Why is having a gf so looked down on this site

[Tenacity]

Nature overrides social conditioning every single time.

What?? Dude you clearly just regurgitate shyt from the Manosphere like a god damn sheep/robot, yet you call someone who forms his own individual thoughts based on his own independent research "weak"?

There's just no way in hell your statement is true. Social conditioning, programming, culture, school indoctrination, media programming, what your parents think, what your friends think, etc., etc. go much further today to control human behavior than some "biological imperative".

- Case in point. If that were the case (nature always overrides social conditioning) we would be living in ANARCHY. You do realize that it's unnatural for any human being to be regulated and operate under man-made laws.....don't you? We wouldn't function as a country if it were true.

- Another case in point, damn near 70% of females in America are bisexual. How in the hell does a female licking another female, line up with ANYTHING from a biological imperative in relation to the female dynamic? It doesn't. Because, social programming, culture, etc., has a much higher influence.

- Another case in point. What the hell we like to EAT and don't like to EAT, also is being manipulated. Why do you think they use processed shyt in various foods? The processed shyt manipulates our taste patterns, manipulates our taste buds, etc., to PROGRAM us to be attracted to eating certain types of foods over other types.

- Another case in point. Why do you think marketing departments use various forms of methods, music, actors, and other forms of manipulation? Through trial and error, they have discovered what selling methods work to PROGRAM people into buying shyt they don't need, and what methods don't work. If nature overrides this condition, people would NOT buy shyt they don't need. People would NOT be in debt like they are currently.

 

[Tenacity]

You, on the other hand, are dealing with abandonment issues and are seeking an LTR to fill your holes of need and love. Not a prudent position to enter into an LTR.

Guru.....call it like it is.....damn near every guy on here is dealing with abandonment issues. I'm just the only one with the BALLS to be honest about it.

 

[BeTheChange]

Guru.....call it like it is.....damn near every guy on here is dealing with abandonment issues. I'm just the only one with the BALLS to be honest about it.

Jesus wept. Projection at its finest.

I'm actually longing for the day when you finally crack and blow away a college sorority or something. Harsh, but this is getting ridiculous now.

 

[Tenacity]

Jesus wept. Projection at its finest.

I'm actually longing for the day when you finally crack and blow away a college sorority or something. Harsh, but this is getting ridiculous now.

You're sick. Thanks for the support "brother". If you really thought someone would do some sick shyt like that, I would HOPE you would try to get them some help instead of "sit back and wait for them to do it".

 

[BeTheChange]

You're sick. Thanks for the support "brother". If you really thought someone would do some sick shyt like that, I would HOPE you would try to get them some help instead of "sit back and wait for them to do it".

You don't want support. You want to miserable. Have fun with it.

 

[Poon King]

But who is defining "successful"? Are you defining it or are you allowing an individual man to define it? And I thought this forum was about male self-improvement in general, not just in relation to how to pick up women, which would make it a PUA site?

I've been the loudest voice on this forum about how fvcked up the marketplace is.

I'm not disagreeing with the commentary you are providing, what I'm disagreeing with is the cult-like procedures around here calling people FAG.GOTS just because they don't subscribe to the cult-like procedures 100%. It's gotten so bad to where if you say you are in a committed relationship, you are being called lazy, a bytch, and a fag.got now.

We have to remember the purpose of this site is male SELF-improvement, that means that the male HIMSELF determines his individual goals and uses the mass amount of information on this website to tailor to his own individual path.....to help him achieve said goal.

- Some guy's goal is to be married with kids.
- Some guy's goal is to be in a LTR
- Some guy's goal is to just spin plates
- Some guy's goal is to get laid more often

If you define "success" as living on another person's terms by another person's rules then there is something wrong with you.

Focus on what you can control. You have no control over me calling people faggots so why waste your time? You really think I'll stop because YOU don't like it? LOL.

Why do you need the red pill community to approve or respect your lifestyle? If you want to be a submissive beta and embrace a Disney lifestyle then no one here can stop you. But you're SOL if you expect me to respect that lifestyle.

No. I will take it back to the Fitness Community. If I would have listened to the Fitness CULTS I were around, I would have never seen my 6 pack. They were pushing me their various religions and none of them fit with my INDIVIDUAL BODY.

- Some were pushing their eat every 3 hours religious cult
- Some were pushing their never do cardio religious cult
- Some were pushing their never eat carbs religious cult
- Some were pushing their never do a cheat meal again for life religious cult
- Some were pushing their take fat burners religious cult
- Some were pushing their never do ab workouts religious cult
- Some were pushing their never workout more than 30 minutes religious cult

When I instead STOPPED trying to fit into religious cults, and took all of the MASSIVE information presented in the Fitness Community to create my own tailored plan for MY INDIVIDUAL BODY...that's when I seen success.

And I'm saying the same thing about the Manosphere. Guys need to not fall into any religious cult on here, they need to take the mass amount of information, LOG THE FVCK OFF, and create their own individualized plan for their life.

You are not the authority on "what men need to do" any more than I am.

You're starting to remind me of a nagging girlfriend or wife. Listen.. you have 100% free will. Learn to say NEXT if this forum isn't providing you with what you want. What will happen when your so-called "tag team partner" does something you don't like? Will you nag her to death and cry like a b!tch because she "should" be doing something YOU want her to do?

If you have all the answers then you should be able to follow your own path with no issues. BUT don't ask for advice from people.. then cry when that advice doesn't feel good.

No one here is your dad bro. Go live the life you want. Stop b!tching and moaning though.

 

[guru1000]

You're sick. Thanks for the support "brother". If you really thought someone would do some sick shyt like that, I would HOPE you would try to get them some help instead of "sit back and wait for them to do it".

I'm all fairness, I'm not supporting what BeChange stated, but YOU were the one who threatened going postal numerous times in your anger thread. And now it's "sick"? Look inward, before pointing outward.

 

[zekko]

However spreading ones seed in perpetuity isn't necessarily "natural" either. Both genders tend towards short to medium term pair bonding with the man sticking around to ensure that his offspring are taken care of and his genes preserved.

Finally BeTheChange says something I can agree with! This is the reason that monogamy is completely natural. But we're not talking about lifelong monogamy here, just a sort of temporary monogamy. When humans mate, chemicals are released that encourage the male to stick around - at least long enough to make sure his offspring is protected and raised to viability.

That's not to say polygyny is unnatural. I've said all along that humans are adaptable and can use a variety of mating strategies. But PUAs will only see what they want to see, so they claim monogamy is unnatural. Which is horsesh!t.

You have limited resources and energy - we all do. That means you lapse on the women front.
No excuse to espouse that to men that have plenty of motivation and energy for it.

I'm not espousing LTRs for men, I'm espousing that men should do what they want to do.

It's no surprise that you want to shoot down any reason I might have for enjoying my LTR, but it doesn't matter. They are my reasons, and they mean something to me. You have your own reasons for doing what you want to do. I'm not telling you what to do. But I am saying that men are able to be in LTRs, and that doesn't make them betas or faggots. That's what is wrong with the seduction community, and why it is like a cult. You have to buy into their dogma, or you get called names and ostracized.

My current steady girl is Italian - a great cook. My date idea for Saturday is that she make a feast.

Once again you missed my point. My point wasn't that we ate or cooked together. My point was that she plays the same role as an "exercise buddy", except with food. Yes, I can eat clean on my own, but it's always easier when you have a partner to support you - it's the buddy system.

 

[guru1000]

Finally BeTheChange says something I can agree with! This is the reason that monogamy is completely natural. But we're not talking about lifelong monogamy here, just a sort of temporary monogamy.

Still not monogamy. The man supports his offspring to perpetuate his legacy, but still practices polygamy with his other wifes/mistresses.

Though, I do concur that when a man gets older, becomes less fertile to pass his seed, has less testosterone and thus less sex drive, or when a man grows too old to attract fertile women, then his biological need for polygamy dissipates.

 

[zekko]

Still not monogamy. The man supports his offspring to perpetuate his legacy, but still practices polygamy with his other wifes/mistresses.

.
Not necessarily. Changes in the body actually reduce the man's desire to go screw around with other women, so that he can stay and care for the child and mother.

And I maintain that LTR's are a woman's frame. Haven't heard any decent argument to the contrary.

.
Any relationship I am in will be under my frame. Anyway, if the man sticks around to take care of the wife and mother, that directly helps his DNA survive, which benefits not only himself but his offspring. Saying it is a woman's frame is completely biased, when obviously the entire species benefits.

And I, of course, entertain the idea that I could enter another LTR at some point.

And I hope that if that point comes, you will be mature and intelligent enough to realize that you have not suddenly become a pvssy or a faggot.

 

[guru1000]

.
Not necessarily. Changes in the body actually reduce the man's desire to go screw around with other women, so that he can stay and care for the child and mother.

When we make these kinds of arbitrary statements, we best be prepared to support them with facts.

As you may know, I and probably Marmel are most versed in men's physiology in this forum. The few studies that I read regarding men's physiology following child birth were inconclusive at best. Further, these few conclusory studies still do not negate that men's testes are still pumping out 25mil sperm/day, averagely, before, during, and after childbirth, which wanes only at a few percentage points each year. And for what reason would sperm be needed in such large quantities, during a woman's impregnation, if man's biological inclination was to be monogamous following fertilization?

 

[BeTheChange]

I'm going to go against the grain here at the risk of coming across a bit "fagotty" I'll speculate that genuine monogamy might be achievable and even desirable to men in the short term.

Using myself as a case study I can say that with my ex of 3 years, the first year I still had a massive desire to bang other women but when things peaked in year 2/3 (s3x on tap, lovebombing, subservience, me focusing on my career, etc.) I had almost NO desire to sleep around. I "loved" that girl. Now maybe it was down to euphoria, dopamine, the fact my balls were constantly drained or just plain old oneitis. Who knows. But for the reasons I mentioned in my earlier post this state seems natural albeit transient (seven year itch?) since it reduces your motivation to impregnate other women while your offspring have still not fully developed.

Interested to hear people's thoughts.

 

[guru1000]

BetheChange, in our current social construct, polygamy is not accepted and thus for us to purposefully pursue this lifestyle carries the tremendous weight of time.

For those who are financially ambitious and monogamous, the decision toward monogamy may a calculated one based on time management; as in the social constructs we are positioned, most women are not ok with polygamous men, and thus the turnover and time for polygamy is high. Therefore, we have to make a decision: (1) more time for our mission and monogamy; or (2) less time for our mission and polygamy.

However, if positioned in an alternate social construct where polygamy were practiced, accepted or even rewarded--and thus not time constrained--a decision toward monogamy would carry no advantage, as we are not biologically wired that way.

Further, once we see monogamy, think monogamy, practice monogamy, witness our parents and friends in monogamy, we socially condition ourselves toward monogamy. But such conditioning doesn't change our biological nature.

We visit these topics to recognize the motivations from which our decisions originate. Such motivations can be founded on strength (time management, assistance toward one's mission); other motivations can be founded on weakness (need for love, need for approval, need for acceptance). Introspection is healthy for all of us who wish to step out of the box in which we enclose ourselves from time to time and seek an alternate perspective.

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

Compared to what?

Doesn't every person, institution, or organization try to indoctrinate you with their own set of values and beliefs? I see his point, but I don't see why it matters. Its just a mild shaming tactic to make the seduction/red pill community seem less legitimate. This frees him to go forward with beta behavior and feel "good/right" about it.

Moot point.



Nothing wrong with that. You are living on your own terms.

No, no, no, no, no..... an indoctrinated person is simply not free.

Freedom is primarily a state of mind that can turn itself to every kind of discourse and then separate the wheat from the chaff; there is often an element of truth in every 'narrative'.

Consider the meaning of suave - smoothly agreeable or polite; agreeably or blandly urbane. i.e.; not dogmatic

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

Any man in a LTR is sacrificing his sexual strategy.

Really? Any man? Some of what you say makes sense, and then no doubt to a certain type of guy. But come on, when you state it so dogmatically like this it just seems ridiculous.

Why not use some qualifiers? E.g. for younger guys, or for those that have been burnt, or for those that are/ have..... whatever. Your opinions will then come across as more persuasive. per - suave.

 

[zekko]

for what reason would sperm be needed in such large quantities, during a woman's impregnation, if man's biological inclination was to be monogamous following fertilization?

My argument has never been that the man must be monogamous, rather I am saying it is not unnatural to be monogamous (temporarily). The man may in fact have many wives. He may not. The point is that he has the drive to stay and care for the mother and child. That is a natural drive. I have always said that what makes humans successful is their ability to adapt. They are able to use different mating strategies. That includes being monogamous..

These urges to pair bond are evident on this forum by all the guys who come here in serious emotional pain over their "oneitis". They have not learned to control their urges. PUAs want to say oneitis comes solely from social constructs, but I don't think those feelings would be so powerful if they did not have a biological drive behind them.

BetheChange, in our current social construct, polygamy is not accepted and thus for us to purposefully pursue this lifestyle carries the tremendous weight of time.

Actually, I would say that OUR social construct is here in the seduction community. And it is monogamy that is not accepted here, and those who suggest it as a viable option are shamed and ridiculed for daring to think beyond the dogma that the PUA cult pushes.

 

[marmel75]

My argument has never been that the man must be monogamous, rather I am saying it is not unnatural to be monogamous (temporarily). The man may in fact have many wives. He may not. The point is that he has the drive to stay and care for the mother and child. That is a natural drive. I have always said that what makes humans successful is their ability to adapt. They are able to use different mating strategies. That includes being monogamous..

These urges to pair bond are evident on this forum by all the guys who come here in serious emotional pain over their "oneitis". They have not learned to control their urges. PUAs want to say oneitis comes solely from social constructs, but I don't think those feelings would be so powerful if they did not have a biological drive behind them.


Actually, I would say that OUR social construct is here in the seduction community. And it is monogamy that is not accepted here, and those who suggest it as a viable option are shamed and ridiculed for daring to think beyond the dogma that the PUA cult pushes.

Monogamy is fine, if that is what YOU want. Not because you feel pressured into it, not because you settled for something you don't want and not because you did it simply to keep a chick around for easy sex but that you aren't really into and don't see anything developing with. Those are called "plates", not a woman you decide you want to be monogamous with, but that is what the majority of guys here are doing.

 

[Serenity]

It's so funny when people start discussing using the word "natural" about human behavior.

If we apply the term "natural" about observations on human behavior the same way we apply it to other things it gets simpler. If I observe humans, what a human does is what a human does. Just like what a dog does is what a dog does. So what does humans do? Sexually speaking, they have one night stands, short relationships, long relationships, lifelong relationships, fvck each other on a regular basis without being in a relationship, fvck just one person, fvck a bunch of people, make no babies, make some babies, make a lot of babies and some don't have sex at all. Basically humans do a lot of different things. So which one is normal? Why does just one of them have to be normal?

According to my observations it's normal human behavior to do any of these things, because humans do it. Anyone stating any of those things to be unnatural are basing it upon personal opinion, not empirical observation. The illusion that one's own preference is superior to others preferences is strong in this discussion.

Some guys will try their best to shape others in their own image, because they (falsely) believe it's objectively better. Some guys will fall for it, some will not. Guys like @Poon King will certainly not fall for it. That's what he's talking about 90% of the time, focus on how you want it regardless of how others judge it. Whether that's monogamy or fvcking a new woman every week, if it's how you want it then you cannot be wrong towards yourself.

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

It's so funny when people start discussing using the word "natural" about human behavior.

If we apply the term "natural" about observations on human behavior the same way we apply it to other things it gets simpler. If I observe humans, what a human does is what a human does. Just like what a dog does is what a dog does. So what does humans do? Sexually speaking, they have one night stands, short relationships, long relationships, lifelong relationships, fvck each other on a regular basis without being in a relationship, fvck just one person, fvck a bunch of people, make no babies, make some babies, make a lot of babies and some don't have sex at all. Basically humans do a lot of different things. So which one is normal? Why does just one of them have to be normal?

According to my observations it's normal human behavior to do any of these things, because humans do it. Anyone stating any of those things to be unnatural are basing it upon personal opinion, not empirical observation. The illusion that one's own preference is superior to others preferences is strong in this discussion.

Some guys will try their best to shape others in their own image, because they (falsely) believe it's objectively better. Some guys will fall for it, some will not. Guys like @Poon King will certainly not fall for it. That's what he's talking about 90% of the time, focus on how you want it regardless of how others judge it. Whether that's monogamy or fvcking a new woman every week, if it's how you want it then you cannot be wrong towards yourself.

Yep, I think when you play the 'nature' card, it is best to ask what it is that typifies human nature, or what makes us different to the animal kingdom. No prizes for guessing that is rationality.

And rationality presupposes freedom [bye bye all determinisms], where I allow the possibility of choosing between alternatives... and further, be self-determining in recognizing what I ought to believe; that which is most sensible and coherent given all the variables.

 

[Serenity]

@ChristopherColumbus Animals (in particular mammals) can be rational. They are capable of choosing their actions based on past experiences just like humans. They can also have irrational behaviors, like unprovoked aggression.

I would say that what makes us different from other animals is complexity. Animals may be incapable of communicating their reasoning, but that does not mean their minds are empty. It's been proven that animals can do a lot of cognitive tasks that we previously thought only humans could do. Of course humans can do them faster and solve more complex problems, but many animals have the basic abilities.

I can see things both from the perspective of determinism and free will. It's really an unanswered philosophical question and I doubt there will ever be a clear answer one way or the other. I could argue that we have free will because we can affect the world instead of letting physics just happen. On the other side I could argue it's all deterministic because we (including our brains) are a part of the world governed by physics along with everything else. So basically free will vs determinism boils down to just choosing a perspective, which is really paradoxical because is it really a choice?

I seriously thought about that paradox one time, I achieved a headache. Best not to think about it.