"The path" is a LIE!

[Aenigma]

I have said this many times before, but it isn't WOMEN who are romantic fools, it is MEN. As we all know, women TALK about how they want flowers and poetry and "I love you!" 20 times a day, but what happens when you give that to them? BLAM! They are REPULSED by your mere presence.

Its funny how that works isn't it? I think half of the AFC problem is men taking women at their words and trying to make the object of their affections happy- which makes sense on a topical level; you love someone and you enjoy their company so you want nothing but the positive for them.

This is confusing to the average man. You want nothing but the postive and you act in that direction- so they should appreciate it and reciprocate; but they don't. That's what a man would do. This is women we're dealing with and they're wired differently.

Saying you're "trying to make the object of you affections happy" is really Orwellian nice nice talk to hide the truth. Lets rephrase and reveal it for what it is: you're trying to please her. Not quite their yet.... the naked truth isn't quite revealed: you're trying to placate her. That's what you're doing when you "try to make her happy". And what type of man is a man that placates at the expense of his own happiness and welfare- is it a strong man or a weak man?

A weak man of course.

A strong man takes his own interests and desires to heart- if a womans intersts run counter to his he acts in his own interests. To a woman's hindbrain this signals that he is both strong and desirable to the female population- which strengthens her "bond" (aka love) to him. Her biology is compelling her to pursue and stick wtih him for the purposes of reproduction since his behavioral signalling is telling her that he is of good genetic stock. Conversly the placating male who is "trying to make her happy" is signalling that he is of bad genetic stock/social positioning.

All this dates back to our pre-language evolutionary beginnings and ideas such as religion, philosophy, and politics/political correctness have now altered our natural thought patterns from what they would have been in the absense of language. Simply speaking these three areas function as lingo-pschyological reprogamming that changes the idea of what is "good" for the average male.

In pre-history the "good" was the strong. It lead to social positioning, mating opportunites, and a better life then "weak" who would be victimized and exploited by the strong. (The weak would also attempt to placate the strong to avoid physical damage- which is another reason I believe that placation to a woman is a turn off to women- its indicative of a "placation" personality that is in the habit of sacrificing/placating to other stronger males).

However the big linguo-social reprommers have fliped the script so to speak. "Good" has been substitued by "Moral". The difference between the two is once again hidden by the terminology. Lets once again rephrase to reveal the truth. What is "Moral". Most would define it as "the greater good"? And who is that? Everyone but yourself of course!

Moral/Greater good is nothing but placation to everyone but yourself.

Sacrificing for "soceity"- a group of strangers that care nothing for you- is "moral"; you're giving up your needs/desires/dreams/life for nothing but their praise and high opinion of your morality.

Sacrificing for the wife/woman- an amoral creature who, in the vast majority of cases, who will despise you for the very morality you hold in such high regard!

Sacrificing for religion- again another group of faceless strangers that will gladly accept your donation and use it to give to another group of people- to prove their "morality".

Everyone and everything is a moral cause.... except for looking out for yourself and your own benefits! Everything is moral except making yourself more power and using it to benefit yourself.... why?

Because the "morality" is the opposite of the "good". To be benefited by morality you must be weak- you need the sacrifice of the strong; you need to feed off of them like a parasite and morality is nothing but a way to convince them that they're somehow better off, in someway, for it.

Being strong, rich, powerful, sexually attractive, are all "good". You need to excel in some fashion to be any of those things. The poor and mediocre are, by defintion, the opposite of "good". Only by crippling the "good" and defining it as "evil" can they eliminate the rewards of "good" and sieze it for themselves.

I for one am sick of the whining about "morality" on this forum. Grown men are coming here and whining for month, no YEARS, on end about the immorality and injustice of the world for not rewarding them for being "Moral" and "Nice". In reality they're blinded to the truth. Let us strip away the lies of lingustic deceit and show the truth for what it is. Men want to be rewarded for being "Moral" and "Nice"- in reality want to be rewarded for being mediocre and weak.

"Nice" is the stragegy of the weak man. "Moral" is the psychological refuge of the medicore man. These men, these dandies, want to have the rewards of the strong, rich, and powerful without having to earn them. They want to have the benefits that the "good" have (namely beautiful women who are loyal to them) without having to be "good" and excelling.

They whine about the rich being greedy- and then whine that women are attracted to the rich: yet they refuse to admit that wealth is a sign of intelligence and determination (which is psychological strength). They refuse to admit its a "good".

They whine that women are attracted to "looks": yet they refuse to go to the gym and change what they eat/drink. Once again- looks is a "good" that they expect their "morality" (aka weakness) to compensate for.

They whine that women are attracted to jerks/thugs/a-holes- yet they refuse to change their personalities and let people walk all over them. They're "Nice"- which is really weakness in that they are too psychologically weak to withstand the social pressure that would result from looking after their own interests. If they're too weak too look after themselves- how can a woman expect that he'll be able to look after her and the children?

Ultimately- all this boils down to is a break between two menalities.

Neitzche called it the master vs the slave.

In reality it is that of the good vs that of the mediocre.

You now know the truth.

You can either deny that you've been lied to and manipulated into a poisonous thought process where you expect your mediocrity and weakness to be rewarded- and whine when it isn't.

Or you can change- once day at a time. Into a MAN who looks after his own interests, A man who isn't exploited by every Tom, ****, and Jane. A man who is successful and strong- A MAN who is PROUD of his strength.

The choice is yours...

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear Aenigma,
Yeah all very well in theory,but in the real World it wont work out,dating is just like surviving in the workforce where all but a few of us have to bow and scrape a little to get by,particularly when you can run rings around your Boss....No the only Woman you can try your,dare I say arrogant, act on is a Woman who sees you as being above her Metier and who worships you,such a Woman you would inevitably see as not good enough for you.

 

[Mr. Me]

>> As we all know, women TALK about how they want flowers and poetry and "I love you!" 20 times a day, but what happens when you give that to them? BLAM! They are REPULSED by your mere presence.>>

Basically what Str8up is saying is that we guys tend to be more romantic then women. I think that's true. Guys can be more sentimental, but women are hardened as a survival mechanism in that field that can make them seem merciless and cold blooded.

What you're referencing is more about this: women say they want this and that qualities in a guy, but they OMIT the PREREQUISITES! They want romance (and the following will vary some from woman to woman according to the way she's wired), but they want it coming from a tall, affluent, confident, good looking, no beer belly, with hair, and all his teeth, good dresser, nice hygiene, ambitious, career minded, is nice to his mom, interesting, humorous, positive minded, doesn't-take-life-seriously-rolls-with-the-punches-can-do kind of guy... and then, only want it when they want it, not a minute before.

IOW, they only want to be romanced by a guy they want to be romanced by when they feel they want to be romanced by him. If it comes from anyone else, or before they would welcome the romantic overtures, it doesn't fly. The lesson to learn is not about criticizing women, but being more in tune with where they're at in regards to you (or you could say, reading their Interest Level).

 

[trent81]

With a 57 percent (documented) 67 percent reality of divorce rate in United States of America. Is it even worth it anymore? You know that if you have a rough patch in your life, she is going to leave, or cheat. Life brings down even the most confident and successful guys. They usually get back up but will she be with him when he does? I sometimes feel that in this country, these women are not worth it. I want a foreign trick. They are just as bad, but not too bad.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

With a 57 percent (documented) 67 percent reality of divorce rate in United States of America. Is it even worth it anymore? You know that if you have a rough patch in your life, she is going to leave, or cheat. Life brings down even the most confident and successful guys. They usually get back up but will she be with him when he does? I sometimes feel that in this country, these women are not worth it. I want a foreign trick. They are just as bad, but not too bad.

With a 40 percent (documented) 50 percent reality of obesity rate in the United States of America. Is it even worth it anymore? You know that if you eat ice cream every night, your gonna put on the pounds, or have health problems. Life can bring down the most confident dieters and exercisers. They usually get off the couch and back into the gym, but will the fat be there when he's back? I sometimes feel that eating is not worth it. I want foreign food. It is just as bad, but not too bad. Even chinese food has a lot of calories and MSG.

 

[STR8UP]

I sometimes become frustrated that I cannot eloquently and succinctly express the thoughts that are constantly running through my head, but lucky for me, there are a few other posters here who "get it" that are a little better at verbalizing what it is that I see and feel on a daily basis.

This is indeed an epic thread.

I have met Aenigma in person. I turned down a completely unexpected sure shot at tapping a new piece of ass when I broke away from my friends to meet up with him late one sunday afternoon. Aenigma wasn't aware of this because I knew he went out of his way to have a beer with me. So be it. She was fukkable by anyone's standards, but in the end she was just another piece of ass. I'm glad I had a chance to share a couple of drinks and a few war stories with a fellow veteran. I don't need to sacrifice an intellectual conversation for a couple of hours with a floozy. (and the fact that I had to make excuses to my friends made it difficult, but it was worth it)

Anyway, this thread is absolute GOLD, and it gives me hope that there might be salvation for masculinity. It is rare to find people who truly "get it" but when you do find them it serves as confirmation that you aren't a raving lunatic when you discover the true nature behind human interactions.

The culture of this board has shifted from one of male bonding and camaraderie over a common goal, to one of touchy-feely moralist/absolutist politically correct feel-good self gratification.

Talk about the short term payoff! The guys who choose to ignore nature and impose their own warped beliefs are the ones who are sacrificing long term gain for short term "security"

I am done for now. Time for bed.

 

[C-quenced]

With a 40 percent (documented) 50 percent reality of obesity rate in the United States of America. Is it even worth it anymore? You know that if you eat ice cream every night, your gonna put on the pounds, or have health problems. Life can bring down the most confident dieters and exercisers. They usually get off the couch and back into the gym, but will the fat be there when he's back? I sometimes feel that eating is not worth it. I want foreign food. It is just as bad, but not too bad. Even chinese food has a lot of calories and MSG.


A lot of this which is being spoken of just shows how much women "change" lol as they age.

 

[KontrollerX]

"Nice" is the stragegy of the weak man. "Moral" is the psychological refuge of the medicore man. These men, these dandies, want to have the rewards of the strong, rich, and powerful without having to earn them. They want to have the benefits that the "good" have (namely beautiful women who are loyal to them) without having to be "good" and excelling."

Better not let the Interceptors, jophils and Jeffs of the world see this part or it'll be brain anerysm time for the morality crew collective.

BTW, agreed 110% of course.

That you used the effeminette word "dandies" as a description of the prototypical weak beta moralistic AFC male was damn near laugh off the chair funny. :crackup:

I'm real sick of the new members to the forum continually nut hugging this societal/feminist/religion promoted morality clap trap which is all ultimately agenda driven anyway by those particular powers that be.

The new AFC members immediately cling to the apron strings of the moralistic posters because that is familiar ground for them of what they've been fed all their life and its no surprise as to be an AFC is to be a person that clings to self destructive beliefs and fears challenging themself with new ideas.

Morality clap trap is old hat, perfect familiar doctrine for the persistent AFC to hold onto and use as an excuse for not taking certain routes provided him by DJ Players that would net the AFC greater success.

AFC: I can't take your DJ Player advice it is immoral and I am a noble moralistic fancy lad!

DJ Player: AFC you my friend are living proof that one can lead a horse to water but you can't make the dumb bastard drink it. Have fun getting your rewards from your self righteous ego gratifications and delusional spiritual benefits, meanwhile I and the rest of the players will be banging the young hotties you refused to game on their amoral level.

AFC: Lying to women is wrong, gaming women is wrong, I don't want to game, I want to be honest.

DJ Player: The feminists would be proud of their work if they saw how thoroughly they've ruined your mind. Think about it. You've been trained since birth to not do what it takes to get what you want and not only that but you've been trained to like it and see it as something noble.

AFC: Well I can kind of see your point but you must agree that lying to women is wrong.

DJ Player: Women lie all the time, guys lie all the time. You know the difference between you and normal guys, guys that had to work hard to become DJ's and the majority of women?

AFC: What?

DJ Player: You're the only one who cares about it.

AFC: Well thats right and that makes me a better person!

DJ Player: Nah, it just ensures you a pair of blue balls on a Friday night when had you just lied your ass off and threw away morals you'd have more women than you're getting now certainly.

Interceptor: You can be a good moral honest hardworking nunchuck wielding Ninja Turtles watching GI Joe samurai and still get women. Bad DJ Player! Bad!!

DJ Player: Sure you can...but what I'm saying is you won't get as many women and you'll miss many opportunities which you would not have missed had you just thrown morals to the wind and did whatever was necessary in a particular situation.

Jophil: A man does not do "what is necessary". A woman might but she being a woman is naturally weak. Men are not weak. Men have integrity, morals and backbone, a man will blue ball himself to death with his moral superiority and like it and thus be a great and powerful man thats just oh so great who can be proud of himself because he's oh so great and moral.

Interceptor: Amen to that!

Iqqi: Good posts Jo and Interceptor!!

DJ Player: Gee guys it still looks like you're still advocating a bunch of unproductive self righteousness to me but whatever everyone's got a different way to approach life and you guys just seem intent on making it more difficult for yourselves than necessary to hold onto some fleeting self righteous feeling gratification. Have fun holding onto your societal programmed "honor". The rest of us who could give a crap less won't be alone on a Friday night and the physical pleasure we will feel from busting a nut on some broad's face we lied to get into bed I'm guessing will put a bigger smile on our faces then your moral posturing and self righteous ultra moralistic attitudes will ever do for yours.

Interceptor: What about reciprocity oh wise DJ Player? If I become a liar to everybody this will just come back to me via the laws of Karma! and furthermore why should I if I accept your worldview and become amoral as you say women are and men should be too...if I do all that how can I expect an amoral woman to treat me good if all I do is lie to her? Tell me how mister. This should be good. *Ho ho ho he he he snicker, snicker* [[whispers: I've got that DJ Player right where I want him now.]]

DJ Player: Reciprocity though often seen in human beings is not guranteed 100% of the time. It is unreliable. As for law of karma it does not in reality exist, its a religious concept. However there is a secular concept that is similar known as cause and effect and going by cause and effect so long as you lie well enough you won't have to deal with any negative effects of your lies and hell because of human randomness in behavior a woman who discovers you lied to her might either get more turned on by your having lied to her or be too lazy to act out some form of revenge even if she is angered by your lie. As for your next question about amorality you are still approaching things from the moralist mindset. We of the amoralist mindset are beyond caring about fairness or hypocrisy, we want rather the best deal for ourselves as possible so we will select easy targets which means women that we know we can dominate at our particular individual player skill level. We demand the best for ourselves first and foremost and if a woman can't deal with that good fvckin riddance.

Interceptor: That is not fair.

DJ Player: Who said life would be?

Jophil: It is our job as men to make life as fair as possible.

DJ Player: Nah, thats just an idealistic pipe dream, we humans are what we are just a collection of base desires with some pretty yet flimsy socialization ontop of us to cover up the mess of roiling desire underneath. Though you have your opinion and I respect that. My opinion is we men should attain as much pleasure and comfort for ourselves in this short life as possible and if we can lie to get even more or do whatever it takes and get more whether it be immoral or not then so be it. Whatever it takes to acheive our goals.

Interceptor: What if my goals are to be a self righteous samurai that follows the noble 8 fold path and desires to do Tai Chi in between gardening my bonzai plants?

DJ Player: Knock yourself out. Just don't expect the rest of us to promote that way of being to the young impressionable 18 year old who came here to learn how to score tail and quickly at that.

 

[Jeffst1980]

Better not let the Interceptors, jophils and Jeffs of the world see this part or it'll be brain anerysm time for the morality crew collective.

Thing is, I've never made a direct appeal to morality on this board. Frankly, this isn't the place to discuss such things. Instead, I appeal to pragmatism.

See, I don't slam the idea of using a trashy slvt as a "fvck toy" for moral reasons; I'm against it because there are TOO MANY cons to it and not enough pros. For starters:

-There's NO WAY to get around the fact that you are still going to have to waste your valuable time on such a woman, and I'm not even talking about sex. You are going to have to listen to her drama, endure repeated phone calls/ angry messages, and shameless attempts of manipulation in the hopes that you will fall under her spell.

-If she's been disrespectful to you and you allow it to continue, it will. Really, the only way to nip it in the bud is to walk away. If you keep sleeping with her, she will continue to find ways to manipulate and mistreat you. I don't care how "alpha" you are; it doesn't feel good to be mistreated.

-There is always a risk of pregnancy/ herpes/ other unfortunate byproducts of sexual intimacy. If you're careful, you can cut these risks down to *almost* zero. Unfortunately, most men aren't careful--or, they're careful for a little while and then drop preventative measures.

-You will have a reduced number of prospects by necessity. Even if said trashy h0 is "just" an FB, she will be watching your every move and attempt to sabotage any new relationship you pursue. In this age of immediate information, it's A LOT more difficult to operate "off the grid." Who wants to spend all that time evading an FB with whom you supposedly don't have a relationship?

-You never TRULY know what such a girl is capable of doing out of anger. We've read some awful examples in the media; we've even read some awful examples on this site. Hell hath no fury, indeed. Because our culture tends to glorify women that "stand up for themselves," it's easy for a women of lesser character to rationalize extremely irrational behavior. Remember "LAW 19- Know Who You’re Dealing with – Do Not Offend the Wrong Person."

-Disrespectful FB's will sully your reputation. If your reputation doesn't matter to you, go lie with dogs all you want. However, you have to be a sociopath to truly not care what others think of you.

Now, the sole PRO of this arrangement:

-You get your rocks off. It may be slightly more enjoyable than masturbating.



Now, STR8UP and others have said that there is clearly a spectrum of morality in men and women, and that women aren't exclusively high or low quality, and I agree with him. But--there MUST be a personal "tipping point" for you--one where the risks outweigh the gain--where even an F-buddy relationship is not worth your energy. Otherwise, you are content with simply taking what you can get.

You may not be able to accurately predict future behavior, but you can look for clues, and therein lies the message of the so-called "morality crew."

Qualifying is not meant to be done without self-improvement, but self-improvement WITHOUT qualifying defeats the purpose. We want to improve ourselves to gain access to the MOST DESIRABLE women, not so we can continue to sleep with whatever we can get and somehow feel superior.

I am not appealing to morality; I'm appealing to happiness. It makes me happy when women treat me well; therefore, I seek out women that treat me well. I someday want to have a family--that's my own personal decision--and I know that when the time comes, it's imperative that I do so with a woman that makes a good partner and a good mother. I want to see my children grow up in a loving household and go on to achieve and find their own happiness, and this can only be made possible by building a home out of mutual respect.

These are things that I value, and that are probably valued by most of the men on this board. If it's not for you, that's completely fine.

There can be different schools of thought here on Sosuave; but it's a mistake to characterize anyone that invokes the tiniest amount of scruples as a moralist nutjob.

The reason this forum isn't completely anti-marriage is that many of us WANT to get married and have a family. The mission, in light of this, is to find the SAFEST way to do so. It would be MUCH MORE productive to talk about prenups and other self-defense tactics ala Senor Fingerz, than to just dismiss marriage as an AFC social convention.

Remember, Rollo himself has been married for years. I have a sneaking suspicion that he actually identifies less with the KontrollerX's and STR8UP's of the world than he lets on, as I agree with the vast majority of his posts and only disagree with the context that they are sometimes used.

The "moralist" debate is pointless because there is very little actual morality involved.

KX, I don't always agree with your worldview as a self-described "misanthrope," but I respect your right to post here, as surely there are many here that identify with you and your message. The only "reciprocity" I expect is that you extend that right to others and quit with the little attacks. We can debate things without calling each other "AFC" or "Chump," and we can have incompatible messages without trying to silence the other. That doesn't help anybody.

Same team, guys.

 

[STR8UP]

I'm real sick of the new members to the forum continually nut hugging this societal/feminist/religion promoted morality clap trap which is all ultimately agenda driven anyway by those particular powers that be.

The new AFC members immediately cling to the apron strings of the moralistic posters because that is familiar ground for them of what they've been fed all their life and its no surprise as to be an AFC is to be a person that clings to self destructive beliefs and fears challenging themself with new ideas.

This is the crux of the problem, the MAJOR problem that I have with the moralist argument. It's actually makes my skin crawl at times.

The bulk of it is yet another load of sh!t that is polished up to look appetizing to the masses. And that it does. Like you said, it gives AFC's something to cling to because it's familiar to them. It is congruent with what they have been told all of their lives.

It's amusing that we are the ones getting called out, as if we are the evil force trying to push an agenda. The moralists are the ones pushing an agenda. They are unwittingly serving up damaging propaganda, all under the guise of what appears to be "right" and "good".

This message needs to get out. I just don't have the energy to expend to counter all of the points that are VERY difficult to counter due to the fact that it is difficult to disprove what people perceive as good without coming off as the bad guy.

More and more I'm thinking a blog is the right way to go. This stuff is too advanced for most of these sites. I'll leave the "unplugging of chumps" at Sosuave to you and Rollo.

 

[Mr. Me]

It's always been the ploy of the weak to dismiss any virtue as conforming to the mold as that's easier done then being strong.

 

[STR8UP]

Now, STR8UP and others have said that there is clearly a spectrum of morality in men and women, and that women aren't exclusively high or low quality, and I agree with him. But--there MUST be a personal "tipping point" for you--one where the risks outweigh the gain--where even an F-buddy relationship is not worth your energy. Otherwise, you are content with simply taking what you can get.

Absolutely. I nexted a FB recently for crossing the line. It was "worth the energy" up until that point. Actually, it was getting to the point where I might have had to do it anyway because she was getting close to crossing lines in other ways, but the last bit took the cake.

You may not be able to accurately predict future behavior, but you can look for clues, and therein lies the message of the so-called "morality crew."

Where did the idea get started that any of us are against qualifying a woman?

Some people just seem to think that there are SO MANY great women out there that you should be able to have two or three around at a time, that by having a FB that isn't "girlfriend material" you are damaging yourself in some way.

I call BS to that. If she's more trouble than she's worth, you cut it. Other than that you use it for what it is and go about your life.

We want to improve ourselves to gain access to the MOST DESIRABLE women, not so we can continue to sleep with whatever we can get and somehow feel superior.

If you sleep with a chick who you would never even think of marrying it doesn't have this life changing impact you make it out to.

The reason this forum isn't completely anti-marriage is that many of us WANT to get married and have a family. The mission, in light of this, is to find the SAFEST way to do so. It would be MUCH MORE productive to talk about prenups and other self-defense tactics ala Senor Fingerz, than to just dismiss marriage as an AFC social convention.

I'm not anti-marriage, I'm anti-current marriage climate.

When you look at it from the perspective of the losing proposition that it is, yea, marriage IS an AFC social convention for all but the wisest of the wise. Unless your game is TOTALLY on point (and remains so throughout your marriage) and you are hyper aware of the reality of womens behaviors, marriage is a disaster waiting to happen. That's how a few guys can make it succeed.

Remember, Rollo himself has been married for years. I have a sneaking suspicion that he actually identifies less with the KontrollerX's and STR8UP's of the world than he lets on, as I agree with the vast majority of his posts and only disagree with the context that they are sometimes used.

I know Rollo, and I'm pretty sure that's not the case. He seems to have a solid grasp of psychology both from a practical and clinical standpoint, and has enough self awareness to not let ego investments cloud his thinking. It's easy for a single guy like me to view marriage and women in a critical light. It is much more difficult for a guy who is happily married. Props to him for that.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

It's always been the ploy of the weak to dismiss any virtue as conforming to the mold as that's easier done then being strong.

It's equally a ploy of the weak to make their necessity a virtue.


Appeals to morality are a Buffer against rejection, and a convenient rationale for having been rejected. Ego preservation takes many forms.

 

[Da Realist]

I'll add my two cents on this one. I'm going to type this so everyone here knows where I stand: morals are not a bad thing to have, but expecting them to make everything else in your life go rights is bad. I agree with you, Aenigma, that people think they're morals or doing the right thing will get them what they want in life. The truth is that they really don't. Morals are core beliefs that a man holds to live his life by. They're rules. Every man has them, even people who say they are amoral because they have a set of rules they follow, but they just run counter to whatever the prevailing opinion is; it's basically like saying they are cold since cold is just the absence of heat and not a form of energy itself.

Back to the topic at hand though. You have many people who think that just doing the right thing gets them favor in life. They don't hurt anyone; they love their neighbor; they never use profanity; and because of that the world should love them. What happens when you love everyone, but they hate you? What happens when your neigbor decides he wants to burn your house down just because he doesn't like the way you look? What happens when you're homeless by nothing of your own doing and the people you helped turn you away? But you did the right thing, so why does it all happen? Truth is no one but God knows. Everything you have could be gone in a moment eventhough you lived as a good person. So now bitterness comes in and tells you were a fool to believe in anything, so just be like that animal you see doing whatever it can to survive. Be that caveman you know is only under the surface. That's when you see a lot of guys just throw everything out the window. Now they think they know everything about life and that people with morals are just simps. Thing is that in the end both are the same guy but are just on different sides of the same coin.

I know both sides are reading this and wondering how I just typed that. The moralist is thinking of righteous he is and how he could never be like a guy who doesn't have morals. The amoral person is saying how they are the strong ones and can't even be grouped in the same league. But the truth is both are the same. Either way, both groups think that by the rules they follow life is going to bend their way.

"If I pray every night, drink my milk, and take my vitamins, everyone is going to love me."

Then there's:
"I can act anyway I want and I'll get everything I deserve. **** the world. Only what I want matters."

The only diference is that the latter may get more women than the former. Funny thing is that all the crap you try to gain in life doesn't matter much because it can all go when someone bigger and badder comes and takes it. Then on top of that, the amoralist basically threw out everything he held dear just to start getting stuff. He sold out his beliefs just to be a little more comfortable basically. Compare that to the moralist who only holds up his good works and think they should pave his way for a good life. Both are weak in a different area and strong in another. One can go through life holding his values while the other couldn't. One waits passively for life to give him something he thinks he's owed while the other at least has the guts to get what he wants. Funny thing is that women want both of the positive qualities: a man who will stand on what he believes and will also set out to make it happen. That requires balance though and is what should be sought. I don't know of any path, but I do know that one extreme is just as dangerous as the other. You get zealots with one and crazed anarchists with the other; not that any of you are that far gone. The thing is that morals are just directions and not the man himself. You shouldn't take pride in not beliving what the other guy doesn't because either way leads you to just expecting something from life and life is fickle. My thing is to believe in something that stands regardless of what is going on around you. Some of you may take this as a religious speech and disqualify it just beceause; fine by me. But even philosophers have warned basing a life only on things that exist or conditions because things change or are taken away, and when that happens you have nothing to stand on.

 

[Ace of Dubs]

Good post, but I think a good chunk of it is built on more assumptions than "truth"

For exmaple

Moral/Greater good is nothing but placation to everyone but yourself.

What if you (perish the though) actually enjoy doing right by people, and being part of something bigger than yourself? What if that alone provides more value to you than screwing some random hoe?

Everybody has different ways of placating themselves, all you need to do is type "weird fetishes" into google to confirm that we all get off on very different things. What you deem pleasurable may in fact seem disgusting or just plain stupid to someone else.

Everyone and everything is a moral cause.... except for looking out for yourself and your own benefits! Everything is moral except making yourself more power and using it to benefit yourself

I've banged married chicks - I've even banged a friends GF (really not proud of that one) and it caused me a lot more grief than the fleeting pleasure it offered to begin with. The fact that I stay away from married chicks and my friends significant others is not due to me riding some moral high horse - its because this type of behavior stirs up **** that I don't want to deal with. The risks and overall garbage simply outweigh the rewards.

In this aspect, showing some modicum of restraint, however "moral" it may seem, is actually beneficial to my mental and emotional health. I learned the hard way that doing whatever it takes to get laid was just bad for business. Yeah it was fun for a while but the lifestyle was toxic and ended up taking its toll. Not to mention I caught a few STDs, something else I am not proud of.

Ultimately- all this boils down to is a break between two menalities.

Does it really have to be so black and white? where is the balance in such thinking?

On one hand if you live only for other people then you just neglect yourself and end up hurt when you end up getting used and abused. Its the classic case of pearls before the swine here.

On the other hand, if you decide its always "me first" and screw anyone else's happiness, you just end up a different kind of miserable - alone with no real friends or love in your life. In this case you are right on par with the swine.

In reality it is that of the good vs that of the mediocre.

Isn't it better to use our own discernment and common sense than to live our whole lives by some binary code which does not always apply to a given situation?

This is why I wonder: can't we all just share unique perspectives without the chest-thumping and superiority complexes?? I dont understand the people here who are trying to force everyone to choose factions and create a high school environment in a "Mature Man"s forum. It's really the only thorn in the side of an otherwise vibrant, intelligent community.

PS - I'm glad the OP decided to post this up, was provocative enough to get me out of lurk mode, so nice job. Looking forward to more great discussion.

 

[jophil28]

Appeals to morality are a Buffer against rejection, and a convenient rationale for having been rejected. Ego preservation takes many forms.

Ahhh, another fanciful explanation .

A couple joined the dance studio recently where I teach part time. She was slim and very feminine and a HB8. JUst my type. Her guy was rather quiet and stood behind her, and it appeared to me that she was the one who led their relationship inspite of her soft, sweet demeanor. Indeed, I was unsure that there even was any 'relationship'.
Over the next few weeks she showed some attraction to me and my C&F antics. She was willing to leave her guy standing alone a few times over a few weeks and come ask me a few questions which were obviously concocted and which should have been asked by him. . Her eyes were dilated and had that glazed look that we all know well.
Eventually I suggested that she might like to have 'extra' lessons with me privately. He he. I was willing to take advantage of my position here if she was willing.. She picked up on my unstated intention and replied that she was married to the guy (no ring) and that seeing me privately was "not a good idea" .
So ,essentially, I was 'rejected'. How did I feel about her after that. I felt enormous admiration. She had married that guy (for her own reasons), and had taken her vows "to forsake others" and was now living by them.
Rather than getting annoyed at her because my ego was bruised, I felt respect for her preservation of her morals and her commitment to her husband.
After that night I resumed my teaching her by only being near her when her husband was also present.
Had I persisted in another attempt to see her alone after that night, MY morals would have been compromised by my own behavior.

 

[Zunder]

%

Dear Aenigma,
Yeah all very well in theory,but in the real World it wont work out,dating is just like surviving in the workforce where all but a few of us have to bow and scrape a little to get by,particularly when you can run rings around your Boss....No the only Woman you can try your,dare I say arrogant, act on is a Woman who sees you as being above her Metier and who worships you,such a Woman you would inevitably see as not good enough for you.

Mate, are you from another planet? Oh, thats right - you are a Aussie, so yes, another planet is quite apt.
I am a Kiwi by the way - so no sheep jokes.

Read up on Eva Peron. A woman that rose from pauper obscurity and used a man (Juan Peron) to become one the most powerful and, loved by her people, woman in modern history.
She was merciless in seducing him, merciless in using him, and ultimately rising way WAY above him to reach her glory.
SHE PUT HERSELF FIRST.
Is it only the realm of women to put themselves first?
Are we men not allowed to do it?
Of course we are.

You mate, are the one not in the real world.

By the way - just ask a random group of people if they know who Eva Peron was, then ask them of the name of the guy she was married to, and of his significance as a political figure. 99.9% will not have a clue.

 

[Zunder]

Ahhh, another fanciful explanation .

A couple joined the dance studio recently where I teach part time. She was slim and very feminine and a HB8. JUst my type. Her guy was rather quiet and stood behind her, and it appeared to me that she was the one who led their relationship inspite of her soft, sweet demeanor. Indeed, I was unsure that there even was any 'relationship'.
Over the next few weeks she showed some attraction to me and my C&F antics. She was willing to leave her guy standing alone a few times over a few weeks and come ask me a few questions which were obviously concocted and which should have been asked by him. . Her eyes were dilated and had that glazed look that we all know well.
Eventually I suggested that she might like to have 'extra' lessons with me privately. He he. I was willing to take advantage of my position here if she was willing.. She picked up on my unstated intention and replied that she was married to the guy (no ring) and that seeing me privately was "not a good idea" .
So ,essentially, I was 'rejected'. How did I feel about her after that. I felt enormous admiration. She had married that guy (for her own reasons), and had taken her vows "to forsake others" and was now living by them.
Rather than getting annoyed at her because my ego was bruised, I felt respect for her preservation of her morals and her commitment to her husband.
After that night I resumed my teaching her by only being near her when her husband was also present.
Had I persisted in another attempt to see her alone after that night, MY morals would have been compromised by my own behavior.

Check up in five years to see if she is still married to him - or got a divorce after losing interest in the chump that he is.
Maybe you missed out on doing them both a favour right now.

 

[RMM]

Going off a different tangent (great topic btw), what I think is sad about the disconnect between what women say they want and what they really want is not that people like me waste some precious years until they snap out of it and see the lie for what it is, no; the really sad thing is that the strategy is ultimately working against women.

In the mix of this forum (I've lurked for more than I've posted) there are quite a few people who were AFCs, came here, read what was to offer, made personal changes and suddenly found their interactions with the opposite gender to be that much easier to handle and understand.

So they want to be with an ambitious man who puts himself first and makes their panties feel funny, and then rails them like a porn star.

That's great. Nothing wrong with that. But ****ing say it!

If they did, I'm sure that a lot more chaps that ended up being AFCs would have picked up the slack and made something more of themselves that would attract them. It would increase the pool of desirable men. It'd be less competition for them!

I understand why the radical feminism does it, it works great: You make the situation worse for your own people, then with a minimal amount of control over the flow of information blame the "enemy" for it and watch the fireworks. But why do the rest of women go along with it, is what really puzzles me. They're shooting their own foot.

 

[ketostix]

Going off a different tangent (great topic btw), what I think is sad about the disconnect between what women say they want and what they really want is not that people like me waste some precious years until they snap out of it and see the lie for what it is, no; the really sad thing is that the strategy is ultimately working against women.

In the mix of this forum (I've lurked for more than I've posted) there are quite a few people who were AFCs, came here, read what was to offer, made personal changes and suddenly found their interactions with the opposite gender to be that much easier to handle and understand.

So they want to be with an ambitious man who puts himself first and makes their panties feel funny, and then rails them like a porn star.

That's great. Nothing wrong with that. But ****ing say it!

If they did, I'm sure that a lot more chaps that ended up being AFCs would have picked up the slack and made something more of themselves that would attract them. It would increase the pool of desirable men. It'd be less competition for them!

I understand why the radical feminism does it, it works great: You make the situation worse for your own people, then with a minimal amount of control over the flow of information blame the "enemy" for it and watch the fireworks. But why do the rest of women go along with it, is what really puzzles me. They're shooting their own foot.

The way I see it is women already have every man at their disposal thanks to their genetic sexual advantage. But they only have use for really one man since they only have one womb and one egg at a time. Their prerogative is to screen out and throw up obstacles so only a few can get through. They have no need to increase the pool of men for their purposes that would be of any benefit to a man-namely sexual. Women do however increase the supply of men for their other purposes where they can take on all the men they can get-provisional, AFC, serveiant purposes that is.