guys who don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about and have not demonstrated any success regarding the advice they’re giving.
I don't care if your favorite PUA or manosphere guru just got monogamously married (or moved in with his monogamous girlfriend or whatever) and is telling everyone it's great. Wait 25 years, and if he's still married to her, still has never cheated on her, she's never cheated on him, and they're both still really happy, then he'll be qualified to give advice regarding traditional monogamous marriage. Until then, he's just shooting his mouth off and you're an idiot for listening to him. The odds are overwhelming that woman will be out of his life in less than five years.
Just like Eddie Murphy, I have seen naive guys get very excited when they see a manosphere guru or PUA advocate traditional, legal, monogamous marriage. They think it’s a great thing and can’t wait to hear more advice from the guy who’s never done anything like what he’s recommending (or at best, has just done it, like PUAs/Alphas who are newly married and aren’t even at the three year mark yet).
This is extraordinarily dangerous, and thousands, if not millions of men are following this “advice,” or at least plan to.
The Only Rational Response
There is one, and only one rational objection to what I stated above. That is, if you tell me that you honestly don’t care if you get divorced. I have discussed this concept before, what I call Serial Monogamy Marriage, where more and more Alpha Males (1.0 of course), throw their arms up in surrender and say something like this:
“Well, fuck it! I’m getting married anyway! I want to get married, dammit! I want kids dammit! And yeah, marriage doesn’t work anymore, and women suck now, and I’ll probably get divorced down the road and it will suck ass, but fuck it, I don’t care! I’m doing it anyway!”
The first problem is that he’s falling into the Societal Programming trap of assuming the only way to properly raise children is to get legally married and sexually monogamous, and I’ve debunked that a thousand times already. Proper parenting via long-term co-habiting pair-bonding does not require legal marriage nor absolute sexual monogamy.
The second problem is even bigger. I’ve noticed more and more Alphas/players over the last few years say this stuff and act on it. They get legally married, don’t sign any type of prenup, get 100% monogamous, and when challenged, declare (or subtly imply) that they don’t care if they get divorced later.
I follow a model of long-term consistent happiness. Even if my relationships don’t last, that’s okay because A) I wasn’t planning on them to last forever, and more importantly, B) they’re structured so that they don’t screw up my life when they end (or in my case, take a temporary break, since 94% of women who leave me eventually come back).
The “I don’t care if I get divorced later” model is one of short-term happiness and long-term pain. You’re structuring your entire life around a system (monogamous legal marriage) that is only designed for people who are going to be together and monogamous forever, for 50+ years, when you know it’s going to fail way before then. You’re using the exact wrong tool for the job.
If that’s the model you’d like to follow, and if you really value your future happiness that little, then ignore me and do whatever you’d like. But if you’d rather be happy, evaluate The Only 9 Options for Men as They Age and pick the least bad one for you and your long-term consistent happiness.
Any time someone in the manosphere or PUA realm is offering advice on his blog or via a forum, ask yourself if this guy has actually had harmonious, low drama, long-lasting relationships in the past. If he hasn’t, you need to close your ears whenever he gives his “advice” regarding relationships, marriage, picking the ideal girlfriend or wife, or any of that stuff. Feel free to listen to his pickup and get laid advice, but if he gives relationship advice, you’re seriously better off doing the exact opposite of what he recommends.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
SadiesBlonde 2016-08-22 06:18:05
BD- Have you seen Tony Robbins' "I am not your Guru" on Netlix? It is kind of mesmerizing and self-promoting but follows Tony's "Date with Destiny" seminar. I've been watching a lot of Tony on YouTube recently, it's funny that you brought him up. You are right his 90s stuff is gold and everything that follows kind of sucks.
Al 2016-08-22 06:57:19
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
WolfOfGeorgeStreet 2016-08-22 07:31:35
I've always found it funny that the manosphere prides itself on being 'redpilled' ie. privy to knowledge that others lack and open to ideas that go against the accepted social narrative on many topics, but seem to be so fixated on the sanctity of virgin unicorn girl monogamy that they'll argue and ignore all logic to the contrary on the topic. Its analogous to extreme feminists defending their nonsensical ideology, a closed mindset manospherians so strongly detest, yet they fail to see the parallels. I think one of the reasons is there's a belief that a girl worth having a long term relationship with would never agree to an open relationship (again, unicorn girl mindset). If anything it's the opposite, dominant women an Alpha could never get along with (and the sort of women they complain about) are less likely to agree to an open relationship than the more submissive women they're looking for, who, conveniently, seem to be less inclined to act on the liberties an OLTR provides or at the very least less likely to take it to an extreme. These dominant women will sometimes demand an OLTR from their beta bfs/husbands (or just cheat anyway), and I think this is where some of the stigma of OLTR's comes from in the manosphere, they see it as a cuckolding situation like that. Even when you think you've gotten through to one, they end up in a mono relationship/marriage anyway, even when they've seen the hard evidence through the demonstrable success of the few that are doing it right. It's one of the biggest failings of the manosphere.
shubert 2016-08-22 08:30:37
Where were you in 2005? My dad was never a positive masculine influence on me and I wish I knew then what you're teaching now. I need a damn time machine...
CrabRangoon 2016-08-22 09:12:10
I never understood this manospehere obsession with virgin brides. First off, where do they think they'll find them? I can't remember the last time I came across a virgin. Even the very young girls aren't-kids are starting to have sex earlier than ever before I feel. 2nd, if you've even been with a sexually inexperienced girl, I'm sure you can attest that it isn't much fun. They don't really know how to be seductive yet and just start grabbing at your balls. Just show me negative STD results and I really don't care how many guys she's been with as long as it's nothing crazy like in the 100's.
Anon. 2016-08-22 09:47:54
I never understood this manosphere obsession with virgin brides.I think that in process of practicing PUA techniques, much of which involve making her perceive him as being above her, they come to despise girls that “fall for it”. As opposed to thinking positively, “I’ll improve myself, I’ll be above my yesterday’s self and girls will be attracted by this strong, reliable man I will have become; in particular, loving sex no less than I do, they will embrace the opportunity to have sex with me” they become victims of negative thinking, “Those girls are so shallow, they are only attracted to this false persona that has no regard for them and tricks them into giving sex to him”.
First off, where do they think they’ll find them? I can’t remember the last time I came across a virgin.They’re there in quite the numbers, look up the stats. It’s just selection bias, you don’t tend to cross paths with them to the point of actually finding out.
2nd, if you’ve even been with a sexually inexperienced girl, I’m sure you can attest that it isn’t much fun. They don’t really know how to be seductive yet and just start grabbing at your balls.Very true!
Just show me negative STD results and I really don’t care how many guys she’s been with as long as it’s nothing crazy like in the 100’s.And why not the hundreds?
shubert 2016-08-22 10:51:58
BD, where do you go for investment advice?
CrabRangoon 2016-08-22 11:02:06
@Anon Any girl that's been with 100's of guys most likely has some serious underlying emotional/mental issues you don't want any part of. ASD and probably their own biology will prevent the vast majority of women from fucking that many men. Women aren't horny all the time like men-it ebbs and flows for them. I don't do the "slut shaming" crap since again, as long as they're clean, I'm cool with their sexual history. I prefer more experience anyway. Just a personal preference to stay away from the extremes.
SteinK. 2016-08-22 11:12:13
Aaaaa true. My Tony was awesome. I DID admire him. His knowledge on ego, self, brain, giving yourself a sense of life's purpose was the best in the world. It was soo great I re-listened and re-listened to it. But then his knowledge on dating was practically 0, his zero knowledge on financials was bad, his management advice I skipped because I knew his management knowledge and experience was a complete zero. It's sad because I've tuned him out completely after those 3 failed horrible products because now I expect only more crap from him in his future releases. Why can't the guy stick to his knowledge and keep releasing products only on the ego, self, brain, giving yourself a sense of life's purpose was the best in the world??? I have knowledge and experience of career booty calls and the single moms. Majority of my girls that I boom boom boom are from this section. As if my knowledge of CERTAIN girls is okay but my experience with those CERTAIN girls is almost nearing a big fattie zero. Like the girls who smoke weed daily while fawning over tattooed construction workers while freely, quickly and easily offering up their contact info to those guys. idk. I'm muscular and I don't have tattoos. These same girls don't fawn over me. Will simply painting myself stupid on my neck, wrists, back, chest, ankles get me these girls? idk. do you? Same goes with hard drug using girls. My neighbors say start using hard drugs and these hardcore hot druggie girls will be riding you all the time. Is this for real, is it that simple? idk. do u?
Blackdragon 2016-08-22 12:30:05
BD- Have you seen Tony Robbins’ “I am not your Guru” on Netlix?No. Sounds like I'd like it though. I'll check it out.
I’ve always found it funny that the manosphere prides itself on being ‘redpilled’ ie. privy to knowledge that others lack and open to ideas that go against the accepted social narrative on many topics, but seem to be so fixated on the sanctity of virgin unicorn girl monogamy that they’ll argue and ignore all logic to the contrary on the topic.Yep. Good summary. Most men are red pill only before they get married. Once they want to settle down, they chuck all that red pill stuff and embrace blue pill just as much as any beta male.
BD, where do you go for investment advice?Various sources, mostly self-research but I have worked with a few financial planners. Please ask that kind of thing over at my other blog, where I've already talked about that quite a bit.
Will simply painting myself stupid on my neck, wrists, back, chest, ankles get me these girls?No. Some game and/or calibration will be required. That's true with all types of women.
My neighbors say start using hard drugs and these hardcore hot druggie girls will be riding you all the time. Is this for real, is it that simple? idk. do u?Drug-addict-girl-game is pretty much a warped version of sugar daddy game. Instead of giving women cash (or inciting them with it), you're giving/inciting your drugs instead. Not something I would do.
Ash 2016-08-22 12:45:24
Crab Rangoon, my thoughts were always the same. It's unrealistic these days. The only type of (attractive) virgin women I know that are even of age are women who are strictly religious and waiting for marriage, but most manosphere guys aren't even going to be on the radar of a woman like that. They want virgin husbands who also go to church every Sunday. I definitely agree with you, BD. That's why I decided as a woman, that I really only want to give advice to other women. I have no experience as a man and too much sympathy for women to give men useful advice. I also don't give advice about online dating, because I've never done it. My relationship is older than Tinder and OkCupid, so my M.O. is to give women advice in how to get commitment and maintain monogamous relationships.
Anon. 2016-08-22 14:18:01
Ash, on your blog you stated that dates have become much more casual and that it’s a problem, that a woman accepting a “Netflix and chill” date is in the wrong, and that “this [hookup culture] isn’t our preference”. What adverse effects are you seeing here?
Wall Street Stallion 2016-08-22 14:33:05
First of all eople that get married or wish to get married should not expect a marriage to last over 5 years. This is not your parents world. The day you get married, know that you also set the countdown to your divorce. Be prepared.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-08-22 14:59:42
I’ve always found it funny that the manosphere prides itself on being ‘redpilled’ ie. privy to knowledge that others lack and open to ideas that go against the accepted social narrative on many topics, but seem to be so fixated on the sanctity of virgin unicorn girl monogamy that they’ll argue and ignore all logic to the contrary on the topic.This is precisely why I turned my back completely on the Men's Rights Movement and a larger segment of the PUA community. They are all raging tradcons who want to go back to the 1950s. They have a hard on for Christianity, "traditional family values," slut shaming, and a fetish for female "purity." That is as blue pill as it comes! They've become a bunch of senile old men nostalgic for the glory days when "women were women" (read: sex-hating virgins) and "men were men" (read: chivalrous slaves and workhorses). They actually want to forbid women from the workplace, thus reinstituting male slavery and female parasitism. And they want to criminalize 99 percent of heterosexuality and restrict it to traditional marriage! It was hard for me to take an honest and objective look at the manosphere, but once I did, I realized that (with precious few exceptions) I'm surrounded by a bunch of prudish old geezers who hypocritically sleep with lots of women while trashing them and worshipping the ones who sexually frustrate them! This is sadomasochism! These blue pill traditionalists are deeply heterophobic and responsible for the creation of sex-negative feminism - since radical feminism is nothing more than making public what conservative fathers tell their daughters in private (i.e. all sex is rape, all men are pigs, consensual sex deserves the same punishment as rape - the father killing the boy with a shutgun, etc...) Then they have the nerve to criticize the man-hating of feminism! I just want to shake these guys and say - YOU DID THIS!
Its analogous to extreme feminists defending their nonsensical ideology, a closed mindset manospherians so strongly detest, yet they fail to see the parallels.Traditional conservatives created man-hating and sex-hating feminism.
the more submissive women they’re looking for, who, conveniently, seem to be less inclined to act on the liberties an OLTR providesThat's not convenient. In fact, a girlfriend refusing to have sex with other men would actually be very inconvenient for me for two reasons: 1. A refusal to have sex with more than one man says something about the woman's sex drive that really turns me off. I'm precisely turned on by women who love sex. They demonstrate the exact opposite by showing little interest in other men during the relationship. So group sex is out of the question? Threesomes are out of the question? Fuck that! 2. If I'm fucking other women, but my girlfriend is fucking no one but me, that creates a neediness and dependence on her part which results in (A) her following me around like a pathetic and insecure puppy dog and annoying the hell out of me and (B) her getting super jealous and insecure, thinking that one of my other girls will take me away from her. Her life, as my girlfriend, will be a living hell, which might result in her depression, anorexia, and other medical disorders due to her lack of emotional security. I need my girlfriend sleeping with other men in order for me to be happy with her. This is why I tend to screen for girls who have slept with at least 10 men before me and at least 15 men if they want a serious relationship with me. If I find out that she has slept with less than 10 men in her past, I'm reluctant to even have casual sex with her.
These dominant women will sometimes demand an OLTR from their beta bfs/husbands (or just cheat anyway), and I think this is where some of the stigma of OLTR’s comes from in the manosphere, they see it as a cuckolding situation like that.Exactly! They get an image in their heads of a conniving gold digger who wants an unattractive boyfriend to pay the bills while she fucks the men whom she's really attracted to. But she doesn't want to go through the headache of lying and hiding, so she just demands an open relationship so she can get her sexual needs met by other men daily, while her loser boyfriend pays the bills and gets sex from her once every Valentine's Day (assuming he impresses her). This is what these manosphere tradcons picture as an open relationship. That's what permanently turns them off to the idea of poly - being in her open relationship instead of her being in theirs. So they stick to monogamy, which makes slut shaming an instinctive necessity. So sad!
It’s one of the biggest failings of the manosphere.It is the biggest failing, from which all the other ones originate!
Jack Outside the Box 2016-08-22 15:40:15
I never understood this manospehere obsession with virgin brides.It's an insecurity on their part. They want women who won't judge their own sexual performance too harshly and they want a woman whom they perceive to be "easy to control" because they don't have anything to impress an experienced and high self esteem woman with. It's kind of like losers going after underage 14 year old girls because those girls won't judge them for not having a job.
First off, where do they think they’ll find them?In third world shitholes. That's where Roosh and his ilk recommend going.
I can’t remember the last time I came across a virgin. Even the very young girls aren’t-kids are starting to have sex earlier than ever before I feel.Which is awesome! For all of us. They'll grow up to be way less prudish than their moms.
2nd, if you’ve even been with a sexually inexperienced girl, I’m sure you can attest that it isn’t much fun. They don’t really know how to be seductive yet and just start grabbing at your balls.Yes! Sleeping with a sexually inexperienced woman is so boring. They're so inhibited and innocent that it just makes me feel creepy. And then they watch porn to give them tips. Ha ha! Pathetic. Aaaad, here's where you become blue pill:
Any girl that’s been with 100’s of guys most likely has some serious underlying emotional/mental issues you don’t want any part of.Sigh. And you were doing so well. I guess you still have some programming to work through. My girlfriend is actually rapidly approaching 100 lays and she's very proud of this (as she should be). Whether or not a woman's sex life is the result of mental problems depends on how she's having sex. Are they just one night stands with a bunch of anonymous dudes without any birth control? Does she say she can't cum unless the guy hits her or does some kinky shit, or rape role playing, with her? If so, she has mental issues. But a woman having sex with a few hundred men (like Sharon Stone) does not by itself indicate any mental problems. In fact, it could be the opposite. Many women have sex with hundreds of men because they just love people so much and they simply see sex as an extension of friendship. My girlfriend is pretty much like this: To her, being a good friend means having sex with you (regardless of whether you're a male or female). If she's not having sex with you at least occasionally, she feels like you're very cold and distant and can't really picture being your friend, because the friendship bond is pretty much impossible for her unless at least some sex is involved. It's her way of showing that she likes you as a person. These types of people who have sex with hundreds of people tend to be the greatest lovers of humanity in general. In my experience with the poly community, they are the kindest and least judgmental people on the planet and always open to new and exciting experiences with others because they just love people so much. For these women, sleeping with hundreds of men and women testifies to their overabundance of empathy and kindness and a strong desire to bond with everybody. I'd say that's pretty beautiful and not indicative of any "mental problems" (quite the opposite).
ASD and probably their own biology will prevent the vast majority of women from fucking that many men.But ASD is a cancer. And no, there own biology doesn't prevent shit, as my girlfriend testifies.
Women aren’t horny all the time like men-it ebbs and flows for them.You need to meet some of these women in the poly community.
I don’t do the “slut shaming” crapYou just did.
Just a personal preference to stay away from the extremes.Is a dude like Gene Simmons who fucked over 500 women mentally ill according to you? What do you define as extreme anyway? A woman having too much love for men? Oh the horror!
Jack Outside the Box 2016-08-22 16:00:23
I have no experience as a man and too much sympathy for women to give men useful advice.This is man-hating! So giving men advice is screwing over women? So men, if they are empowered with advice, make women sad? Please check your misandry.
my M.O. is to give women advice in how to get commitment and maintain monogamous relationships.Then I feel sorry for your male victims and female students who will learn the hard way the miserable truth that they don't live in the 1400s. By the way, I took a look at your blog and it made me want to vomit. So you support traditional matriarchy, chivalry, male economic slavery, and other Disney garbage? Terrific! You are part of the problem that we are trying to solve here, since your entire blog seems to be dedicated to trashing men (and women) like us! P.S. In contradiction to what you say on your blog, women haven't "allowed" men to stop taking them out on dates in violation of their own female standards. Instead, what happened is the younger generation of women have radically different (more rational and equalist) standards then the old garbage that your generation is pushing. Change your attitude or become obsolete!
Eddie 2016-08-22 17:40:40
More confirmation that BD is right.... http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/women-are-genetically-programmed-to-have-affairs-evolution-university-texas-scientists-suggest-a7203501.html
Blackdragon 2016-08-22 17:43:58
First of all people that get married or wish to get married should not expect a marriage to last over 5 years. This is not your parents world. The day you get married, know that you also set the countdown to your divorce. Be prepared.More or less, yes. I would modify that to say that if you're a red pill Alpha Male, and you get traditionally married (legally, monogamously) then within five years of your marriage you'll either get divorced (which is most likely), or best case scenario, you're going to get caught cheating and catch all kinds of hell that's going to really screw up your life. I honestly can't think of the last time I've seen an Alpha get traditionally married and didn't see at least one of those two things happen before five years, usually before three years. Blue pill beta males' marriages can last a little longer, around 10 years. For the few men that make it past 10 years it's a complete crap shoot after that. (Divorce spikes happen at 10 years, 14 years, 17 years, and 20 years, as well as when the last child leaves home.)
Ash 2016-08-22 17:58:50
Anon, "Ash, on your blog you stated that dates have become much more casual and that it’s a problem, that a woman accepting a “Netflix and chill” date is in the wrong, and that “this [hookup culture] isn’t our preference”. What adverse effects are you seeing here?" It's only a problem when women (or men) meet someone who they want a relationship with. They head on over to his house for their first "date" for what ends in being Netflix and chill. He gets what he wants and sends her home and she mistakenly thinks he's going to call her again. Well, maybe he will in a month or two, but it will only be after 10pm for a booty call. If she's ok with that, then that's what they should do and I won't judge that. But the mistake women today is that they are trying to jump into a relationship with these guys too soon and they are getting used for booty calls and that's it. Jack, "This is man-hating! So giving men advice is screwing over women? So men, if they are empowered with advice, make women sad? Please check your misandry." I never meant that giving men advice is screwing over women, but female advice to men often misses the mark for what men want. For example, if a guy goes up to a woman and asks her advice about what to do to attract another woman, they usually say things like, "Just be a nice guy." Men never find this kind of female advice helpful. I wouldn't want to end up doing the same thing. I prefer to just let men give advice to other men. "By the way, I took a look at your blog and it made me want to vomit. So you support traditional matriarchy, chivalry, male economic slavery, and other Disney garbage? Terrific! You are part of the problem that we are trying to solve here, since your entire blog seems to be dedicated to trashing men (and women) like us!" I'm sorry you see it this way. I aim to help women get what they want, and it doesn't have to be at the expense of a man's rights or choices. Men are free to do as they please, and I hope they do, which is why I enjoy reading blogs like this so much.
donnie demarco 2016-08-22 18:56:09
I have no experience as a man and too much sympathy for women to give men useful advice.Your post stood out to me as well, for several reasons. Your sympathy would be better served without gender bias. Raging-douchey-manosphere-players and jaded-been-fucked-over-too-often-women share the EXACT same problems at their core: a complete misunderstanding of the opposite sex + a history of being hurt, resulting in fear, insecurity, and anger. The only difference is how these feelings manifest. The best and most robust solutions always take this into account, and this is one of the main reasons I continue to visit this blog; because BD doesn't promote animosity towards women.
They head on over to his house for their first “date” for what ends in being Netflix and chill.Well, you already said you don't do online dating and that you don't understand dating from the men's perspective, soooo can we just quickly agree here that the above is bullshit? Are there any men here with real-world dating experience that jives with this? Because seriously, last person I ran into like that was a woman in her 30s who had just immigrated from the middle east, and had never had a boyfriend (yes, I was nice to her and didn't game her). Every girl under the age of 24 knows what's up when a guy invites them over to their house. If they don't want it, they say no.
I’m sorry you see it this way. I aim to help women get what they want, and it doesn’t have to be at the expense of a man’s rights or choices. Men are free to do as they please, and I hope they do, which is why I enjoy reading blogs like this so much.Ok, so you're helping women get the Disney that they want, while also being a fan of a blog that constantly makes cases against Disney and explains how that type of thinking cannot lead to happiness for either gender. That's like shampoo and conditioner in a single product. IT CAN'T WORK.
Joelsuf 2016-08-22 19:01:05
Famous players, like Mystery, Neil Strauss, Adam Lyons, and countless others you and I could both name, have long histories of failed, high drama relationships and/or marriages, one after the next. Other guys like Roosh usually don’t have any relationships that last longer than about three months.Not to mention that Mystery was able to get chicks because he was really tall and good looking, Strauss was able to get chicks because he was popular and had value because he was a famous writer, and Lyons (along with RSD and others who followed in the footsteps of the old guard of PUAs) came from old money and hired actresses while only being able to hook up with average chicks. Roosh doesn't even NEED the actresses as he already has a cult like following because MGTOW and MRA faggotry are what he preaches and it naturally attracts MGTOW and MRAs. PUAs shouldn't be taken seriously ever, and no one should ever pay a dime for anything they sell. They say interesting things, but for the most part, it can't be taken seriously. Especially RSD, Manhood Academy, Good Looking Loser, or any other popular PUA organization. It is mostly smoke, mirrors, and scams. I learned this the hard way. Looks and value are what attract a chick, your ability to perform well in bed and be able to relate are what keep you attracted. If you are a traditionally ugly dude, you won't be able to get with a traditionally attractive chick as easily as PUAs surmise. This explains in much better detail: http://strengthbysonny.com/2015/09/06/the-pua-industry-revealed-part-vi-scammy-tactics-used-by-pua-teachers-and-companies/
WolfOfGeorgeStreet 2016-08-22 20:07:28
A refusal to have sex with more than one man says something about the woman’s sex drive that really turns me off. I’m precisely turned on by women who love sex. They demonstrate the exact opposite by showing little interest in other men during the relationship.Being lower sex drive does not necessarily mean the woman doesn't love sex, which is what you're implying here. It just means that she needs less sex than a high sex drive woman to keep her happy, she still loves the sex she has. After several years living with the same woman you might appreciate a lower sex drive woman, you won't get as excited at the prospect of having sex with her several times a week and will probably see having to have that much sex with her as a chore no matter how high sex drive you are or how attracted to her you still are. It probably depends on the individual, but unless you've been with a live in OLTR for 7+ years you won't know for sure.
So group sex is out of the question? Threesomes are out of the question? Fuck that!Perhaps. You can find whoever you want on the side though and do those things.
2. If I’m fucking other women, but my girlfriend is fucking no one but me, that creates a neediness and dependence on her part which results in (A) her following me around like a pathetic and insecure puppy dog and annoying the hell out of meNo, this has more to do with a girls personality. Neediness and dependence can exist within a monogamous relationship as well as an OLTR, there is no absolute correlation. So just don't get into relationships with needy girls. Some of the neediest girls I've ever met have been fucking several other guys (part of the reason they were fucking so many guys was because of their neediness and lack of other exciting things going on in their lives), and some of the non neediest girls I've met have been fucking only me or me and just one other guy, typically they tend to have alot of other things going on in their lives.
(B) her getting super jealous and insecure, thinking that one of my other girls will take me away from her. Her life, as my girlfriend, will be a living hell, which might result in her depression, anorexia, and other medical disorders due to her lack of emotional security.A degree of jealousy and insecurity will always exist in an OLTR, I think that's natural and probably healthy. In time, after she see's that you always return to her and stick to the rules of the relationship and always put her first, she'll mostly come around.
PUAs shouldn’t be taken seriously ever, and no one should ever pay a dime for anything they sell. They say interesting things, but for the most part, it can’t be taken seriously. Especially RSD, Manhood Academy, Good Looking Loser, or any other popular PUA organization. It is mostly smoke, mirrors, and scams. I learned this the hard way. Looks and value are what attract a chick, your ability to perform well in bed and be able to relate are what keep you attracted.I mostly agree. Long term retention of girls though is where 'game' really comes into play. One of the reasons I like this blog is due to it's focus on managing relationships, particularly multiple relationships. This is certainly a learned skill, which means it can be taught. Acquiring girls or 'PUA' largely comes down to market conditions and your value within that market and other than your ability to understand that market and how it works and how to play it effectively (essentially what 'PUA' or 'game' is) there's not much more you can learn from it. While I don't agree with everything Roosh says, I wouldn't knock his advice when it comes to getting women, he knows his stuff. He accepts getting women for what it is and does what he needs to do to be successful in that area. An example: http://www.rooshv.com/you-have-no-idea-how-easy-it-is-for-good-looking-men His latest writings come from a place of being surrounded by a bunch of conspiracy theorists though, and while I think there's probably some truth in the conspiracy theories he's peddling, they're a bit over the top at times. Again, an example of someone who should stick to writing about what they're good at.
Way_of_Man 2016-08-22 22:40:47
Funny you should post this topic as it has been on my mind quite a bit lately. The reason for this, is that I'm basically living around multiple real life case studies of this exact scenario. As a transitional move, I'm in a house with 3 other guys. All of them are basically Alpha 1.0s. Or as I've started to call them, "Unconscious Alphas" (which I personally feel is a bit more descriptive) When I first moved here, they were all single. 2 of them were slaying some of the hottest pussy I've ever seen (on a regular basis). The third guy is a little more laid back with women and is more business minded. But he was still doing pretty well for himself. The short version of this story, is that from what I've seen all three of them are headed for disaster. One of them moved his g/f in after being with her for two months. They've had multiple huge blowout fights, he doesn't go to the gym nearly as much as he used too, and he doesn't really go anywhere or do anything unless the g/f can come too. Guy number two (the business) guy is not around hardly ever, so I don't see the dynamic of his relationship. But the last time we did hang out without anyone else around, he confessed to me that he gets a rash of drama from his S/O for working two jobs and starting up his own business. I was trying to lightly lead him into a better mindset on how to handle the issue, when we were interrupted by a phone call which consisted of him arguing with her for 20 minutes. Guy number three is in a brand new relationship so the NRE is still high. But I can sense this girl in my gut and I know as soon as she has him "stabled in" the demands will start being forth coming. A year ago, they were all doing whatever the fuck they wanted, whenever the fuck they wanted and railing some insanely hot women. If they were conscious of the traps in society when it comes to dating etc, this could all be avoided. Thankfully, I won't be around much longer cause I think the fallout is going to be massive.
Pete 2016-08-22 23:07:06
My mother always said: "never get married". I Thank her everyday for that. These posts are extremely entertaining.
CrabRangoon 2016-08-23 08:57:19
@Pete Your mom truly knows best in this case. Mine sadly thinks it's still a good idea for me. @Anon Perhaps it is a little leftover SP in me that steers me away from women with 100's of partners. I honestly don't care that these girls have had that many partners, just like I don't care if a girl is a single mother, or another race, etc... Some guys have preferences to not date single mom's, girls of certain races or body types. I'm not concerned since most women out there do not have notch counts in the 100's anyway. Again I'm not shaming them-in fact I've even slept with a girl that was an escort. She just had to show me she was clean and I was fine with it. I'm pretty far from a tradcon manosphere type
AB 2016-08-23 11:14:55
PUA is an industry, sparked by the high divorce rates and current relationship culture. As our culture changes and our non-monogamous ways are exposed, an industry is created to try and capitalize on that. The vast majority of us men are betas and are getting divorce, cheated on, doing the cheating, are sexually frustrated, etc... and we are looking for answers. Well, how convenient that there are suddenly a bunch of experts ready to tell us how to fix our long term relationships. We just need to alpha up. OH that's the problem. They tell us, "here is the nature of women, and so you just need to cater to their nature". That's only partially true. The industry is based on truth: we are biological creatures with imperatives that we try to fulfill. The result though is that long term men and women do not maintain sexual attraction in most cases. It biologically isn't needed or optimal. You aren't going to alpha your wife into lusting after you, sorry. It's a nice thought and can sell a lot of books, but no. The part where they tell you that you will be happier or at least more content living a lifestyle of self improvement is true, but that's always been true. You can definitely set yourself up for better relationships in the future, but sorry, your long term girlfriend or wife sees you as a brother now and that's just biology. I bet there is a niche here for serial monogamy. BD obviously has good advice on pure non-monogamy and serial monogamy doesn't work for him, but I'm sure there is a way to do that with at least reduced drama. Perhaps someone will address that eventually. It's the second best option right? You know long term monogamy doesn't work, but maybe you just don't have the skill or don't want to put in the effort to non-monogamy, so you just go into each relationship knowing that it has a life of 1-3 years, maybe shorter and maybe longer. You still wouldn't move in together or spend too much time together, but you'd promise exclusivity. It's the lazy man's BD approach - requiring a bit of drama and at least lying by omission. The upside would be a much larger pool of women to draw from. The downside being that you would likely be the one to end it when you realized her attraction was going - which would of course cause a lot of temporary drama. Not that I would recommend that, but if you do go serial monogamy, why would you also potentially give up half of your assets and future potential earnings at the same time? That part makes no sense. I get accepting the reality of relationships, but not then burying your head in the sand and getting married or living together until common law status. Nothing you can really do about child support though. Best you could potentially do is marry a woman with good earning potential so that everything should become 50/50 upon likely separation.
Lope Aguirre 2016-08-23 13:35:19
"Other guys like Roosh usually don’t have any relationships that last longer than about three months.Yes, these guys know how to get laid. " Yeah right.And this is why he has to spend most of his time living in beta tolerant,highly transactional countries. Which he hates (as evident from his constant complaining),yet he cant move to any comfortable developed society.Because he cant get laid. PUA is somebody who has skills and deemed high value in his locality. Roosh is not a pua,he is a fraud,a provocateur, somebody who found the tune to play to incels and betas. Stay away from those losers, don't read them if you don't want to have negativity pumped into you. You have nothing to learn from them
Lope Aguirre 2016-08-23 13:40:31
@Joelsuf Exactly. Btw many of the "daygame" sellers were caught using actresses (Torero).Others,like Krauser are just useless clowns who are able to get any attention only in countries like Ukraine.And probably using actresses and set situation as well (let's be honest who would allow a stranger to film you on the street?) Being honest anything which involves sales should be treated highly suspicious.
Lope Aguirre 2016-08-23 14:05:06
From my observations of naturals-there are no pure "players".Every natural I have known,even the best of the best, would engage in some sort of relationships with women from time to time,would it be mono poly or whatever. A player IS a good adviser on relationships. if he is indeed a player. It is only logical that any decent player who writes on the subject will want to add something on relationships.
Gil Galad 2016-08-23 14:32:37
His latest writings come from a place of being surrounded by a bunch of conspiracy theorists though, and while I think there’s probably some truth in the conspiracy theories he’s peddling, they’re a bit over the top at times. Again, an example of someone who should stick to writing about what they’re good at.Roosh realized that he couldn't live the pump and dump lifestyle forever, so he wants to "change the world"' to get himself his virgin bride. And yes, he's being heavily influenced by conspiracy theorists, and by christians. But he's actually a smart guy trying to dumb himself down, he even explicitly admitted it in an article about Tolstoy where he said that his rational side called bullshit on religion but that he wanted to believe in order to have purpose and whatnot (and believing in conspiracy theories is the same thing, basically. Karl Popper made very interesting parallels between God and conspiracy theories, btw).
Roosh is not a pua,he is a fraud,a provocateur, somebody who found the tune to play to incels and betas.He is a fraud in other ways, but not in "game". His early books are far from worthless for guys who do night and day game. But yeah, most of what he writes today taps into the emotions of angry incels. It's a shame; I suspect that if he wasn't so ideologically constipated about women, gay people, etc, the alpha 2.0 way could work for him and he wouldn't be as despicable as he is. Objectively, I find him much smarter than his average reader, but he's damaged goods as they say.
donnie demarco 2016-08-23 14:41:19
PUAs shouldn’t be taken seriously ever, and no one should ever pay a dime for anything they sell. They say interesting things, but for the most part, it can’t be taken seriously. Especially RSD, Manhood Academy, Good Looking Loser, or any other popular PUA organization. It is mostly smoke, mirrors, and scams. I learned this the hard way. Looks and value are what attract a chick, your ability to perform well in bed and be able to relate are what keep you attracted. If you are a traditionally ugly dude, you won’t be able to get with a traditionally attractive chick as easily as PUAs surmise. This explains in much better detail:I went through the same path you did (tried PUA, realized it was pointless and dropped it), but come on... GLL is not even close to PUA, that's totally ridiculous. His content is ~90% compatible with the content here, and SBS refers to him as well. Chris is basically an Alpha 1.8 who does (did?) drugs and parties in LA. He's good for 2.0s that identify with multiple demographics, like me: I come here for the non-monogamous-older-single-guy advice, and I go to GLL for the douchey-drugs-and-party-scene slant that BD doesn't cover. Regarding looks, what have you been reading? SBS covers this in quite some detail (as does GLL). Maximize your looks and style, and have a strong frame. Everything else comes down to chemistry, availability, and other shit that's not in your control ("what's this chick's deal?"). Genetically hot guys will have an easier time with the numbers of course, but the same can be said about guys with lots of status, big penises, etc. Identify what you have, maximize it, and then find a way to deliver it.
Zoe 2016-08-23 16:10:31
This may be a bit off topic, but speaking of bad relationship advice: there’s this Huffpost article where a married man seeks advice from a licensed psychologist who in turn berates him in every possible way by attacking his masculinity, accusing him of narcissism, blaming him for "criticizing" his wife — as a way to make him believe that he is the primary cause of his sexless marriage. Painful to read. As if Blackdragon needed any more reasons to point to for why men should never marry, this Huffpost article serves as a frightening warning of what's in store for men who marry and who then try to fix their marriage with relationship advice from psychologists who are now educated in a university environment that's heavily influenced by the SJW/feminist agenda.
Gil Galad 2016-08-23 17:23:42
psychologists who are now educated in a university environment that’s heavily influenced by the SJW/feminist agenda.I've read a few of those people. One of them "explains" that the reason some married men go to prostitutes is their desire to exert power, and he adds that "this will never be enough for them, as they experience power over the woman's body, but never her spirit or her heart", as is shown, he says, by the fact that many escorts don't kiss. These are people who almost literally believe that men are not mammals with a sex drive, but monsters who want to feel powerful by possessing a female body. It's not even a fringe ideology anymore. I'm seriously wondering what kind of psycho generation will come out of the school curricula of the 2010s, especially in Europe.
Vitriol 2016-08-23 19:28:44
I’ve always found it funny that the manosphere prides itself on being ‘redpilled’ ie. privy to knowledge that others lack and open to ideas that go against the accepted social narrative on many topics, but seem to be so fixated on the sanctity of virgin unicorn girl monogamy that they’ll argue and ignore all logic to the contrary on the topic. Its analogous to extreme feminists defending their nonsensical ideology, a closed mindset manospherians so strongly detest, yet they fail to see the parallels. ... It’s one of the biggest failings of the manosphere.As someone who was around to watch what the last few years have brought, I was legitimately disappointed with how a great movement based upon intelligent men both young and old being able to come together and share ideas without worrying about censorship, political correctness, or being offensive turned out. Things started out like a fraternity of guys talking about going out drinking, banging sluts, and avoiding things like marriage and a traditional career path that would turn you into a slave. Then, around 2 or 3 years ago, many of these guys basically became like a religious group talking about how everything from porn, to sluts, to open relationships, to banging whores were evil, and how we all need to settle down, find Jesus, and start a family. Throw in the guys who were really into PUA material, who also started treating that stuff like a religion and the deemed it the "one true way to get laid" where everyone who doesn't agree with them is a loser. It's really fucking anti-climactic that such a great movement ended up lapsing into a PUA dick-swinging contest or guys talking about "church game" into order to start families and other lame shit. I guess the average man exposed to that much information can't handle it and regresses back into some kind of dogmatic or religious thinking. However, maybe something good will come out of it... I already see several of us posting in this thread talking about that shortcomings of things like PUA material or marriage because we've read the bullshit for long enough and realize it isn't the best way to live.
Acquiring girls or ‘PUA’ largely comes down to market conditions and your value within that market and other than your ability to understand that market and how it works and how to play it effectively (essentially what ‘PUA’ or ‘game’ is) there’s not much more you can learn from it.Well, that's true but it's even more simple. All you're really doing is casting a wider net than your comfort zone would normally allow and improving certain qualities of your physical looks and style that the average woman would find attractive. Even if you take this seriously, all you're really doing in effect is giving yourself something like a 5% chance to get laid every time you leave the house instead of a 1% chance. Even the best case scenario of PUA material or "Game" still means you're coming home with your dick in your hands at least 90% of the time. For guys who are serious about getting laid consistently, it isn't that hard to figure out that exchanging something tangible for pussy actually works better and is more in line with the normal course of human interactions than clowning a bunch of girls and hoping one of them goes home with you. @Gil Galad
One of them “explains” that the reason some married men go to prostitutes is their desire to exert power, and he adds that “this will never be enough for them, as they experience power over the woman’s body, but never her spirit or her heart”, as is shown, he says, by the fact that many escorts don’t kiss.I'm sure the idiot that came up with this has actually had the experience of tongue-kissing a whore and tasting the cigarettes on her breath... oh wait, no one should no what that's like because whores won't kiss you... I wonder how I would know what that's like...
WolfOfGeorgeStreet 2016-08-23 23:22:54
And this is why he has to spend most of his time living in beta tolerant,highly transactional countriesWrong. You obviously haven't read alot of his earlier stuff, or if you did, you didn't understand it. Even the link I posted to one of his articles just above disproves some of what you're saying already, and you're still buying into the 'Super PUA can perform just as good in any country' myth or the 'A true PUA should be able to get laid like a rock star anywhere' or 'Getting sex transactionally doesn't count, even if it costs 10x less in time and money than playing the numbers and being a TRUE PUA!', that's simply not how the world works. He's simply done a cost benefit analysis. Go to Eastern Europe or South America and get attractive women relatively effortlessly vs stay in the west and work 10x harder and spend 10x as much time for the same results. Go do some more reading before you knock him for that.
He is a fraud in other ways, but not in “game”. His early books are far from worthless for guys who do night and day game. But yeah, most of what he writes today taps into the emotions of angry incels. It’s a shame; I suspect that if he wasn’t so ideologically constipated about women, gay people, etc, the alpha 2.0 way could work for him and he wouldn’t be as despicable as he is. Objectively, I find him much smarter than his average reader, but he’s damaged goods as they say.That's a much more balanced view of Roosh.
I’ve read a few of those people. One of them “explains” that the reason some married men go to prostitutes is their desire to exert powerLOL, misandrists. There are, of course, some REAL misogynists out there, not the type of 'misogynists' that just have healthy sex drives and are masculine men who go after what they want and very much enjoy the company of women, but genuine misogynists who hate women and will use prostitutes in this manner as a power game or sort of revenge against women. Just like those guys in Dubai that will fly women out from the US and pay them huge sums to be subject to the most degrading acts. That sort of stuff is definitely about power, but having known and been in relationships with girls who escorted, from what I was told the vast majority of men, married or otherwise, go to escorts because they're horny and enjoy sexual variety, and escorts are a discreet, quick and easy way to procure that sexual variety.
Even if you take this seriously, all you’re really doing in effect is giving yourself something like a 5% chance to get laid every time you leave the house instead of a 1% chance.Agree.
Neil 2016-08-24 02:00:11
@joelsuf "Not to mention that Mystery was able to get chicks because he was really tall and good looking, Strauss was able to get chicks because he was popular and had value because he was a famous writer, and Lyons (along with RSD and others who followed in the footsteps of the old guard of PUAs) came from old money and hired actresses while only being able to hook up with average chicks. Roosh doesn’t even NEED the actresses as he already has a cult like following because MGTOW and MRA faggotry are what he preaches and it naturally attracts MGTOW and MRAs." You bought into the pick-up myth, didn’t get anything out of it and now it’s all rubbish. The problem isn’t pick up, it’s you. I see so many guys think, that just buying a dvd or doing a bootcamp will change their lives but it won’t. You have to want to change yourself but if you don’t then when you don’t get girls it’s easier to blame the evil pua’s rather than look at yourself. All this crap about them being scam artists is just you being pissed off with what happened to you and isn’t even accurate; In “The Game”, Strauss was a famous writer who STILL couldn’t get laid which is why he wanted to change himself. Does the PUA industry exaggerate their selling? Of course, but virtually anyone in the selling industry does. I mean how often do you hear someone saying that their new deals are “ok, but nothing special”?! All pickup does is show guys what they need to do to get girls interested in them. If you believe that you’re going to get hot girls because some guy on the internet has photos of them on his pick-up website, then don’t blame them when you fail.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-08-24 02:54:22
For guys who are serious about getting laid consistently, it isn’t that hard to figure out that exchanging something tangible for pussy actually works better and is more in line with the normal course of human interactionsOh for fuck sake! See, this is the other thing I hate about the manosphere. The first is the tradcon culture of slut shaming and the cult of Disney virginity (which I already discussed). The second (which is invading the seduction community as well like a cancer) is this glorification of prostitutes and gold diggers (and other asexual females). It needs to stop. Look, if you want to pay actresses to fake orgasms for you, knock yourself out! If you'd rather have fake sex with asexual women because you're too lazy to persuade heterosexual women to have sincere and genuine sex with you, that's your choice! But for fuck sake, stop promoting this "female as generous asexual" and "male as paying heterosexual customer" bullshit as being superior, while discouraging men who want women to give them sex in exchange for sex! Stop saying it's more "natural in the course of human interactions" for women to be frigid asexuals and less natural for women to be horny heterosexuals! IT'S NOT TRUE! Stop trying to discourage seduction! Stop implying that the pussy is more valuable than the penis and that men are second class citizens who have to pay for what women get for free (sex). BUT MOST OF ALL - STOP LYING ABOUT MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITHOUT PAYING BY SAYING THAT THEY DON'T GET LAID CONSISTENTLY OR DON'T HAVE REGULAR SEX LIVES UNLESS THEY PAY! BD, MYSELF, AND MANY OTHERS ARE PROOF THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS FALSE! The glorification of gold diggers and hookers comes from the same mental block as the glorification of Disney virgins - the belief that female heterosexuality is a myth, which means that the woman is either an asexual Disney virgin or an asexual gold digging prostitute who has sex only for non-sexual and gender neutral reasons! This pro-hooker and anti-heterosexual female attitude is REALLY starting to make me sick (can you tell?). Is it so hard to treat women like heterosexuals? Must they be either pure virgins or money grubbing whores who have sex for every reason imaginable, except because they're horny? Both beliefs - that women are Disney virgins OR prostitutes - are based in female supremacy - that sex is something non-sexual women possess that us heterosexual men must tease away from them, thus putting women on a pedestal and casting us men as beggars! Female supremacy ends when the female orgasm begins! Treating men like first class citizens - the equals of women - is only possible when we start treating women like horny heterosexuals instead of generous asexuals whom we must pay! STOP THE FEMALE SUPREMACIST BELIEF IN PROSTITUTION! STOP THE FEMALE SUPREMACIST BELIEF IN DISNEY VIRGIN PURITY!
Lope Aguirre 2016-08-24 03:14:04
Wrong. You obviously haven’t read alot of his earlier stuff, or if you did, you didn’t understand it. Even the link I posted to one of his articles just above disproves some of what you’re saying already, and you’re still buying into the ‘Super PUA can perform just as good in any country’ myth or the ‘A true PUA should be able to get laid like a rock star anywhere’ or ‘Getting sex transactionally doesn’t count, even if it costs 10x less in time and money than playing the numbers and being a TRUE PUA!’, that’s simply not how the world works.He’s simply done a cost benefit analysis. Go to Eastern Europe or South America and get attractive women relatively effortlessly vs stay in the west and work 10x harder and spend 10x as much time for the same results. Go do some more reading before you knock him for that.Wrong. PUA stands for "artist", a person who is good in what he does.Meaning-he has game. Engaging in a promise of transaction is NOT game. Roosh and alike crafted an amazing excuse for their lack of skills- that women in the west are somehow ugly and horrible. Being someone from Eastern Europe who lives in the West-I simply laugh at this shit. You see you don't really need any game in Eastern Europe especially FSU. In fact, game and looks is a disadvantage there. What Roosh,krauser and alike do-they deceive silly,insecure women in unstable societies into a promise of a potential transaction,then sell vomit to losers and incels around the world under a premise of being skillful in game. They are as skilful as any other IT nerd fishing for a russian wife on the internet. Literally the same. Living in a country with a horrible climate and no sea,poor infrastructure ,without knowing the language and effectively on illegal migrant status-does not sound like a good cost/benefits analysis.You must be really starving of pussy of acceptable quality in your locality, let's be honest.Do you really want to "learn" from these people? Also,have you ever seen any evidence of them being with attractive women,even in the countries they frequently visit? These people have very fragile ego's, and need for constant validation. You would certainly expect them to be showing some evidence of a "player lifestyle". As I mentioned above-any decent player is someone who engages in relationships of sorts (mono ,poly,etc) with women from time to time, relationships is something which is is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.. Somebody like roosh/krauser who are starving for material to write would blog about this,but yet we hear nothing.Why? Simple,because they do not really experience women in their lives. I recommend to read aaron sleazy "debunking seduction community" where he has clearly explained all this (in much better way than I do).
Rezzy 2016-08-24 03:52:28
Hi BD. Question about the applicability of a soft next. Started seeing a beautiful stripper I met from a cold approach. She asks you on our second date if I see other people. I tell her yes. Makes out with me any way. She's happy to come out for a third date but when she arrives she announces we have to be friends based on the fact I see other people. Tells me she can only hang out for 10 minutes, then decides to stick around for the whole night. She skips her dancing shift. We go out for a drink. She rests her head on my shoulder and is fine grinding her ass in my crotch to music, but she won't make out. Texts me when she gets home. So here's the deal: she's a ton of fun and stunning, but I view her mixed signals and changing positions as passive aggressive form of drama. Is this behavior of hers worthy of a week long soft next? Should I bail entirely?
DJ 2016-08-24 04:06:34
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samantha-rodman-phd/i-save-childrens-lives-yet-my-wife-wont-have-frequent-varied-sex-with-me_b_11644430.html? BD this reminds me on your take on the NY Times article about femalie viagra for women in long monogamous marriages, except here the story is about a specific couple
Anon. 2016-08-24 04:18:09
You see you don’t really need any game in Eastern Europe especially FSU. In fact, game and looks is a disadvantage there.Care to elaborate?
Lope Aguirre 2016-08-24 04:39:03
@Anon I can speak for FSU with confidence. Other,more economically developed countries,like Poland or Czech republic tend to slide towards western relationships model. Fake "puas" call it westernisation-in reality it is just pure economic empowerment. From the age of 17-18 women in these countries start to ignore men with looks and game completely.They need a beta who can provide for them (while they often leave the cards opened for themselves).Looks and game are associated with a man who is difficult to control,man with abundance mentality, a "jerk", a cad.An absolutely useless man for a Russian or Ukrainian woman. Note,that naturals and attractive young western guys are NEVER interested in EE women.Because they are exposed to attractive females in the west, while in the East they are simply overlooked and ignored. You average sex tourist in Ukraine is never an attractive alpha.It is either an unattractive man without game, or somebody who is on the bottom of the ladder due to a racial handicap. There are more and more young women in FSU who express interest to alpha males (attractive+game+interesting life,NOT money/status),especially in the cities. But normally they stay with local alphas, as they have more to offer. One thing for sure-I have to dial down on game when back home.Also, drag game wont bring you nowhere, they simply move on. It is hard to explain but this is explained by many factors. Poverty (min salary in Russia is smaller than in Romania,the poorest country of EU), traditional matriarchy, very bizarre attitude towards men, especially in girl who grew without a father (more than half over there).
Truc 2016-08-24 07:01:14
lol, I <3 you Jack, for real! Keep posting, we really need comments like these!!
Blackdragon 2016-08-24 10:55:14
Hi BD. Question about the applicability of a soft next. Started seeing a beautiful stripper I met from a cold approach.1. That's extremely off topic. Please ask that kind of thing in the many soft nexting articles I have. 2. I really hate these "there's this one girl I really want to fuck her what should I do?" questions. Questions like that smack of beta, neediness, oneitis, scarcity, and even shitty self esteem. My default answer to all of these questions is to go fuck other girls. (That's what I do whenever I have a problem with "that one girl." Simple. Problem solved.)
WolfOfGeorgeStreet 2016-08-24 11:21:37
@Jack Outside the Box
Stop implying that the pussy is more valuable than the penisThe pussy IS more valuable than the penis, science tells us this. "the average male will produce roughly 525 billion sperm cells over a lifetime, the average female will only ovulate 300-400 eggs in her lifetime." Get those numbers into your head. Then there's sex ratio at birth, 107 boys per 100 girls which further skews the figures. Men are disposable and sperm is cheap. Eggs are expensive and therefor women are valuable. That's life. Accept it. The one saving grace for men is that the top x% of men are very valuable (the top Alpha's), their sperm is more valuable and more sought after by women than other men. So depending how high they sit on the desirability curve they might be able to get away with cheap sex, a couple of drinks and some time to charm a girl or even completely free and be inundated with offers ie. A rich, handsome, famous guy who has girls throwing themselves at him and gets laid with zero time, effort or investment. Whereas the bottom x% of men are paying... if they can afford it.
the belief that female heterosexuality is a myth, which means that the woman is either an asexual Disney virgin or an asexual gold digging prostitute who has sex only for non-sexual and gender neutral reasonsThese are two extremes, and I agree that neither is correct. However women CAN demand more for sex, including money. It's basic economics and it comes down to supply and demand, not only are their more men than women at birth but men have, on average, much higher sex drives. Therefor the demand for female sex considerably outweighs the available supply. So men are going to have to work harder for it and pay more for it, either with their time or money. @Lope Aguirre Maybe you should read someone's work before attacking them, but here I've done it for you...
PUA stands for “artist”, a person who is good in what he does.Meaning-he has game. Engaging in a promise of transaction is NOT game. Roosh"I hate the term pick up artist. It’s geeky. It’s try-hard. It doesn’t roll off the tongue. I have never referred to myself as one and never will" - Roosh source: http://www.rooshv.com/game-guy
What Roosh,krauser and alike do-they deceive silly,insecure women in unstable societies into a promise of a potential transaction, then sell vomit to losers and incels around the world under a premise of being skillful in game.Roosh sells books, he's a writer, his books are mostly travel guides. Out of the 18 books he sells only 2 of them are game guides. source: http://www.bangguides.com His 2 game books btw are the best in the entire 'PUA' industry for day game and night game respectively, and they're also dirt cheap, the guy isn't ripping off anyone, his stuff is legit. They are the equivalent of BD's online dating book, which is the best in the industry for online. This is coming from someone who's read an absolute tonne when it comes to PUA, including the entire mASF pdf archives, every single one of them from first post to last. Most of it was a waste of time.
Somebody like roosh/krauser who are starving for material to write would blog about this,but yet we hear nothing.Why?Because once again you obviously don't read or listen to much of roosh, so why would you hear. He's said recently he's been in a monogamous (lol) relationship for about a year, and has blogged about previous relationships before, source for just one example: http://www.rooshv.com/anna (there are 6 parts) I'm just defending someone you are brazenly attacking without having done any research for yourself. Stop listening to what the media or people trying to sell their own products have to say and look into things yourself, these people you are getting this false information from have their own agenda.
Rezzy 2016-08-24 12:00:35
Cool. Thanks for your feedback.
Brick 2016-08-24 12:34:54
@Jack Outside the Box Traditional conservatives created man-hating and sex-hating feminism. Maybe so, but you can definitely see the similarities. My ex, raised by very devout (Vatican I type) Catholics, became a feminist SJW in college. When I look at it clearly, they share the same prudishness and kooky asceticism and "save the world" idealism. It was interesting because politically, she differed radically with her folks about everything, but her behavior towards hetero sex was very prudish and misandrist, even though she advocated for gay marriage and the usual SWPL hipster issues. Straight, kinky sex, frequent sex? To her, that was sleazy and demeaning. The PUA's/Manosphere always go on about "the cathedral" when talking about modern feminism/leftism/media propaganda, but it's pretty damn true. I live in a Deep Blue city and it's full of women who want to save the world but are unable to enjoy themselves and seem very heterophobic and cold. You really hit the nail on the head there.
Anon. 2016-08-24 12:37:58
I’ve read the Roosh+Anna story before. I wonder why people come to such outrageous conclusions, even if it’s all spelled out in plain English:
She brought me little gifts every other date, small trinkets she came across. She bought a glass and painted a design on it with a big R. She cooked soup when I was sick. She brought me sweets. She was patient, kind, funny, emotional, sexy, smart, feminine, nurturing, honest—everything a man could want, but like with every other girl, I started to get bored. When we went on the beach at night to eat cookies and drink champagne, I was ready to go home after two hours. When we went to the dolphin show, I was watching the clock while she excitedly took pictures of the imprisoned animals. I dreaded phone conversations where she would ask me what I did during my day when it was no different than the one before it. Even sex become a chore, a job. I knew her vagina inside and out. It gave me orgasms, but there was no novelty, no excitement. I had trouble reconciling my boredom with her considering she was one of the most interesting girls I’ve ever dated who put a lot of effort in bed.
I just didn’t want to reduce my freedom by being locked down to one woman.If this doesn’t prove BD’s points, I wonder what does.
Anon. 2016-08-24 13:24:59
The pussy IS more valuable than the penis, science tells us this.First of all, all the biology regarding number of sperm vs number of eggs, ratio of boys to girls is of course absolutely irrelevant. Do people factor that in their relationship decisions? One revelation Jack here kindly provided, that’s obvious once one thinks about it, is the realization about expectations of sexual partners. While for a man, almost any woman would suffice, women’s requirements are much higher. He must have the right amount of dominance, the right amount of tenderness, do the right moves at the right angles and so on. If a man is dissatisfied with something, he just takes charge and fixes it, while a woman wants not to have to do this. So men’s value has much greater variance than that of women, correspondingly, women are more picky than men. This is mistaken for an intrinsic difference in value between men and women.
Lope Aguirre 2016-08-24 13:25:39
Because once again you obviously don’t read or listen to much of roosh, so why would you hear. He’s said recently he’s been in a monogamous (lol) relationship for about a year, and has blogged about previous relationships before, source for just one example: http://www.rooshv.com/anna(there are 6 parts)Thanks for pointing me to these.I have read it.Just another solid proof to my point that all these "pua's" are only able to get women on a promise of a transaction. Makes perfect sense why he hates Scandinavian women etc. Now compare this vomit to writings of Rollo Tomassi or Aaron Sleazy and you see the difference. On the other note, go and check Roosh's tweeter.Right now. Tell me he does not have a mental illness of sorts .This is a tweeter of a person with a serious mental condition (schisophreniphoom disorder from what it looks).Why do you even read this shit?
Blackdragon 2016-08-24 13:47:21
If this doesn’t prove BD’s points, I wonder what does.Correct. Don't take relationship advice from hardcore players. Their relationships always fail. Too many guys in this thread are arguing about whether or not Roosh has had any relationships. What's relevant is what happened to him when he tried them, and how they ended up. It's also not fair to dogpile on Roosh. Damn near all PUA gurus, including some names that have been brought up in this thread (Arron Sleazy, Adam Lyons, etc) have had multiple failed relationships (usually monogamous ones of course) over the last 10 years. Again, what happened when these Thrill of the Hunt, PUA, player seducers tried these relationships? Did they last 20 years? 10? Did they make them happy? Where they truly monogamous or was there cheating going on? Did they end well with near-zero problems? Etc. Take all the pickup and get-laid advice from these men you like. They get laid and they're good at this stuff. Many of them have helped me in this area as well. But for fuck's sake, don't listen their relationship or marriage advice at all just because you agree with them on other issues. These men have no skills in this area.
Financier Guru 2016-08-24 14:39:30
You wanna see crazy Twitter ? Check out @Cernovich, it's twitting on steroids.
Gil Galad 2016-08-24 14:43:54
Two or three of you guys have been misunderstanding each other about whether "the pussy has more value than the penis", and it's the kind of misunderstanding I, ahem, understand. True, people don't *consciously* factor in any math or biology about how men produce sperms in the billions and women produce eggs in the hundreds when dealing with people; this is a biological fact that influences human behavior through a much longer, complicated causal chain. Without getting into the details, the remote consequences of sperm/egg asymmetry include a psychological tendency for both men and women to value women somewhat more than men. If I forced you to choose between shooting a man and shooting a woman, you might be able to resort to a coin flip; but if I forced you to stab one of them (or another brutal method), it'll be harder for you not to choose to kill the man and spare the woman. This is not a social conspiracy or even a conscious effort from women: it's just a consequence of evolution that the physically weaker (and more child-investing) sex will be wired for strategies to counterbalance all this by better exploiting the other sex. One needs a conscious mental effort to overcome the tendency and embrace strict egalitarianism, which includes not putting women on a pedestal.
There are, of course, some REAL misogynists out there [...] who hate women and will use prostitutes in this manner as a power game or sort of revenge against women ... Just like those guys in Dubai that will fly women out from the US and pay them huge sums to be subject to the most degrading acts. That sort of stuff is definitely about power, [...] the vast majority of men, married or otherwise, go to escorts because they’re horny and enjoy sexual variety, and escorts are a discreet, quick and easy way to procure that sexual variety.@ Wolf: fully agree with that.
shubert 2016-08-24 14:51:37
Honestly, this is more like advice that basically says: "Don't listen to people on a topic who have not gone into the field, made mistakes and then became an authority." I'm doing that with regards to my book. There are plenty of people on Youtube who will tell you about writing a book, but I'd rather go to the person who has done it, made money doing it and can tell me what he did. The Youtube videos are a waste of time.
shubert 2016-08-24 14:57:42
@Anon. Yup. Roosh himself says -- indirectly -- that monogamous relationships are a mistake. Also, what I don't like is that he talks about God and family, when he doesn't want to get monogamous and then start having kids (oh, he has said what he expects out of his wife, but I don't see him walking to the local gubment office and signing on the dotted line, pre-nup or none.)
POB 2016-08-24 17:17:21
Take all the pickup and get-laid advice from these men you like. They get laid and they’re good at this stuff. Many of them have helped me in this area as well. But for fuck’s sake, don’t listen their relationship or marriage advice at all just because you agree with them on other issues. These men have no skills in this area.Exactly how I've always felt about this issue. If you've ever been with a woman for more than 1 year (mono or not) you know their advice in this field is not conducive to a healthy relationship. Deep down they are just surrendering to SP despite their strong biological urges.
WolfOfGeorgeStreet 2016-08-24 19:46:30
Some of these tangents are getting quite off topic, but anyway. @Lope Aguirre
Thanks for pointing me to these.I have read it.Just another solid proof to my point that all these “pua’s” are only able to get women on a promise of a transaction.All human interaction is transactional.
On the other note, go and check Roosh’s tweeter.Right now.I've already covered this above where I said his latest writings have delved into the world of conspiracy theories. Just as you shouldn't take someone who is an expert in one area's advice on topics they aren't experts in (the entire point of BD's article), you shouldn't discount their advice on topics they are experts in because they 're views or advice in other areas are wrong, and that is exactly what you're doing here. You're initial attacks were on Roosh's advice on meeting women, when really, he's one of the best writers on the topic, that and travelling to meet women. However take his advice on relationships with a grain of salt (obviously), and look at his other writings with a large degree of skepticism. @Anon
First of all, all the biology regarding number of sperm vs number of eggs, ratio of boys to girls is of course absolutely irrelevant. Do people factor that in their relationship decisions?It's not irrelevant, because yes they absolutely do, but they do so subconsciously. It's biological wiring, see below response to Gil. The rest of your post I covered when talking about the high value men (sperm) that signals the best genetics that women will actively pursue. Women's pickiness in men (the desire for the highest value men) is a manifestation of their limited egg supply. @Gil Galad
One needs a conscious mental effort to overcome the tendency and embrace strict egalitarianism, which includes not putting women on a pedestal.Absolutely, and I agree with everything you've said in that paragraph, and in a world with billions of people now perhaps the egg/sperm value disparity biological wiring is obsolete (or at least less relevant). However when asking which is more valuable the 'pussy' or the 'penis', we have to understand that the value of something is set by greater market forces. The vast majority of men are not making a conscious mental effort to overcome this biological wiring and it is the greater majority that sets the value of something in a free market. Therefore the pussy IS more valuable than the penis, and this is reflected in the fact that the market is willing to pay sums like $400+ an hour for pussy, not so (with perhaps some rare exceptions) for penis.
Lope Aguirre 2016-08-25 02:04:55
You’re initial attacks were on Roosh’s advice on meeting women, when really, he’s one of the best writers on the topic, that and travelling to meet womenI started all this debate from one main premise: if a man goes to a shithole in Eastern Europe (and trust me it is a shithole, I am Eastern European) just because this is the only place where he can find women and write his "Anna" essays than you should not be reading him. If another racist english clown goes to Kiev to practice "daygame" and whine on his blog thath "London is horrible for daygame" than you should not be reading this man and let alone buying his "daygame mastery". Because it is not mastery. Also, if roosh is a "pua" than surely I should start writing lol. With my regular serial monogamy with occasional bouts of polygamy (when I can afford it) and over 20 flags (probably just about standard for any man in his early thirties out there)-I am way better than that weirdo. "Don't bang Denmark".For a f sake-have you guys actually been to Denmark? Don't bang Denmark only because danish women want an attractive man with game (like dutch,swedish and so on)? Fuck that. Dont be ridiculous.
WolfOfGeorgeStreet 2016-08-25 02:40:57
I started all this debate from one main premise: if a man goes to a shithole in Eastern Europe (and trust me it is a shithole, I am Eastern European) just because this is the only place where he can find women and write his “Anna” essays than you should not be reading himYes, and that premise is wrong. It's not the only place he can find women, it's just way easier. As we all (should) know the west is heavily looks based, looks weigh more heavily on a girls decision to sleep with a guy than places like EE. So if you're not a traditionally handsome guy it makes sense to go to locations that are less heavily looks based and place more importance on the other two big attractors, wealth and status. Roosh is not a handsome guy, but when he was willing to put in the numbers and run his game, he certainly got laid in the US. Again: http://www.rooshv.com/you-have-no-idea-how-easy-it-is-for-good-looking-men What's wrong with someone finding an easier, quicker way to get what they want and writing about it? One of the reasons I defend him is because it was his old blog I found 14 years ago (rooshlog) about his, often failed, attempts to meet women in DC that introduced me to all of this to begin with. If it weren't for that shitty and sometimes hilarious little blog I probably wouldn't be where I am today, and where I am today is in a very good position both romantically and financially. Like him or hate him, he was one of the founders of the modern manosphere and certainly one of the heaviest influences on what guys refer to as 'redpill' (along with Roissy aka heartiste and Rollo), if you're choosing not to read alot of his earlier writing, it really is your loss, because it's one of the best sources of information on one of the key skills men require to live a happy life in a world that is becoming increasingly hostile towards men.
Lope Aguirre 2016-08-25 03:39:34
Like him or hate him, he was one of the founders of the modern manosphere and certainly one of the heaviest influences on what guys refer to as ‘redpill’ (along with Roissy aka heartiste and Rollo), if you’re choosing not to read alot of his earlier writing, it really is your loss, because it’s one of the best sources of information on one of the key skills men require to live a happy life in a world that is becoming increasingly hostile towards men.I was reading original masf back in 2004, this clown would hardly get my attention. You are talking about "manosphere" like if it's something great. In reality it is a group of paranoidal, embittered incels who are "fighting" the windmills of feminism and lizard-men-on-volcano style conspiracies. If a young man lands on the returnofkings or roosh's site-he will be done, no more pussy for him. Just raving about the horrors of the world around. What is the redpill exactly? Understanding that women are sexual being following their hardwired sexual strategies? While PU offers optimistic outlook, motivation for self inprovement, the "manosphere" is an absolutely depressing place, full of negative influences. I read heartiste for laughs, and had to stop after some time, realising that I was starting to see a horrible feminist in literally every woman. You need to hangout with successful men, naturals, men who are liked by women.Even on the internet.If you start reading a guy who self admitted that he was not attractive enough to get women in Washington DC or Denmark and that his best option is a plain looking Ukrainian woman (despite the fact he truly hates Ukraine as it is not a comfortable place to live, he wrote about it) than you become like him.
Roosh is not a handsome guy, but when he was willing to put in the numbers and run his game, he certainly got laid in the US. Again: http://www.rooshv.com/you-have-no-idea-how-easy-it-is-for-good-looking-menI think the subject of importance of male looks has been discussed widely, by BD himself on this site. It is also remarkable how pathetic Roosh is. He is a tall guy,taller than 80-90% of male population in USA or most of Europe.A man of average or probably above average looks. Yet he complains and whines about "good looking men" getting all da pussy.Seriously? The guy is exactly the opposite of pua,however you look at it.Not someone to reach for advice on women. if you want my advice-stop reading him,heartiste,krauser and other losers.Stop for a month or two and suddenly you will notice that women are not that horrible, and there is harldy any need to travel to a remote island of Farawaystan to find a local woman to court her for 6 weeks lying that you are a successful "entrepreneur" from a land of plenty.
WolfOfGeorgeStreet 2016-08-25 04:58:19
One of the great things about him was that he wrote about alot of his failures, I think there's alot more to learn from failure than success, but people like to point to those failures and use it against him, just as you're doing here.
The guy is exactly the opposite of puaProbably a compliment nowadays. We all have different ideas of success, for some running around clubs, bars, and coffee shops in tough dating markets trolling for pussy all week is enjoyable and then when finally getting laid they feel successful, that's fine. Others see all of that as a means to an end (especially after years of doing it), so if there's a quicker/cheaper way to achieve the same end they'll take it, they might think pursuing other goals is a more efficient use of their time, which brings me to...
lying that you are a successful “entrepreneur”Sometimes, when we tell women that, it's actually the truth. There's alot of value in Roosh's old works for men and there's alot of other successful guys that think so, you don't think so, that's fine. You have different priorities and goals.
Joelsuf 2016-08-25 06:17:34
You bought into the pick-up myth, didn’t get anything out of it and now it’s all rubbish. The problem isn’t pick up, it’s you.Well no shit. It was just my opinion. Once I stopped going after chicks who weren't matched up to me looks and status wise and started going after chicks who did, I got way better. I didn't buy into anything. I read a bunch of their materials, some of it worked, most of it didn't. I got what I paid for which was very little. Before I discovered PUAism, I didn't even know how to get a chick on a date lol. But I still feel like its warranted that most of their stuff are scams and agenda. Like most self improvement stuff really. Even awesome improvement guys like Robbins and Covey still want you to think a certain way. BD even admits it in his posts and books! PUAs don't own this, and it concerns me.
In reality it is a group of paranoidal, embittered incels who are “fighting” the windmills of feminism and lizard-men-on-volcano style conspiracies. If a young man lands on the returnofkings or roosh’s site-he will be done, no more pussy for him.Absolutely right. I would also argue that they are closeted homosexuals as well, worshiping each other while crying in their hugbox, too afraid to admit that they would just as soon have sex with each other than any chicks at all, just to cement their cause lol.
POB 2016-08-25 08:43:58
I'm not that familiar with Roosh's early work (must be interesting stuff, I'm sure), but a guy who used to be a full-time PUA and now writes posts about: "The Future Mother Of Your Child Should Be A Virgin Who Believes In God " or "Why You Should Not Have Sex With Girls Who Hate Donald Trump" is clearly proving BD's points to the core. BTW @Jack, just read your small rant above...agree 100% with what you said. Since when prudes and hookers are better than regular women? Since when regular women are not creatures like ourselves, who like to have sex and feel good and desired? Guys should just stop bullshitting themselves and improve their game and PU/relationship skills instead of pursuing virgin unicorns or gold-digging sexual actresses who could probably massage their egos, but not make them happy long-term.
donnie demarco 2016-08-25 10:50:20
BUT MOST OF ALL – STOP LYING ABOUT MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITHOUT PAYING BY SAYING THAT THEY DON’T GET LAID CONSISTENTLY OR DON’T HAVE REGULAR SEX LIVES UNLESS THEY PAY! BD, MYSELF, AND MANY OTHERS ARE PROOF THAT WHAT YOU’RE SAYING IS FALSE!I've come to realize that there are two types of men who comment on this blog: Men who argue on a hypothetical basis, and men who argue on an empirical basis. From there, it's not too hard to figure out who is getting laid regularly.
Blackdragon 2016-08-25 12:13:54
Roosh himself says — indirectly — that monogamous relationships are a mistake.Correct. Roosh's new position on monogamy, at least in a marriage (according to a recent Q&A video he did) is that once you get married, you should not fuck other women until your wife starts getting old or fat in her 50s from having all of your babies. Then you can start fucking other women on the side as long as you keep it discreet and don't "shame" your wife. (Of course, your wife can never fuck another man.) Since the other typical manosphere advice is to marry a young woman (early 20s), this all assumes that an Alpha Male will be 100% sexually faithful to his wife for 20 years straight, and that you won't get divorced in the first 20 years, and we all know how unlikely that is. But at least he admits he can't be lifetime monogamous, so that's something at least.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-08-26 20:57:09
Traditional conservatives created man-hating and sex-hating feminism. Maybe so, but you can definitely see the similarities.Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying. I'll say it again: Sex hating feminism is the politicization of what traditional conservative fathers tell their daughters about sex in private. So when a tradcon father threatens to shoot the boy that wants to have consensual sex with his daughter if he "so much as touches my sweet angel" in the same manner that I would want to shoot him if he raped my daughter, his future radical feminist daughter registers that there is no practical difference between consensual sex and rape and that sex is "inherently harmful" to women. Then when members of the Alt Right hear feminists say that all sex is rape, they wonder where these man-hating dykes got this insanity from. I mean, weren't these feminists once little girls? Didn't they once eat ice cream and love to play on the swings? How did they get so hateful? I respond with - Look in the mirror, you fucking tradcon! The next time you threaten a teenage boy with a shot gun who wants to give your daughter an orgasm, feel shame instead! Every tradcon needs to watch this 30 second public service announcement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgUvg9vnxII
My ex, raised by very devout (Vatican I type) Catholics, became a feminist SJW in college.Potato, potato.
When I look at it clearly, they share the same prudishness and kooky asceticism and “save the world” idealism.Yes, the same heterophobia against the practicing heterosexual is present in both camps due to the identical false belief - that sex somehow pollutes the woman's "purity." The difference is that tradcons blame the woman for allowing her "purity" to be polluted via slut shaming, whereas SJWs drop the slut shaming and just join the chivalrous tradcons in hunting down the non-virgin male and shooting him with that tradcon's shot gun (metaphorically speaking).
It was interesting because politically, she differed radically with her folks about everything, but her behavior towards hetero sex was very prudish and misandrist, even though she advocated for gay marriage and the usual SWPL hipster issues.Yeah, they're the same people. There's just a difference in emphasis. Tradcons slut shame the female and trash the male, whereas SJWs just trash the male.
Straight, kinky sex, frequent sex? To her, that was sleazy and demeaning.I wish I could challenge her and ask if there is any straight sex she finds acceptable. Because women are supposed to be empowered when they are practicing heterosexuals, but if men are practicing heterosexuals SJWs will call them "sleazy," "objectifiers," "rape culture contributers" and other heterophobic garbage. Just remember who started this lesbianic madness - traditional conservative fathers!
The PUA’s/Manosphere always go on about “the cathedral” when talking about modern feminism/leftism/media propaganda, but it’s pretty damn true.Yes, but they're being one sided. They fail to see that traditional conservatism and chivalry is what allowed SJWs and misandrists to flourish, even to the point where my spell checker won't recognize misandry but will recognize misogyny.
I live in a Deep Blue city and it’s full of women who want to save the world but are unable to enjoy themselves and seem very heterophobic and cold.That's why sex-positive feminists (who were in control of feminism in the 1970s) lost their political power. They were enjoying themselves, having great sex with multiple men, and living lives filled with happiness and joy. So the sex-hating radicals wrestled the movement away from them because they had no sex lives or personal happiness, and thus more time on their hands to scream and engage in "take back the night marches" involving candlelight vigils brandishing signs saying "all men are rapists" while the sex-positive ones were busy getting laid and enjoying life.
Ron Gordon 2016-08-27 01:25:54
I have read Roosh's "Bang" and "Day Bang" and Sleazy's "Minimal Game". I think these are excellent books to get you in the mode to approach beautiful women and have sex. In my mind they both complement BlackDragon, who has the best method as to how to handle the women after you have them and also BD focuses on net game.
Joelsuf 2016-08-27 07:12:55
That’s why sex-positive feminists (who were in control of feminism in the 1970s) lost their political power. They were enjoying themselves, having great sex with multiple men, and living lives filled with happiness and joy. So the sex-hating radicals wrestled the movement away from them because they had no sex lives or personal happiness, and thus more time on their hands to scream and engage in “take back the night marches” involving candlelight vigils brandishing signs saying “all men are rapists” while the sex-positive ones were busy getting laid and enjoying life.Yeah, my mother was a sex positive feminist. She was jettisoned out of NOW in 1978 when she decided to get married. She tells me this story all the time, how the pro-sex feminists didn't mind certain patriarchal traditions as long as chicks have the prerogative to be part of them or not. Because she was part of the pro-sex feminist camp, she was jettisoned from NOW. She's disgusted at how perverted and backwards the movement has become. She hates how there is STILL a double standard with dudes, chicks, and sex. I do too. Its always the people who don't get laid who want to ruin everything for those who do. And it really doesn't matter who or what you are: Dude, chick, straight, gay, if you are having sex, chances are some sexless piece of shit thinks you are part of some wild conspiracy against them. Its hilariously disturbing and sad.
Joelsuf 2016-08-27 07:26:16
SJWs drop the slut shaming and just join the chivalrous tradcons in hunting down the non-virgin male and shooting him with that tradcon’s shot gun (metaphorically speaking).JOTB, we've had our spats before but you never cease to amaze me with your razor sharp observations. And this right here is priceless. I've been saying this ever since SJWs became relevant four or so years ago, only I've been taking it a step further: I feel like SJWs just tell chicks to falsely accuse dudes who aren't perfect enough for THEM (not the chick, for SJWs, meaning he has to be a cuck who agrees with everything SJWs say) of rape. Just like tradcons don't want their precious daughters to get with any dude that THEY don't approve of. SJWs just operate at a different angle and use the fact that chicks still get white knighted by default to their advantage. And I'll say this, its nothing I wouldn't do. SJWs are cheating and working the system to where everything is in their favor. Much as I hate it (because I am not a chick and therefore not part of what SJWs defend), I respect their ruthlessness in a weird way. To hell with it, I'll go even further. I feel like there is some kind of under the table type of deal that SJWs are making with Tradcons to make sure that the world doesn't have too much sex. The whole population control thing. I'm not really being serious here, but anything is possible, right?
Jack Outside the Box 2016-08-27 10:10:09
Yeah, my mother was a sex positive feminist. She was jettisoned out of NOW in 1978 when she decided to get married. She tells me this story all the time, how the pro-sex feminists didn’t mind certain patriarchal traditions as long as chicks have the prerogative to be part of them or not. Because she was part of the pro-sex feminist camp, she was jettisoned from NOW. She’s disgusted at how perverted and backwards the movement has become. She hates how there is STILL a double standard with dudes, chicks, and sex. I do too.So how did she end up marrying an Orthodox Jewish bigot promoting all manner of double standards, including the idea that Jews are the master race?
Its always the people who don’t get laid who want to ruin everything for those who do. And it really doesn’t matter who or what you are: Dude, chick, straight, gay, if you are having sex, chances are some sexless piece of shit thinks you are part of some wild conspiracy against them. Its hilariously disturbing and sad.This is why my views on sexual liberation have evolved drastically in the last few years. I still fundamentally believe in sex-positivism, but I'm beginning to see the damage being caused to sexually liberated people if the philosophy of sexual openness becomes too public. Even just a year ago, I advocated for a completely sexually open culture, comprehensive sex education for teenagers, and an inculcation into the philosophy that sex is awesome and that a sexually satisfied society has nothing to be angry about and can lead to world peace. Although I still technically believe in the above philosophy, I'm realizing that most people aren't cut out for it, and everything loses its quality when it gets mainstreamed. You try to take the underground sex-positive culture above ground and two very bad things happen: 1. The intuitive nature of socially intelligent people gets demonized and the entire concept of seduction has to be dumbed down so that every idiot with an IQ of 70 can avoid socially clumsy mistakes that radical heterophobes stupidly define as "rape" and "sexual harassment." This leads to some genuinely autistic garbage like the "affirmative consent movement" saying that you are required to be autistic in order for sex to be legal for you and any use of any social intelligence is a crime because "not everyone has social intelligence" so it's unfair to them if you use yours, as the same rules must apply for everybody! This results in stupid people ruining everything for the rest of us while the women are turned off by autism (which gives radical feminists credibility when they say female heterosexuality is a myth invented by Stockholm Syndrome as a result of rape). And the quality of sex declines because sexual liberation has been mainstreamed. 2. Like you said, a public sex-positive culture brings the haters - the physically ugly, the fat, the sexually frustrated dykes who hate the fact that there aren't more dykes, the lazy, the facially pierced, the blue haired, the low sex drive, the frigid, the misandrists, the misogynists, the slut shamers, the stud shamers, and all those who are left out of the party. This, of course, leads to heterophobia, the passing of laws criminalizing sex by broadening the definition of rape, defining any type of flirtation, spark, happiness, or joy as sexual harassment, and the general ruination of the lives of the winners by the jealous sexually socialist losers who either want a share of the pie they did not earn, or want the entire pie thrown in the garbage if they can't have it! Feminists are now telling hot women to cover up because dressing in a sexy way is a micro-aggression against fat women who are "triggered" by other women's beauty (I'm not kidding!) Due to the above two things, while I still believe in sexual liberation and teaching your teenage children to love sex, I'm now leaning away from my previous ideas regarding a "public culture of sexual openness" and more towards the whole "secret society" concept. In order to stop sexuality from getting dumbed down for the masses and avoid the jealous losers, we may have to intensify our discretion and basically lead double lives, even more so than we're doing already. Promoting some type of monogamy to the masses and public prudery might be indicated while promoting, and working toward, the exact opposite in private. Whereas tradcons, for example, are true sexual socialists who believe that everyone should stand in line for only one low quality partner for life so that everyone else can get one too, I'd favor a sexual secret society of "sex creators" who deceive the masses into thinking that sexual socialism (tradcon philosophy) works while we secretly sleep with all of their "monogamous" partners and engage in poly arrangements with the precious few who are enlightened enough to handle the truth. And if anyone finds out, we convince them that their own lack of merit justified the deception and that they shouldn't hate the more merit based sex creators. Some would argue that that's exactly the system we have now (I know that my personal life precisely consists of such a system), but tradcons take it too far with their slut shaming and their "sex should be criminal without a government permit (marriage certificate) because my god says so and if you disagree I'll kill you" nonsense. And sex-positive people take it too far in the opposite direction which destroys the sexually open-minded community by dumbing it down for autistic idiots and bringing out the jealous haters. We need balance.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-08-27 11:43:05
I feel like SJWs just tell chicks to falsely accuse dudes who aren’t perfect enough for THEM (not the chick, for SJWs, meaning he has to be a cuck who agrees with everything SJWs say) of rape. Just like tradcons don’t want their precious daughters to get with any dude that THEY don’t approve of.Exactly. Like I said, first the culture becomes publicly sexually liberated, which provokes the sex-negative SJW haters. Next, chivalrous tradcons who also hate sex-positivism enable and stir up the SJWs with their "damsel in distress" theory of female sexuality, thus appealing to the SJW loser mindset that women have no free will and everything is men's fault. This allows all sex to be defined as rape, which leaves the marriage minded conservative scratching his head and wondering how things went this far. Whereas tradcons believe the woman is no longer a damsel in distress as soon as she gets married, SJWs don't believe in marriage. So all the SJWs have left to work with is the "all sex is rape" philosophy, while the tradcons play both sides - endorsing SJW chivalry and then capitalizing on its disastrous consequences for innocent men (false rape accusations) by telling those men "this is what happens to you when you live in sin and refuse to wait till you're married."
SJWs just operate at a different angle and use the fact that chicks still get white knighted by default to their advantage.The two things that allow sex-negative feminists and SJWs to flourish are - a sex-positive culture that's too public combined with tradcon chivalry and their damsel in distress theory of female sexuality.
And I’ll say this, its nothing I wouldn’t do. SJWs are cheating and working the system to where everything is in their favor. Much as I hate it (because I am not a chick and therefore not part of what SJWs defend), I respect their ruthlessness in a weird way.Dude, what are you talking about? The typical male SJW has nothing "in his favor." He doesn't get laid. He gets, at most, a kiss on the cheek while trying to talk his erection down by saying that his own heterosexuality is a form of misogyny which objectifies women and contributes to rape culture. So he tries to be the best asexual he can be while suffering in silence. Female SJWs aren't happy either. They are miserable, depressed little bitches who have declared war against their own natures. They "think" that everything is in their favor, but their only ultimate reward is their own misery, depression, and sadness when they realize that they have to change because the world won't change for them (a lesson their parents should have taught them but didn't).
To hell with it, I’ll go even further. I feel like there is some kind of under the table type of deal that SJWs are making with Tradcons to make sure that the world doesn’t have too much sex. The whole population control thing. I’m not really being serious here, but anything is possible, right?I think both groups are the equal puppets of the elites and neither realizes it. George Orwell wrote about this in 1984 with the "Junior Anti-Sex League" saying that once the orgasm is destroyed, "There will be no more loyalty, except loyalty to the Party. No more love, except the love of Big Brother. All competing pleasures we shall destroy." These sociopaths use the tradcons (who are true believers in sexual socialism) to enslave society and deny happiness to anyone who isn't a member of the elite club (not due to a lack of merit, but a lack of the correct blood, a lack of sociopathy, etc...). But if society becomes too liberated and happy, they bring in the SJWs (enabled by tradcon chivalry) to take more drastic measures towards puritanism by dividing men and women from each other, thus destroying the male/female bond and undoing sexuality, which results in a society with even greater despair and hopelessness and the solidification of their own control over the sheep who are now too tired and depressed to perpetrate a revolution.
Kryptokate 2016-08-27 14:57:43
Its always the people who don’t get laid who want to ruin everything for those who do.Oh so true. I have to think that the current hysteria about the imaginary campus sexual assault epidemic is motivated at least somewhat by deep-seated, suppressed envy. Who's pushing the agenda? Never the young guys and girls who are actually the ones going out partying and hooking up on a regular basis. It's the dads and the moms and the old people and the students who aren't really invited to those parties anyway. Basically they are pissed that the high status frat boys and hot girls are partying and hooking up. And I love how they all act like alcohol is such a huge problem on campus because it may lead to drunken hook-ups...when literally the *entire reason* students go to parties and get drunk is in the hopes of hooking up. They completely miss the fact that for girls, pre-gaming with shots, spending two hours "getting ready" (i.e. making themselves look as sexually alluring as possible), and gathering at night in a dark place with boys and drinking is a ritual performed for the express and sole purpose of meeting a guy to hook up with. Not to say that it always goes as planned, but I think it's funny that people act like there is even another reason to do those things. However, there's no conspiracy, or even a conscious, overt intention by trad-cons or SJWs to stop others from having sex. Well, okay, maybe for the Trad-cons, lol. But they genuinely believe they're upholding virtue and God's plan and SJWs genuinely believe they're protecting the vulnerable. You don't need a conspiracy because it's a natural instinct for people to want to maximize their own sexual opportunities while minimizing everyone else's. It's called the SMP for a reason -- it's a market with competition. It's no different from someone wanting to minimize or eliminate their spouse's sexual opportunities while preserving their own. Just on a wider societal basis. @ Jack Your thesis about trad-con fathers is very interesting. My father was never that type at all, so maybe that partially explains the way I am. I always found it creepy how so many fathers act like their daughters' cock-block as if they're a jealous boyfriend. To the contrary my dad always seemed to be proud and/or think it was hilarious to see guys hitting on me or my sister. I can remember he used to like walking behind me and my sister in public, like at the beach or whatever, so he could watch guys stare or try to talk to us and he thought it was super hilarious and would laugh his ass off. I can also remember when my prom date picked me up to take photos, far from warning him that he would cut his balls of if he touched me, he was elbowing him and saying shit like "she looks like swimsuit model doesn't she"? Lol. I suppose some people might find that creepy in the opposite direction in that his attitude was always more like Donald Trump's towards Ivanka, i.e. "look at my beautiful daughter I know you all want to bang her" type of attitude. Which, btw, I don't think it comes from having incestuous feelings or anything like that but more from having narcissistic, ego-type feelings about the sexual success of your progeny - more like living vicariously through them. Basically his attitude was towards me was similar to being proud that one's son is a stud, but without any jealousy issues that same-sex parents often have about their children. Hell, he still posts photos of me on Facebook with comments saying that he thinks I look a TV star or whatever. Whereas my mom has never been like that and always disliked when I looked sexy and discouraged it. Anyway, it's a little bit chicken and egg because I don't know if the reason my dad was so sexually non-protective is because he knew I was smart and not afraid of guys, or whether the reason I've never been afraid of guys is because my dad didn't ingrain it by being sexually protective. Of course, he definitely didn't go as far as you -- he never told me to go out and bang the whole football team, lol. But he never ever indicated in any way that my sexuality was something to be guarded or that I was vulnerable or fragile because of it or that it was something I had to keep from rapacious men. I'll have to think more about the benefits of maintaining a sexual secret society for those who are successful versus open "free love", which does ultimately mean a free marketplace where there are winners and losers and the losers will be more aware and more resentful. In fact, I would argue that the blow-up in anger, resentment, and confusion that you're seeing from men online in the "red pill" communities is entirely related to the fact that the machinations of the sexual marketplace have been revealed and laid bare by Tinder and online dating. Whereas previously most people who weren't in the winner's circle could remain mostly ignorant of how the elites were living. It seems to me that it's a balance, just like with money. Too much enforced equality and communism doesn't seem to work. But if you flagrantly allow TOO much inequality and the successful people hording everything for themselves while the masses get nothing, then revolution happens and heads roll. Only technology could ultimately solve the problem for everyone...until then, life is a competition for access to desired assets and the competition for money and sex are the most brutal. Interesting, though, how so many people who dislike the idea of economic redistribution of wealth or restriction of competition (i.e. trad cons) are totally in favor of it when it comes to the sexual market place. And vice versa (liberals). Hell, even socialist Bernie Sanders was writing articles back in the day advocating for free love and for teenage girls not to have their sexuality repressed by their parents. 😉 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2157415-sanders-revolution.html Seems very rare that someone is truly a raging libertarian on both sexual and financial issues, like you or BD. And also no coincidence that those who tend towards that position are usually in the winner's circle on both measures -- or at least strongly expect to be. It's easy to be comfortable with an unequally divided pie when you know you're going to get a nice slice.
Gil Galad 2016-08-27 15:26:22
Allright, a little too much conspirationism here. Joelsuf, here's some good old Karl Popper for you:
“It must be admitted that the structure of our social environment is man-made in a certain sense [...] But this does not mean that they are all consciously designed, and explicable in terms of needs, hopes or motives. On the contrary, even those which arise as the result of conscious and intentional human actions are, as a rule, the indirect, the unintentional and often the unwanted byproducts of such actions. Only a minority of social institutions are consciously designed, while the vast majority have just "grown," as the undesigned result of human actions, as I have said before; and we can add that even most of the few institutions which were consciously and successfully designed [...] do not turn out according to plan – again because of the unintended social repercussions resulting from their intentional creation. For their creation affects not only many other social institutions but also ‘human nature’ – hopes, fears, and ambitions, first of those more immediately involved, and later often of all members of the society [...] In order to make my point clear, I shall briefly describe a theory which is widely held but which assumes what I consider the very opposite of the true aim of the social sciences; I call it the "conspiracy theory of society." It is the view that an explanation of a social phenomenon consists in the discovery of the men or groups who are interested in the occurrence of this phenomenon (sometimes it is a hidden interest which has first to be revealed), and who have planned and conspired to bring it about. This view of the aims of the social sciences arises, of course, from the mistaken theory that, whatever happens in society – especially happenings such as war, unemployment, poverty, shortages, which people as a rule dislike – is the result of direct design by some powerful individuals and groups. This theory is widely held; [...] In its modern forms it is, like modern historicism, and a certain modern attitude towards ‘natural laws,’ a typical result of the secularization of a religious superstition. The belief in the Homeric gods whose conspiracies explain the history of the Trojan War is gone. The gods are abandoned. But their place is filled by powerful men or groups – sinister pressure groups whose wickedness is responsible for all the evils we suffer from – such as the Learned Elders of Zion, or the monopolists, or the capitalists, or the imperialists. I do not wish to imply that conspiracies never happen. On the contrary, they are typical social phenomena. They become important, for example, whenever people who believe in the conspiracy theory get into power. And people who sincerely believe that they know how to make heaven on earth are most likely to adopt the conspiracy theory, and to get involved in a counter-conspiracy against non-existing conspirators. For the only explanation of their failure to produce their heaven is the evil intention of the Devil, who has a vested interest in hell."I don't think I need to do much commenting beyond the quote itself. The world is extremely difficult to control and SJWs are too clumsy to be conscious and successful conspirators. At the very most, they might be a posteriori conspirators, who reinterpreted the results of their own blind actions and retrospectively found it to be by design. And even that is a stretch. If SJWs are ruthlessly effective as you say, then it must be the evolutionary process behind their blind instincts that is, not their conscious motives. Besides, the very psychology of an SJW requires him to believe that he is a good person, therefore he can't just explicitly engage in a conspiracy to make others unhappy out of envy and spite.
Kryptokate 2016-08-27 18:48:48
@ Gil Well that's just what we, oops I mean they, want you to think. 😉 Just kidding. Good Popper quote. Also, there is no such thing as a juicy secret that more than 2 people can successfully keep. The drive to gossip and tell juicy stories is too strong. Good point about SJW psychology.
Joelsuf 2016-08-28 08:35:27
So how did she end up marrying an Orthodox Jewish bigot promoting all manner of double standards, including the idea that Jews are the master race?Who knows lol. I've asked her in the past and she never gives me a clear answer. I don't really care anymore. What I DO know is that they weren't even married for 20 years before they divorced, and that neither of them seemed happy at all when they were together. Lots of absence. Lots of arguing. My father was out of town most of the time when I grew up, so at a very young age, I saw their relationship as one big rationalization to shut their parents up when they had me. I felt very used by them growing up, really. They were good people, just not good parents.
Dude, what are you talking about?I was just saying that if had the manipulative power of SJWs, I would also do what they do which is manipulate certain conventions.
it’s a natural instinct for people to want to maximize their own sexual opportunities while minimizing everyone else’s.I agree. I say similar things about every collective effort being a natural instinct for supremacy. Which they are.
Allright, a little too much conspirationism here. JoelsufOh yeah, I was joking when I said that. There are no real conspiracies really, but its fun to think about.
If SJWs are ruthlessly effective as you say, then it must be the evolutionary process behind their blind instincts that is, not their conscious motives.Well they aren't ruthlessly effective now, but they WILL be going into the 2020s. Look at the new Ghostbusters movie. And now they are redoing Ocean's 11 with an all chick cast. This isn't really as much a threat as it is just them gaining a modicum of influence which will be made rather significant going into the 2020s. Its like I said, SJWs and Feminists have the default support of White Knight enablers.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-08-28 14:42:36
Your thesis about trad-con fathers is very interesting. My father was never that type at all, so maybe that partially explains the way I am.See though, I'm kind of in a dilemma because when it comes to the subject of sexual shaming, there really are two types of people: First, there are people like you (and me) who have become sexually enlightened precisely due to a lack of shaming, or by fighting against the shaming. There are children who would grow up to be super prudish if they grew up, for example, in a deeply religious home. I knew a girl in high school who gave a boy a blowjob and was so slut shamed for it that it traumatized her to the point that she became a super prude for the next 15 years. These are the types of people who need less shaming in order to be open minded. Second, there are the people who are wildly sexual precisely because they are constantly shamed for it. These are the natural contrarians who enjoy being mischievous and transgressive. To them, the best type of sex is the sex that society disapproves of. What makes it hot is precisely the fact that it is supposed to be dirty, shameful, underground, wrong, and taboo. If they lose that element of shame, they can't get turned on. There is a reason why Catholic school girls are the horniest girls I've ever met and have had lesbian orgies by age 14. The Church tells them that it's so wrong and naughty and they'll go to hell, which just turns their pussies into Niagara Falls! I've met people like this as well. If it's approved of by their parents and society, they're not interested. This is why some millennials are insisting on keeping their virginity as an act of rebellion in order to be cool! So when I have a daughter (or a son), I'll really have to study their personality and discover which of the two they are. If my daughter, for example, is our type, I will shower her with sex-positive messages as soon as she hits puberty. But if she's the latter type, I'll have to pretend that I'm a tradcon prude and tell her what a disgusting slut she is if she loses her virginity before age 25 or before she "falls in love with someone special." I will talk to her about all the "filthy whores" and "dirty sluts" running around. Hopefully, this will sexually excite her and she will rebel by screwing two black men at the same time while saying, "oh my daddy would kill me if he knew that I'm doing this. I'm such a dirty, filthy slut," while I smile to myself in the other room! So I guess we need tradcons, but only as court jesters to turn on the contrarians, lol!
I can also remember when my prom date picked me up to take photos, far from warning him that he would cut his balls of if he touched me, he was elbowing him and saying shit like “she looks like swimsuit model doesn’t she”? Lol. I suppose some people might find that creepy in the opposite direction in that his attitude was always more like Donald Trump’s towards Ivanka, i.e. “look at my beautiful daughter I know you all want to bang her” type of attitude.No, I don't find that creepy in the other direction. I never really understood how that's creepy. If I have a hot daughter, I'll be proud of her hotness and will very much want to brag about how all the boys want to fuck her. People find it creepy because tradons (and thanks to tradcons, radical feminists) believe that sex is inherently harmful to women. So if you love your daughter, you should, for some reason, downplay her sex appeal. More toxic tradcon beliefs.
Which, btw, I don’t think it comes from having incestuous feelings or anything like that but more from having narcissistic, ego-type feelings about the sexual success of your progeny – more like living vicariously through them.Exactly!
Basically his attitude was towards me was similar to being proud that one’s son is a stud,That's exactly how I feel. I hate double standards.
Whereas my mom has never been like that and always disliked when I looked sexy and discouraged it.Why? What did she say? Did she give you any reasons?
Of course, he definitely didn’t go as far as you — he never told me to go out and bang the whole football team, lol.In time, I will learn to forgive him. Nobody's perfect! 🙂
But he never ever indicated in any way that my sexuality was something to be guarded or that I was vulnerable or fragile because of it or that it was something I had to keep from rapacious men.Good! This is what I hate the most about both tradcons and SJWs. If tradcons want to talk about hell fire in order to turn on the contrarians, then I guess they serve a useful function in that regard. But when they start blurring the lines between consensual sex and rape and imply that sex is inherently an act of violence towards women, they do real damage to female (and male) psychology. Tradcon parents say they'll shoot the boy who "touched" his daughter, no different than if she were raped. SJW parents will give their daughter a rape whistle as they drop her off at pre-school and, as she grows up, inundate her with talk of "rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape consent consent consent consent consent consent.........jesus, just shut the fuck up. A man wanting to have sex with her isn't to be feared like this! Continued in my next post...
Jack Outside the Box 2016-08-28 15:15:51
I’ll have to think more about the benefits of maintaining a sexual secret society for those who are successful versus open “free love”, which does ultimately mean a free marketplace where there are winners and losers and the losers will be more aware and more resentful.See, originally, I thought about the concept of sexual inclusivity solving everything. Polygamy (not to be confused with polyamory) can't work because if one man is sexually exclusive with 50 women, the other men get none, just like if one woman is sexually exclusive with 50 men, the other women get nothing. So monogamy was established to make everything equal. But I also thought that polyamory is superior to monogamy, and definitely superior to polygamy, because in an open/polyamorous system, no one is sexually exclusive with anyone else. You having sex with 4 men doesn't stop your female friends, or even female strangers, from having sex with those 4 men as well. Me having sex with 4 women doesn't stop other men from sleeping with them as well. Just because my girlfriend is my girlfriend doesn't mean other guys can't fuck her. So I originally thought that in an open culture, no one will be left out, except due to their own lack of attractiveness. Well, it turns out that that lack of attractiveness, combined with a sexually open culture, is a major problem for some people (like Elliot Rodger). And paradoxically, I guess it is true that the more partners you have on your rotation, the more picky you can afford to be. My girlfriend, for example, has seven men (and one woman) on her rotation. Three of those men (myself included as her primary) are regular, whereas the other four are sporadic and occasional. And the only reason she's looking for new guys is because she wants a few more one night stands so that she can get to 100 lays. After that, she says she wants to settle down with her regular rotation and not sleep with new people, barring unforeseen conditions. She'd be a lot less picky if she didn't have 7 men she can call for sex anytime. So I suppose even if no one is sexually exclusive with anyone else and no one is being guarded in any territorial or monogamous manner, a sexually open society will paradoxically make the losers get less sex and the winners get more. But I still prefer honest merit to dishonest charity, which is why prostitution should be legalized for the losers, which is an honest form of charity (I just hate it when it's promoted here, because this is supposed to be a place for aspiring winners).
In fact, I would argue that the blow-up in anger, resentment, and confusion that you’re seeing from men online in the “red pill” communitiesThey are tradcons, which makes them blue pill. Red pill people would never talk like that.
is entirely related to the fact that the machinations of the sexual marketplace have been revealed and laid bare by Tinder and online dating. Whereas previously most people who weren’t in the winner’s circle could remain mostly ignorant of how the elites were living.Precisely! Now I don't want to change a thing, except perhaps control that knowledge. A combination of legalizing prostitution for the "sexually poor" and people like us being more discrete about what we really do in private might curb some of this resentment. I have seen posts on seduction sites and men's rights sites accusing red pill men of lying about their sexual exploits saying, "this only happens in porn movies." I used to be pissed at these betas when they'd say that, but now I'm kind of gratified. It seems that they need to believe that this is all fictional so that they don't cause us too much trouble, like with these bullshit "affirmative consent laws," trying to protect women from sex out of envy, and redefining rape to mean a woman getting her hair pulled a little bit harder than she asked for during sex! Unfortunately, being discrete will mean turning the culture as a whole into a more prudish direction, as long as it doesn't go too far in that direction. I'll conclude my response to the rest later on.
Joelsuf 2016-08-29 18:33:14
it turns out that that lack of attractiveness, combined with a sexually open culture, is a major problem for some people (like Elliot Rodger).So what? So let them have their little rage fits. That shit can't be contained. I was just as dateless and sexless as he was, only unlike him I had actual bullshit in my childhood, adolescence and teen years to deal with. And in the late 90s and early 00s, there was MORE pressure for dudes to have get sex as early as possible, especially where I grew up. And although it stressed me out enough to think about killing myself, I never thought once about killing others. Once I dropped my ego, listened to my buddies about developing better social and flirting skills, and decided to get with chicks on my own level (and on several occasions lower), I enjoyed what everyone else was enjoying. The problem isn't lack of attractiveness combined with a sexually open culture, its this new manufacturing of the ego as a secondary effect of the participation award. I imagine that was the only thing that Rodger won his whole life, so in turn he thought that he just deserved the world as a secondary effect. Let's attack the problem at the source: Get rid of this new participation award culture.
KryptoKate 2016-08-29 21:13:48
Rodger was an entitled little rich snot who never even actually tried getting with or even talking to girls. He was pissed everything didn't land in his lap just for existing, you're right Joel. Like 80% of getting chicks is merely TRYING and not being terrified of criticism or rejection.
Joelsuf 2016-08-30 07:27:45
Like 80% of getting chicks is merely TRYING and not being terrified of criticism or rejection.-Getting your name out -Going for chicks who are on your level appearance wise which means if you are a low value dude (inexperienced and over 25, unattractive, live with parents, pretty much anyone BD talks about in his Childification post) then you'll have to settle for human balls/sticks when it comes to chicks -Dropping the ego That is LITERALLY all ANYONE has to do to get dates/sex nowadays. It's disturbingly easy. I message like 50 chicks online and ask out maybe MAYBE 50 at my job during my 9 month "hunting phase" (March-December, I either take winter off dating or develop an LTR). And I still get dates and still get laid. With really REALLY minimal effort. And I'm pretty much an underachieving prick and happy with it (not proud, happy, big difference). AND I'm traditionally unattractive (5'8'' 220, stumpy legs, monotone Ben Stein like voice). There is no excuse for anyone. AT ALL. Unless you are disabled or something, but no one expects anything from the disabled anyway pretty much.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-08-30 13:08:38
Alright, I can finally finish this:
It seems to me that it’s a balance, just like with money. Too much enforced equality and communism doesn’t seem to work. But if you flagrantly allow TOO much inequality and the successful people hording everything for themselves while the masses get nothing, then revolution happens and heads roll.The analogy is flawed though. Economic socialism is physical force. Any type of socialism (in the economic sense) means that the government has to put a gun to my head and force me to give money to the poor man against my will, so the poor man doesn't have to even put a knife to my throat the way he had to in the good old days of capitalism when the government wasn't backing him up. Economic socialism is wrong because theft is wrong. And what you call "too much inequality" in the economic sense is precisely due to socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. That's not capitalism, but corporatism. Many rich people, like the socialists that they are, are in bed with government and privatize the profits while socializing the losses so that the poor man gets screwed no matter what. There has never been a private monopoly for longer than three months without governmental favoritism and State assistance protecting the big business against competition from other sources (corporate welfare, bribing politicians, etc...) So "too much inequality" in the financial market is precisely the result of too little capitalism, not too much. The solution is more capitalism, not less. In the sexual market, however, no one is hoarding anything. There is no law saying people aren't allowed to sleep with whoever they want. And monogamy doesn't work anyway. Unless some extreme tradcons pass tough laws against pre-marital or extra-marital sex, or SJWs redefine 95 percent of consensual sex as rape, a person's sexual status is mostly their own fault, or the fault of nature. The sexual battles are mostly fought only within the culture without any government force or interference. My biggest fear is that that will change because the SJWs are already trying to pass laws in New Jersey against "rape by fraud" and "affirmative consent" laws essentially criminalizing all non-autistic sex as rape.
Only technology could ultimately solve the problem for everyone…until then, life is a competition for access to desired assets and the competition for money and sex are the most brutal.The problem is that if you want to maximize sexual liberation (which I do), a system of cultural/sexual openness will piss off the ugly people and they will mobilize by introducing political correctness and criminalizing consensual sex. Whereas, a society of sexual shaming and prudery will stigmatize the hot people and might cause people that would have otherwise been sexually liberated to become inhibited, self-hating prudes. So I agree with you about the balance thing, but I think your analogy is still imperfect because any type of economic socialism is physical force, by definition, whereas sexual socialism mostly has to do with public shaming and not involve any actual laws passed, unless, like I said, the extreme tradcons and SJWs get REALLY pissed due to too much sexual openness being shoved in their faces. Sexual socialism (while bad) can be done in moderation without physical force. But even a tiny bit of economic socialism involves physical force, by definition.
Interesting, though, how so many people who dislike the idea of economic redistribution of wealth or restriction of competition (i.e. trad cons) are totally in favor of it when it comes to the sexual market place. And vice versa (liberals).Yup, both sides are hypocrites.
Hell, even socialist Bernie Sanders was writing articles back in the day advocating for free love and for teenage girls not to have their sexuality repressed by their parents.Since he is fanatically supported by SJWs and has shown many SJW tendencies himself (giving a speech saying that if you're merely white, you don't know what it's like to not have power - I wonder how our white homeless population would react to such racism), I'm curious if today he isn't an SJW heterophobe.
Seems very rare that someone is truly a raging libertarian on both sexual and financial issues, like you or BD.Thanks. Although over at the other blog, BD is trying to confiscate my libertarian card because I support Trump and want to kick all the illegals out, lol.
And also no coincidence that those who tend towards that position are usually in the winner’s circle on both measures — or at least strongly expect to be. It’s easy to be comfortable with an unequally divided pie when you know you’re going to get a nice slice.That's not necessarily fair. I wasn't always such a hot piece of ass! Although I got laid in high school, I was a really skinny dork. College was my darkest time and I felt like the biggest loser in the world. But, I was still very in favor of sexual enlightenment, never slut shamed or stud shamed anybody (I just wished that the sluts and studs weren't such complete jerks to me, since they treated me pretty rudely in college). Nor did I ever wish for the government to put a gun to anybody's head and force them to give me money. So I guess I was always, more or less, in the libertarian camp, even in college when I had close to no hope. Not every unsuccessful person is a jealous socialist (although many of them definitely are).
Jack Outside the Box 2016-08-30 13:09:50
Hey BD, I just responded to Kryptokate, but it's not here. What's up with that?
Blackdragon 2016-08-30 13:15:21
It was spam filtered for some reason. It's there now.
Ash 2016-08-30 17:31:31
"Rodger was an entitled little rich snot who never even actually tried getting with or even talking to girls. He was pissed everything didn’t land in his lap just for existing, you’re right Joel." Judging by looks alone, Elliot Rodger was actually a pretty decent looking guy. I think his problem, in addition to what you said, was his attitude and he was likely also socially awkward or strange, so he didn't attract girls easily.
donnie demarco 2016-08-30 17:49:33
the machinations of the sexual marketplace have been revealed and laid bare by Tinder and online dating. Whereas previously most people who weren’t in the winner’s circle could remain mostly ignorant of how the elites were living.This is exactly what I was thinking when JOTB talked about secret sexual societies. There has ALWAYS been a sexually elite class of people, but the general population is just naive and clueless about it. This concept was captured succinctly in one of my favorite movies, Don Juan DeMarco (wink). There is a flashback scene where the teenage Don is with a bunch of other boys, peeping through a window at a woman changing her clothes. The woman plays coy at first, and gives the boys a bit of a teaser before closing the window and yelling at them to leave. Except, Don doesn't leave... When all the other boys are gone, the woman opens her window again and just stands there in front of him, posing seductively in a slip. They share a moment together, and then the scene ends. Much like those boys scrambling at the window to get a quick peek before they are chased away, the general population is completely oblivious to the fact that certain men experience very special (and often secret) connections with women. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6_AnmyzGtw
doclove 2016-08-30 19:10:13
@ Jack Outside the Box I am glad that you are starting to see things a little more my way since we last argued on Blackdragon's "The Deal with the Manosphere" article post here on this site. I meant to respond, but got too busy. I apologize for not getting back to you. My contention is that the current Economic Market Place and Sexual Market Place are both linked and both subscribe to the Corporatism model, not the Socialist Model(although I could see how one argues they do), and certainly not the Communist model as well as certainly not the Capitalist model. While I agree that monogamy and marriage be it open marriage or even monogamous marriage no longer works in our current Western Civilization especially the USA, I do lament the loss of monogamous marriage or at least the illusion of it no longer being feasible while searching to either bring back monogamous marriage or the illusion of it or possibly looking to find something better perhaps Blackdragon's system for the sexual marketplace for society. I fully acknowledge that Blackdragon's system for the sexual marketplace works best if you both have the potential and the will to make it happen. Maybe more men should at least attempt Blackdragon's system as even if they fail to get the results they want at the very least they will be better for it. Nothing ventured and nothing gained as the saying goes concerning Blackdragon's system. You should also see how hypergamy cuts many heterosexual men off from sex due how even women who will have sex with a lot of men still want less sex partners than most men as evidenced by your girlfriend saying that after reaching coitus with 100 men she is going to slow down and how there are no more than a half dozen men that she will have sex with regularly. I agree that men should improve themselves to have more sex with women if that is what they want, but why aren't women asking the same question about genuinely improving themselves and saying yes to sex with more men? Hypergamy, misandry and solipsism of the female mind are the reasons why. For the record, I do not shame sluts, I just see very few of them being able to be good mothers or even good wives and live in girlfriends. I say the same about men who are studs concerning being good fathers or even good husbands and good live in boyfriends. For the record, I love sluts as they are fun to play with as long as it lasts and I hate people being brutal to them. I feel the same about whores. I like women who provide easier access for men to have consensual sex no matter what the reason. I agree that prostitution should be decriminalized and possibly lightly and sensibly regulated and taxed, but it should also lose the shame of it just like sluts have experienced in the past and how the SJW trying bring about stud shaming should be finished off forevermore. My view about marriage is that both partners agree to sex upon demand with extremely rare exceptions or why bother getting married and if that is a tradcon view to you then so be it, but as you can see from of my other views, I am not such a tradcon when it comes to slut shaming and stud shaming and I am even less of a tradcon than you concerning prostitution. I only noted that for most men monogamous marriage in which their sexual access to their wives is enforced coupled with prostitution give men the best chances for sexual release. If one does not consent to sexual access upon demand within a marriage then it is not marriage and there is no point to being married in my opinion and especially for men it is better to remain single. As you can see, I am all for men getting as much consensual sex as possible.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-08-31 03:07:58
I am glad that you are starting to see things a little more my way since we last argued on Blackdragon’s “The Deal with the Manosphere” article post here on this site.Keep something in mind though. Unlike you, I only care about the sexual winners. In my opinion, the sexual losers deserve to either lose or improve. There are only two exceptions: 1. The legal realm. Everyone deserves equal protection under the law. If the human rights of fathers, sexual losers, or beta males are being violated by family courts, or other agencies of government, I will fight against that because everyone has the same inalienable human rights under the State. 2. When the sexual winners are being threatened by the losers. In order to safeguard the lifestyles and general happiness of the sexual winners, the losers should be controlled, even if it means giving them the illusion of monogamy, the illusion of a prudish society via public slut shaming, or the illusion of happiness. It is precisely on that second point that I'm starting to come around to your way of thinking. But remember, whatever kindness, charity, or happiness I am willing to bestow upon the sexual losers (including giving them happiness via deception) is only with the view of quelling threats against the sexual winners and safeguarding the sexually liberated lifestyles of those winners. Nothing more.
I meant to respond, but got too busy. I apologize for not getting back to you.No worries man!
My contention is that the current Economic Market Place and Sexual Market Place are both linked and both subscribe to the Corporatism model, not the Socialist Model(although I could see how one argues they do),Corporatism means socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. In other words, fascism. I can totally see how the economic market is currently fascist. The sexual market, however, in its most natural state, is a purely capitalist market. Based on my observations, the current sexual market resembles the opposite of fascism. That is, it is capitalistic and liberated for the economically rich, while being socialistic for the economically poor. Most slut shaming and monogamy-minded Disney is found in poor neighborhoods among the working class. Millionaires and billionaires are unlikely to call a woman a "slut" or speak out against sexual liberation and in favor of the sexually socialistic Disney monogamy model in which everyone gets only one low quality partner so that everyone else can get one. That would be ridiculous. So no, I don't see how the sexual game is fascist or rigged against the poor, unless they are sexually poor due to genetics or bad luck from nature.
and certainly not the Communist model as well as certainly not the Capitalist model.It's becoming more and more capitalist the more sexually liberated we become as a culture. Unfortunately, that's when the sexual losers come out of the woodwork and allow their resentment and hatred for the winners to take the culture in a more prudish (read: sexually socialist) direction, even to the point of criminalizing consensual sex (as per SJWs trying to make everything rape)
While I agree that monogamy and marriage be it open marriage or even monogamous marriage no longer works in our current Western Civilization especially the USA, I do lament the loss of monogamous marriage or at least the illusion of it no longer being feasible while searching to either bring back monogamous marriage or the illusion of it or possibly looking to find something better perhaps Blackdragon’s system for the sexual marketplace for society.In order to protect the sexual winners from the wrath of the losers and make sure the winners' lifestyles aren't compromised, I might agree to bringing back the illusion of monogamy, as long as it is only a deception to keep the beta workers nice and docile while we fuck their girlfriends (at least until these betas, as individuals, make the decision to become winners). Thus, I might very well support intensifying our discretion and deceptive tactics so that the monogamous workers don't get too out of hand. But I do not support bringing back marriage in any form. Marriage should be completely abolished as an institution of government. If the private sector wants to run with it and indulge in superstitious ceremonies because the workers need them, so be it. But leave my tax dollars out of this nonsense.
I fully acknowledge that Blackdragon’s system for the sexual marketplace works best if you both have the potential and the will to make it happen. Maybe more men should at least attempt Blackdragon’s system as even if they fail to get the results they want at the very least they will be better for it. Nothing ventured and nothing gained as the saying goes concerning Blackdragon’s system.Agreed!
You should also see how hypergamy cuts many heterosexual men off from sex due how even women who will have sex with a lot of men still want less sex partners than most men as evidenced by your girlfriend saying that after reaching coitus with 100 men she is going to slow down and how there are no more than a half dozen men that she will have sex with regularly.Perhaps I worded that incorrectly. What she's saying is that, in addition to her boyfriend (me) and her lesbian fuck buddy, she wants only 6 regular men on her sexual rotation (more or less 3 regular and 3 sporadic/occasional) whom she can call for sex when she wants. But I'm sure some of the 6 will be dropped for various reasons, which will motivate her to replace them with new men, as long as her rotation of regular men never drops below 3 and her rotation of sporadic men never drops below 3. But once she reaches 100 partners, she will no longer be actively searching for men to sleep with. She will be totally satisfied with her standard rotation of 6 (plus me and her pet lesbian). She wants to stabilize her sex life and settle down with an intimate group. But I don't see this as evidence of a weaker sex drive on her part. And how is this evidence that she wants less sex partners than men? How many men want to have sex with more than 100 people? I mean, come on! You can't point to my girlfriend and say she wants to have less sex than men or that her sex drive is weaker than a man's, lol.
I agree that men should improve themselves to have more sex with women if that is what they want, but why aren’t women asking the same question about genuinely improving themselves and saying yes to sex with more men?100 is not enough? I think most women don't have to improve themselves to have sex with more men. Most women are already drowning in sex. All they have to do is reach out and grab it.
Hypergamy, misandry and solipsism of the female mind are the reasons why.Men have a form of hypergamy too, although with us it's more "female looks based." I agree with you about the misandry, but that's more due to SJWs fucking everything up! And I blame female solipsism largely on Disney culture, although it is partly biological as well, yes. This is why I love and respect women like my girlfriend the most. They're not so stuck up that they won't fuck 100 men! Women like my girl tend to be the least likely to have an elitist chip on their shoulder in that sense. By contrast, a woman who is super solipsistic, ultra hypergamous, and very misandrous will say that my girlfriend is a cheap slut with no respect for herself for sleeping with 100 men. True female supremacists will call my girlfriend cheap (read: equal to a man) and sick! That's why I love my girl so much. She truly sees herself as a man's equal, not as a stuck up supremacist prude who should only give her gold between her legs to "someone very special."
For the record, I do not shame sluts, I just see very few of them being able to be good mothers or even good wives and live in girlfriends.Why? If you take monogamy and sexual exclusivity completely off the table and accept poly as a natural condition of the relationship, I don't see why many of them can't be good mothers or live in girlfriends. I think my girlfriend will make a great mother and a great live in girlfriend. Her own mother - who is in an open marriage with her father and taught her sex-positivism - is a good mother as well. I think Kryptokate would be a good mother (although she's not interested). I've met many people within the poly community, including women who have had way more partners than my girl, and, like I said before, they are the kindest and most empathetic people I've ever met. Their promiscuous ways precisely come from their deep reserves of empathy and their intense desire to bond with people. Both my girlfriend and her best friend have told me that sex is a necessary requirement for true friendship. If she's not having sex with you, she doesn't see how she can bond with you or call you a friend. Without sex, you can, at best, be a distant acquaintance to her! Does that sound like a bad mother to you? The empathy of some of these poly people is amazing. And, based on the kids I've met whose parents are in the poly community (complete with babysitters whom they are banging), they (the kids) seem to me, on average, happier than the typical child growing up in a monogamous home with cheating and fighting. I think you're still stuck in the monogamy model and see liberated women as being bad girlfriends because they cheat. Good. They should cheat. Either be poly, or cheat discreetly.
I say the same about men who are studs concerning being good fathers or even good husbands and good live in boyfriends.What you're saying only makes sense if monogamy is in the equation. But it shouldn't be. BD is a good father. I hope to be a good father someday. And I've met plenty of good fathers within the poly community. I'm not sure where you're getting these assumptions from, except perhaps the monogamous blue pill world.
For the record, I love sluts as they are fun to play with as long as it lastsFrom my view, sluts are fun to play with and get serious with, as long as there is no monogamy.
and I hate people being brutal to them. I feel the same about whores. I like women who provide easier access for men to have consensual sex no matter what the reason. I agree that prostitution should be decriminalized and possibly lightly and sensibly regulated and taxed, but it should also lose the shame of it just like sluts have experienced in the past and how the SJW trying bring about stud shaming should be finished off forevermore.I disagree here about ending shaming for prostitutes. I think prostitution should be legal for two reasons: 1. I'm a libertarian and believe that consenting adults should do whatever they want with their own bodies within the limits of nature, as long as it is nothing that could hurt someone (like incest resulting in babies born with most of their brain missing, which should be kept criminal). 2. The sexual losers need to be pacified, so giving them some sexual charity may maintain their sanity and turn their wrath away from the sexual winners, thus ultimately protecting the lifestyles of the winners from sabotage. But, I think the social stigma against prostitution should be maintained for three reasons: 1. Prostitution is bad for the prostitute. Having sex with unattractive people numbs you to sex and turns you into an asexual. If sex is disconnected from pleasure, it loses its beauty and becomes a thing of ugliness. Prostitutes are the saddest and lowest human beings on the planet. 2. Prostitution is degrading for the man. It puts the woman in the superior position of the "giver" and the man in the inferior position of humble receiver. When a loser goes to a prostitute, he should feel like a loser and understand that this is just Plan B for him until he improves himself sufficiently. It should never be anyone's Plan A. 3. Taking away the stigma from prostitution will encourage other women to charge for sex when they would have otherwise fucked men just for the sex. In a culture where prostitution is glorified, women will become even more entitled and be encouraged to think of sex in an asexual manner as the superior givers instead of equal receivers. I don't want that! Can you imagine a woman saying this on the first date: "My sister is a prostitute and she gets 300 dollars every time she has sex with a guy, so I expect you to at least pay for the dinner and maybe buy me a nice necklace." I fucking shudder!
My view about marriage is that both partners agree to sex upon demand with extremely rare exceptions or why bother getting marriedExactly! Why bother getting married?
and if that is a tradcon view to you then so be it,Supporting the idiotic and pointless existence of marriage is a tradcon point of view, yes. And supporting an agreement to sex on demand which, in practice, means the husband can rape his wife any time, is a super tradcon view! If the only distinction in your eyes between marriage and a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship is the legal presence of rape within the marriage, then that is an ever better and stronger argument to completely get rid of marriage!
but as you can see from of my other views, I am not such a tradcon when it comes to slut shaming and stud shamingExcept you don't see sluts or studs as good parent material or good long term relationship material. You seem to think that they are only good for casual sex and fun, while you reserve the serious stuff, like parenthood and living together, for the prudes. I see that as a form of slut shaming and degrading women (and men) who love sex by restricting yourself from seeing them as serious human beings. Yes, that's slut shaming/stud shaming. And that's definitely a Madonna/whore complex.
and I am even less of a tradcon than you concerning prostitution.But I'm against prostitution for the exact opposite reasons that a tradcon is: Tradcons hate prostitutes because they culturally hamper the ability of conservative women to raise the price of sex. I hate prostitutes because they culturally hamper the ability of sluts to lower the price of sex.
I only noted that for most men monogamous marriage in which their sexual access to their wives is enforced coupled with prostitution give men the best chances for sexual release.Sorry, but you can't legally take away a woman's right to say no. No matter how you rationalize it, it really is legalized rape in practice. Besides, we don't need legalized rape if we just legalize prostitution. And we don't need marriage ever! But I would be willing to give the beta workers the illusion of monogamy via deception and discretion, coupled with the legalization of prostitution and a more sexually neutral culture. This should be enough for them.
If one does not consent to sexual access upon demand within a marriage then it is not marriage and there is no point to being married in my opinionAgreed! That's why I've always said that there is no point to getting married. But you seem to lament that as somehow a bad thing.
and especially for men it is better to remain single.Or just get a girlfriend.
As you can see, I am all for men getting as much consensual sex as possible.Good. Now if only we can get you to dump the idea of marriage, your slut/stud shaming (see explanation above), and your desire to de-stigmatize prostitution (which would make it harder for all of us, as women become bigger self entitled brats), it would be cool.
Joelsuf 2016-08-31 05:26:19
the sexual winners are being threatened by the losers.This is happening more and more, sadly. Whether its SJWs who want all sex that they judge as rape to be rape (while leaving ACTUAL rape victims behind) or Omegas like Elliot Rodger who think that they should kill others because they feel pressured, sexual winners are being threatened now by both ends of the nutjob spectrum, SJW and MRA. Its sad.
I would be willing to give the beta workers the illusion of monogamy via deception and discretion, coupled with the legalization of prostitution and a more sexually neutral culture. This should be enough for them.It won't be enough. In this era of the participation award manufacturing inflated egos and entitled personalities, betas and omegas are getting more and more mad, and in the case of kids like Elliot Rodger, they are now physically doing something about it. Paying someone for sex would only remove the curiosity of sex, it doesn't make anyone feel better about themselves at all. If Rodger paid for sex he probably would have killed the sex worker and would have probably gone on an even bigger rampage. What needs to happen is to remove this notion that if you aren't sexually active it means that you are some weird freak. The pressure for a boy to have sex is larger than ever and nowadays its actually scaring me. Remove that pressure, and the slut/stud shaming issue would be resolved overnight.