|
On May 15 2012 06:22 squattincassanova wrote:I would have to say, I sarged the hottest girl ever while in Vegas this week. Only managed a number close and a kiss but if I had gotten a lay I would be skipping back to California. This chick was giving me so much shit tests left and right. Its like when you are talking to a really hot girl, its hard to "not care". *I hate bicyclists - they are assholes on the road *I hate engineers, dated one, they were too controlling *I hate guys who do drugs (I took Molly first time there this weekend) *You think you can just put your hands on my hips like that? I handled them semi okay but jesus fuck... damn Italian girls with their attitudes. Apparently this time of year, everyone in Vegas is from Vancouver BC. Left one. ![[image loading]](http://a4.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/129/d772ff26589d413799bb5789f6288b3c/l.jpg)
Damn, that sucks. Last night when I was in Australia's Sydney tower I only got a blowjob from a chick in the changing rooms (she was the cashier at one of those high end perfume stores). Later on she gave me her SISTER'S number, which I guess isn't too big of a loss since her sister is still quite hot but it means I have to escalate kino all over again. It's a pain when you have to deal with jealousy between two girls though and I need to be on top of my game to keep the blowjobs coming. Here's a photo of her sister, I guess I should just settle for her although I'm still feeling a bit down about losing my main 'catch'.
![[image loading]](http://iphonetoolbox.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/hot-babe-07-f.jpg)
|
On May 15 2012 14:30 Mango Chicken wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2012 06:22 squattincassanova wrote:I would have to say, I sarged the hottest girl ever while in Vegas this week. Only managed a number close and a kiss but if I had gotten a lay I would be skipping back to California. This chick was giving me so much shit tests left and right. Its like when you are talking to a really hot girl, its hard to "not care". *I hate bicyclists - they are assholes on the road *I hate engineers, dated one, they were too controlling *I hate guys who do drugs (I took Molly first time there this weekend) *You think you can just put your hands on my hips like that? I handled them semi okay but jesus fuck... damn Italian girls with their attitudes. Apparently this time of year, everyone in Vegas is from Vancouver BC. Left one. Damn, that sucks. Last night when I was in Australia's Sydney tower I only got a blowjob from a chick in the changing rooms (she was the cashier at one of those high end perfume stores). Later on she gave me her SISTER'S number, which I guess isn't too big of a loss since her sister is still quite hot but it means I have to escalate kino all over again. It's a pain when you have to deal with jealousy between two girls though and I need to be on top of my game to keep the blowjobs coming. Here's a photo of her sister, I guess I should just settle for her although I'm still feeling a bit down about losing my main 'catch'.
That would have been awesome, except you're trolling. But people should definitely share their stories.
http://bit.ly/JCILvU
|
On May 15 2012 14:44 squattincassanova wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2012 14:30 Mango Chicken wrote:On May 15 2012 06:22 squattincassanova wrote:I would have to say, I sarged the hottest girl ever while in Vegas this week. Only managed a number close and a kiss but if I had gotten a lay I would be skipping back to California. This chick was giving me so much shit tests left and right. Its like when you are talking to a really hot girl, its hard to "not care". *I hate bicyclists - they are assholes on the road *I hate engineers, dated one, they were too controlling *I hate guys who do drugs (I took Molly first time there this weekend) *You think you can just put your hands on my hips like that? I handled them semi okay but jesus fuck... damn Italian girls with their attitudes. Apparently this time of year, everyone in Vegas is from Vancouver BC. Left one. Damn, that sucks. Last night when I was in Australia's Sydney tower I only got a blowjob from a chick in the changing rooms (she was the cashier at one of those high end perfume stores). Later on she gave me her SISTER'S number, which I guess isn't too big of a loss since her sister is still quite hot but it means I have to escalate kino all over again. It's a pain when you have to deal with jealousy between two girls though and I need to be on top of my game to keep the blowjobs coming. Here's a photo of her sister, I guess I should just settle for her although I'm still feeling a bit down about losing my main 'catch'. That would have been awesome, except you're trolling. But people should definitely share their stories. http://bit.ly/JCILvU
I wasn't trying to subtly brag at all, ohh no, I "only" got her number, damn, what a lot of shit tests! I'm trying to laugh at myself to show what a upbeat guy I am!
|
On May 15 2012 15:07 Mango Chicken wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2012 14:44 squattincassanova wrote:On May 15 2012 14:30 Mango Chicken wrote:On May 15 2012 06:22 squattincassanova wrote:I would have to say, I sarged the hottest girl ever while in Vegas this week. Only managed a number close and a kiss but if I had gotten a lay I would be skipping back to California. This chick was giving me so much shit tests left and right. Its like when you are talking to a really hot girl, its hard to "not care". *I hate bicyclists - they are assholes on the road *I hate engineers, dated one, they were too controlling *I hate guys who do drugs (I took Molly first time there this weekend) *You think you can just put your hands on my hips like that? I handled them semi okay but jesus fuck... damn Italian girls with their attitudes. Apparently this time of year, everyone in Vegas is from Vancouver BC. Left one. Damn, that sucks. Last night when I was in Australia's Sydney tower I only got a blowjob from a chick in the changing rooms (she was the cashier at one of those high end perfume stores). Later on she gave me her SISTER'S number, which I guess isn't too big of a loss since her sister is still quite hot but it means I have to escalate kino all over again. It's a pain when you have to deal with jealousy between two girls though and I need to be on top of my game to keep the blowjobs coming. Here's a photo of her sister, I guess I should just settle for her although I'm still feeling a bit down about losing my main 'catch'. That would have been awesome, except you're trolling. But people should definitely share their stories. http://bit.ly/JCILvU I wasn't trying to subtly brag at all, ohh no, I "only" got her number, damn, what a lot of shit tests! I'm trying to laugh at myself to show what a upbeat guy I am!
Can't troll a troll
|
On May 15 2012 07:26 sunprince wrote:
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Women shit test you more when they know you're strong, because they know you'll respond in a way that they enjoy. A shit test is no different from a woman squeezing your bicep: if she likes your biceps she'll probably do it more often in order to feel your strength.
Yeah, in truth I can't keep up with you being the "experienced seducer". My point remains though, if you're a man of your word, and do your own thing, have your own life and don't seek validation constantly, eg. you're no push-over, you won't even notice the so called shit tests. The tests just bounce off you. Where I'm from we call that flirting. For the life of me, I do not see how it relates to bowel movements in any way. But I get it... shit testing is like a big thing in PUA, I mean they write chapters on it, so you have to stress it's importance.
On May 15 2012 07:26 sunprince wrote:
There's a lot of empirical data that most women are hypergamous and prefer men who will lead them. Dominance is one way that you demonstrate that you have higher status, which her hind brain will interpret as attracive. The fact that the women you were with wanted a guy who can take the lead/initiative only reinforces the point that women prefer dominance. Maybe you don't actually know what the term dominance means in a social science context?
Please provide a link to data mentioned. What are we talking about here? What's attractive to women intially in a social setting (more dominant than those around him) or what they want from a man they date or live with? I was talking about the latter. I'll spell it out for you again, the women I've been with enjoy the guy to take the lead from time to time. They don't want to be told how to live their life or what to do next constantly. Some preferred more dominance in the bedroom, but not outside it. Granted, I probably don't know what dominance means in the PUA context, sounds like it amounts to be not pussywhipped. That is not dominance. Please provide a definition. You know what, when you act all dominant, you're most likely to attract a woman who is submissive. So maybe PUA guys who stressed on appearing dominant attracted such women and now feel this is how the world works, it's not. Now I come to think of it, none of the women around me have the desire to be living in the shadow of their man, including my sister and mother. Ok, I'm surrounded by confident and highly educated women and possible that plays a role that they prefer equality in gender roles, I'm just not feeling this "women prefer dominance" vibe in my life.
What I do get is that women are turned off by wimpish, whiny and effeminate men, no doubt. Let me tell you something else while I'm at it: the only place I've really started to notice beta-males exist is in the seduction community. When I consider all my guy mates, I cannot point my finger at any of them and say "he behaves like a beta, he's a pushover". The rest of the world is not AFC or beta, mate, it just so happens that the people who get into seduction come from such a place. You might as well walk into an oncology clinic and exclaim that the whole world is dying of cancer, since you love the allegories and have suffered from cancer yourself.
A further testimony to the psychological baggage most PUAs are carrying around with them is the constant arguing and bickering amongst each other. PUAs bad mouthing each other through their blogs. It's on this thread too. The constant need to be right and get others to see it your way stems from a place of insecurity and discontent. That is not how men talk things out, it's what wimps do. Look at our discussion for instance, you disagree with just about anything I say. Fair enough, I welcome any insight and discourse. The other guys reading the thread can decide for themselves how they feel about the issues at hand. I have absolutely no need for them to see it my way or validate my thoughts, views or opinions.
On May 15 2012 07:26 sunprince wrote:
You know very little and yet you make authoritative claims using anecdotal evidence. Try doing some research first.
No thanks. I'm not interested in doing research. How about you go and live with some women and get to know them and do a little less research and reading? Really, you've displayed again everything I was critical about in PUA. Social skills (or any other skills) are not to be read or studied. They're acquired through doing.
|
Squat, this reminds me of an italian girl I used to go out with in Toronto. Why is it that italo-canadians chose to be more italian than italians in italy? Mine was really set in her ways. But cute... I should still have pics of her on my home pc. But yeah, maybe you dodged a bullet here? Talk about high maintenance... and who would just walk away from a guy who was trying to find his car? Lame.
Oh and about men beating women and vice versa. White knight complex what? If I feel someone needs help I intervene or call the cops. I look out for myself first and foremost. That's the decent thing to do. If I woman is slapping a guy once or twice it's a scene, again, if someone is distressed you should at least speak up. This has absolutely nothing to do with gender roles.
Stating men and women are both weak is just negative mindset. Why state one is weak in first place? Men and women are both strong. Same difference. Oh no wait, men and women are both weak, but man who studied PUA: strong strong strong. Love it.
Sunprince, all you're really saying is: feminine traits = weak, masculine = strong. Care to explain how you came to that conclusion (aside from who won at arm wrestling and it's nestled in history)? I mean ... hell, men get more cancer. They have to be weaker. Ever see someone dying of cancer? Newborn death rate is higher in boys in nearly all countries, clearly boys are the weaker gender. Male life expectancy is signifiticantly shorter. Do those facts enforce anything?
It seems pretty plausible that those who choose to believe women are weaker are in those who are doubt of their own strength.
|
On May 15 2012 16:32 SeXyBaCk wrote:
My point remains though, if you're a man of your word, and do your own thing, have your own life and don't seek validation constantly, eg. you're no push-over, you won't even notice the so called shit tests. The tests just bounce off you. Where I'm from we call that flirting. For the life of me, I do not see how it relates to bowel movements in any way. But I get it... shit testing is like a big thing in PUA, I mean they write chapters on it, so you have to stress it's importance.
Just because you don't notice something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I agree, at some point you deal with shit tests so naturally that they bounce off of you; that still doesn't change the fact that there's a correct way to deal with them and that many guys don't know how. Just because pro Starcraft players are immune to most cheese tactics doesn't mean that it's not useful to understand them and show new players how to handle them.
On May 15 2012 16:32 SeXyBaCk wrote:
Please provide a link to data mentioned. What are we talking about here? What's attractive to women intially in a social setting (more dominant than those around him) or what they want from a man they date or live with? I was talking about the latter.
Here's an example study showing that a majority of women prefer dominant men (you can find plenty more by looking at its sources, as its a very recent publication, or by using Google). There's also evidence that women in relationships want dominance even more than single women. You can also easily find studies showing that women are attracted to men of high-social status (another way of being dominant), but I assume that's fairly uncontroversial.
On May 15 2012 16:32 SeXyBaCk wrote:
Granted, I probably don't know what dominance means in the PUA context, sounds like it amounts to be not pussywhipped. That is not dominance. Please provide a definition. You know what, when you act all dominant, you're most likely to attract a woman who is submissive. So maybe PUA guys who stressed on appearing dominant attracted such women and now feel this is how the world works, it's not. Now I come to think of it, none of the women around me have the desire to be living in the shadow of their man, including my sister and mother. Ok, I'm surrounded by confident and highly educated women and possible that plays a role that they prefer equality in gender roles, I'm just not feeling this "women prefer dominance" vibe in my life.
Dominance as understood in a social science context refers to being above someone in a social hierarchy (i.e. having higher social status). That is, the dominant person is the leader in a given interaction. That doesn't mean you live in someone's shadow, no more than a group of friends lives in the shadow of the person who the group normally looks to for leadership. Within a family context, typically the parents are dominant over children and older siblings are dominant over younger ones (that is, the latter defer to the former). In a sexual context, it refers to behaviors that are forceful, aggressive, and initating; a common example is that most women prefer men to approach them and aggressively initiate sex rather than the other way around.
It's actually not just a gender role thing, either. When researchers look at men, they find that most men also prefer to be followers and not leaders in both social and sexual contexts. However, men end up being forced to lead in sexual contexts because women are far more sexually selective.
As for pick-up artists attracting submissive women, sexual studies since the 30s have shown that, contrary to popular belief, dominant women prefer dominant men even more (conversely, submissive women prefer nice guys). In other words, Xena's prefer Hercules's.
On May 15 2012 16:32 SeXyBaCk wrote:
What I do get is that women are turned off by wimpish, whiny and effeminate men, no doubt. Let me tell you something else while I'm at it: the only place I've really started to notice beta-males exist is in the seduction community. When I consider all my guy mates, I cannot point my finger at any of them and say "he behaves like a beta, he's a pushover". The rest of the world is not AFC or beta, mate, it just so happens that the people who get into seduction come from such a place. You might as well walk into an oncology clinic and exclaim that the whole world is dying of cancer, since you love the allegories and have suffered from cancer yourself.
You underestimate the prevalence of beta males. If we are to take your self-descriptions of your life at face value, then you are most likely somewhat of a natural alpha, and friends tend to be like-minded. Regardless, as already mentioned, you massively overestimate the value of anecdotal evidence. Back up your claims with empirical data when challenged or they're worthless. The first study I linked in this post suggests that a majority of men (though a lower proportion than women) also prefer a dominant woman, so that should give you some idea of how many betas there are.
On May 15 2012 16:32 SeXyBaCk wrote:
No thanks. I'm not interested in doing research. How about you go and live with some women and get to know them and do a little less research and reading? Really, you've displayed again everything I was critical about in PUA. Social skills (or any other skills) are not to be read or studied. They're acquired through doing.
Again, anecdotal evidence is worthless for the purposes of the discussion we're having. But for what it's worth, aside from the women in my family I spent three years of undergrad living with mostly women (plus a gay man), and my roommate was also a woman.
And you're wrong about how skills are learned. All skills are learned both by doing and studying. If you have to pick one or the other, then doing is better than studying, but doing both works best. There's a reason why TL exists for Starcraft players, and there's a reason why nearly all the top people in every field have both extensive educations and extensive experience.
|
On May 15 2012 16:33 SeXyBaCk wrote:
Sunprince, all you're really saying is: feminine traits = weak, masculine = strong. Care to explain how you came to that conclusion (aside from who won at arm wrestling and it's nestled in history)?
You're right about the feminine traits = weak and masculine traits = strong thing (at least, that's how society defines it). That's the point; we teach boys to act masculine (in other words, act strong) while we teach girls to act feminine (act weak). Therefore, it should be no surprise that as adults, men tend to be "stronger" than women, because of the roles they've been taught.
On May 15 2012 16:33 SeXyBaCk wrote:
I mean ... hell, men get more cancer. They have to be weaker. Ever see someone dying of cancer? Newborn death rate is higher in boys in nearly all countries, clearly boys are the weaker gender. Male life expectancy is signifiticantly shorter. Do those facts enforce anything?
There's a lot of reasons for the life expectancy gap, but a big part of it is that men tend to get killed. Dirty, dangerous, and demanding jobs (e.g. military, coal mining) are overwhelmingly filled by men, men are far more likely to engage in dangerous/reckless behavior, and men are the vast majority of homicide victims (female victims of violence are far more likely to be raped but far less likely to be killed). In other words, women live longer because men are stupider and/or taking one for the other team.
Men are more likely to die of cancer primarily due to higher rates of lung cancer. This is due to different rates of smoking as well as the aforementioned dangerous occupational gap. That's hardly a measure of strength, but I would agree that men are stupider than women, on average.
On May 15 2012 16:33 SeXyBaCk wrote:
It seems pretty plausible that those who choose to believe women are weaker are in those who are doubt of their own strength.
Terrible logical fallacy. I "choose to believe" that women are physically weaker; does that imply I doubt my own physical strength?
|
Once you start arguing for 3+ pages with the SAME guy on a forum, ask your self this:
1. What are you trying to accomplish
2. Do you got better shit to do?
|
On May 16 2012 02:30 squattincassanova wrote:
Once you start arguing for 3+ pages with the SAME guy on a forum, ask your self this:
1. What are you trying to accomplish
2. Do you got better shit to do?
I don't doubt that he's a troll that cannot be convinced by any means. However, responding provides information for others who read this thread and may find it valuable, and also helps shape their opinions.
This is the case for nearly all arguments on the Internetz (or indeed, in real life): rarely will you actually persuade people determined to be wrong, but you can persuade the audience. Do attorneys have a snowball's chance in hell to persuade the opposing attorney to change their views? No, but they certainly can persaude the judge and/or jury.
|
On May 16 2012 02:36 sunprince wrote:
However, responding provides information for others who read this thread and may find it valuable, and also helps shape their opinions.
No, it really doesn't. 95% of guys (who actually get into pickup discounting naturals) fail utterly. The path is there, but most can't do it. Just like the path to a six pack is there. Just like the path to being a billionaire is there. Doesn't mean people can walk it. And given how much pickup effort I put into, and how much resources I have on my side, I am still above average at best. No legendary status yet. So really, your arguing has no impact on anyone really.
|
On May 16 2012 00:21 sunprince wrote:
You're right about the feminine traits = weak and masculine traits = strong thing (at least, that's how society defines it). That's the point; we teach boys to act masculine (in other words, act strong) while we teach girls to act feminine (act weak). Therefore, it should be no surprise that as adults, men tend to be "stronger" than women, because of the roles they've been taught.
That's your interpretation or opinion. I'm confident that for most of us here (and out there too, at least in the western hemisphere) masculine traits are just masculine and feminine are just feminine, no further without further labling required. All you're doing be adding weak and strong is making yourself impress as misogynic. Your views is definitely not what I'm teaching my children mate.
On May 16 2012 00:21 sunprince wrote:
There's a lot of reasons for the life expectancy gap, but a big part of it is that men tend to get killed. Dirty, dangerous, and demanding jobs (e.g. military, coal mining) are overwhelmingly filled by men, men are far more likely to engage in dangerous/reckless behavior, and men are the vast majority of homicide victims (female victims of violence are far more likely to be raped but far less likely to be killed). In other words, women live longer because men are stupider and/or taking one for the other team.
Yeah, but men also take more drugs, drive recklessly and take other risks, commit crimes and suicide way more often than women. You're misinformed about cancer. Men pretty much get more cancer across the board, bar breast cancer and cancers affecting the female reproductive system. Aside from that I'd say at least 70% of the illnesses currently known to man have a higher incidence in men. Male gender seems to be a risk factor about a third of all diseases. And do we need to look at how men score compared to women in academics these days? In my opinion none of those statistical facts speak for male as the stronger or superior gender, rather the opposite. So this just comes down to beliefs which we clearly disagree on. I doubt though that women find you attractive for your gender views though.
On May 16 2012 00:21 sunprince wrote:
Terrible logical fallacy. I "choose to believe" that women are physically weaker; does that imply I doubt my own physical strength?
So now you're narrowing it down to physical strength? Ok... again, it all just comes down to mindset. "Women are weak" big-it-up me. Some people need the self-hype I guess. Like racism is a symptom of insecurity in your own identity ... and so forth, it's a moral issue everyone has to decide for themselves. Due to time constraints I can't spell this out now but I'm sure you can figure this out for yourself.
I don't have time to read the study now, I will though, thanks for the link. I'm not surprised my understanding of dominance is different to what it is to "social science" (learn something new every day eh?).It hardly comes as a big surprise that people prefer to marry and "date up" in the world, is it?
--Squat, me and Sun are having an exchange of opinions. Just putting it out there for others to read. You can easily overlook it if it's an eyesore to you. As Sun said, we're not trying to convince one another, just putting the ideas out there. And someone just sent me a pm saying they enjoyed the exchange, so at least we're entertaining one individual right?
|
Well, I'm enjoying reading the back-and-forth. I think that both sides are making good arguments, for the most part: and responding to each other's points. What more could you ask for out of an argument? The ideas that it's only worth discussing something if you can have an immediate 'impact on someone' and that unless you've entirely convinced someone of your opinion, you haven't made an impact at all result in sermons that are aimed at the choir and accusations of "troll" when you really mean, "won't be convinced", which is not at all the same thing.
I'm happy to see two people bucking the trend and actually having an honest, thoughtful, reasonably civilized discussion with each other. Each has made interesting points that I'd never considered before, or at least never considered in quite the same way. Keep it up, guys!
Edit: I wrote this post before reading the edit to SexyBack's post above, which says substantially the same thing.
|
On May 16 2012 02:30 squattincassanova wrote:
Once you start arguing for 3+ pages with the SAME guy on a forum, ask your self this:
1. What are you trying to accomplish
2. Do you got better shit to do?
Hey they are both alphas of their own right that have gotten success with their respective methods and mindset. It is always interesting to see two guys with different notion of PUA clash against each other with cogent, detailed backings to their claims. As a bystander, I myself have managed to take their argument as a grain of salt.
|
On May 16 2012 05:05 SeXyBaCk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2012 00:21 sunprince wrote:
You're right about the feminine traits = weak and masculine traits = strong thing (at least, that's how society defines it). That's the point; we teach boys to act masculine (in other words, act strong) while we teach girls to act feminine (act weak). Therefore, it should be no surprise that as adults, men tend to be "stronger" than women, because of the roles they've been taught. That's your interpretation or opinion. I'm confident that for most of us here (and out there too, at least in the western hemisphere) masculine traits are just masculine and feminine are just feminine, no further without further labling required. All you're doing be adding weak and strong is making yourself impress as misogynic. Your views is definitely not what I'm teaching my children mate.
I would also prefer if masculine traits were just labelled masculine and feminine traits were just labelled feminine. However, the terms "strong" and "weak" are generally understood to mean certain things in the English language, and those definitions happen to conform to masculinity and femininity, respectively. That's why I've used quotation marks when referring to "strong" and "weak" throughout this discussion. I'm not adding "strong" and "weak" for shits and giggles; I'm using them because that's what the words mean in English.
On May 16 2012 05:05 SeXyBaCk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2012 00:21 sunprince wrote:
There's a lot of reasons for the life expectancy gap, but a big part of it is that men tend to get killed. Dirty, dangerous, and demanding jobs (e.g. military, coal mining) are overwhelmingly filled by men, men are far more likely to engage in dangerous/reckless behavior, and men are the vast majority of homicide victims (female victims of violence are far more likely to be raped but far less likely to be killed). In other words, women live longer because men are stupider and/or taking one for the other team.
Yeah, but men also take more drugs, drive recklessly and take other risks, commit crimes and suicide way more often than women. You're misinformed about cancer. Men pretty much get more cancer across the board, bar breast cancer and cancers affecting the female reproductive system. Aside from that I'd say at least 70% of the illnesses currently known to man have a higher incidence in men. Male gender seems to be a risk factor about a third of all diseases. And do we need to look at how men score compared to women in academics these days? In my opinion none of those statistical facts speak for male as the stronger or superior gender, rather the opposite. So this just comes down to beliefs which we clearly disagree on.
I already specified that men are far more likely to engage in dangerous/reckless behavior and that they are (on average) stupider, so I'm not sure why you're repeating that to me. As for cancer, your opinion is not backed by epidemiological fact, which supports what I've said about cancer differences mostly being due to men having higher lung cancer rates (which in turn is mostly due to higher rates of smoking and to a lesser extent dangerous occupations). A typical person reading the rest of that wikipedia link, as well as the relevant sources, would conclude that on average, men are indeed "stronger" than women, but are also dumber than women. There's also more recent research from the last decade or so that shows that men demonstrate far more variance than women, and as a consequence, men are overrepresented at the top and bottom of most metrics (intelligence, financial success, health, social status, etc.); this has implications for using disease as a a metric because cancer is at the bottom of health metrics.
On May 16 2012 05:05 SeXyBaCk wrote:
I doubt though that women find you attractive for your gender views though.
You'd be wrong on that. Most women are not radical feminists, and are therefore more likely to find white knights like you unattractive for your gender views. Most women that I've engaged in gender discussions with tend to agree with me and find my politically incorrect honesty to be refreshing (remember, part of being alpha is the willingness to defy social norms). Some of my women actually are (non-radical) feminists, and though they disagree with my views, they'd never label me as anything other than egalitarian, and they also appreciate being able to have constructive debate with me on a topic that deeply interests them.
On May 16 2012 05:05 SeXyBaCk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2012 00:21 sunprince wrote:
Terrible logical fallacy. I "choose to believe" that women are physically weaker; does that imply I doubt my own physical strength?
So now you're narrowing it down to physical strength? Ok... again, it all just comes down to mindset. "Women are weak" big-it-up me. Some people need the self-hype I guess. Like racism is a symptom of insecurity in your own identity ... and so forth, it's a moral issue everyone has to decide for themselves. Due to time constraints I can't spell this out now but I'm sure you can figure this out for yourself.
Assuming you're not trolling, you completely misread what I said. I wasn't making an argument; I was pointing out that your line of reasoning was a logical fallacy and used an example to demonstrate why.
On May 16 2012 05:05 SeXyBaCk wrote:
I don't have time to read the study now, I will though, thanks for the link. I'm not surprised my understanding of dominance is different to what it is to "social science" (learn something new every day eh?).It hardly comes as a big surprise that people prefer to marry and "date up" in the world, is it?
Actually, academic research shows that only women tend to be hypergamous (prefer to "date up"). Men tend to be hypogamous (prefer to "date down") because this provides an incentive for their women to be faithful.
P.S. For some reason, you keep construing my empirical statements as normative ones. This conversation would be more productive if you kept in mind that I'm stating what things are, not saying what they should be. I'm not at all fond of the modern state of gender norms/relations, but my preferences aren't relevant to a discussion about reality. So when I say that women have been conditioned by society to be "weaker" than men, it doesn't mean I think that's a good thing.
|
No, it really doesn't. 95% of guys (who actually get into pickup discounting naturals) fail utterly. The path is there, but most can't do it. Just like the path to a six pack is there.
Care to expand on this a touch?
In the case of getting a six-pack it basically comes down to your willpower; eating right and maintaining some level of activity. In your example with PU you said that vast majority who get into fail, which makes me think that they have at least gotten to the point where they do go out and some and aren't totally blocked by fear of approaching.
Essentially I'm curious as to what you think it is that makes most people fail (and I agree that most do fail). What part of the path are they unable to follow? Willpower to go out enough/continue going out even if they have no success? Or do they struggle to learn the skills of PU?
|
On May 16 2012 14:21 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +No, it really doesn't. 95% of guys (who actually get into pickup discounting naturals) fail utterly. The path is there, but most can't do it. Just like the path to a six pack is there. Care to expand on this a touch? In the case of getting a six-pack it basically comes down to your willpower; eating right and maintaining some level of activity. In your example with PU you said that vast majority who get into fail, which makes me think that they have at least gotten to the point where they do go out and some and aren't totally blocked by fear of approaching. Essentially I'm curious as to what you think it is that makes most people fail (and I agree that most do fail). What part of the path are they unable to follow? Willpower to go out enough/continue going out even if they have no success? Or do they struggle to learn the skills of PU?
Too many factors.
1. Dont approach enough
2. Dont fix their fashion
3. Hang out with people equal or worse
4. Dont get coaching
5. Don't take risks, dont try pushing the interaction, leaving the set to early
6. Not fixing sticking points
7. Not investing in self, not learning hobbies, not building life style
When you look at PU it massively expands to basically being fucking awesome at everything. Wealth, health, social circle, GQ, well traveled, cool hobbies... and basically a bad ass in all areas. You can get immediate success with game, but shit there are other things that when you reach a certain status will dominate pure game. I don't care what you think, but the owner at XS or Marquee will PULL at his club with MY skills much more consistently than Tyler.
|
On May 16 2012 08:21 sunprince wrote:
I would also prefer if masculine traits were just labelled masculine and feminine traits were just labelled feminine. However, the terms "strong" and "weak" are generally understood to mean certain things in the English language, and those definitions happen to conform to masculinity and femininity, respectively. That's why I've used quotation marks when referring to "strong" and "weak" throughout this discussion. I'm not adding "strong" and "weak" for shits and giggles; I'm using them because that's what the words mean in English.
Maybe indeed this is down to me being a socialist red Brit as you put it in one of your previous posts, but in my english "masculine" does not translate into strong or feminine into weak. Nor does the society I live in rate masculine traits over feminine traits.
On May 16 2012 08:21 sunprince wrote:
Your opinion is not backed by epidemiological fact, which supports what I've said about cancer differences mostly being due to men having higher lung cancer rates (which in turn is mostly due to higher rates of smoking and to a lesser extent dangerous occupations). A typical person reading the rest of that wikipedia link, as well as the relevant sources, would conclude that on average, men are indeed "stronger" than women, but are also dumber than women. There's also more recent research from the last decade or so that shows that men demonstrate far more variance than women, and as a consequence, men are overrepresented at the top and bottom of most metrics (intelligence, financial success, health, social status, etc.); this has implications for using disease as a a metric because cancer is at the bottom of health metrics.
Oh no, you did not son... - let's ask the CDC
Leukaemia: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hematologic/leukemia/statistics/race.htm
Colon: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/race.htm
Skin: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/race.htm
Myeloma: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hematologic/myeloma/statistics/race.htm
bronchial: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/statistics/race.htm
Yes indeed 2 fold m>f for lung cancer, but check out the others, men have a 15-25 % higher incidence and death rates across the board. Unfortunately, I'm not making this up. Men get sick more often, get sick more seriously and succumb to diseases sooner. Ask any doctor. You can find incidence and prevalence by gender through google for any disease. But ... hey... whatever. Objectively, a child born in the western hemisphere tomorrow is better off having a vulva in terms of quality of life. The typical person reading the wikipedia link has to make up their own mind. I don't even know anymore what "stronger" i supposed to mean in your understanding. I hate being the elitist prick, but I would take heed when relying purely on wikipedia for factual information. We've deviated so far off topic with this. What' I'm curious about is how is holding a view that masculine superior to feminine is relevant to improving your dating life? At the end of the day I've not been convinced that women are weaker or are seen as such in today's western societies. Anyone else here convinced? It sounds like it comes down to asking 100 college girls if they favour typical masculine traits over typically feminine traits in men. Really? You don't say... that has absolutely nothing to do with what gender is stronger. Something's not quite right here I sense.
On May 16 2012 08:21 sunprince wrote:
You'd be wrong on that. Most women are not radical feminists, and are therefore more likely to find white knights like you unattractive for your gender views. Most women that I've engaged in gender discussions with tend to agree with me and find my politically incorrect honesty to be refreshing (remember, part of being alpha is the willingness to defy social norms). Some of my women actually are (non-radical) feminists, and though they disagree with my views, they'd never label me as anything other than egalitarian, and they also appreciate being able to have constructive debate with me on a topic that deeply interests them.
So I'm suffering from white knight syndrome as well as being a communist? Heck, I've got it all going on don't I? I'm sort of expecting you to confuse Sweden and Switzerland next, don't hold back now. You're unintetionally advocating a whole 'nother set of prejudices here. However I'm relieved your gender views are working for you. I haven't actually shared many of my gender views. I'm left scratching my head how your views are favourable to mine when it comes to becoming more attractive to women though. Maybe you care to elaborate?
On May 16 2012 08:21 sunprince wrote:
Assuming you're not trolling, you completely misread what I said. I wasn't making an argument; I was pointing out that your line of reasoning was a logical fallacy and used an example to demonstrate why.
Actually, academic research shows that only women tend to be hypergamous (prefer to "date up"). Men tend to be hypogamous (prefer to "date down") because this provides an incentive for their women to be faithful.
P.S. For some reason, you keep construing my empirical statements as normative ones. This conversation would be more productive if you kept in mind that I'm stating what things are, not saying what they should be. I'm not at all fond of the modern state of gender norms/relations, but my preferences aren't relevant to a discussion about reality. So when I say that women have been conditioned by society to be "weaker" than men, it doesn't mean I think that's a good thing.
Yes, I was intentonally misconstrueing some of your statements. You've gone about this discussion so diligently I thought I'd serve up more material for you work on. Is a 'troll' the same as a wind up merchant? I don't think my casual winding up on the side has come as a detriment to the productiveness of the conversation.
I do not doubt that data shows that men dated down and women up in the last 50 years. After all, doctors married nurses, bosses their secretaries and so forth. In the world I live in gender roles are changing fast. Who says it has to/is going to be this way in the future? Isn't that one of the reasons why a lot of men are finding dating and identifying their own gender role difficult nowadays? It's up to us guys to figure out how to deal with modern, emancipated women and how to attract them. Traveling to the Ukraine twice a year is no solution. Nor is marrying a woman 15 years your junior.
I'm not going to sit here and tell young guys that they have to date down because that is what their fathers did and they actually prefer it, even if they're not aware of it.
|
On May 16 2012 14:21 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +No, it really doesn't. 95% of guys (who actually get into pickup discounting naturals) fail utterly. The path is there, but most can't do it. Just like the path to a six pack is there. Care to expand on this a touch? In the case of getting a six-pack it basically comes down to your willpower; eating right and maintaining some level of activity. In your example with PU you said that vast majority who get into fail, which makes me think that they have at least gotten to the point where they do go out and some and aren't totally blocked by fear of approaching. Essentially I'm curious as to what you think it is that makes most people fail (and I agree that most do fail). What part of the path are they unable to follow? Willpower to go out enough/continue going out even if they have no success? Or do they struggle to learn the skills of PU?
...actually we're just back at the point where squattin defends that his methods are awesome by trying to establish that everyone has a similar horrible time to success ratio.
When I think about the people I've met over the years who were serious about PUA (aka they stuck with the guys from our Lairs for 4+ weeks) I'd say about 20% didn't get the success they wanted. Probably even less. If you develop a healthy attitude capable of absorbing constructive feedback this whole thing isn't hard. Why? Because it's natural.
The guys I see failsaucing and being unhappy for sometimes years are those who preach mechanical DO OVER 9000 SETS OR YOU WILL FAIL attitudes. Sadly squattin is like the pope of those guys. =P
|
On May 16 2012 18:36 SeXyBaCk wrote:
Maybe indeed this is down to me being a socialist red Brit as you put it in one of your previous posts, but in my english "masculine" does not translate into strong or feminine into weak. Nor does the society I live in rate masculine traits over feminine traits.
Masculinity is typically understood to include traits like strength, courage, and leadership, while feminity is typically understood to include traits such as gentleness, empathy, and sensitivity. It should be fairly uncontroversial to any reasonable person that masculine traits are generally considered "stronger" than feminine traits. This doesn't imply that masculinity is rated over another; if anything, the society we live in rates femininity over masculinity.
On May 16 2012 18:36 SeXyBaCk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2012 08:21 sunprince wrote:
Your opinion is not backed by epidemiological fact, which supports what I've said about cancer differences mostly being due to men having higher lung cancer rates (which in turn is mostly due to higher rates of smoking and to a lesser extent dangerous occupations). A typical person reading the rest of that wikipedia link, as well as the relevant sources, would conclude that on average, men are indeed "stronger" than women, but are also dumber than women. There's also more recent research from the last decade or so that shows that men demonstrate far more variance than women, and as a consequence, men are overrepresented at the top and bottom of most metrics (intelligence, financial success, health, social status, etc.); this has implications for using disease as a a metric because cancer is at the bottom of health metrics. Oh no, you did not son... - let's ask the CDC Leukaemia: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hematologic/leukemia/statistics/race.htmColon: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/race.htmSkin: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/race.htmMyeloma: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hematologic/myeloma/statistics/race.htmbronchial: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/statistics/race.htm Yes indeed 2 fold m>f for lung cancer, but check out the others, men have a 15-25 % higher incidence and death rates across the board. Unfortunately, I'm not making this up. Men get sick more often, get sick more seriously and succumb to diseases sooner. Ask any doctor. You can find incidence and prevalence by gender through google for any disease. But ... hey... whatever. Objectively, a child born in the western hemisphere tomorrow is better off having a vulva in terms of quality of life.
Cherrypicking individual cancers is worthless for the purposes of the discussion. You're also disregarding the reasons why the prevalences are higher; it's almost entirely due to the fact that men are dumber and the vast majority of workers in dirty, dangerous, and demanding jobs which cause occupational exposure. Although there are cases in which the incidence of cancer is higher in women, there are far more in which the men outstrip the women, largely because of different smoking and drinking behaviors, and in some cases, occupational exposures.
I agree that a child is better off being born a woman in terms of quality of life. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with "strength" as any person would define it because it comes on the back of female privilege. Not having to fight in wars, trending towards safe or no occupations, rarely being victims of homicide, and having massively disproportionate amounts of government funding directed to your gender's health/education/protection all lead to a higher quality of life, but all this shows is that women are coddled, not stronger.
Simply put, you've gotten way off track on this tangent. Women being healthier is in no way due to "strength", it's due mostly to intelligence and female privilege.
On May 16 2012 18:36 SeXyBaCk wrote:
What' I'm curious about is how is holding a view that masculine superior to feminine is relevant to improving your dating life? At the end of the day I've not been convinced that women are weaker or are seen as such in today's western societies.
Stronger ≠ superior. You're making that judgment (with all its sexist implications) yourself. If anything, I would argue that the greater average female intellect makes women superior on average, since intellect is the key trait of our species.
The knowledge that women are, on average, not as physically and psychologically strong as men (due to some combination of biology and socialization) is useful in understanding women. If you assume that women are as "strong" as you in most ways, then you will inevitably do incredibly naive things like treating an upset man and an upset woman the same way. Inversely, understanding male shortcomings relative to women are also helpful.
On May 16 2012 18:36 SeXyBaCk wrote:
I haven't actually shared many of my gender views. I'm left scratching my head how your views are favourable to mine when it comes to becoming more attractive to women though. Maybe you care to elaborate?
The undertone behind nearly every one of your posts here is that of a typical feminist white knight: you assume or imply that everything which doesn't fit a politically correct feminist view of the world is misogynist. You consistently refuse to acknowledge any ways in which women have comparative shortcomings to men. Those things alone speak volumes as to your gender views.
On May 16 2012 18:36 SeXyBaCk wrote:
I do not doubt that data shows that men dated down and women up in the last 50 years. After all, doctors married nurses, bosses their secretaries and so forth. In the world I live in gender roles are changing fast. Who says it has to/is going to be this way in the future? Isn't that one of the reasons why a lot of men are finding dating and identifying their own gender role difficult nowadays? It's up to us guys to figure out how to deal with modern, emancipated women and how to attract them. Traveling to the Ukraine twice a year is no solution. Nor is marrying a woman 15 years your junior.
Female hypergamy is not a recent phenomenon. It's been deeply ingrained into human evolution for millions of years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
