What you're up against

[jophil28]

Pfft............piece of cake, me fair dinkum!

Now before ye think of me as an illywacker, let me translate!

(clears throat)

Interceptor, do you want to go down to the pub for a drink? I have to get out of the house, my lady is throwing a tantrum.
How's that , me blokey?:moon:

That is grouse, matey!
You sure that you are not true blue ?Or maybe you have an Aussie missus ? Are you a fair dinkum septic or are you leading me up the garden path?


Ok, what did I just say, smart a$$ ?

 

[ThunderMaverick]

If you aren't an aussie you have a wife who's Australian? Are you full of sh!t or are you telling me the truth?

That's what I think you said. I'm pretty sure it is.

Did I get it?

 

[jophil28]

If you aren't an aussie you have a wife who's Australian? Are you full of sh!t or are you telling me the truth?

That's what I think you said. I'm pretty sure it is.

Did I get it?

Yeh- Thunder -thats pretty close -

The "septic" bit is interesting. Let me explain . During WW2 the eastern part of Australian was home to thousands of GIs. You guys came over to give us a hand with some misunderstanding that we were having with the Japanese Imperial Army. They wanted our country and we were pissed !
Anyway, THe phrase " Septic tank " became common use slang for the word "Yank " (any American) . IT is rhyming slang but spoken with typical Aussie undeclared affection..
Later it was shortened to just "septic" . SO now (especially amongst older blue collar Aussies ) the word is used to descibe an American national.

Oh, BTW thanks for coming and helping out in 1944..

 

[ThunderMaverick]

Us septics are glad to help anytime, mate!

Hahahaha

 

[Interceptor]

LOL!

Australian Themed Thread Hijacking!!!



Jophil, you're the best, matey!

 

[Create Reality]

Keep re-reading and if that doesn't work maybe print it out and give it to a smart friend who can help you understand.

I'm not here to change men, stop DJs or anything else. I simply have another point of view and enjoy giving it. That's what forums are for. I don't see all of you men agreeing with each other. Some of you are so confused you've decided that all women have to agree with you so you can feel comfortable. Grow up! Read the Book of Pook. There's a lot of good stuff in there! :yes:

Pook is a hype jockey. That's how he breaks AFCs out of their mentality. Through excitement comes change, so I can see why you would recommend the godly word of the Pook. Of course your mission here is to give your opinion but what is your motive? Do you even know why you're here? Last time I checked, this site was about seducing women, lesbian.

 

[wayword]

Why does Moonlight keep DHVing herself, and gaming and hustling us? I sense another AW al a Wyldfire. :kick:

BINGO!!!

Moonlight = Wyldfire. Get the fawk outta here, woman! Don't you got any grandkids to be taking care of yet???

And if anyone doesn't believe me, I can post my forensic psychoanalysis...

 

[Nighthawk]

I've been posting at this LoveShack place, and it's a mixed bag to be honest. Some good advice (from people who also post here) and some typical chick nonsense.

But one thing I notice is that like another predominantly chick site I trolled, they have a forum just for people having affairs with married/committed men. Sure, this site often advises that women can be purloined from unsatisfactory relationships, but I don't know of any sites for men that encourage, help and normalize infidelity in the way woman sites seem to. And we're supposed to be the bastards...

 

[FM 3321]

I haven't started a thread in a while, but I felt this warranted it. Recently I've been posting on other forums that are not specific to the "community" per se and I came back depressed. This and the articles I've read and written freelance recently, plus personally dealing with friends, coworkers, business associates, hell, even pastors at the church I go to, everywhere, the Matrix is there. It permeates society on so many levels. Little habits, to deeply internalized beliefs, it is SO all consuming. I know this is like saying the sky is blue, but it is literally ƒucking everywhere. Turn on the TV, watch a movie, listen to the radio, surf the internet, talk to a friend, look at a billboard on the drive home, it is all encompassing.

I've started a little crusade on LoveShack and I feel like I'm like John the Babtist decrying the truth in the wilderness here. Yes, I know it's a cesspool of AFCness, but it's got to be preached. KARMA SUTRA recently revived a thread about being a positive mentor to young men and I can only think that this is a fantastic idea, because it's men, not women who're to blame for the vast majority of where we find ourselves now. As much as we'd like to shake our fists at the nebulous feminist movement of 40 some years ago, it was men who really got the ball rolling. And it was calculated to be so. The mass feminization of western culture we know now is far more a result of men's complicitness which evolved into adovocation as a means to women's sexuality. Your Dad, my Dad, in some cases our Grandfathers, have all contibuted to this, either implicitly or complicitly.

All it takes is one dissenting POV on a forum like LoveShack to draw the ire of any woman, that's to be expected. But what follows is a landslide of siccophant males, like braying asses, all attempting qualify themselves to be acceptable not just to a single woman responding, not just to their generalized feminine sensibilities, but to themselves, in relative anonymity - meaning they have nothing to real hide and this is their default response. Far more males (they're not Men) will vehemently rise to defend the dissenting woman, without so much as a critical thought to what's been said. As if the content doesn't matter. Only the context. And if that sounds even remotely disparaging of their AFC ego investment it's met with such a throng of protest and so loud a chorus of a well taught and conditioned shaming response that the woman with an opposing viewpoint becomes secondary to their need to prove amongst themselves who's the more acceptable to the feminine norm.

Males have become assimilated by this feminization and are now more emphatic and effective feminists than the original intents of feminism could've ever hoped for.

I don't think we're up against that. That sh!t actually helps us. When you have your game tight with women and every other guy is clueless and full of misinformation you win. I think it's up to people to help themselves and personally I've tried to help friends and got to the point where I said I'm only going to help myself. I always got into arguments because they thought love was something religious, had to do with luck instead of discipline, knowledge and skill. If someone wants help and advice I'll give them what I know. If not, all I need to focus on is that my game is tight and I'm getting where I want to go in life.

Personally I'm just glad I've decided to take this path in life of learning how to successfully deal with women. It's saved me lots of time, money and heartbreak and by constantly reading new books that the big dating gurus recommend, I'm getting an education about life that I'll never get anywhere else. So there's no need to fight with feminists and AFC's, let them be. AFC's will get help when they're ready to.

 

[Rudra]

I don't think we're up against that. That sh!t actually helps us.

Guys, so why don´t we take that Loveshack as a fountain of textbook AFC material and take the most interesting of their threads apart? I mean, deconstruct it in a textbook way, as study material for this site.

Guys posting here in the beginning are AFC, but they are posting to what they perceive as bunch of DJs, so they post accordingly. They try to tone down their AFCness as far as they know how.

The guys at Loveshack are AFC and posting to a public of AFC so their texts are pure and clean examples of AFCness that should be gold to us.

 

[WestCoaster]

No, an AFC society helps no one and damages youth. I've heard for years on this site how it means more women for the DJ's; I go back to the DJ boards and it's still the same men complaining about how women sc-ewed them over.

An AFC society benefits no one. It's not gold to anyone, it's incredibly damaging to men, women, and society as a whole.

 

[logic1]

Anyone remember the subject or was it about pretty little me? :flowers: Okay, I gotta go. Love y'all - even you! :yes:

This poster has not contributed anything positive to the site. It is all about her (AW).

Are there any "moderator cards" availible.

 

[bigjohnson]

I love all the attention I'm getting.

You and every other woman.



Hahahahahaha.

 

[disillusionist]

well this whole thing was once about plate theory and its reception at LS. i went over there and read the whole thing, including the original post, and i found the discussion rather ordinary. like me, many people couldnt understand the whole point of the original post, the plate theory thing. we already have a word for what the post explains - its called dating. you go out with different people and arent exclusive to any one til such time as you decide (if you do) to become exclusive. im not sure what is new here? what is the theory? (its a opinion really, not a theory) is the 'theory' that certain benefits will appear? i dont think anyone over there was scared of having the 'truth' pointed out to them. but again, its just dating, so what is the controversy? i hardly think you punctured their reality balloon and caused them cognitive distress. have you all considered the possibilty that they just disagree with you? a different opinion? is that allowed? or is it just evidence of how they are trapped? its terribly grandiose to imagine that you know the truth and everyone who looks at it differently is not only wrong but ractically evil and responsible for the fall of western civilization.

as for this whole 'matrix' thing, its comical that so many people have as a dominant philosophical life organizing principle an idea popularized by a corny Hollywood movie aimed at pre-teens and also depressing in that the whole notion is so silly. if its the idea in the movie, then the 'matrix' is supposed to be that what we take to to be social/cultural reality, ie the totality of beliefs through which we preceive, organize and understand the world, is actually fed to us to blind or distract us from the truth of the real world.

first of all, im not sure how you can escape having some conceptual scheme by which the world is organized and understood, so you cant avoid having beliefs and understandings to apprehend the world. you will always be operating within some framework of understanding.so how do you supposedly escape that? please explain. it should be obvious that all you are doing is substituting one set of beliefs for another. is this what you call escaping from (or seeing through) the matrix? i dont get it. particulaly as this matrix-freedom thing seems only to apply only in a limited way here: it solely applies to having certain beliefs with regard to relations with women. in other words if you don't adopt the set of cynical attitudes towards women as expressed here, then you're stuck in the matrix. lol. in other words, if you dont see that
women are all cvnts, hors, AWs, who need to be treated like children and trained like dogs, etc, then you're part of the problem. its apparently nothing so benign as that you merely have a differing viewpoint, you are truly lost in wilderness and need saving (or stopping).

why not really reject the matrix? if theres anything that constitutes being 'in the matrix' (ie dragged along by cultural beliefs not of your own making), its got to be marriage itself and would certainly include people's trying to get ahead, career-wise and a host of other societal/cultural beliefs that many people here are firmly ensconced in. so if you want to talk of having escaped the matrix, you ought to really do so. that would impress me. not that youve developed some corny justification for why you're hopelessly locked into some traditional view of male/female relations, which resembles nothing so much as what one might hear in church sermon on sunday morning. thats escaping the matrix? lol. since what you're railing against is a viewpoint that offers more freedom in understanding gender roles and which amounts to a breaking of rigidly defined roles, it seems like theres a better argument that it is THAT which constitutes 'escaping the matrix'.

oh wait, i forgot. eons ago, in that environment, it was a useful social arrangement and role division, and so we should have that locked in forever, regardless of how the nature of work and the structure of society has evolved. cool. how many wildebeest did you kill out on the savannah today? how did the little woman do gathering nuts and berries?

this AFC thing is stupid too. the term is originally associated with SS guru Ross Jeffries who used the term to describe men who were unsuccessful in dealing with women, used ineffective techniques like drink-buying and in general gave up too much to get too little vis-a-vis women. ie, defined behaviorally. now, of course, its morphed into this catch-all term to label (insult) people who (guess what?) dont agree with the dogma espoused here. since the term seems to encompass over 90% of men, im not sure how you can say anything useful about a group so large. what could they all have in common? other than not seeing the 'truth'. but i guess its flattering to those who imagine themselves in possession of the truth, fighting valiantly against nay-sayers who, in their false consciousness, are blind to what is so perspicuous to the DJ. now theres an 'AFC mentality' which, of course is never specified or defined, much like the crimes of feminism. makes it easier to moan about. but when your tactic is to consistently employ unflattering interpretations of THEIR behavior while always using positive terms to describe yours, then thats just a linguistic game which will invariably deliver the desired conclusion. but to do that and to actually believe you've achieved some 'understanding' is, well, cute.

By ordinary logic, you'd think that this would be ideal for the aspiring DJ, in that his competition is mired in their own icky greys anatomy-watching weakness , used and despised by women, who are left yearning for the strong DJ-man who preactically shines with his own illumination. But no, through the wierd counter reverse logic so common here, this is actually bad, because women come to accept and demand these weak over-paying, over-valuing wimp-men and dont properly value the noble DJ-man, thus explaining the anxiety of so many here. So which type is it then that women prefer? wait, let me guess! its 'true' women who want 'real' men, whereas those who have been corrupted by the matrix need wimpy men (while secretly longing for a DJ-man, with balls of course).

maybe you 'real' men are selling a product that hardly anyone wants? maybe thats the problem? it will be a sad day around here when people clue into the fact that not only is it not 1950 (1850, 1750) anymore, but that it never will be again. we all know what happens to creatures that fail to evolve with their environment, they end up in the evolutionary ditch. Oh yeah, i forgot, you all here know the truth, and the truth is eternal, so adaptation is unnecessary, blasphemous even.

opposing this near-leninist adherence to ideology, anyone here (or there) who might have a differing viewpoint is obviously in false consciousness or just plain evil. Its a cartoonish black and white morality play that reads like a bad Ayn rand novel (that was a joke, they're all laughably dreadful, of course) where the right people are always pure and noble heroes valiantly fighting impossible odds against hordes of sickly parasitic people who refuse or cant seem to grasp the truth. just another day in the war for the legions of don quixotes (ooops, don juans) tilting at these imaginary windmills of feminism, media, etc and having vanquished for another day these insidious truth-deniers corrupted by feminism, incapable of thinking for themselves (like me, i guess).

 

[seth]

What is your point?
Why did you came here?
Do you seek something and you know what it is?
Do you seek something and you do not know what it is?
Do you have a problem?
?

I am serious and do not mean to offend or mock you in anyway. But please, state your bussines here.

 

[Moonlight]

Wow Disilloinist. Not only did you come back with some of my same thoughts - I disagree with the interpretation of the hunter-gatherer theory because I believe that in modern day there needs to be a yin and yang a synergistic reliance- but you hit the nail on the head with the overreacting and hurling of insults. I was surprised this is the "Mature" men's discussion group since the insults and refusal to discuss my opinion got so bad that someone actually called for the moderators. (I got less flack in the regular group!) The moderators stepped in and cencored ME. But, I was worn out with the focus on me as a woman instead of me as a different perspective. I believe the basic tenants of the DJ are good. But, some of these guys are just a little too sensitive. Perhaps, they're still learning? I'm wondering about the moderators, though. Also, thanks I love the word "perspicious." I'll be using it in sentences. No insult intended. I have great respect for your post from the perspective of a thinker - that part of my brain that determines pure logic (yes that's possible for some of you who are still deep in fear of women that we can actually think) - and appreciate your taking the time to evauate the "other site" from your perspective. Thanks for your post Disillionist! I look forward to agreeing/disagreeing or just reading your future posts! :yes:

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Alright, you put in a lot of effort to present your POV about what you believe SS is all about, so please do me the courtesy of reading my own. I've read your post, and while I think you've more than skewed a few things here, let me give you a bit more insight (which is far more than I can say for the Love Shack crew). Try to have an open mind about this and think critically about what I'm relating. I'm not trying to insult you, but a lot of your observations are biased due to the same dynamics presented over at LS.

well this whole thing was once about plate theory and its reception at LS. i went over there and read the whole thing, including the original post, and i found the discussion rather ordinary. like me, many people couldnt understand the whole point of the original post, the plate theory thing.

First of all I don't see how you could've done this since I've been banned for over a week at LS and the original thread was removed. I'm not really sure how you can have an objective opinion about the LS thread, but since Plate Theory is in the Archive here, I'll assume you took the time to actually read it as well as the follow up thread here on the MM board.

we already have a word for what the post explains - its called dating. you go out with different people and arent exclusive to any one til such time as you decide (if you do) to become exclusive. im not sure what is new here? what is the theory? (its a opinion really, not a theory) is the 'theory' that certain benefits will appear? i dont think anyone over there was scared of having the 'truth' pointed out to them. but again, its just dating, so what is the controversy?

I really wish it was as simple as all this, and for the record, I half agree with you, it 'used' to be called dating. It used to be that monogamy could be maturely put off in favor of non-exclusive dating. However, if you had read the LS thread, you'd know the reaction ther was one of abject indignation from both sexes at the mere suggestion that a person be anything less that exclusive. This is the common perception now. There is no dating. Serial monogamy has been the order for the past 30 years now. Now to be sure, this is one reason I offered up Plate Theory, but the ideology goes well beyond this. Please, go read the whole thread again and the follow up I linked for you and you'll get a broader understanding of this. It goes well beyond this simplistic "go dating" binary interpretation you've got now.

i hardly think you punctured their reality balloon and caused them cognitive distress. have you all considered the possibilty that they just disagree with you? a different opinion? is that allowed? or is it just evidence of how they are trapped? its terribly grandiose to imagine that you know the truth and everyone who looks at it differently is not only wrong but ractically evil and responsible for the fall of western civilization.

The more important question is why did they disagree? You seem to think I have some elitist POV that everyone is obligated to agree with, I don't. If I did, why would I take the time to sign up for a membership and create a thread that I knew going in would be controversial? I'll tell you why, because, unlike the majority of the members and the mods at LS, I'm specifically interested in differing opinions, this is what keeps me sharp. The day I get so stuck that I'm pissed off at people for not agreeing with me is the day I go back to being an AFC. The difference between myself and the LS crowd is I want to read how people vehemently opposed to my POV will react to it - I seek it out - another reason I'm responding to your post. Nothing frustrates me more than people so comfortably set in their ego-investments that critcal thought never occurs to them. The first law of the philospher is to know that you know nothing.

Now ask yourself this, why was my Plate Theory thread so threatening to them that they would ban my membership and delete the thread? What did I propose that was so radical that they didn't want anyone to see it? Who really censors opinion, LS or SS? You know what their reason was for my banning? That I plagarized myself.

first of all, im not sure how you can escape having some conceptual scheme by which the world is organized and understood, so you cant avoid having beliefs and understandings to apprehend the world. you will always be operating within some framework of understanding. so how do you supposedly escape that? please explain. it should be obvious that all you are doing is substituting one set of beliefs for another. is this what you call escaping from (or seeing through) the matrix? i dont get it.

Let me start here by saying that we terms like the Matrix or AFC or Scarcity Mentality for lack of better ones. There is no accepted psychological term like Scarcity Mentality in clinical psychology, but we apply it because it best describes the idea. Same with AFC. I'm sure Average Frustrated Chump sounds deragatory to the uninitiated, but it fits. We all recognize them when we see one, we've all been one at one time, but AFC is just a catch term to describe what would otherwise be an abstract concept.

Would it be more mature of us if we used Socrates' Allegory of the Cave or Descarte's Paradox to descirbe this to you? They're essentially the same principle as the Matrix. The Matrix fits because it describes the commonly held, and carefully conditioned series of life-long socializations that, today, lead men and women into set patterns of behavior, beliefs and psychological schemas that are in fact not in congruency with what would be their own best interests. I'm sure that's going to sound elitist again - as if I or SS know what's best for the world. I'll tell you right now we don't, but we do question, and that's the difference. I use the sig "Why do my eyes hurt? Because you've never used them" (taken straight from the Matrix) because it fits what I feel I do here. I realize I'm an iconoclast of sorts and people 'hurt' when their eyes are opened for the first time. I never expect people to agree with what I show them, in fact I expect them to fight it tooth & nail, but the truth hurts.

You are correct again, people will operate within their own capacity for understanding - all I'm saying is that capacity has been molded by an agenda that's led them to seek out help for their conditions. Love Shack is full of them, SoSuave is full of them, as are many other forums - all people looking for a remedy to their long held illusions, why? eHarmony, Match.com and other online dating sites capitalize on these people daily, why? Oprah, Dr. Phil and their ilk make millions promoting their own advice, why? Because people are seeking remedies to problems that are rooted in this Matrix we talk about. In fact the very reason the people on LS are so offended with something like Plate Theory is because of this conditioning. It has to be demonized, ridiculed or else it compromises ego-invested beliefs.

particulaly as this matrix-freedom thing seems only to apply only in a limited way here: it solely applies to having certain beliefs with regard to relations with women. in other words if you don't adopt the set of cynical attitudes towards women as expressed here, then you're stuck in the matrix. lol. in other words, if you dont see that women are all cvnts, hors, AWs, who need to be treated like children and trained like dogs, etc, then you're part of the problem. its apparently nothing so benign as that you merely have a differing viewpoint, you are truly lost in wilderness and need saving (or stopping).

Sorry, but as nice as I can put this, you're wrong. You obviously haven't dug deep enough or payed enough attention to the core beliefs of this site. The ideology specifically does NOT apply to women at all, but rather to men and their own personal responsibility for becoming Men. If you'd read any of my posts and others like them from the quality members here, you'd know we are far and away more critical of men than we ever are with women. In fact I'd go so far as to say that men's aquiescence of the Matrix overwhelmingly contributes to and perpetuates it.

Like most men trapped as you are, you'd like to think that everything on SS is strictly doctrinal and dogmatic. Your reaction is binary of course (all or nothing, black or white) and this is because even the suggestion that things might not be as you've been lead to believe are a challenge to your ego-investment in them. Therefore the easiest recourse is to paint black all differing POV wholesale. Ego-investment is a state in which a person so internalizes a set belief or conditioning that it literally becomes part of their personality. So any challenge to that belief becomes an attack on that personality. The default response to that attack is then denial, rationalization and straw-man characterizations of the challenge in as binary terms as is believable. Which is why you come up with statements like this:

youve developed some corny justification for why you're hopelessly locked into some traditional view of male/female relations, which resembles nothing so much as what one might hear in church sermon on sunday morning.

and this:

oh wait, i forgot. eons ago, in that environment, it was a useful social arrangement and role division, and so we should have that locked in forever, regardless of how the nature of work and the structure of society has evolved. cool. how many wildebeest did you kill out on the savannah today? how did the little woman do gathering nuts and berries?

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

this AFC thing is stupid too. its morphed into this catch-all term to label (insult) people who (guess what?) dont agree with the dogma espoused here. since the term seems to encompass over 90% of men, im not sure how you can say anything useful about a group so large. what could they all have in common? other than not seeing the 'truth'. but i guess its flattering to those who imagine themselves in possession of the truth, fighting valiantly against nay-sayers who, in their false consciousness, are blind to what is so perspicuous to the DJ. now theres an 'AFC mentality' which, of course is never specified or defined, much like the crimes of feminism. makes it easier to moan about. but when your tactic is to consistently employ unflattering interpretations of THEIR behavior while always using positive terms to describe yours, then thats just a linguistic game which will invariably deliver the desired conclusion. but to do that and to actually believe you've achieved some 'understanding' is, well, cute.

I'm not sure you even read much here on SS do you? If you did you'd know that practically all we do here is help AFCs man up, achieve confidence, look after their own best interests, follow their ambitions. In short we build them up, not tear them down. We don't ridcule them for looking for answers. We kick them in the ass when needed for sure, we wont mollycoddle them, but SS isn't about putting down, it's about coming up. Does that seem threatening to your sensibilities? One would think someone of your persuasion would embrace this. We're teaching men to be responsible for their own actions and to be responsible for their own interests. I understand that this might offend people such as yourself, but we show guys the path to confidence (they have to take it) that every woman claims to want. Why is that bad?

Just as an aside, one dead giveaway that you haven't read nearly enough here is that if you had you'd know we very distinctly outline
Qualities of an AFC.
AFC Social Conventions
The Mature AFC

None of the definition of an AFC is ambiguous or self-serving. If anything the definition of this term is the most widely debated on all of SS. So please, if you're going to build a straw-man argument, please do so from a more informed standpoint, you'll save us all a lot of time in making you look like a hack.

maybe you 'real' men are selling a product that hardly anyone wants? maybe thats the problem? it will be a sad day around here when people clue into the fact that not only is it not 1950 (1850, 1750) anymore, but that it never will be again.

Typed out like a properly trained and feminized defender of masculine ridicule. Why don't you tell us what a 'real man' is? I think I covered this pretty well above, but why is it so many men and women are looking for answers? Who's advice is in men's best interest? Dr. Phil's telling guys to better identify with women to the point of becoming women or SS telling men the opposite of what they've been sold for so long; that their testosterone isn't a poison, that they're not pathetic children in need of a woman's mysterious powers to "fix" them, that masculinity IS positive and something to be proud of instead of endlessly ridiculed? Who's got the better advice? You might want to contemplate this the next time you sit down to go pee.

 

[Desdinova]

Hey, Loveshack! I haven't been there in a dog's age. Maybe I should head over there and stir up the hornet's nest again too!

 

[WestCoaster]

I'm not a genius, but I know a few things:

* Once I rid myself of my AFC lifestyle, I was infinitely more happy -- whether I was with a woman or not.

* Embracing a more confident, masculine lifestyle instead of a life that I once apologized for has made me a better man.

* All of my friends who have embraced the feminized AFC lifestyle are in either bad marriages or bad relationships or flat out miserable themselves.

* The constant blending of masculinity and femininity hasn't helped anyone -- male or female.

* There's nothing worse than a married AFC who has bought into a lifetime of misery. I'm not sure if reincarnation exists, but right now I know this is the only life I've got, so let's not ruin it by getting pushed around by people and society.