Originally Posted by
KingNothing
What kind of psychopath treats someone badly, intentionally?
********************************************
Alphas. PUAs. Garden variety psychopaths. Sociopaths.
We've established that benefits follow from treating women badly. People who want the benefits that come from treating someone badly, intentionally.
Women are with guys who treat them badly, it's not some sort of accident or surprise. Aren't we talking about how there's a shortage of men who are
willing to treat women badly. And badly isn't some sort of absolute.
Isn't one of the core ideas that we're talking about here that women assume you're super great if you treat them badly and then they'll have sex with you? I mean, you're calling someone a psychopath for treating women badly. But the men are only doing that because the women want it. It's providing for the woman's need to be treated badly. We know that treating women badly works. Since then, we've talked about getting eaten by lions 50K years ago or killed by a warring tribe or a desire to be with an alpha and the reason why we're talking about this is because we're discussing the reasons why women want to be treated badly.
"What kind of psychopath treats someone badly, intentionally?"
guys who want to get with the women who want to be treated badly.
"What kind of psychopath wants to be treated badly, intentionally? "
women, because alpha, lions, or undefined crazy.
*********************************************
I'm not saying "act nice," I'm saying be the best human that you can be, and don't give a $#@! what the girl, or anyone else, thinks about it.
**************
I can't remember what you said before that I replied to, so - that sounds reasonable by itself - sort of like good alpha vs bad PUA, at least as how you see it.
Some (not necessarily me) would argue that the banging the hot chick by the alpha and then not listening to her blather about her day is bad or mistreatful or whatever term. Still, it's a math problem. Women respond to being treated badly. It's a theory why. But isn't it easier to say "because they like it", instead of theories about alphas. You can be the best human you can be, but if the woman isn't actually responding to some convoluted drive to find an alpha, but is just nuts and likes to be mistreated, the mistreater, not the best human, is going to be the successful with that woman. The mistreater is successful because of the promo campaign against the mistreating. The promo campaign discourages men from acting in ways that women really respond to and tells them to act in beta ways, to be nice. That's the nonstop oligopoly promo campaign that's been going on for the last 30+ years if not longer. Women want you to act like a beta, to listen to their stories and whatnot. Right? But they want alpha, right? And alpha treats women badly, or neglectfully, and certainly badly compared to the betas. But that's what women want, and in fact being treated badly, or ignored or whatever, is how women will define you as being alpha. You don't have to actually be an alpha at all by any reasonable measuring, you just have to make her think that you are by getting in her head in some way that we've been talking about. I can get a 9, easy, but this one is treating me terrible, so he must be a 10. What isn't happening in this equation is women being able to actually determine merit by any objective characteristics. It's only "how are they treating me". Women think that men that treat them badly are of higher value than men who treat them well. PUAs send the most unobscure signals possible, as quickly as possible that say "I am alpha, I am better than you." Alphas apparently ooze this from every pore with even trying. But this alphaness and the alpha signals that PUAs try to send are completely divorced from merit. I'd suggest that many women aren't really all that good at judging talent, which is basically what we're talking about. We're talking about choosing mates, right? They can't pick the best one. They can pick who they think is the best one based on how they make them feel. Objective vs subjective. Being objectively good flies over their head, is not noticed, is not really even capable of being understood. Learning tricks to screw with their heads or being the kind of person who just naturally screws with their heads is how they're making their decisions. It's not a reasoned analysis of objective reality - it's the effect on their heads, or their hearts or their loins or whatever. Point is - it's their own feelings.
Logically, men and women both should try to be as smart as possible and assess and measure accurately, communicate honestly the level of attraction or perceived merit after analysis. Hello - I have determined that you are very high quality, which is rare. Therefore, I'd like more of you. But that's a beta move. You can't do that, women don't like that. They can't analyze your value. You can theirs. They only can analyze your value based on your response to them, and they're the gatekeepers, so lies have to be cooked into the formula if you want to succeed.
In normal land - you're nice to the women you like, and not nice to the women you don't like. Women, because of alpha, lions or crazy, see this backwards and wrong, or have such a weird spin on it that leads to the bad outcomes by definition. 2 women - one you like one you don't. "I like you." "Thanks for the complement beta, I got you in the back pocket for later with all the others" "Um, I gotta go" "That guy isn't interested in me, he must be an alpha, I gotta have him." The gatekeepers give men sex opportunites with the one women they don't like as much as the other. And maybe it is a case of a guy being a 7, the girl he likes being a 8 and the girl he doesn't like being a 6, but in the real world it really isn't that.
*********************
**************
You can get women like that without treating them poorly. The easiest way is general indifference towards hanging out with them, and to be righteous as you do it. Don't talk to them, don't hang out with them, when you've legitimately got other, better, things to do. If you're making a game out of it, you've already lost it. You can be a total gentleman and a great human, if everything you do is sincere and rooted and positivity, and still pull in all types of woman.
********************************
Well, I'm not suggesting that only PUAs get laid. I was simply arguing that the supply of PUAs, alphas, bad woman treaters is less than the demand for them. If betas weren't told to be nice to women, they wouldn't be, they'd be whatever they were told would work. Betas aren't effective doing what they're doing. You're suggesting to be an alpha (I think that's what you're basically saying). And that's all very nice. I'm not sure how the women I don't know and will never talk to (that's your instruction, right - "don't talk to them, don't hang out with them") are going to somehow find me irresistable. You're using "you" I think to mean people in general.
One can argue that treating them poorly and general indifference are functionally the same. They're both designed to say "I'm an alpha, I have so much going on". Women are saying that what they want is for you to chat with them about their day like a beta. They're reading your indifference (what you recommend) as treating them poorly (compared to what the betas are doing). What exactly is treating them poorly anyway?
**********************************
For what it is worth, I hate ALL progressive feminists. The way they seem to totally disregard evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology, and science, and math, and really anything logical, is infuriating.
***********************
Very much agree with that one.
They're part of the making things awful coalition. Things have gotten much worse in the last 30 years and feminists are a key part of that coalition.
************************
Connect With Us