The manosphere is producing unresponsiblie adult men

[Zarky]

in the beginning of my wife and i's relationship

I hope to never see the term "and I's" again. I see it and hear it all the damn time and it makes me weep when I do.

It's "my wife's and my" relationship.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...12_1_grammar-gripes-pronouns-english-teachers

 

[zekko]

If you are looking for an absolute formula, you will not find one. What you are getting at here is a form of NAWALT (Not All Women Are Like That), which is similar to Backbreaker's argument.

You say I want rigidity and absolute formulas, but that is exactly what I dislike. Which is exactly why I dislike the rigid stereotypes the PUAs come up with. And if someone comes up with an example that contradicts that stereotype, they simply say "The exception proves the rule", or accuse the guy of saying NAWALT, as if that somehow ends the debate.

I understand the Bad Boy/Nice Guy concept, it makes a very good teaching tool. But that's all that it is, it's a teaching tool. My problem has never been with those who understand that. My problem has always been with the extreme edge who want to take the concept too literally. The guys who think that virtually every girl out there wants a moronic douchebag who treats her poorly, because every girl is wired the same, and that's what tickles her vijayjay.

The guys who think that if you do something nice for a girl, she will respond with contempt for you. You know what? If you do something nice for a girl, and she responds with contempt, she has just done you a huge favor. Because you can cross her off your list immediately and move on to someone else more worthy of your time.

I think the manosphere and men in general do consider this. But to what purpose? In what context does it matter? If she fvked the army, I don't care if at 30 just pre-wall she realizes it was a mistake and now she wants me to marry her.

The manosphere likes to talk about girls who maybe hook up with a different guy every week at the club for, oh let's see, ages 20-28. So that's 468 different sex partners. That's an exaggeration, but those girls are out there, and yes there are a lot of them. But that's why you screen. I am not interested in girls who have fvcked an army.

I am, like you I take it, suspicious of women in general. But I don't waste my time on these girls. Just hearing that a woman spends a lot of time in clubs is a huge red flag for me. And just for the record, I am no fan of marriage the way that current society is set up.

See, this is where you are making it black and white Zekko. I don't know of anyone who is saying this.

What men are saying is that she is physically attracted to the first guy, not the second guy. The second guy is boring, stable and not exciting. But he can provide. The first guy was fun, daring, full of testosterone and risk. But he was a poor prospect for long-term provisioning.

You say no one is saying this, and yet then you turn around and say it. See, it's always the stable guy that is boring and unexciting. Like CollegeLife pointed out, "responsible" and "boring" is always in the same sentence. They might as well say "Don't get a steady job, because women will despise you". That's where I can see the idea of the manosphere encouraging irresponsibility.

I understand the concepts. The problem is that many men do not understand that they are merely teaching tools. And they may be poor examples in the first place. When you continually raise the irresponsible man as the role model for what women want, whether you mean to or not, you are encouraging men to be irresponsible. You may as well say "Be irresponsible and women will want you".

 

[backbreaker]

You may as well say "Be irresponsible and women will want you".

And that's the thing. The irresponsible guy is always having, or trying to have fun. He's got more free time, he doesn't spend his money on.. responsible people ****, like car payments, insurance, dental visits and savings and **** like ethat. he buys weed, beer, chili's and concert tickets.


On it's surface, it's very easy to see why the connect is made. I never said i don't get it.

"But women who ARE attracted to this type of lifestyle, are 10 out of 10 times, women you don't want to date long term.


The thing is, you don't want to **** all the women. That's another reason I don't get PUA's.. i dont' WANT to **** all the women. You want to **** the women worth ****ing. Yo being a responsible adult is a screening process to weed out all the stupid, worthless immature women.


PUA's and the HB scale are the 2 worst things to ever happen to the manosphere.

pua's because it brought in the notion that all women are worth ****ing and that you must do whatever necessary to **** them

HB scale because it breaks down a woman's sole worth to her looks, regardless of everything else. Every HB9 is not worth ****ing. some aren't worth the drama or the trouble. MInd you I don't **** ugly women but i'd rather not **** anything than to **** a bat **** crazy bi poloar chick just because she's good looking. That's what this site.. when i first got here..not today.taught me. and that lesson took me very far with women

when i first came into some real money, i spent money like a drunken sailor. in part because of my drug addiction but in part because i did not know how to act with money. i was still pretty young. and i lived a very irresponsible life for about a year and i attracted some of the crummiest women you can possibly imagine.

it took me a while to realize it wasn't the money that was attracting women, but the lure of being able to play all day long. to not worry about going to work, to have weed readily available, to go out to eat whenever you want, whatever. that allures some women, trashy women.

when i got clean, grew up some more and learned how to live like a responsible adult the plates weren't anywhere near as many, but where much, much higher quality.


the problem as i see it is that you have to get the pua out of the manosphere. the pua and the hb scale are distorting the message.

 

[Lexington]

You say no one is saying this, and yet then you turn around and say it. See, it's always the stable guy that is boring and unexciting. Like CollegeLife pointed out, "responsible" and "boring" is always in the same sentence.

You seem to be missing the salient point. The point is that the responsibility itself is not getting the girl's panties wet. A lot of guys were led to believe that being a nice responsible guy, having a steady job etc. will get you the adoration of lots of women. The truth is that these things in and of themselves don't accomplish that.

It's very telling that a high school or college girl doesn't get her panties wet dreaming of that accountant with the steady job. The only thing she cares about is how "hawt" a guy is. And indeed, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. They have the right to enjoy themselves. But likewise, a man in his late 20s and early 30s who is coming into his peak SMV, should be free to enjoy himself as well.

Are there guys out there who have always wanted a wife, kids and family? Sure. But there are also a lot of guys who are shamed into getting into an LTR or marriage with woman who is approaching or beyond the wall. They are shamed by their family, friends and society at large.

How do I know what most guys really want? Just visit any porn site. All the top clips involve girls between 18 and 25. Women in these age ranges will have their fun as is their right. More power to them. So a guy who is 30, who worked hard to get to where he is, should also enjoy the fruits of his labor.

They might as well say "Don't get a steady job, because women will despise you". That's where I can see the idea of the manosphere encouraging irresponsibility.

Again, you seem to be missing the point. Most Manosphere folks aren't advocating irresponsibly. We should be responsible. But responsible for who? With the exception of MGTOW types, most Manosphere people promote making money, working out and taking care of yourself.

I understand the concepts. The problem is that many men do not understand that they are merely teaching tools.

If people have poor reading comprehension, that's not the fault of the Manosphere bloggers.

And they may be poor examples in the first place. When you continually raise the irresponsible man as the role model for what women want, whether you mean to or not, you are encouraging men to be irresponsible. You may as well say "Be irresponsible and women will want you".

That's a little bit like saying that Salman Rushdie should be held responsible for offending Muslims because a bunch of people were too dense to understand the subtleties of his writing.

 

[backbreaker]

the reason i say that the pua is distoring the message, beucase puas give way too much credence to women who should not be heard from.


it's like, and I've stated this before iw2th my business, i cherry pick my clients that i will work with. i have like 1 2 question questionnaire that i fill out for every possible client and if they don't pass every last question i won't deal with them. i lose some money that way. i know i'm losing money. or better stated i'm not realizing some revenue.

just in the same as if you thoroughly screen women, you are going to be throwing away *****. but we preach this all the time on this site, sometimes you got to be able to walk away. that's your one biggest weapon you have.

anyway, but the clients that pass my questionnaire, i KNOW they are interested and i know how to sale them and we make a lot more money dealing with those clients.

I handicap races the exact same way. i might make 10 wagers a week. but i will hit 5 of them and i wager pretty big because i am thoroughly confident in those races.


my point being, that if i wasted my time trying to win over every client that post something or every client that emails me wanting work, i would be taking into consideration factors that i should not be taking into, trying to hone my sales pitch to EVERY client ever, and that's not pragmatic. It also lowers my chances of getting a good client if i am shot gunning out generic ass responses instead of tailoring my responses to the clients i'm a perfect fit for.

Meaning, that PUA/manophere is trying to figure out how to get the hot hb9 that they meet in the club and the hb8.5 at work and the hb8 ex wife all in the same swoop using the same logic. one of them might be crazy, one might be a single mom, one might be a party girl.

also, just because the one girl is a hb9 doesn't mean that what she has to say or what she does, is more important than the hb 8 for instance.


this is why the pua / quasi mansophere promotes the irresponsible lifestyle. simply because, it's an easier catch all to get all the women. but you don't' want all the women. you want the women worth your time. and women worth your time that aren't bat **** crazy, may not get WET thinking about your finance job. my wife doesn't get wet thinking about my web development company lol. but she understands and comprehends that me being financially stable is an important part to an all around happy well being. sluts are too short sighted to see / comprehend this.

 

[zekko]

The thing is, you don't want to **** all the women. That's another reason I don't get PUA's.. i dont' WANT to **** all the women. You want to **** the women worth ****ing. Yo being a responsible adult is a screening process to weed out all the stupid, worthless immature women.

I totally agree with this, and this seems to be one of the main ideas that seperate you and I from many posters here. To me, if a girl is not worth my time, she's not worth my time, period. The average PUA advice for a guy who finds out a girl is a piece of garbage is to "well, just fvck her then", or "well, just fvck her one more time, then get out". Lol.

You seem to be missing the salient point. The point is that the responsibility itself is not getting the girl's panties wet. A lot of guys were led to believe that being a nice responsible guy, having a steady job etc. will get you the adoration of lots of women.

Let me make this clear: I am not missing that point at all. Where have I said that responsibility is going to get a girl's panties wet? My objection is that the responsible guy is always portrayed as boring, and the irresponsible guy is always portrayed as "hawt". It ain't necessarily so. While I agree that being responsible is not a turnon, the manosphere seems to present it as a turnOFF. I see it as more neutral, except that being responsible can directly lead you to being more "hawt" - it can increase your wealth, status, and physical condition.

They always talk about hitting the gym here. Many of the most fitness minded guys I know are responsible. The idea of treating your health seriously (which is supposed to help make you "hawt") is a very responsible notion, by definition.

And without letting this get heated, although I get the impression you are becoming frustrated.....in your example below, you too use extreme\s, but using data that nobody is claiming as far as I can tell. It appears to be a Frankenstein strawman you built from your misinterpretations of the teachings here.

I'm not getting frustrated at all. And you seem to assume that just because I am having a discussion with you, that I disagree with you or fighting with you. I'm just enjoying the discussion. The main difference between you and I is that you always seem to want to defend the manosphere, while I look at it and think okay, it's mostly good but it has its flaws too. And that you buy into the "Women love @ssholes" idea more than I do.

After reading Backbreakers post, I think he gets it perfectly. Large numbers of hot women are rewarding behavior that is not conducive to a long-term stable society. Do you blame the manosphere for pointing out how to get these women? Or do you blame society for unleashing these women?

Lol, Backbreaker is the one who started this thread saying that the manosphere was producing irresponsible men. I've merely tried to point out how I could see where a young male could read the manosphere and be encouraged to be irresponsible. It's too simple to blame one thing for the conditions that exist today - feminism, the economy, hypergamous women, irresponsible men, politics, the manosphere, men for letting feminism happen, all sorts of things contribute.

As for women who reward irresponsible behavior, they can sit and spin. What do I care about how to get these women? I have no interest in them.

the reason i say that the pua is distoring the message, beucase puas give way too much credence to women who should not be heard from.

And that is gold.

 

[Lexington]

the reason i say that the pua is distoring the message, beucase puas give way too much credence to women who should not be heard from.

The only thing that "the PUA" (which encompasses many thousands of people) is promoting is a set of tactics to pickup women. Pickup deals with how to pickup women and nothing more. I'm reading lots and lots of straw man arguments here.

I've never read Mystery, Neil Straus or Tyler tell people about what they should do for a living. I don't think they ever encouraged not getting a good job. They never encouraged turning into an @$$hole. All they are trying to do is give you strategies to pickup that girl you want to fvck at the club.

For all the criticisms of PUAs, very few have actually studied what they do/promote. Take a look at this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2PdKBCNVbE

Did Tyler walk up to this girl and "neg the sh*t out of her?" Did he act like a jerk? Fvck, the guy straight up complimented her and said she was hot. He then goes on to talk about how to keep a positive atitude even on a bad night.

People have this caricature image about what PUAs promote. They make it sound like the only tactic in pickup is the neg and being a complete @$$hole.

Pickup is nothing more than the study of how to pickup women. Just as sociology is the study of society and biology is the study of life processes. There will be a variety of theories and strategies. There will never be 100% agreement on what works an what doesn't. But it's quite silly to say that it has nothing of value.

 

[Lexington]

the manosphere seems to present it as a turnOFF. I see it as more neutral, except that being responsible can directly lead you to being more "hawt" - it can increase your wealth, status, and physical condition.

I've noticed that you tend to use vague terms when discussing what people are actually saying and not saying: they "seem to be" saying this, or a young man "could be encouraged to be irresponsible."

I don't read many mainstream posters that actively promote the the idea that one should be irresponsible and not get a good job and not pursue money. You've got the MGTOW folks, but that's about it. If if the Manosphere "wanted" men to be irresponsible, it would have come out and said it!

Would you care to cite specific examples of where Manoshpere bloggers actually promote being "irresponsible?" You are right that these people can misinterpret statements but that's not the fault of the people making the statements.

They always talk about hitting the gym here. Many of the most fitness minded guys I know are responsible. The idea of treating your health seriously (which is supposed to help make you "hawt") is a very responsible notion, by definition.

And how many Manosphere posters encourage people to sit on the couch all day and play videogames? I certainly haven't read many posts encouraging that. I haven't read posts encouraging people to eat junk food or to not lead an active lifestyle.

 

[Lexington]

The thing is, you don't want to **** all the women. That's another reason I don't get PUA's.. i dont' WANT to **** all the women. You want to **** the women worth ****ing. Yo being a responsible adult is a screening process to weed out all the stupid, worthless immature women.

I totally agree with this, and this seems to be one of the main ideas that seperate you and I from many posters here. To me, if a girl is not worth my time, she's not worth my time, period. The average PUA advice for a guy who finds out a girl is a piece of garbage is to "well, just fvck her then", or "well, just fvck her one more time, then get out". Lol.

If I'm trying to fvck some good looking girl I met at the club I don't give a fvck if she's going to be a good mother to my kids. I really don't care if she's horrible wife material. I want to fvck her because she's attractive and fvcking attractive women is fun. That's it.

You guys make it sound like everyone here is looking to find their future wife. Some guys just want to have fun and that's it. There's nothing "irresponsible" about doing something you enjoy so long as it doesn't interfere with other things in your life.

 

[zekko]

If you put 5 guys in a room who are all somewhat geeky. The girl will go for the one who has the most "badboy", confidence, more fun, etc,.... regardless of how stable or responsible the other men are.

This is the whole crux right here, how to define a bad boy. What words do you choose to describe a "badboy"? "Confident" and "Fun". The manosphere will always describe the badboy with only positive, glowing terms. Where does the "bad" come in? ANY GUY can be confident and fun, he doesn't have to be a bad boy (whatever that even is) to be confident and fun. I agree women like confident and fun.

In my mind, we've been using "irresponsible man" and "bad boy" pretty much interchangeably here. When you say regardless of how stable or responsible the other men are, I agree that stability and responsibility are not attraction factors, in and of themselves (although being stable and responsible can lead you to being more attractive - see my previous post). But I also believe that being irresponsible is not an attraction factor either. I don't believe women are wired to be attracted to irresponsibility, which to me would be the leading description of a "bad boy". That's where the "bad" and "boy" (immaturity) comes in.

Don't blame the manosphere or men for reacting to the incentives of an unleashed hypergamy. If women can tear up their portion of the social contract, so too can men.

I don't think it's all hypergamy, either. Women often dump men because they get tired of them. It isn't always a move up, it's often lateral, or even a move down. They just get bored. Men are disposable in today's society.

Did Tyler walk up to this girl and "neg the sh*t out of her?" Did he act like a jerk? Fvck, the guy straight up complimented her and said she was hot. He then goes on to talk about how to keep a positive atitude even on a bad night.

This leads me to ask: Why is "compliment her and say she is hot" never taught, if this is what Tyler is using? It's pretty obvious for anyone who has been around women that this kind of approach can work. But you are far more likely to read in the PUA Community that complimenting her will be a turnoff, or that it won't set you apart, or that it will raise her value, or that it will put her on a pedestal, or that you are giving her too much power. It seems like genuine flirtiness is never taught (except for kino), it's always more about "bad boy disconnects" or "negs" or how much girls appreciate "jerks" and "@ssholes".

I bet if a guy posted a field report about how he complimented a girl and told her she was hot, he would be roundly criticized.

If I'm trying to fvck some good looking girl I met at the club I don't give a fvck if she's going to be a good mother to my kids. I really don't care if she's horrible wife material. I want to fvck her because she's attractive and fvcking attractive women is fun. That's it.

You guys make it sound like everyone here is looking to find their future wife. Some guys just want to have fun and that's it. There's nothing "irresponsible" about doing something you enjoy so long as it doesn't interfere with other things in your life.

I'm not saying you are wrong for doing what you're doing. I'm just saying this is the way I look at it. If a woman is a piece of garbage, she isn't worth my d!ck. YMMV. I understand your viewpoint, it just doesn't work for me.

 

[backbreaker]

If I'm trying to fvck some good looking girl I met at the club I don't give a fvck if she's going to be a good mother to my kids. I really don't care if she's horrible wife material. I want to fvck her because she's attractive and fvcking attractive women is fun. That's it.

lex you have used the word stawman at least 3 times in this thread, and this here, is an actual stawman

eveyr woman i have ever ****ed in my LIFE execpt my wife is not wife material to me lol. you are doing the same thing that me and zekko and collegelife are talking about. you are using extremes to prove a point.

yes if a woman is a druggie or is bi polar or just is going to require way too much work tget in her pants, i don't care how hot she is. you are proving my point. no ****ing hot women who throw **** at you is not fun. ****ing hot women who have boyfriends fresh out of prison is not fun lol. there is not a level of hotness to make up for the inconvenience that these women can and will cause. i don't give a **** if she can balance a checkbook or not or if she can change diapers. but i do care if she's going to bring her coke head friends over my house and cause trouble.

or even best case, i'm dealing with a woman who is comparing me, a successful business person who has his head on his sholders, to her ex boyfriend a 2 time convict, and is "torn". lol let me untear you, you can go be with him. i dont' wnat you if choosing between me and your 2 time ex is a hard decision.

 

[Stagger Lee]

First off, no one is saying "word choice" matters. In fact it's often emphasized that how you say your words is more important.

First off, yes it is often said word choice matters and little emphasis is placed on just how you'd say things more attractively. And how you say things IS appearance. So anyway you are basically saying it is about appearance.

That being said, the majority of people here aren't claiming that a broke, balding, obese lardball is going to be fvcking Kate Upton any time soon.

I never said the majority of people on SoSuave claim that. This is an extreme case of ugly guy/good looking celebrity females and a strawman. But much of PUA and some people here do say looks don't matter much in attracting females.

But there a billion other things that can eliminate your chances with a girl other than your looks.

A billion? No not really, if a girl is receptive to being picked up finds your looks attractive, then there's not that many things that will eliminate your chances.

How many of us have "oneitis" stories to tell? What are some common newbie themes on these forums? Some guy gets some initial interest from a girl but he fvcks it up. Or some guy just can't figure out the games a girl is playing. These guys passed the initial looks test....other factors (e.g. attitude, neediness, not leading) are fvcking up their chances.

First off you say they "passed the initial looks test" as if that's a given and not that important. It's pretty huge to pass the looks test, and if you really were found to be attractive by her, most of these problems wouldn't be happening the first place.

I agree that if you're a straight up ugly dude, you're not going to be scoring a lot of tail. But there are also lots of average and above average guys that aren't actualizing their sexual market potential due to factors other than looks.

I'm not saying that isn't sometimes the case, but their main problem is that the females see their looks and appearance as just slightly above average or below. They are at best just an option B or C string guy, not an A guy. Often the only correct course of action is to next, which btw is often the advice given on here.

It depends on what you mean by "appearance shortcoming." I suppose being short can be a shortcoming Bu this can be overcome. I see short guys with hot girls. Being morbidly obese is quite a difficult shortcoming to overcome. Some guys were just born with faces that only a mother could love.

Yes, and I don't think height matters that much if you are close to average height and provided the guy is taller than the girl AND he has a good looking face and body. That's not easy to accomplish though as some of it is dependent on being biologically born with those looks. But I still got to say most guys I see with hot girls are at least average height or taller.

But for the vast majority of guys, appearance shortcomings can be overcome through working out, grooming oneself well, eating right etc.

I agree the vast majority of guys can improve their appearance, but disagree that a vast majority can "overcome" appearance issues through working out, grooming and diet. I think most guys are fit enough, groomed but there is still other appearance issues.

You don't see young attractive girls with older attractive guys, or older rich guys? Or older guys who are a combination of the two?

No I don't really. But I never said that looks and/or being wealthy won't attract younger women if you're older. It's exactly what I said, good looks and money does attract women in spite of age difference. But it's not common or easy to be an attractive or wealthy older guy, and it's not exactly a personality/game factor.

This doesn't fit with my observations. I see handsome guys with attractive young girls. I even see average guys with attractive young girls. I do agree that most perfect 10s also happen to date either perfect 10s or rich guys. My definition of a 10 is model/actress/cover of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition hot.

But there's plenty of 6 dudes dating HB7s or HB8s. Or a 7 dude dating an HB8 or HB9. After all, these ratings are largely subjective and we don't walk around with a number floating above our head.

I don't disagree really except for average guys with attractive girls. I don't care about subjective, arbitrary looks rating numbers where typically a male observer underrates the male and overrates the female. But I don't think it's dependent much on whether the guys are saying xyz or using PUA tactics. I think it is mostly dependent on appearance factors.

 

[Lexington]

This leads me to ask: Why is "compliment her and say she is hot" never taught, if this is what Tyler is using?

There you go again dealing in absolutes.

When did Tyler, Mystery or anyone else ever say "NEVER under any circumstances compliment a woman?" These folks advise people to use compliments sparingly and to make women earn the compliments. But while there are some extremists who believe in never complimenting a woman, most people understand that there are times when complimenting her can help you get into her pants.

It's pretty obvious for anyone who has been around women that this kind of approach can work. But you are far more likely to read in the PUA Community that complimenting her will be a turnoff, or that it won't set you apart, or that it will raise her value, or that it will put her on a pedestal, or that you are giving her too much power.

Tyler is arguably the most prominent voice in the PUA Community and you've just seen a video of him using a compliment within seconds of meeting a girl. I've seen plenty of RSD instructor videos where the guy uses a compliment. In fact sometimes a compliment is their opener.

I'm not quite sure where you're getting this idea that compliments are an absolute no-no. I do agree that there are some extremists that advocate never complimenting a woman, but that's not the main consensus.

Of course, people do put a lot of emphasis on avoiding over-complimenting. This is because over-complimenting is a common mistake that a lot of guys make. I get the impression that you are focusing on the extremes and you are missing a lot of subtleties.

It seems like genuine flirtiness is never taught (except for kino), it's always more about "bad boy disconnects" or "negs" or how much girls appreciate "jerks" and "@ssholes".

It seems to me that you only have a couple pages in the playbook. Genuine flirtiness is never taught? Go trough the RSD channel and see how many videos there are on flirting. There are multiple videos detailing how to flirt.

Once again, you're focusing on one extreme end of the spectrum. Even in Mystery's book, "negs" were just one small part of it. As I recall, he devoted a single chapter to them.

I bet if a guy posted a field report about how he complimented a girl and told her she was hot, he would be roundly criticized.

Yeah there would be some folks that would call bvllsh*t but there's always going to be a diversity of opinions. I think the majority of folks understand that there are nuances and subtleties to pickup. It's not all about absolutes.

Also, there is a greater emphasis placed on how you say something. One of the most common mantras is "it's not what you say, but how you say it." If you have established a romantic/sexual frame or a dominant/leading frame, compliments can work well.

I'm not saying you are wrong for doing what you're doing. I'm just saying this is the way I look at it. If a woman is a piece of garbage, she isn't worth my d!ck. YMMV. I understand your viewpoint, it just doesn't work for me.

Let's say you come across a gorgeous 21 year old. Yup, she's a dumb sorority slvt. Big time party girl. But she has a stunning rack and an ass to die for. She's got long toned legs. She's got those beautiful baby blue eyes and sparkling blonde tresses. Do you think your pupils would dilate a little bit? Do you think some blood would rush to your penis?

Putting aside your moralizing and what have you, would you like to have a night of fun with her? I know I certainly would. Personally, I could care less about how great a conversationalist she is. I could care less about her ambitions and her life plans. I could care less if she'd make a great companion or not.

Maybe you're different. But I think the vast majority of men would love to tap that if they could. A girl like that could make many thousands of dollars selling her "company."

Again, you might be different but "she's not worth my d!ck" sounds a lot like a fatty saying "well I don't want a rich, tall, muscular @$$hole anyway."

 

[Boilermaker]

Putting aside your moralizing and what have you, would you like to have a night of fun with her? I know I certainly would. Personally, I could care less about how great a conversationalist she is. I could care less about her ambitions and her life plans. I could care less if she'd make a great companion or not.

You mean you couldn't care less?

 

[zekko]

I think this is due to your fixating on the badboy term instead of understanding that this is just conceptual and not telling people to forth and be an arsonist or anything like that.

Perhaps I do take the term too literally. But since the manosphere also holds up jerks, @ssholes, sociopaths, and serial killers as the types of guys that women go for, I don't think it's too surprising.

I think the manosphere's infatuation with girls writing serial killers is a little silly. I don't think there's any real practical lesson to learn there. What are you going to do, become a serial killer? So the Boston Bomber has 78,000 girl fans on Facebook. You can't draw the conclusion that every man is a felon just because there are millions of males in prison. There are some messed up guys out there and there are some messed up women.

I don't think the average woman is writing letters proposing marriage to serial killers, nor do I think their panties get wet when they hear about a terrorist bombing. Also, I am no great judge of male attractiveness, but it appears to me that the Boston Bomber is a better than average looking guy.

I agree with this, but I also think you are too fixated on the portion of women dumping men. Often the "fun guy" just sleeps with woman after woman without committing. She only thinks he committed or was trying to get him to commit.

I was talking about hypergamy there, hence the focus on women dumping men. I was saying they don't always move up in status, sometimes they just get bored with a guy.

That may have worked 30 years ago, but it is a very different world today.

Read Lex's post. The complimenting was Tyler's technique, not mine.

It seems to me that you only have a couple pages in the playbook. flirtiness is never taught? Go trough the RSD channel and see how many videos there are on flirting. There are multiple videos detailing how to flirt.

I check out the RSD site now and then, but in this case I was specifically talking about here, the DJ Forum. I think with the general philosophy of this place, complimenting would be frowned upon. Surely you must have noticed that the vast majority of the advice here is of a negative nature (for lack of a better term)?

For instance: Neg the girl, don't pedestalize her, don't let her know you're interested (because she'll lose interest), be aloof, don't face her when you talk to her, don't text her, only call her to set up dates, don't answer her questions directly, don't tell her you like her, don't pay for her drinks, don't buy her gifts, don't take her on real dates, be a challenge, make her work for you, don't say I love you, be indifferent, act like you're busy, actually be busy, don't be too available, go fvck other girls, etc. Not that any of that is bad advice necessarily, but the point is that the big focus here is on this kind of thing, not so much on flirting. Even Danger said he didn't think the complimenting would work on a hot girl.

Putting aside your moralizing and what have you, would you like to have a night of fun with her? I know I certainly would. Personally, I could care less about how great a conversationalist she is.

I guess I wouldn't care about how good a converstationalist she is, but as Backbreaker said, if she was torn between me and her convict ex-boyfriend, I'll take a pass.

But really, where you lose me is when you say she is a slvt. I liked slvts when I was 16, 17, 18 years old. Because hey, they were easy. But I haven't really appreciated slvts since high school. For one thing, saying she is a slvt makes it sound like she has had a lot of different c0cks in her recently, and I find that a big turnoff. And frankly, just gross. And there is an evolutionary rationale for being repulsed by slvts - the more sexual partners she has, the less likely that your sperm will be carried to term. So it's not just me.

 

[Stagger Lee]

But, but, but very few to no women care about an older/ugly bad boy even with notoriety. Women like fame some even if it's ill fame or infamy. Women like good looks. Women like good looks and good fame most of all. Many women value looks and fame regardless of character. But the character and fame doesn't have to be good or bad although good is probably a broader attractor and more fame.

Attractive bad boy=good looking boy

Being "bad" or irresponsible has little to do with it and is mostly irrelevant. It looks and fame, stupid.

 

[zekko]

Zekko, do you have any actual experience with women born in the 80s and 90s?

Yes.

Your advice sounds like my dads advice. In fact, he had the same reaction you did when I told him that complimented the hottest women is a fools errand.

Read the thread, Flush. I have given no such advice. TYLER from RSD is the one who was complimenting the girl and telling her she was hot, in the video that Lex posted. What I was saying is that if this is what Tyler is doing, why isn't it being taught?

I am of a mixed mind when it comes to complimenting women. I'm not sure if it's a good idea or not. I do know that some guys can run this type of game successfully. And I do know that it will be effective with some women. But is it a good idea overall? I'm not so sure.

Do you see this, Lexington? Both Danger and PairPlusRoyalFlush have both pooh-poohed the complimenting idea. PUAs recommend push/pull. But you have to admit that the attitude here on the DJ Forum is slanted way more toward the push than the pull.

By the way, Flush, since you seem to think my opinions are so out of date:
I was alive back in the 70s, you weren't. I don't think women have changed quite so much as everyone here would like to think. There are more degenerates now than ever, but a girl is still a girl. Besides, PUAs are always saying that women can't help but react the way they did back in caveman days, and that's how they're wired. So my extra 26 years that I've been on the planet may not make as big a difference as you might think.

 

[zekko]

I think the reason that push is recommended over pull is because BY FAR the predominate nature among recovering AFC's and the like is to pull.

I've heard this said before, and I can understand this line of thinking. But the balance seems so far out of whack here, that I seriously get the impression that most of the guys think that the only way to attract a girl is to push her away. This is moreso for the general forum than the Mature Man forum, mind you.

Sometimes I think I shouldn't be reading the general forum. That's where I read most of the more extreme positions that you think I am coming up with myself.

Anyway, back to balance: I have never been one to think you should write down to kids. Or, in this case, to dumb things down talking to AFCs. I was no beginner when I came here, old fart that I am. So when I come here and read all this push, push, push stuff, it gets to be a bit much. Especially when my personality could actually benefit from more pull - I have the push down.

I don't like the idea of presenting newbies with a picture of reality that is distorted for them with say, too much push in it, with the intent they will add their own pull to it. I would rather see them presented with a more realistic picture to begin with. I think guys read all the constant push stuff and then go out and overgame.

 

[Stagger Lee]

If a man is dominant and/or famous, women will suddenly find him "good looking."

http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/study-dominance-not-looks-predicts-mens-mating-success/

That one study has already been discussed somewhere on here, http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=206913.

But in a nutshell dominance/fame is dependent on looks and appearance. This very study measured for things like facial features, body build, voice etc.

The study specifically said they did not measure psychological traits or behavior.

In no way can anyone really conclude that dominance is not dependent on looks/appearance, or that an unattractive guy will be perceived as "good looking" just because he acts dominant.

Dominance and behaving dominately may be considered sexually attractive by women for one guy and "creepy" for another guy, not because the behavior significantly differed, but how they looked and appeared differed.

 

[zekko]

The reality is that 99.9% of the guys out there need to stop pulling.

I just find it hard to believe that I represent 0.1% of the population. As a formerly shy guy, the push stuff like indifference and aloofness comes so much more naturally to me than the pulling. And I know there has to be a lot of shy young men on the general forum.

Maybe we should make a game of it, and find the first post where a guy wants a girl but he's done too much pushing and now he needs to pull.

Well, there is this current thread here:
http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=207047

Ultimately, pushing doesn't seem to be as intuitive as pulling, so I wouldn't expect to find such a thread. But I think when a new guy is learning game, and hasn't found the right calibration yet, that's when you'll see someone overdoing it.

Like this poor fellow here - he's a trainwreck of poorly applied PUA cliches. He uses the false time restraint several times, but doesn't leave. He uses a weak opinion opener after he's already opened, runs the Cube on the girl, and in this stretch hits her with two consecutive clumsy negs:

"Me: Wait a second...(I point to her shoes)..did you get those from North Pole..those look pretty run down

Hb8: No they do not! haha

Me: ohh...wait...is that wig( pointing to her hair)...well it looks good anyway!"

He ends up leaving after getting rebuffed on his offer of a handshake, but he fails to even ask for her number, even though she left the door wide open for it. I'd say this guy was too much push, not enough pull. But mostly just one big mess. We'll give him kudos for getting out there and trying though.

Dominance and behaving dominately may be considered sexually attractive by women for one guy and "creepy" for another guy, not because the behavior significantly differed, but how they looked and appeared differed.

I'm suspicious of pretty much everything Heartiste posts, any study he finds he will try to spin it to support some point he wants to make, whether it has anything to do with it or not.

Here's my problem with the study: It defines "success with women" as "number of sexual partners". Now that could be the right definition I guess, but I'm not so sure it is. If I banged four HB8s and two HB9s, and you banged 16 HB4s, are you really the more successful one?

I know there have been studies showing that people of similar attractiveness levels tend to couple up. Yet the study Heartiste references says there was no correlation between looks and success at all. But if you're landing better looking women, I'd say that's a form of success.

I don't believe in the "only looks matter" perspective, though. I think it makes perfect sense that women be attracted to dominance. But also good looks, which are an indicator of health and good genetic stock.