PUA/DJ contradiction

[The Deacon]

Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you
his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell
you his valuation of himself. No matter what corruption he's taught about the
virtue of selflessness, sex is the most profoundly selfish of all acts, an act
which he cannot perform for any motive but his own enjoyment -- just try to think
of performing it as an act of selfless charity!

Please read this entire except from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, if you're not familiar with it:
http://loveblender.com/2001april/heart/atlas.html

It pretty much outlines everything I think about the whole "mating" game. It especially says quite concisely what I feel about men who say that they fall in love with a woman because they "looked past the surface." I'm a religious kind of guy, not as much as I should be, but I believe in Jesus. Although these ideas contradict directly what the Bible tells you to do, it's only within our nature to judge a man who has an ugly girlfriend, or to praise an ugly man making out with an HB10.

The problem, I believe, lies in self-actualization. There is a lack of people who are accomplishing their potentials as human beings, especially in the mating game. We're never satisfied with what we have. Lots of rich people aren't happy, lots of impoverished people aren't happy, and from what I've experienced, sometimes Jesus himself isn't enough to make us happy. There's a lot of things that have to be done in order to achieve our truest selves.

The irony is that, according to the quote above, the only "proof" of self-worth is the woman you sleep with. The quote's idea is pessimistic yet realistic, insightful yet destructive. If you honestly believed that a woman was the proof of your self-worth, then what are you doing? Seeking validation from a woman? Isn't that what we've all been taught not to do? If so, then PUAism and DJism completely contradict their own ideals. The basic idea is to "not give a f*ck" about what she thinks of you, yet you still derive your self-worth from f*cking chicks.

This makes no sense. You care what girls think about you because your whole status/tenure is derived from it. It doesn't matter that the book gives you these instructions that say "don't give a f*ck what she thinks." A PUA/DJ is more successful based on how many women he sleeps with and how hot they are. There is truth to what PUA/DJism is saying, but they collapse in on themselves. There would be no "PUA community" if no one was getting any action, neither would a "DJ community" exist.

Anyway, please discuss. If you're thinking about sending a flame instead of contributing a useful statement/argument to this, feel free to shove a stick up your @$$. Flaming is only for pre-pubescent kids and wildly insecure adults.

 

[Bible_Belt]

sex is the most profoundly selfish of all acts, an act
which he cannot perform for any motive but his own enjoyment -- just try to think of performing it as an act of selfless charity!


It sounds like Ayn never had good sex. Being good in bed is in large part about making sex "selfless charity" at least some of the time.

And maybe the difference in the not caring what other people think part is not caring what any one individual woman thinks of you, yet still caring about what women as a group tend to think of you as well as the future ones you will meet. I do care about my skills and appearance in regard to women, but if any one of them gives me any grief, that particular b!tch can fvck off.

 

[The Deacon]

I do care about my skills and appearance in regard to women, but if any one of them gives me any grief, that particular b!tch can fvck off.

Fair enough.

 

[SinJester]

When you sleep with lots of women you aren't doing it to impress a lady you are doing it to impress guys. You can't say that the only measure of self-worth is the attractiveness of the girl you are with. Does a rich and famous man who goes for an above average girl fail compared to a drug dealer who ends up with a hot babe? My my arguments are wrong but I fail to see EXACTLY what youa re getting at.

In my opinion a DJ and a PUA are different people. A PUA is simply somone who is good with women, a DJ is a MAN. True DJ teachings teach us self-improvent for yourself as a person.

Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you
his entire philosophy of life.

So if I like short blondes my philosphy is a short blonde? I know it's not meant to be taken literally but I do not agree with it. A girl a man finds sexally attractive is just a girl he finds sexually attractive. There is no deeper meaning.

The problem, I believe, lies in self-actualization. There is a lack of people who are accomplishing their potentials as human beings, especially in the mating game. We're never satisfied with what we have.

Then why are there people whoa re happily married?

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

...It pretty much outlines everything I think about the whole "mating" game. It especially says quite concisely what I feel about men who say that they fall in love with a woman because they "looked past the surface." I'm a religious kind of guy, not as much as I should be, but I believe in Jesus. Although these ideas contradict directly what the Bible tells you to do, it's only within our nature to judge a man who has an ugly girlfriend, or to praise an ugly man making out with an HB10....

I applaud you for citing "Atlas Shrugged" but since you are torn between what is expounded in The Bible in comparison to Atlas I don't think you understand the concept of Objectivism. Quoting Rand, "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Ayn Rand needed a good hard ƒuck. She wasn't exactly an HB 9 herself.

All kidding aside, always beware of women telling you, as a Man, what sex 'should' mean to you. You will invariably find that whatever they define for you will be couched in their own best interests.

 

[AqVe]

DJism is pretty much like religions, it's something we believe in. And like in Christianity and Islam there are many interpretation of DJism. Some DJs think DJism is about getting your dream girl, marry her and live happily with her until your teeth and hair fall off. Others think DJism is like SS, to bang as many pussies as possible. And then there are all the other variations in between those interpretations.
While I don't deny nor admit that I currently am placing my self-worth on the woman's look that I'm with, I know that it is in the end wrong. I believe a man should not base his self-worth on the woman he is with, there are far more important things in life than the good looking factor of a woman.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Ayn Rand needed a good hard ƒuck. She wasn't exactly an HB 9 herself.

All kidding aside, always beware of women telling you, as a Man, what sex 'should' mean to you. You will invariably find that whatever they define for you will be couched in their own best interests.

Even though she was briefly a Hollywood starlet, I always thought that she was a bit of a hound; but from stories that I've heard it wasn't only her looks. One thing to note though, her ideals (including sex) were not gender exclusive. Although her literary work were written not long after the Suffrage movement, it was still way before the Feminism movement; if anything she was extremely pro man.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

...So if I like short blondes my philosphy is a short blonde? I know it's not meant to be taken literally but I do not agree with it. A girl a man finds sexally attractive is just a girl he finds sexually attractive. There is no deeper meaning.

She's talking about the character of the woman. There was a time when this mattered to some men. Nowadays it seems that guys will sleep with any woman who will let them. It says a lot about their character, doesn't it?

 

[LovelyLady]

Hi Deacon - great thread!

Although these ideas contradict directly what the Bible tells you to do,

Do you mean The Holy Bible or the DJ Bible? I ask this because when I first found this site Francisco brought up the Bible - I thought he meant the Holy Bible as I didn't know the DJ Bible existed... (yup I felt pretty stoooopid LOL)

Please read this entire except from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, if you're not familiar with it:
http://loveblender.com/2001april/heart/atlas.html

Have you actually read the novel, or just this quote (I just want to know what background you are approaching this conversation with )

It pretty much outlines everything I think about the whole "mating" game. It especially says quite concisely what I feel about men who say that they fall in love with a woman because they "looked past the surface." I'm a religious kind of guy, not as much as I should be, but I believe in Jesus. Although these ideas contradict directly what the Bible tells you to do, it's only within our nature to judge a man who has an ugly girlfriend, or to praise an ugly man making out with an HB10.

What is the specific nature of the contradiction (s) you are talking/thinking about here?

The problem, I believe, lies in self-actualization. There is a lack of people who are accomplishing their potentials as human beings, especially in the mating game.

My understanding is Rand believed our choice in partners and our behaviors within our sexual relationships were manifestations of our values. They are an expression/manifestation of our "level" of self-actualization/sense of personal value, rather than a means to self-actualization/value.

We're never satisfied with what we have. Lots of rich people aren't happy, lots of impoverished people aren't happy, and from what I've experienced, sometimes Jesus himself isn't enough to make us happy. There's a lot of things that have to be done in order to achieve our truest selves.

This is because, according to Rand, people look outside themselves for validation - they are parasitic in thier needs of all kinds from others, lacking self-sufficiency on different levels/in different ways. People look outside themselves to find "satisfaction" and/or approval. With Objectivism, self-esteem/value is not based on anything that can be taken away from you. That is why the destruction of the statue, the housing project (Fountainhead) and the destruction of D'Anconia Copper, the Motor, the Railroad, etc. (Atlas Shrugged) does not destroy the value of the creators. The intrinsiv value lies within the creator, not within the creation itself. This is one of Dagny's lessons. (Each character learns different aspects of Objectivism).

The irony is that, according to the quote above, the only "proof" of self-worth is the woman you sleep with.

Actually this is not what Rand is saying here, re-visit her writing and read it pure, without comparing it to other philosophies (religious or DJism) Read it pure at face value. If you still think this is what she is saying, please share how you come to that conclusion, because I don't hear her saying that?

The quote's idea is pessimistic yet realistic, insightful yet destructive. If you honestly believed that a woman was the proof of your self-worth,

Rand's ideal man/woman has no need to prove thier worth to others - it is simply a given. Thier value/worth is just simply a truth, a known factor. However, the relationship/partner chosen would be representative of thier judgment based on thier values and self-valuation (not MORALS in the traditional Judeo-Christian belief system's use of the word, however.)

then what are you doing? Seeking validation from a woman? Isn't that what we've all been taught not to do? If so, then PUAism and DJism completely contradict their own ideals. The basic idea is to "not give a f*ck" about what she thinks of you,

Rand's idea of being removed from being vulnerable/swayed by the opinion of other's about you (whether a woman, boss, social group etc.) is not one of belligerent defiance. It is not reactionary. It is simply that whether people recognize your excellence simply does not register on your radar. It is simply irrelevant - in a clean way. You do, however, recognize and are drawn to peolpe who are also excellent.

It is not that you don't give a F*** about what she thinks about you - it is that you don't think about what she thinks about you at all. It is a liberated individual "free of the good opinion of others" (Was it Emerson who said this?). Free to truly not even have the opinion of others register on your radar at all.


Interesting to consider the DJ concepts of "Being the Prize" and "Qualifying a Partner" within this context.
Off to make dinner... :cheer: