Dating coach banned from several countries after internet feminist outrage over misogynist vid

[Dr.3D]

i think neurotic people are just hopeless, to be perfectly honest.

Seems like if that were the truth, they would be extinct by now.

[Dr.3D]

Myself, I'll treat them as ladies till they prove otherwise.

[Philhelm]

also, while i am a little nerdy and have a bunch of nerdy interests (i'm a coder after all) i'm not the stereotypical geek portrayed in pop culture. i was the long-hair stoner/skateboarder looking kid in high school- not the star trek, magic the gathering playing geek with acne.

I play Warhammer, a tabletop strategy game with plastic/metal miniatures, which is probably even worse than stereotypical geek, and I can still score. At the end of the day, it really isn't the particular hobby that makes a geek a geek. Vin Diesel claimed to have played D&D, and I doubt people are going to tease him about it (to his face at least).

moreover, she is not attracted to macho "alpha male" types. in fact, she viciously and mercilessly mocks them. she is also "bi-curious".

Well, we've already discussed what a real Alpha male is, and I'd imagine that she would think favorably of my definition, unless she is more bi than curious.

and i disagree; nerdy guys can be in a long lasting content relationship with nerdy woman if they're compatible and emotionally stable.

Plenty of guys can and do have sex, get into relationships, and have children. That doesn't mean that they are as successful as the top 10%, and don't get the same treatment that the woman gave to previous, Alpha lovers. Most women will drop their panties on the first date and/or perform extreme sexual acts...for the right guy. But when their sweet, dear husband comes around, she isn't like that anymore. In other words, the same woman that makes one man wait to kiss her probably had a **** in her mouth on the first date with another man, since the other man evoked more tingles.

not every woman "biologically" desires the "alpha males", man.

True. Some women are bona fide lesbians, or might have some other outlier issue.

[Philhelm]

Why is that "pathetic"? Who says?

Me, for starters. Although, a being that longs for love/affection but is involuntarily denied such would inspire pathos, no?

[pessimist]

Seems like if that were the truth, they would be extinct by now.

i have no intentions of breeding, so you can subtract as least 1 from the species.

[Christian Liberty]

Me, for starters. Although, a being that longs for love/affection but is involuntarily denied such would inspire pathos, no?

Fair enough. Some of us weren't even looking in high school, we knew we were too young

[parocks]

I would say a parent's obligation to provide for their children is as natural as natural rights. It is inherent in the whole promulgating offspring thing. So if you don't want to be faced with those natural responsibilities then don't get some chick pregnant.

People are not commodities to be sold.

Why not again?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you here.

What I'm saying is that there's a context. You're saying, basically, Because Natural.

Well, sex change and gay marriage. We have those completely unnatural things accepted.

Why should those things which are not natural be accepted, and other things that are not natural not be accepted, only because they're not natural?

I'm saying your argument shouldn't fly any more - not because it's wrong, but because the "Natural" argument has been knocked down in so many cases.

That's the core of my argument. Why can "Natural" or "Bible" work in some cases but not others.

The reality of it is is that some people just want what they want all the time and they will use whatever arguments they want to get what they want.

I'm saying, the jig is up - men are getting the short end of the stick - and, if we're choosing to not have any bedrock principles (I'm not saying that's a good thing) - we should recognize that it's really just about people and groups getting what they want.

When did the government start forcing men to pay child support? I don't know the answer to this, but I think it's a good question. It's not homosex, which nobody accepted anywhere at any time. I'm pretty sure that in the olden days, there wasn't child support and welfare. So, whatever "natural" argument is made, the specifics aren't based on any long standing traditions the way homosex disapproval is.

[Philhelm]

I think the main difference between me and the other guys on here is the TYPE of women we are attracted to.

Keep telling yourself that.

I have no interest in casual sex or trying to boost my manliness by having sex with a bunch of women- zero desire for that. Therefore, I'm not attracted to the type of women who sleep with men like that.

Having sex isn't about machismo, it's about experiencing an act that is physically and emotionally pleasing. Also, the sweetest, nicest woman I ever met ended up S'ing my D in a Sears changing room. Most women are like that when put with the "right" man.

Approaching random women in the street, bar hopping, club hopping, or even online 'dating' do not interest me. In fact, I am not even really interested in a relationship at the moment, but when I am I will want a like-minded woman.

Who says you have to meet women at a bar? I've only ever had sex with a very few women whom I had met at a bar. And who says that we aren't interested in relationships? Hell, I've been used for sex before; the women aren't what they used to be.

[pessimist]

@philhelm

I'm not normal, dude. I am this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_sensitive_person

[dannno]

I think the main difference between me and the other guys on here is the TYPE of women we are attracted to.

I'm attracted to all types of women, some more than others, and I am attracted more to the individual than the type. I've been in love with total virgins and total sluts and everything between.

I have no interest in casual sex

That's something I find girls like to say after they've banged like 50 alpha males, and as Phil says, they are starting to see their value diminish among alphas and see themselves going down hill. They start getting used more and more just for sex by desperate betas camouflaging as alphas who they start falling for as they make their climb back down the hill.

or trying to boost my manliness by having sex with a bunch of women- zero desire for that. Therefore, I'm not attracted to the type of women who sleep with men like that.

Whatever, I was hanging out with a girl who was EXACTLY your type last night - very smart, slightly bitchy attitude tho not really mean, sardonic, glasses, clothing just the way you like and VERY cute... actually looks like she could run a feminist blog.. She was with some guy who was "like-minded". The irony was that I could tell she still wanted my friend's brother in a bad way (my friend is a girl, who I don't pursue sexually if you can believe it, because she was my ex's ex best friend).. in fact this girl used to come over when I was over there sometimes before she went out with this guy and would be grabbing my friend's brother's ass and acting a little slizzy just trying to get this guy. He would tell me what a freak she was and I'd be like "damn, dude, hook me up with her!" Oh, but that attitude was gone last night.. not in front of her 'boyfriend', she ONLY acts that way in certain situations and most guys who meet her probably don't even know it. If a beta boyfriend found out about that, he would likely attempt to become too sexual with her, where her strong sexuality is reserved for the alphas.

Now the interesting thing is the guy she was with who was like minded was in better shape, more muscles and a thicker figure but was not very far in the direction of an alpha male in attitude whereas my friend's brother has the alpha male attitude down.. He isn't mean, he is cordial to women but he just doesn't address or seem to care about their needs. He acts like he has several hot girls lined up ready to have sex with him at any time (which there is likely some truth to) so he has no need to impress them or do anything nice for them.

Anyway, I saw the look in her eyes last night when something sexual came up, something about grabbing something and she looked at him with a look of complete sexual desperation, it was like she brought this like minded guy over just to get him jealous or something - which of course won't work, that may work on alpha chicks but not alpha males, alpha males treat women as disposable, even the hot ones. I would be willing to bet she has a near constant internal dialogue rationalizing why this other guy is better for her but constantly having to overlook her strong sexual attraction for my friend's brother.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think having a sister around the same age can help men get those alpha traits in during their early years, though I'm sure that's not always the case and there are plenty of alphas who don't have sisters. Just a thought.

[pessimist]

Whatever, I was hanging out with a girl who was EXACTLY your type last night - very smart, slightly bitchy attitude tho not really mean, sardonic, glasses, clothing just the way you like and VERY cute... actually looks like she could run a feminist blog..

That IS my type.

(although glasses aren't really my thing- they do look sexy on some tho)

[pessimist]

I'm attracted to all types of women, some more than others, and I am attracted more to the individual than the type. I've been in love with total virgins and total sluts and everything between.

What "type" do you prefer though?

You seem to dig the "clubbing" type, no?

[Philhelm]

@philhelm

I'm not normal, dude. I am this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_sensitive_person

Who says that I'm normal? The difference is that I had a goal and realized that women were never going to like me for being me., regardless of how often that is stated or how unfair the reality is. Real life isn't like the movies in which one day Pointdexter shows Susie Cheerleader how great he is and she ends up falling for him. Wish it was, but it isn't. Sure, I was above-average looking, intelligent, funny, etc., but I was geeky and shy, and was 135 lbs. soaking wet. It took a few years to achieve my goal, but it happened. I ditched the glasses for contacts, I got a more trendy haircut, I started trying to dress better, I started socializing myself so that I was more comfortable in social settings, I lifted; hell, I even joined the Army and went to war. Got home from Iraq and a month later I was getting a BJ from some girl that I obsessed over for a couple of years. The point being that I realized that I needed to improved myself in order to become attractive to women rather than banking on the hope that the hot unicorn with a love of losers would one day sweep me off of my feet.

[parocks]

You know that there are ways to do this without actually being a dickbag though, right? "Negging," and aggressive horse$#@! is stupid. Just get comfortable and loose saying something funny, and if you can't be funny, just say "Ohh, hey. How's it going?" If you're at a bar and you're all drinking, that is plenty to start a conversation. Then you just follow-up with banal nonsense like "where are you from, what do you do, where did you go to school." Guys tend to make this so much harder than it has to be. Certainly take women off the pedestal. Talk to them like they're normal humans. Stop overthinking it. Pick Up Artists are not real things. They're just douchebags looking to scam socially awkward men who are incapable of getting out of their own way.

Why are you trying to enforce your own way of doing things?

The feminists have told men to "do it this way". And the handful of men who try it the PUA way are having no trouble at all, apparently.

Because what the feminists are telling men to do (and what you're repeating - NO! Do! It! This! Way!) is what most everybody now believes should work.

So, 95% of the men do that. And it works with 60% of the women. Which means that 35% just lose.

But 5% of the men don't do that. They do PUA stuff. And 40% of the women like the PUA stuff. So 5% get 40%, and 95% get 60%. When you look at the math that way, you can see how it's just smarter to do PUA stuff in 2014.

[parocks]

They absolutely are not. Or, if they are, it's because they're playing a numbers game. If, as a normal human and not an aggressive, PUA, pig, you approach every girl that you find attractive and act like a confident gentleman, you'll get laid all the time too. It isn't hard.

The numbers game is this.

A huge percentage, not a majority, but a huge percentage of women apparently prefer guys to treat them badly. And there are so few men who treat them badly.

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.

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.

There are just more women who want to be treated badly than men who treat them badly. The PUAs have the electrolytes that the women crave, even though they don't want to crave them, it's biology.

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.

[dannno]

What "type" do you prefer though?

You seem to dig the "clubbing" type, no?

Girls aren't really always attached to a scene, they just like to have fun and be in a comfortable environment. Clubbing is fun, but not a comfortable environment for all.

I actually like hippie chicks a lot... who are often sorta related to raver/festi girls....surfer girls...scenesters.. and I would not be against dating a girl I met at a club or raging party.

Again, it's really more dependent on the individual than what scene they are into, I can hang with any of them and enjoy their scene, I'm pretty easy going.

[libertarianinternational]

Sounds like this guy is living the dream. Props to him.

[parocks]

Did you miss the whole "iHollaBack" thread? Saying "Good evening" to some attractive woman you don't know is "street harassment".

Yup.

That's just a long list - forget it - the feminist demands are just too much - best stop doing what they want and do the opposite, because there are so many women out there who pretend to want nice guys but actually want to be treated badly.

The feminists know that there are many women who want to be treated badly - probably due to the biology that Dannno was talking about - and the feminists don't like that women like to be treated badly. So, instead of getting women to stop getting with guys who treat them badly, they're trying to completely knock out the supply of guys who treat women badly, apparently as nature intended.

[Philhelm]

That's just a long list - forget it - the feminist demands are just too much - best stop doing what they want and do the opposite, because there are so many women out there who pretend to want nice guys but actually want to be treated badly.

The feminists know that there are many women who want to be treated badly - probably due to the biology that Dannno was talking about - and the feminists don't like that women like to be treated badly. So, instead of getting women to stop getting with guys who treat them badly, they're trying to completely knock out the supply of guys who treat women badly, apparently as nature intended.

I don't believe that women want to be treated badly. Given a choice, they would prefer a man who is nice to them, which is different from a Nice Guy (tm). A Nice Guy is usually a spineless, thirsty Beta who puts the p****y on the pedestal since he is often deprived of it; he is spineless since he allows women to take advantage of him due to his desperation. An Alpha can treat a woman well, but since he can have his pick of the litter he has no need or desire to bend over backwards for a woman when he can just as soon find a replacement. When the Alpha is done F'ing her, she will then go to her flock of admirers who act as emotional tampons; they are the ones who listen to her talk about her day, her friends, her feelings, and all of the other bull$#@! that the Alpha can't be bothered with. Of course, the Beta flock never/rarely gets to have sex with this women; in essence, the typical woman uses men since the men so readily allow themselves to be used. It's so prevalent that many women act like entitled princesses, since why shouldn't they? Even if one were to call out a woman on her $#@!, there would be plenty of White Knights to take up lance and shield in her defense, never to actually sleep with her though.

Regarding feminist advice, the fisherman never asks the fish how to catch other fish. Women (including mothers) will always give bull$#@! advice such as be nice, be yourself, and other panty-drying crap.

[parocks]

I have to say, though -- nothing makes me happier than watching Radfem progressives battle MRA PUA morons. The level of stupidity, the total lack of social awareness, the hilarious dehumanization that each side projects, and the unbridled hypocrisy of it all makes me so happy.

I don't think there's any PUAs here.

I think the PUA argument is being taken by scholarly types like myself who understand the math of it all. Much of the pro PUA arguments are from people who have pretty much given up.

Downside of PUA is you really can't do that if there's any sort of community where you're doing it, if the norms of the community frown upon that kind of behavior. Since a lot of people do live in communities, it's really tricky. You have to do that somewhere else where you're not planning on going back to any time soon, or some place where the people there are pretty random. Not the same people all the time.

[parocks]

If PUAs weren't getting laid - even by the smallest minority of women - we'd never hear about it. But they do, and it does work on some women. Banning them from countries is not the way to shut down PUAs; not banging them will.

The feminists banging the PUAs will say they want to be treated nicely. "Save me from myself! Ban the guys I don't want to be attracted to!"

[parocks]

I bet PUA's would have a higher batting average if they acted like normal humans rather than douchebags, though.

My guess is that PUAs push a technique which allows guys to have a gameplan and a set of instructions, so that they don't have to think on their feet or consider their own self-worth. They have confidence in the approach, and that's it. That confidence gives them the ability to actually converse with strange women. I posit that if, instead of learning a stupid technique, the guys actually focused on building a successful career and a personality, and went to the gym every day, and adopted a philosophy of talking to every woman they found attractive, they'd eventually do far better than any PUA.

All of the stuff that is involved in the PUA noise is just a lame shortcut. Do the real work to become a great man.

EDIT: If not yet apparent, I really hate pick up artists, and douchebags, and "nice" guys.

Nope - what would effect the PUAs batting average would be if there were more PUAs.

There are very few PUAs, and a whole lot of women who like PUA behavior.

The demand, by women (probably subconsciously) for PUAs exceed the supply of PUAs.


Your theory about what PUAs are doing missed the point - which is - treat women badly. That's the core of what they're doing.

It's not "any ol roadmap". It's "it might seem crazy to all of you who are told just to treat women like normal people, but there's something wrong with the mental / emotional wiring of many women, many more than you think, that makes them respond to being treated badly, and we've figured out a series of tricks to use that fact to get you laid right away."

But it's fact that 1) women like being treated badly and 2) many men are being bullied (even banned from countries) from acting in a way that works, has always worked, and has a biological foundation (men who sit around pretending to listen to how the women's day was are more likely to be eaten by a sabre tooth tiger) for working.

[Rothbardian Girl]

To me, the most hilarious thing about PUA tactics is how many PUA adherents seem unable or unwilling to recognize that the industry dehumanizes men just as much as it does women. PUAs use obviously scripted behavior and techniques, which makes them so robotic. It just adds to the general perception that straight males are utterly predictable. (http://straightwhiteboystexting.tumblr.com/ - you will not regret it.) Seriously, it's really easy as a female to keep a mental checklist of typical PUA behavior (what they think is flirty touching, negging, etc.) and either laugh or cry as every item in your checklist is checked off in the course of a single social interaction.

When PUA behavior isn't hilarious, it's often downright sad. It seems as though for some reason, there is a cultural standard that says men have to resort to trickery or reverse psychology in order for them to get laid. And yes, this despicable behavior does work on some women, and the women choose poorly in terms of mates and whatnot, but another issue is that a lot of workshops don't seem to offer any advice for men on what to do after a close. So the assumption is that men are just looking to sleep with as many women as possible, which in turn reinforces a number of negative stereotypes about male sexuality (the more women, the better when that is *not* true for all men). The standard wisdom is, men are suckers if they commit. But why can't it also be that some of the males who engage in hookup after hookup also have unresolved emotional issues, or are generally clueless about how to approach any relationship they may want? Again, males and females are not being held to the same standards because of some shoddy assumptions about biology, which have yet to be proved outside of using fallacious reasoning.

I can't help noticing that a significant percentage of the people in this thread defending pickup "artistry" have said that they had no great male role models growing up. The same people tend to believe that dominance and maleness means emotional abuse and reverse psychology, and in the meantime, they have literally no idea how to act around women. There are ways to create attractive tension without becoming a "nice guy" ... I think mysteriousness is key, but it's certainly not the same thing as abusive trickery or reverse psychology tactics.

The issue is that most men who do the PUA thing are IMO at their core socially awkward, and unwilling to take a good hard look at themselves, and cultivate changes in their personality. I used to be frightfully awkward too, but I've been getting better as I have matured, and my social life this year is better than it was in any of my previous 20 years of existence. I've made a conscious effort to become more interesting to people instead of resorting to, in my case, impersonal pleasantries that don't make anyone interested in getting to know me more. I've discovered that people apparently find my quirkiness endearing, and at some point I just have to accept how weird I am and just go with it. Memorizing social cues and routines is not the way to make relationships work.

The difference between PUA and natural charisma is that in the former case, these men are so focused on getting something they want that they miss the big picture. They're too outcome-driven. OTOH, natural charisma focuses on creating chemistry rather than using women for self-validation. Reliance on PUA is a sign of deep-seated psychological issues IMO, and men turn to it when they're uninterested in some self-reflection.

[parocks]

Doesn't that account for everyone then?

He described a middle ground where he believes everyone thrives and succeeds.

[parocks]

Dude...I think you're letting a little bit of the crazy out.

I'm not trying to be mean, but given your legendary thread asking for manly advice, in which you didn't even know whether you should call a woman whom you wanted to meet again (The answer is, "Duh!"), you act like you have everything figured out about women, dating, and sex. Multiple people tell you what the score is, yet you'll go to the grave thinking that a woman wants a charming nerd-boy above all else. You're almost 30 years old and have views that about women and sex that I would expect from an 18-year-old.

I was a hopeless nerd once too, and moved around so much that I went to ten schools in twelve years. I didn't even kiss a $#@!ing woman until after high school. How pathetic is that? But I eventually got my $#@! together and have slain maybe 60-ish women. I did this by realizing that women didn't want the nice, shy, nerdy $#@! that I was peddling.

Actually, that poor = sex is probably one of the only things on this thread that was true.

And it's not really poor, as much as not having gone to college. They really teach a lot of feminism in colleges. Not so much in high schools. They just didn't get the whole "all sex is rape" BS. But people in college did. 2 drunk people screw, her friends don't like the guy, the guy could be in serious trouble. People never heard of that idea unless they went to college. And typically, poor people didn't go to college. Add on law school to that, and you learn quite a lot about all the things that you thought were normal, but actually mean you could go to jail. Poor people, dumb people, uneducated people - they typically just go for it.

And that leads to the Idiocracy outcomes.

[dannno]

To me, the most hilarious thing about PUA tactics is how many PUA adherents seem unable or unwilling to recognize that the industry dehumanizes men just as much as it does women. PUAs use obviously scripted behavior and techniques, which makes them so robotic. It just adds to the general perception that straight males are utterly predictable. (http://straightwhiteboystexting.tumblr.com/ - you will not regret it.) Seriously, it's really easy as a female to keep a mental checklist of typical PUA behavior (what they think is flirty touching, negging, etc.) and either laugh or cry as every item in your checklist is checked off in the course of a single social interaction.

When PUA behavior isn't hilarious, it's often downright sad. It seems as though for some reason, there is a cultural standard that says men have to resort to trickery or reverse psychology in order for them to get laid. And yes, this despicable behavior does work on some women, and the women choose poorly in terms of mates and whatnot, but another issue is that a lot of workshops don't seem to offer any advice for men on what to do after a close. So the assumption is that men are just looking to sleep with as many women as possible, which in turn reinforces a number of negative stereotypes about male sexuality (the more women, the better when that is *not* true for all men). The standard wisdom is, men are suckers if they commit. But why can't it also be that some of the males who engage in hookup after hookup also have unresolved emotional issues, or are generally clueless about how to approach any relationship they may want? Again, males and females are not being held to the same standards because of some shoddy assumptions about biology, which have yet to be proved outside of using fallacious reasoning.

I can't help noticing that a significant percentage of the people in this thread defending pickup "artistry" have said that they had no great male role models growing up. The same people tend to believe that dominance and maleness means emotional abuse and reverse psychology, and in the meantime, they have literally no idea how to act around women. There are ways to create attractive tension without becoming a "nice guy" ... I think mysteriousness is key, but it's certainly not the same thing as abusive trickery or reverse psychology tactics.

The issue is that most men who do the PUA thing are IMO at their core socially awkward, and unwilling to take a good hard look at themselves, and cultivate changes in their personality. I used to be frightfully awkward too, but I've been getting better as I have matured, and my social life this year is better than it was in any of my previous 20 years of existence. I've made a conscious effort to become more interesting to people instead of resorting to, in my case, impersonal pleasantries that don't make anyone interested in getting to know me more. I've discovered that people apparently find my quirkiness endearing, and at some point I just have to accept how weird I am and just go with it. Memorizing social cues and routines is not the way to make relationships work.

The difference between PUA and natural charisma is that in the former case, these men are so focused on getting something they want that they miss the big picture. They're too outcome-driven. OTOH, natural charisma focuses on creating chemistry rather than using women for self-validation. Reliance on PUA is a sign of deep-seated psychological issues IMO, and men turn to it when they're uninterested in some self-reflection.

You're right, I feel like using PUA techniques is a bit demeaning for men. I like reading about all this stuff but I can only employ it in a very limited way. I guess, if men are demeaning themselves so much then why are you not concerned for them as well? Why do you mock them?

But ultimately, most men who are alphas don't use PUA techniques, they live them. Some of them are very goofy, others not at all. PUAs simply attempt to imitate this behavior to a degree.

On the contrary, a lot of the PUA stuff I've read talks about bettering yourself, involving yourself in more activities so you have more things to talk about, letting conversation flow more naturally and less awkwardly, etc.

There is also a lot of PUA material on what to do after closing, how to keep a girl you like around. Julien Blanc in his CNN interview said that he gets tons of success stories from his customers who end up getting married, and he has even been invited to and attended several weddings of his clients.

[Philhelm]

There are ways to create attractive tension without becoming a "nice guy" ... I think mysteriousness is key, but it's certainly not the same thing as abusive trickery or reverse psychology tactics.

In a long-term relationship, how can a man truly cultivate an air of mystery? In fact, what is the value in this to begin with (rhetorical question, since I'm aware that women tend to be attracted to this)? A man simply does not care whether a woman is mysterious; that's a female hang up. Unfortunately, it means that women often become bored with men and indeed they initiate the vast majority of divorces (although part of the reason is that the marriage contract is so unfavorable to men to begin with).

The issue is that most men who do the PUA thing are IMO at their core socially awkward, and unwilling to take a good hard look at themselves, and cultivate changes in their personality. I used to be frightfully awkward too, but I've been getting better as I have matured, and my social life this year is better than it was in any of my previous 20 years of existence. I've made a conscious effort to become more interesting to people instead of resorting to, in my case, impersonal pleasantries that don't make anyone interested in getting to know me more. I've discovered that people apparently find my quirkiness endearing, and at some point I just have to accept how weird I am and just go with it. Memorizing social cues and routines is not the way to make relationships work.

The difference between PUA and natural charisma is that in the former case, these men are so focused on getting something they want that they miss the big picture. They're too outcome-driven. OTOH, natural charisma focuses on creating chemistry rather than using women for self-validation. Reliance on PUA is a sign of deep-seated psychological issues IMO, and men turn to it when they're uninterested in some self-reflection.

I don't know anything about PUA, but I imagine that many men that look to it are desperate (and remember, desperation, or any other weakness demonstrated by a man is reviled by women; men cannot receive the same level of sympathy that women tend to enjoy). Even an unattractive woman can easily find validation from a willing male, but the reverse is not true. A minority of men are fulfilling the sexual/validation needs of 50+ percent of the women, which means that the lower tier males suffer more than the lower tier females. Most women will never know, understand, sympathize, or empathize with the crushing, debilitating lonliness that many men experience. They're just a bunch of sad sacks that are invisible to most women and barely even worthy of contempt.

The thing that pisses me off about modern feminism is how $#@!ing easy women have it in life in comparison to men.

-Divorce? Cash and prizes for the woman.
-War? Men can die for the women.
-Work? Men can do the heavy lifting (figuratively and literally).
-Baby born? Women can spend time with their family.
-Unemployed? No problem - homemaker.
-No car? The man will drive.
-No home? Find a man.
-Feeling down? People will feel sorry for the woman.
-Need financial help? Uncle Sam is here to help!

-Divorce? Lose the kids, the house, and 50% of everything and then some.
-War? Do your duty, soldier!
-Work? Better have a good career.
-Baby born? Go ahead, take a couple of days off.
-Unemployed? $#@!ing loser.
-No car? Pathetic piece of $#@!.
-No home? Get a job, bum!
-Feeling down? Suck it up, pansy.
-Need financial help? Get a job, bum!

[Philhelm]

He described a middle ground where he believes everyone thrives and succeeds.

It was a joke...

[Philhelm]

Actually, that poor = sex is probably one of the only things on this thread that was true.

And it's not really poor, as much as not having gone to college. They really teach a lot of feminism in colleges. Not so much in high schools. They just didn't get the whole "all sex is rape" BS. But people in college did. 2 drunk people screw, her friends don't like the guy, the guy could be in serious trouble. People never heard of that idea unless they went to college. And typically, poor people didn't go to college. Add on law school to that, and you learn quite a lot about all the things that you thought were normal, but actually mean you could go to jail. Poor people, dumb people, uneducated people - they typically just go for it.

And that leads to the Idiocracy outcomes.

Idiocracy was based upon having unplanned children, not sexual frequency. Rich people are obviously having as much sex as they could ever want.

[parocks]

Who says that I'm normal? The difference is that I had a goal and realized that women were never going to like me for being me., regardless of how often that is stated or how unfair the reality is. Real life isn't like the movies in which one day Pointdexter shows Susie Cheerleader how great he is and she ends up falling for him. Wish it was, but it isn't. Sure, I was above-average looking, intelligent, funny, etc., but I was geeky and shy, and was 135 lbs. soaking wet. It took a few years to achieve my goal, but it happened. I ditched the glasses for contacts, I got a more trendy haircut, I started trying to dress better, I started socializing myself so that I was more comfortable in social settings, I lifted; hell, I even joined the Army and went to war. Got home from Iraq and a month later I was getting a BJ from some girl that I obsessed over for a couple of years. The point being that I realized that I needed to improved myself in order to become attractive to women rather than banking on the hope that the hot unicorn with a love of losers would one day sweep me off of my feet.

I think you're getting off track here. Not to say you're wrong. But you're basically just saying "improve". "So, I became incredible looking and rich and an army guy and I had no troubles after that".

Being an $#@!, treating the ladies badly is one of the things that women like. Some women like army guys. Other women like guys with muscles. Or army guys with muscles. If you joined a popular rock band, that would've probably worked as well.

Be more desirable is what you're saying? I think many would agree with this - but it's not really on the topic of whether more women than you think like being treated badly.

Not saying what you're saying isn't useful.