Good on you, alpha! Man, that's crazy. Is that on the PUA tactic list?Originally Posted by specsaregood
Oh snap! Well, he had so much alphaness and PUA game he could have any person, male, female, intersex...
Sorry, which book?
http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-Peop...pr_product_top
Lots of negative reviews due largely to its breaches of political correctness and people hating the player, not the game.
I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States...When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank...You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, I will rout you out!
Andrew Jackson, 1834
Thank you
First, I never stated that women don't desire sex as much as a man. The difference is that women tend to be far more discerning as to whom they will bed. The average male will have sex with 33% of the female population given the opportunity, since his yardstick has far fewer criteria. 33% of the male population is far less attractive to women based on their standards.
Also, women haven't gained power in all respects. Marriage did indeed help reign in the Alpha male and female advantage since most men were able to find a mate. Today, there are de facto harems in which the tip-top tier of men are bedding far more than their fair share of women. Otherwise, explain why the vast majority of involuntarily celibate people are males? I've seen the nastiest cows with children, so presumably they've had sex at least once, while there are some men with average looks that have horribly depressing sex lives.
No kidding. Women are capable of a partner count that I could only dream about in an Icelandic saga.A lot of women actually turn out to be very interested in casual sex.
Okay...This has been demonstrated in a 2011 study - see here for a detailed discussion; the paper does not seem to be available online, but I have found it in my university's library.
The results of the study were as follows: it wasn’t a matter of whether women were less interested or receptive to sexual offers than men were, it was that they were less interested when those offers came from men. Even straight women were more likely to be willing to go to bed with another woman, and even gay men propositioned by an attractive gay man were less likely to accept.
So...women are the gatekeepers of sex? Of course men would bang their female friends...duh! But male friends are simply disposable assets for the female who strings the men along while sleeping with higher value men.As far as the celebrities in the study went, men and women were equally likely to go to bed with the attractive celebrity and equally less likely to bed the unattractive one. Yet, when it came to opposite-sex friends, the gap re-established itself; men were more likely to go to bed with their female friend than women were with their male friend.
So...you're saying that women are the gatekeepers of sex?So we can conclude two things from the study - (1) women are more motivated by the likelihood of sexual pleasure than anything else, and (2) personal safety is a big motivator (women thought men were more likely to be dangerous and less likely to be good in bed, while men and women of all sexual orientations rated women as more likely to be safe and a better lay).
So...they're the gatekeepers of sex and they prefer a guy that is famous and has high status over an equally unknown attractive male.Thus, the big question for the women tends to be: risk vs. reward. Status doesn't have any effect in the choice, but familiarity does. These same women were more likely to pick sleeping with Brad Pitt than an equally attractive stranger because they felt as though they were more familiar with Brad. So it's a constant weighing of risks versus benefits, which $#@!-tons of feminists have been saying all along.
Most of the slut-shaming I've heard in my life comes from...other women.Women are uniquely trapped by culture; on the one hand, they have sexual drives, but on the other, they tend to be shamed for owning their own sexuality.
Men often are the pursuers, at least on planet Earth. Also, women have higher value then men, which is why men die in wars, are generally $#@! on, and are the ones to put the pussy on the pedestal. A young, beautiful woman is of the highest value.You and others are contributing to this by perpetuating a false model of sex that treats men as the pursuers and sex from women as the commodity.
There is a price to pay.This is a world in which sex is seen as having a price.
Which is precisely why women slut-shame other women. Men love sluts; maybe not to marry, but certainly for casual fun.If a woman gives sex away for too low of a price, it devalues her as a person.
The double standard in slut-shaming is due to the fact that it is so much easier for a woman to get laid (being the gatekeeper and all...). Even a fat, unattractive woman can stand on a bar top and announce that she's hosting a gang bang at her house...if she so chooses (since women are the gatekeepers of sex). I guarantee you that she will get several men to follow her home. A man simply does not have that option. Therefore, when a man brags about partner count it is based upon the fact that he managed to convince X number of women to have sex with him. When a woman brags about partner count it would be like me bragging about how many times I've masturbated - there is simply no challenge worth taking pride in.When PUAs measure themselves by how many women they sleep with, it follows that sleeping with the "easier" women gives them less glory. So in this situation, a woman is only as good as the sex she doesn't have. When you add in all the additional risk factors associated with sex (pregnancy, the fact that women tend to contract more STDs from men than vice versa), it ends up being the case that the risks of having casual sex aren't worth the potential fallout in medical as well as cultural terms. Of course, men have a chronic inability to admit these circumstances and jump right to the assumption that women aren't interested in casual sex as a means of preserving their control over sexual mores. The status argument is nothing but a big, fat red herring. The sad thing is that men are essentially making it harder on themselves to get laid in a culture that promotes blaming rape victims for their own assaults, increasing abortion and contraception restrictions, and slut-shaming. Of course men have a hard time finding sex. It's the only option they're given in the current state of society (what feminists refer to as patriarchy).
Since it is so easy for women to get an astronomical partner count if she so chooses, a man doesn't want to be one of a thousand cocks. A woman with only five sexual partners will likely place more value upon the man whom she marries than the woman who had a gang bang in the club restroom.
"I shall bring justice to Westeros. Every man shall reap what he has sown, from the highest lord to the lowest gutter rat. They have made my kingdom bleed, and I do not forget that."
-Stannis Baratheon
What kind of psychopath treats someone badly, intentionally?
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.You suggest - just act nice to the girl, and you suggest what kind of nice is good, and what kind of nice is bad. And the woman who wants that chooses between one of the many many many guys who do that. The woman who wants that is the majority, and the men who do that are a huge majority. The woman who wants that has a wide variety of choices.
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.The women who get turned on, intrigued, get their emotions twisted up in a way beneficial to men - they are much much more common than the feminists and their male lapdogs (to continue with the dog analogy from before) would like to admit. But there are so few men who are giving the women who like being treated badly what they want that the rare PUA just cleans up.
The women who like being being treated badly might say "I don't like being treated badly". But, somehow, they are getting what they want.
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.Feminists have argued that all of these things are socially determined. But those same women just can't help themselves, and end up choosing the PUA style guys. Actually, those guys probably have no idea what a PUA is, that's just naturally how they are - they didn't read a book of tricks.
Last edited by KingNothing; 11-20-2014 at 09:58 PM.
I dunno, I knew a guy in college who claimed 23 times in a day
I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States...When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank...You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, I will rout you out!
Andrew Jackson, 1834
Hah! Please, don't take anything written by Satoshi Kanazawa seriously. I've had the displeasure of writing about this clown before. Be sure to check out his hard-hitting article entitled (then modified, and totally removed from psychologytoday), “Why Are African American Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?”
This is, without a doubt, the best post in this thread.
Concur. This is the only thread in my 7+ years on these boards that has made me wish we were actually out at a bar having this discussion right now. That makes it the best post in the best thread.
I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States...When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank...You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, I will rout you out!
Andrew Jackson, 1834
Go $#@! yourself. That's just not an acceptable thing to say.
Last edited by KingNothing; 11-20-2014 at 10:46 PM.
You should probably read this.
Do whatever comes naturally. And then do it to the next pretty girl you see, too. And then the one after that, and the one after that, and the one after that. After a while, you'll figure out what is best for you and the situation, and you'll lose any fear or insecurities you have about interacting like that.
Haha, I can't tell by the title -- is this something that will make me angry, or something I will like?
If he's intimidated, he loses. If he lets the beta guy make the women laugh, but ultimately leaves with one of the girls while the funny guy leaves with nothing but a story about making people laugh, he wins.
A hilarious and mostly accurate, in not generalizing, take on women and the kind of men they like.
Mostly true. However, the best advise I ever got was from my dear lesbian friend.
I've just shown that depending on the way the requests are framed, women also tend to have far fewer criteria for having a sexual encounter than one would stereotypically assume. You keep harping on how picky women supposedly are, but you've made no attempt to explain why, except resort to something that was debunked in the study I referred to. Discerning women are that way because they're concerned about safety and whether the guy will be good, not about how much money the guy makes or what his name is. In other words, it's not because they're hardwired to prefer status or money; neither is it because they have intrinsically less sexual desire.
This, once again, has to do with the risk vs. reward thing, as I detailed in my last response (medical as well as the larger one in this day and age, cultural). Also, men are generally perceived as incapable of providing orgasms in casual sexual encounters, while women are; that could certainly contribute to loneliness.
What I'm basically saying is that there are no discernible natural reasons why women are "gatekeepers," especially in an era of access to birth control and generally high levels of health care. Every explanation you have given hinges on subjective male preferences that aren't really all that logical, given that sex is a two-way activity. Culture is the sole driving force of women's gatekeeper position at this point.
And you're apparently incapable of figuring out why this is. Your confirmation bias is showing. Of course you're going to think all men are the pursuers when that's all you have observed because of specific societal expectations of how men and women pursue sex.
At this point, only in stupid reputational terms.
There is no logical reason for this preference. I can't think of a reason why "sluts" aren't marriageable outside of very prejudiced assumptions about female sexual desire, or the supposed lack thereof in comparison to men. They may or may not have undesirable personality traits, but I have seen no evidence of those traits being connected to their sex drive. If other factors are involved, why the need to specifically denigrate their sexuality?
I think there are a lot more lonely women out there than you're assuming, first of all. Women don't always have that option. What if we remove alcohol from the equation - does it still hold true? Probably not. So if your entire model breaks down when one variable is removed, I would say it's not a particularly great model.The double standard in slut-shaming is due to the fact that it is so much easier for a woman to get laid (being the gatekeeper and all...). Even a fat, unattractive woman can stand on a bar top and announce that she's hosting a gang bang at her house...if she so chooses (since women are the gatekeepers of sex). I guarantee you that she will get several men to follow her home. A man simply does not have that option. Therefore, when a man brags about partner count it is based upon the fact that he managed to convince X number of women to have sex with him. When a woman brags about partner count it would be like me bragging about how many times I've masturbated - there is simply no challenge worth taking pride in.
I'm not sure that any of these statements logically follow. Not everything can be reduced to simple metaphor. Economic models of marginal utility are simply those - models. Models are approximations of reality, but reality should not be approximated to look like a model. No commodity actually behaves like the behavior given by a typical supply-demand model, let alone such nebulous and complicated issues as sex and marriage.Since it is so easy for women to get an astronomical partner count if she so chooses, a man doesn't want to be one of a thousand cocks. A woman with only five sexual partners will likely place more value upon the man whom she marries than the woman who had a gang bang in the club restroom.
Last edited by Rothbardian Girl; 11-20-2014 at 10:46 PM.
Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that his justice cannot sleep forever. Thomas Jefferson
It'll offer you a different perspective at the very least, but I think it's a pretty vital piece of literature for anyone interested in the subject.
They might give bad advice, but "be yourself," is absolutely never a bad move. If being yourself doesn't work, become a better person.
And,
On the slut-shaming double standard:
Explain on principle why its wrong... If he had said he was a police officer most of the people here would have agreed with me...
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
I respect all your calm reasoning, but the statements you're replying to, I think you're giving way too much credit. There's more self-loathing sexism in this thread than a 9th grade locker room in West Virginia.
I think there is, as has been previously discussed on this thread, a sizeable percentage of women who do want to be treated badly for their own psychological needs. It's nice to be able to subsume all of this under the framework of alpha vs beta, but it's more likely that a lot of women simply have mental problems.
There's just a lot more diversity out there. You have what women want vs what women say they want. And a whole host of other things that make it impossible to speak generally about women.
Really abusive total scumbags are the biggest alphas in the world? Or some women are nuts? Because there's no doubt that really abusive total scumbags are not lacking in mates. I mean, they're not entirely lacking in mates. Half the women are of below average intelligence, you have to factor that in as well.
PUAs are successful because men are systematically being told not to do what a lot of women really want, and they listen and there creates a shortage of men who do what they want. PUAs are rare, not common, and PUAs succeed because there's clearly a lot of pent up demand for what the specific things that they're doing.
There are a wide variety of Alpha type things that people could do. The PUAs seem to recommend treating women badly - treating women badly is what seems to work the best from the perspective of the PUA.
Again, all of this talk of PUAs and Alphas is new to me, as are conversations along these lines.
But I did catch on that many women are nuts, not rational. And that's something that is also contained in popular culture, as is the idea that women like to be treated badly. see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick_Cancer - and also see Dannnos observations earlier in the thread, which seem probably more spot on than anyone elses here.
I agree with pretty much everything you've posted, but I'd like to challenge you on this point. There seems to be a pervasive modern fallacy that the type of sex you are into has zero to do with your character "outside the bedroom." I've been ostracized a thousand times over for dissenting on this, but I'm more inclined to think that sexuality is a reflection of values and not something that exists separately from your identity as a person.
For instance "hardcore" BDSM advocates will blow off any moral objections by saying "it's just role-play." But they overlook that the roles are being chosen by the participants in a way that expresses their wishes and desires. To fantasize about calling my girl a "stupid whore" is self-defeating and demonstrates a retarded, anti-individualistic view of the entire experience. For my girl to fantasize about it would be equally lame, especially if she demands to be "respected" the rest of the time -- what does it mean to respect someone until you have your most intimate experiences together, whereupon you "play the role" of an insecure 11 year old idiot who hates them (and yourself)?
The worst part is that dominance/submission are often brought up as synonymous with "abuse" role-playing. The implication is that any woman who likes to be controlled in a sexual scenario is turned on stupid macho posturing and abuse. Likewise, any male given the opportunity to dominate a woman will (of course) want to shout irrational insults at her while pissing all over the place. I don't think it follows. I also don't think it's a matter of personal taste. No matter how subtle or extreme, misogynist words and ideas are morally objectionable whether you have your clothes on or not.
This isn't an argument against fetishism, it's an attempt at rational dissent against puritanical and stupid modes of expression. Sex doesn't have to be a fart in three acts, nor does it have to apologize for itself. There's a better way.
Nah, they're the biggest betas in the world. We would all do well to remember that posing, preening, sleazy male whores are not often happy people, or secure in who they are. I mean, Vince Neil is now running a poser strip club in Las Vegas. He's been in failed marriages and another one of his girlfriends killed herself. In ten years he'll be drunk and miserable, in twenty he'll probably be dead. If bopping a million chicks while beating your chest about it was the key to lasting happiness, he'd be exuding more joy than Bob Ross by now.
We're all looking at it like "those pricks have all the luck" when the reaction should actually be pity.
Yeah. Which makes your math problem with Suzie 7 and Trevor 10 and Tammy 10 just a little bit over simplified. It's a good example to show the mechanics of it.
Is the best looking, richest guy in retardland an Alpha, really? What exactly is an Alpha? We can say - oh, he's can bang any girl in that one particular bar, but that other bar, he gets nothing. And vice versa. Because upper middle class people and other than that simply have different cultures. What is it exactly?
In a world where in one bar there's one type of person and another bar has another type of person - what are alpha characteristics? Beyond, of course, the willingness to treat women badly. Someone used "pack". There isn't a pack. There are many packs, and people find themselves mixed into many different packs.
What's confidence? If women like confidence, what are the behaviors that women can look at to determine confidence? Confident ivy league grads are going to act differently than confident fishermen. If women only know how fishermen act, alphas and betas, how can they determine which of the ivy league grads is the confident one?
The point was that alphas got the chicks. Or that was the theory. It is clear, right, that these people are not alphas. But they have chicks. The theory is that women are drawn to alphas. These are not alphas. The better theory is that because they're nuts, women like to be mistreated, at least in this case, the case of the total scumbags.
I'm talking total scumbags. Vince Neil has money and fame. The total scumbag does not. Vince Neil is an alpha, lead singer of Motley Crue and all. James Woods in Casino, maybe.
Good argument. I had no idea what she was talking about. Sounded a lot like feminist blah blah blah - not on point.
Even fat ugly women can get laid all they want. We all know this. That makes them the gatekeepers. I can't get how this well known fact can be disputed.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us