Here's a dark thought, but...

[OnTheWayUp]

.... is most of the concept of "morality" one giant $hit test?

I mean, obviously you'd stop short of killing someone or committing crimes to get girls, don't get me wrong- that would be really stupid. But I've read on here before how girls are not in the least bit attracted to guys who profess moral values or to be "good people;" "good people" can attract girls as well, but they have to stimulate girls emotionally. Most of the powerful people I know in my social circle and at work tend to break social rules (within reason) and leave it to the betas to follow "the moral path" or "do the right thing." It seems to me that most people who make progress in life either do it through the back door (ie nepotism, success through contacts) or through stepping on people on their climb to the top. It is a very rare person who plays fair and achieves great things solely on the objective merit of an idea.

Of course, if you're going to act in an unorthodox way to get what you want, it doesn't make sense to openly broadcast this to other people you know. You don't want people stealing your ideas, and equally some of your beliefs and action might be very socially damaging.

Applied to girls, this would mean that secretly cheating on your gf is a good thing if you want to have as much sex as possible. The "virtue" of being faithful would be meaningless. It would mean stringing multiple girls along whilst you are single - or "plate spinning" as we say here on SS - perhaps without telling them. It would mean never going on orthodox dates with new girls because "it's the right thing to do," but rather going straight for sex (which is what we want as men the majority of the time). You might give intimations of a future relationship to a girl as a means of keeping her as a FWB.

I've honestly reached the stage where I'm questioning whether the social manners and moral code I valued as an AFC have any worth whatsoever. What do you guys think?

 

[RedScorpion]

The thing with morals is that the people who break those morals are not usually well respected. You must first understand why we do the things we do. Social manners and moral code came about because they promote (knowingly or unknowingly) the success of society as a whole. Things like deceit, lies, being unfaithful, etc. - They tear the bonds that we have as people, by destroying our trust in them. If we cannot trust the people that we work with, live with, love - then the only resolution is either separation, or maintaining a ruined communication path between those people. When it involves several people (knowing that say our brains can handle about 150 people that we 'care' about in our circle), it creates a web of sorts, a big network. People you trust, their opinions influence you, and depending on you, influence your actions (That's why it's best to hang out with people with attributes you yourself desire). If enough people in your circle ostracize an individual, you will feel pressure to do the same. Eventually, depending on your relation with them, and the process behind it (deciding if you can trust them as well, say if they backstab your friends), then you may decide to ostracize them as well.

Everything revolves around trust. If you cannot trust them due to mismatching beliefs or because of something they've done, then you will push them outside. Usually people who step on others to get up ahead will be ostracized by the people they step on. And if they're not smart enough to cover it well, and it gets heard by new people that do not know them, well, they have that in their head about them (until they are convinced that they're ok... but if they're stepped on as well... then it doubly reinforces the rumor mill about the person, influencing their own sphere of people)

Full example, if you are in a relationship with someone, and you cheat on them to accomplish the goal of 'having as much sex as possible' (or it at least appears to be that way). People can determine many, many things about you from hearing this one thing. Maybe it's true things, could be not. I can think, that maybe they're too weak to resist their basic nature. Positive, they can get laid by women (good for reproduction). Negative, they are a weaker parent as they are less likely to be there to raise a child. Has no qualms about breaking societal standards (disrupts trust in circles). Priorities are misplaced (as he is in a relationship and is not being true about it, if he's pursuing other women). And whatever circle of friends she has, they will support her and 'spread the word'.

I've been there. I have questioned morality and society, law, order, government, why we do the things we do. It wasn't until I decided to cut everything to the most basic level, and built it from the root that I got further understanding. If you approach it as an evolutionary thing, not as far as genetics, but as a cultural growth, then that may reveal the answer. Ask yourself, why isn't everyone doing it? Why is there consequences? Why do we hold ourselves to these seemingly exorbitant standards, when we can simply ignore them? Why bother at all maintaining them?

And remember that people DO ignore them. All the time. And they live with it whatever reward/consequence it comes with. If you want to find where your belief system truly lies, then the best example is a live example. Think of someone that you don't respect - they are the people that mismatch your belief system. And know that there is always someone that aligns similarly with yours (good or bad). Think of your close friends. There are girls just like those everywhere (mismatched or aligned).

I also believe that the difference between an 'alpha' or 'don juan', and an AFC, is most likely confidence. You know who you are, what you want, what you desire, and are firm and true to yourself. That will carry to all aspects of your life.

 

[PeakIV]

Ontheway up - damn good post, being older and more cynical and jaded I am inclined to agree with everything you have said...

 

[zekko]

It's not that women are not attracted to men who are moral, it's that morality is not an attraction factor. If an attractive guy is moral, she'll be attracted to him. If an attractive guy is immoral, she'll be attracted to him.

Now if both guys are attractive, she may decide to choose the moral one, or she may decide to take the immoral one, depending on what her own value system is. The point is the attraction has to come first, then she can qualify or disqualify if she wants, based on whatever other traits the guy may have.

That said, if you try to follow societal rules too closely, it can make you look uptight.

 

[zekko]

Of course you are proposing adopting the amorality of the female which I find even more revolting than being an unwilling but malleable pawn like AFC adam

Right, if the male does not provide himself as a role model for honorable behavior, the woman sure as heck isn't going to. Adopting the amorality of the female, as you put it, does a disservice to the species, IMO, and ignores an important male role.

 

[OnTheWayUp]

Right, if the male does not provide himself as a role model for honorable behavior, the woman sure as heck isn't going to. Adopting the amorality of the female, as you put it, does a disservice to the species, IMO, and ignores an important male role.

Interesting perspective from a well-respected long-time poster, can you expand a bit? Specifically, in what way does behaving in a moral way aid society and advance the interests of the individual? And why do you refer to the moral role as a "male role?"

 

[OnTheWayUp]

It's not that women are not attracted to men who are moral, it's that morality is not an attraction factor. If an attractive guy is moral, she'll be attracted to him. If an attractive guy is immoral, she'll be attracted to him.

Now if both guys are attractive, she may decide to choose the moral one, or she may decide to take the immoral one, depending on what her own value system is. The point is the attraction has to come first, then she can qualify or disqualify if she wants, based on whatever other traits the guy may have.

That said, if you try to follow societal rules too closely, it can make you look uptight.

I think this is an excellent way of clearly articulating what I was getting at, thanks man.

 

[Trump]

Applied to girls, this would mean that secretly cheating on your gf is a good thing if you want to have as much sex as possible. The "virtue" of being faithful would be meaningless. It would mean stringing multiple girls along whilst you are single - or "plate spinning" as we say here on SS - perhaps without telling them. It would mean never going on orthodox dates with new girls because "it's the right thing to do," but rather going straight for sex (which is what we want as men the majority of the time). You might give intimations of a future relationship to a girl as a means of keeping her as a FWB.

I've honestly reached the stage where I'm questioning whether the social manners and moral code I valued as an AFC have any worth whatsoever. What do you guys think?

There is a difference between being able to do and actually doing it.

I think if you are in are relationship, never get too attached, too emotional, too dependant. A lot of guys when they get a girl they get lazy, they think the girl is going to unconditionally love them no matter what. Then when the girl leaves them, cheats, or breaks up with them, they are blindsided and get angry and frustrated.

Thats why when you are in a relationship, you still have to this DJ stuff. You still have to look good, improve yourself, meet people, make money, dress well, flirt with women. Never stop. It's not only good for your moral and mental well being, but the girl your with will almost never cheat on you.

 

[zekko]

Specifically, in what way does behaving in a moral way aid society and advance the interests of the individual? And why do you refer to the moral role as a "male role?"

Well, the male role is to lead, so it only stands to reason that he takes the lead on which values to espouse as important. It's not that women have no responsibility to be moral, they simply can't be relied upon lol. I think the whole "women act only on emotion, women do not understand logic, women are no more than children, women do whatever their feelings tell them to at any given time" thing is a bit overstated on this forum, but there is still some truth to it.

I hesitate to discuss morality here, because I know many people in the pickup community see morality as part of the blue pill, as a way for the culture to shame masculinity and DJ ways, or as simply an obstacle to their getting more pvssy.

But I don't see how anyone can look around and not see the detrimental effects of loosening morals on our society. It seems like half the posts here are complaining about how western women are garbage these days ("women are devilish wh0res"), how they can't be trusted, how they flake, how they are only concerned about their own vanity, how they ride the c0ck carousel, etc. Some guys here like this because the more slvts that are available, the more they can get laid. But that notwithstanding, if there was more moral pressure on these women, as there once was, we might see less acting up on thier part and more quality women, the kind our grandfathers were proud to marry (not that I'm advocating marriage here, at least not in the current climate).