so all MIDDLE CLASS and BLUE COLLARS are AFCs?
- Thread starter Delta
- Start date
Delta
Master Don Juan
hiya jean,
not exactly sure whom i was referring to but i certainly do get surrounded quite frequently with, "hey, he's dissenting! GET HIM!" kinda sentiment.
the DIFFERENCE as i see it is that everything regarding DJ RELEVANT subjects are TRIVIALITIES!
they do not MATTER in life or life as it is today.
they are of no significance. they offer nothing to me or my life.
i have not been harmed by my preferences.
never did i wish, "gee, i wish i was more muscular or strong".
never did i lack in confidence in areas that i excel and never in a professional setting am i found in want of it.
never did i feel the need to differentiate between FLAT FRONT and PLEATED until recently.
never did i spend more than five minutes considering a 'hair style'.
THEY ARE NOTHING.
and yet, women have a preference.
and so i will magnanimously indulge their tastes.
--------------------------------------------------
you may disagree but do you see the distinction that I see here?
delta
not exactly sure whom i was referring to but i certainly do get surrounded quite frequently with, "hey, he's dissenting! GET HIM!" kinda sentiment.
the DIFFERENCE as i see it is that everything regarding DJ RELEVANT subjects are TRIVIALITIES!
they do not MATTER in life or life as it is today.
they are of no significance. they offer nothing to me or my life.
i have not been harmed by my preferences.
never did i wish, "gee, i wish i was more muscular or strong".
never did i lack in confidence in areas that i excel and never in a professional setting am i found in want of it.
never did i feel the need to differentiate between FLAT FRONT and PLEATED until recently.
never did i spend more than five minutes considering a 'hair style'.
THEY ARE NOTHING.
and yet, women have a preference.
and so i will magnanimously indulge their tastes.
--------------------------------------------------
you may disagree but do you see the distinction that I see here?
delta
jean laurent
Don Juan
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2005
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 0
Delta, I actually disagree with you much less than you probably think.
Essentially, you are saying that it's not necessary to be a DJ, aren't you? If so, yes! Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding. Give the man a prize.
It is true that being a DJ doesn't "MATTER" in life. Or, better said, it needn't matter (who decides? You!). To you, clearly it doesn't seem to matter. And that's fine. But why the hostility towards those to whom it does matter? You hate "status symbols". Fine. I hate modern art. Is it really worth to spend time railing about it, as if you could somehow convince people their tastes are "wrong"?
Okay. But do not women also have "tastes" when it comes to physical preferences, "status symbols" (clothes, cars) and level of material well-being? I think they certainly do.
Any argument you use to exclude those tastes you are notwilling to indulge can just as easily be applied to the tastes you are willing to indulge. If you can show how this is not the case, I'd be willing to hear it.
What of the person who is not willing to compromise on fashion or muscularity but says, "If women want a guy who has 'made something of himself', then, dammit, even though I don't care about such things, I wil make something of myself just to indulge her". Fundamentally, how is that different? You might say, well, 'making something of yourself' takes a lot more effort than just donning a leather jacket. And that would be true. But it doesn't change the fact that line between 'enough effort' and 'too much effort' is still completely arbitrary.
Don't take this as an attack, but I get the feeling you think having to change yourself to make yourself more attractive to women is an affront to one's sovereignty. But does everyone feel this way? What does it say if they do not? Could it be possible that some guys enjoy "bettering" (whatever you take that to mean) themselves in order be more attractive to women? Speaking only for myself, I find it a great feeling to "improve" myself so that I appear more appealing. I would guess that many other guys would share my experience.
Essentially, you are saying that it's not necessary to be a DJ, aren't you? If so, yes! Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding. Give the man a prize.
It is true that being a DJ doesn't "MATTER" in life. Or, better said, it needn't matter (who decides? You!). To you, clearly it doesn't seem to matter. And that's fine. But why the hostility towards those to whom it does matter? You hate "status symbols". Fine. I hate modern art. Is it really worth to spend time railing about it, as if you could somehow convince people their tastes are "wrong"?
Okay. But do not women also have "tastes" when it comes to physical preferences, "status symbols" (clothes, cars) and level of material well-being? I think they certainly do.
Any argument you use to exclude those tastes you are notwilling to indulge can just as easily be applied to the tastes you are willing to indulge. If you can show how this is not the case, I'd be willing to hear it.
What of the person who is not willing to compromise on fashion or muscularity but says, "If women want a guy who has 'made something of himself', then, dammit, even though I don't care about such things, I wil make something of myself just to indulge her". Fundamentally, how is that different? You might say, well, 'making something of yourself' takes a lot more effort than just donning a leather jacket. And that would be true. But it doesn't change the fact that line between 'enough effort' and 'too much effort' is still completely arbitrary.
Don't take this as an attack, but I get the feeling you think having to change yourself to make yourself more attractive to women is an affront to one's sovereignty. But does everyone feel this way? What does it say if they do not? Could it be possible that some guys enjoy "bettering" (whatever you take that to mean) themselves in order be more attractive to women? Speaking only for myself, I find it a great feeling to "improve" myself so that I appear more appealing. I would guess that many other guys would share my experience.
Yes, if you fail, you should keep trying...but there also comes a point where you become so burnt out from trying, and as a result you give up. People can only go so far before they get burnt out and call it quits. It's the law of nature..a river can only hold so much water till it overflows, a foundation can only hold so much weight till it caves in, a person can only go without water for so long before he/she dehydrates, etc. Same with people! It's not that people wanna give up, it's that they just physically and mentally can't do it anymore. You're gonna fault a person for that??? Come on!
All the power to those who can try 100's of times and not get burnt out, but you gotta understand that not everyone is the same, not everyone can handle the same, everyone has limitations...everyone's biological make-up is different. Nobody's the same. And that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that. That's just they way they are, they can't help it.
It's good that we have a devil's advocate on this site...however....
Delta,
you seem to be treating the essence of DJism as a concrete methodology - as a way to "score" women.
Most loser guys come here fresh out of LJBF land and want to learn how to score. That's it. They think there's some magic potion that will turn them into sex-man. And they find it:
Working out to become huge, dressing well, acting " confident"
and then they get sex from a floozy at a bar, or some six-outta-ten(the most useless kind of girl), and think they are the shiznit. Yeah, they've had sex with some average chick.
Congratulations. You're average!
What is not emphasized enough on this site is that ones fear of women stems from a fear of themselves. These guys are too afraid to take control of their lives and do what they want to do. They are afraid of what they are capable of. They don't want to step on anyone's toes. But that is necessary in becoming a DJ. Not eveyone is going to like it.
So what is a DJ? Some say its a guy whos good at getting lots of girls to have sex with him.
Thats not what it really is. A DJ is a guy who lives for nothing but self improvement. The possible acquisition of women is purely an offshoot of the self improvement. There are plenty of more enticing reasons for one to become a DJ besides women: money, status, self-respect, fun, etc.
So, I do believe breaking down DJ techniques into what should be and what could be done to get women illustrates the general misinterpretation of DJ philosophy.
No truer words were spoken than these:
"Live for yourself, there's no one more worth living for."
Delta,
you seem to be treating the essence of DJism as a concrete methodology - as a way to "score" women.
Most loser guys come here fresh out of LJBF land and want to learn how to score. That's it. They think there's some magic potion that will turn them into sex-man. And they find it:
Working out to become huge, dressing well, acting " confident"
and then they get sex from a floozy at a bar, or some six-outta-ten(the most useless kind of girl), and think they are the shiznit. Yeah, they've had sex with some average chick.
Congratulations. You're average!
What is not emphasized enough on this site is that ones fear of women stems from a fear of themselves. These guys are too afraid to take control of their lives and do what they want to do. They are afraid of what they are capable of. They don't want to step on anyone's toes. But that is necessary in becoming a DJ. Not eveyone is going to like it.
So what is a DJ? Some say its a guy whos good at getting lots of girls to have sex with him.
Thats not what it really is. A DJ is a guy who lives for nothing but self improvement. The possible acquisition of women is purely an offshoot of the self improvement. There are plenty of more enticing reasons for one to become a DJ besides women: money, status, self-respect, fun, etc.
So, I do believe breaking down DJ techniques into what should be and what could be done to get women illustrates the general misinterpretation of DJ philosophy.
No truer words were spoken than these:
"Live for yourself, there's no one more worth living for."
Delta
Master Don Juan
jean,
i would say that being a DJ is absolutely ESSENTIAL for any guy who is interested in women.
NOT being a dj just means a future of confusion and frustration.
i am NOT arguing that middle class blue collars can't get hot chicks.
we're mixing metaphors as it were. i do say that women are essentially gold diggers but JUST LIKE men are essentially superficial t&a wh0res.
of COURSE individual taste comes into play but you shouldn't lose sight of the primal realities that lie underneath.
i am arguing SIMPLY that the whole self improvement regimen (and not me) would probably say that middle classers are mediocre losers.
you bring up a good point about a guy's priorities however:
to ME, body, clothes, grooming and status symbols are nothing so i will indulge women precisely BECAUSE they are nothing to me.
but if a guy considers his career to me that much in play, then yes, he can very much change that for a woman without fear of betraying himself.
you say it's arbitrary but you yourself mention how it's not- IT'S A MATTER OF DEGREES.
if you change something TRIVIAL to yourself for a chick, that's fine. but if you change something ESSENTIAL TO YOUR NATURE, not for yourself but just to score some pvssy, then you're lost.
--------------------------------------------------
luveno,
actually, i didn't really fear myself. i feared and was deeply insecure about ADMITTING to women that i want their affection.
guys have problems with women for as many reasons as there are guys i suspect.
but again, we call it DJ... don juan.
a don juan outside of the context of a relationship with women is meaningless.
you could be the greatest physicist, chess player, etc etc etc in the world and not be a dj.
i disagree with you completely in this regard.
delta
i would say that being a DJ is absolutely ESSENTIAL for any guy who is interested in women.
NOT being a dj just means a future of confusion and frustration.
i am NOT arguing that middle class blue collars can't get hot chicks.
we're mixing metaphors as it were. i do say that women are essentially gold diggers but JUST LIKE men are essentially superficial t&a wh0res.
of COURSE individual taste comes into play but you shouldn't lose sight of the primal realities that lie underneath.
i am arguing SIMPLY that the whole self improvement regimen (and not me) would probably say that middle classers are mediocre losers.
you bring up a good point about a guy's priorities however:
to ME, body, clothes, grooming and status symbols are nothing so i will indulge women precisely BECAUSE they are nothing to me.
but if a guy considers his career to me that much in play, then yes, he can very much change that for a woman without fear of betraying himself.
you say it's arbitrary but you yourself mention how it's not- IT'S A MATTER OF DEGREES.
if you change something TRIVIAL to yourself for a chick, that's fine. but if you change something ESSENTIAL TO YOUR NATURE, not for yourself but just to score some pvssy, then you're lost.
--------------------------------------------------
luveno,
actually, i didn't really fear myself. i feared and was deeply insecure about ADMITTING to women that i want their affection.
guys have problems with women for as many reasons as there are guys i suspect.
but again, we call it DJ... don juan.
a don juan outside of the context of a relationship with women is meaningless.
you could be the greatest physicist, chess player, etc etc etc in the world and not be a dj.
i disagree with you completely in this regard.
delta
jean laurent
Don Juan
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2005
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 0
Delta,
i am NOT arguing that middle class blue collars can't get hot chicks.
I could have sworn I read differently, but maybe I misunderstood. If this is your position, then there is no disagreement.
we're mixing metaphors as it were. i do say that women are essentially gold diggers but JUST LIKE men are essentially superficial t&a wh0res.
Yeah, that sounds about right. (Although just what is "superficial" and what is "deep" opens a whole new can of worms that is best left shut.)
i am arguing SIMPLY that the whole self improvement regimen (and not me) would probably say that middle classers are mediocre losers.
Yeah, I agree. At least in terms of "self improvement" as understood by the masses. "Self improvement" to me, on the other hand, means just that: improving yourself; which doesn't necessarily include plans to conquer the world or make gazillions of dollars.
to ME, body, clothes, grooming and status symbols are nothing so i will indulge women precisely BECAUSE they are nothing to me.
Are you sure? I mean, when someone makes a point of saying how much he "hates" status symbols, I figure there's something more than nonchalance happening. If status symbols are deeply inimical to your character, and you indulge in them for some pvssy, well, I don't think it's a completely different thing from someone applying himself more in order to achieve greater career success. Yes, there is a difference in degree, but I'm not so sure there is a difference in kind.
if you change something TRIVIAL to yourself for a chick, that's fine. but if you change something ESSENTIAL TO YOUR NATURE, not for yourself but just to score some pvssy, then you're lost.
Hmm, I'm not sure I can agree completely. What if the desire for higher quality pvssy is "essential to your character", or "more essential" than being a beach-bum (or anything else non-career oriented), for example? Sure, that sounds "superficial", but if it's that important to someone, then if that person takes whatever steps he thinks are necessary to secure himself higher quality pvssy, can we really say he is "lost"?
I guess it comes down to knowing what you want/value most in life. And that is something that is surely an individual choice, which is incredibly difficult, and basically pointless, for someone else to try and prove "wrong"
i am NOT arguing that middle class blue collars can't get hot chicks.
I could have sworn I read differently, but maybe I misunderstood. If this is your position, then there is no disagreement.
we're mixing metaphors as it were. i do say that women are essentially gold diggers but JUST LIKE men are essentially superficial t&a wh0res.
Yeah, that sounds about right. (Although just what is "superficial" and what is "deep" opens a whole new can of worms that is best left shut.)
i am arguing SIMPLY that the whole self improvement regimen (and not me) would probably say that middle classers are mediocre losers.
Yeah, I agree. At least in terms of "self improvement" as understood by the masses. "Self improvement" to me, on the other hand, means just that: improving yourself; which doesn't necessarily include plans to conquer the world or make gazillions of dollars.
to ME, body, clothes, grooming and status symbols are nothing so i will indulge women precisely BECAUSE they are nothing to me.
Are you sure? I mean, when someone makes a point of saying how much he "hates" status symbols, I figure there's something more than nonchalance happening. If status symbols are deeply inimical to your character, and you indulge in them for some pvssy, well, I don't think it's a completely different thing from someone applying himself more in order to achieve greater career success. Yes, there is a difference in degree, but I'm not so sure there is a difference in kind.
if you change something TRIVIAL to yourself for a chick, that's fine. but if you change something ESSENTIAL TO YOUR NATURE, not for yourself but just to score some pvssy, then you're lost.
Hmm, I'm not sure I can agree completely. What if the desire for higher quality pvssy is "essential to your character", or "more essential" than being a beach-bum (or anything else non-career oriented), for example? Sure, that sounds "superficial", but if it's that important to someone, then if that person takes whatever steps he thinks are necessary to secure himself higher quality pvssy, can we really say he is "lost"?
I guess it comes down to knowing what you want/value most in life. And that is something that is surely an individual choice, which is incredibly difficult, and basically pointless, for someone else to try and prove "wrong"
ShortTimer
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2002
- Messages
- 917
- Reaction score
- 1
Wolf's Reign
The sad truth is that women want pomp and pageantry, they live for show and pretense. When a man who comes along and doesn't care about such things they are revolted. The center of their world is trivial to his and then this man has the audacity to ask them on a date! For a long time I've had contempt for women because they live in such a dream world. Or should I say they chose to live in it. To me I've always assumed it was OBVIOUS that such things were worthless. But if you've lived in Plato's Cave all your life then I guess you really won't see what's really going on.
Yes, I want hot smoking tail; but I don't want to change who I am to do it. I don't want to have to value the crap women value. Why should I have to live a lie and be this 'titan' for women when I don't care about fast cars or a six pack? Why should I go to parties that bore the life out of me just to pick up a girl or because the girl I'm with finds mindless entertainment to be "fun." Why climb a mountain, or go rafting or anything else I don't care about just because chicks dig it?
On a tangent:
I love it when men flex and act "cool" to impress women. I've seen them try to intimidate other men and play the superior roll. Here's something the pomp and pretense crowd don't get: I don't NEED to put on a show because deep down I know I'm wild at heart; there's a wolf living inside of me. The self-improvement crowd can talk about how women see these other guys "protectors" and how they could defend their chicks if civilization fell; but I know it’s bull****.
Deep down, they are guys who will go along with society and do "what a man does" because someone told them "what a man does." They flex and show off because those are the rules they have come to accept. But I know I'm different because I know those rules don't apply to me.
In the "natural" environment where there are no laws the "flex crowd" would supposedly reign supreme, but I know it wouldn't be that way and the chicks are too dumb to see otherwise. You see, for all of the show these other guys put on I would instead put effort into results. In this natural world if I perceived any men I met to be a threat they would be taken care of quickly and efficiently to eliminate that threat. I wouldn't flex, I wouldn't posture; I would sit 100+ yards away looking down on them through a sniper's scope.
A lot of what you've been saying are things I've always taken for granted but rarely think to articulate. I think the reason you are getting this disagreement from others has more to do with them not understanding where you are coming from. Most men want fast cars, big muscles, and to look good: you find these things to be trivial (which they are) and "normal" men don't understand this.
The sad truth is that women want pomp and pageantry, they live for show and pretense. When a man who comes along and doesn't care about such things they are revolted. The center of their world is trivial to his and then this man has the audacity to ask them on a date! For a long time I've had contempt for women because they live in such a dream world. Or should I say they chose to live in it. To me I've always assumed it was OBVIOUS that such things were worthless. But if you've lived in Plato's Cave all your life then I guess you really won't see what's really going on.
Yes, I want hot smoking tail; but I don't want to change who I am to do it. I don't want to have to value the crap women value. Why should I have to live a lie and be this 'titan' for women when I don't care about fast cars or a six pack? Why should I go to parties that bore the life out of me just to pick up a girl or because the girl I'm with finds mindless entertainment to be "fun." Why climb a mountain, or go rafting or anything else I don't care about just because chicks dig it?
On a tangent:
I love it when men flex and act "cool" to impress women. I've seen them try to intimidate other men and play the superior roll. Here's something the pomp and pretense crowd don't get: I don't NEED to put on a show because deep down I know I'm wild at heart; there's a wolf living inside of me. The self-improvement crowd can talk about how women see these other guys "protectors" and how they could defend their chicks if civilization fell; but I know it’s bull****.
Deep down, they are guys who will go along with society and do "what a man does" because someone told them "what a man does." They flex and show off because those are the rules they have come to accept. But I know I'm different because I know those rules don't apply to me.
In the "natural" environment where there are no laws the "flex crowd" would supposedly reign supreme, but I know it wouldn't be that way and the chicks are too dumb to see otherwise. You see, for all of the show these other guys put on I would instead put effort into results. In this natural world if I perceived any men I met to be a threat they would be taken care of quickly and efficiently to eliminate that threat. I wouldn't flex, I wouldn't posture; I would sit 100+ yards away looking down on them through a sniper's scope.
diplomatic_lie
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 537
- Reaction score
- 0
If civilization fell none of you guys would be the top dog. The prize would go to those 12-year-old Algerian children who've been firing AKs since they could walk, or those street kids from Bangladesh who could survive on garbage.
Hell, you'd all get sick and die within a month.
Hell, you'd all get sick and die within a month.
ShortTimer
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2002
- Messages
- 917
- Reaction score
- 1
Yeah I've heard about those child-soldiers they have in other parts of the world.
Fortunetly I don't live near any Algerians, so I'll be ok.
