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

[Rothbardian Girl]

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!

Why would that be something that pisses you off about modern feminism? Plenty of feminists claim that the conditions you speak of are themselves part of the patriarchy, because patriarchy places unreasonable assumptions and expectations on men just as much as it does women. The whole point is that a lot of women don't *want* to be coddled by staying at home and raising kids. There is plenty of feminist literature discussing these issues out there, if you care to look instead of just relying on feminism's representations in the media.

A man simply does not care whether a woman is mysterious; that's a female hang up.

My understanding is that this sometimes isn't true, especially if we're measuring "mysteriousness" by how much sex a woman's had. I've seen too much slut-shaming to assume that a good percentage of men don't care. By a similar token, it's also a shame because to me mysteriousness also implies intelligence and self-confidence. Women like it when men display authentic and/or positively-valenced confidence (in other words, negging is horrible, and we can smell insecurity from a mile away). Sometimes good-natured teasing and cockiness works, as was mentioned earlier in the thread - playful verbal sparring is one of the most fun things about flirtation to me.

Being an $#@!, treating the ladies badly is one of the things that women like.

This is generally wrong. I'm sure emotionally well-adjusted women would prefer the confident man over the $#@! every single time. The problem is when, as in your case, men can't differentiate between the two.

[Antischism]

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).



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!

One of the keys to keeping a relationship alive is to not get stuck in a routine or get too comfortable in your situation. Basically, trying to perpetuate the "dating stage" and being flirty often enough that things don't get stale. It can be as simple as spicing up your sex life by trying new things or getting toys if you're into that, or having date nights once a week at different restaurants, parks, museums, locations, etc.. Nothing Earth-shattering, really. But it's definitely easy to forget and get too comfortable once you're "tied down." It's one of the reasons people "let go" of themselves and start to maybe put on some extra weight or disregard their appearance. The person you initially were when you first started dating can quickly become someone else, or rather, who you actually are. It's no secret that people put on their best face in order to attract a mate and go the extra mile during the honeymoon phase. Once that wears off and people get comfortable knowing they succeeded in attracting the other person enough to be in a relationship, they stop going the extra mile.

[Philhelm]

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.

The Army thing isn't that important, although when I returned and we ended up dating, she stated that our relationship was like "The Notebook." There was a certain romantic element that was appealing to her, I'm sure.

Other than that, my point was that I experimented in changing and improving myself rather than hoping that a unicorn would one day just fall out of the sky.

[Antischism]

If anyone is actually interested in reading a compelling work on the subject, I'd suggest Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference by Cordelia Fine. It's not the only, or even the best, book on the subject matter, but I've found it's very easily accessible for most anyone. I've seen a lot of "biotruths" nonsense around lately.

pdf here if you don't want to pay.

[parocks]

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.

"I don't believe that women want to be treated badly."

Which women? The core of this PUA argument is that more of them do like being treated badly than you'd think. Screw with their heads, and they'll love it. We aren't talking about "women". We're talking about some women. A lot more than most think. Conventional wisdom says to not treat women like $#@!. All women will say that. But, when push comes to shove, they do like it. Some of them. A lot more than we think. And that's what this story is about. (Except the part where women can ban guys from countries for telling that secret)

Apart from that one sentence, everything you're saying sounds exactly right. You're providing good insight there. I think what you're saying is that hot girls have guys who want to have sex with them, but can't. They'll only only have sex with Alpha's right? But couldn't one of her beta friends start with the PUA tricks, which, if she has the right mentality, could somehow make her think that the beta is an alpha, maybe? I mean, we're talking about 2 different things. Alphas might or might not treat women "badly", but they don't want to listen to her talk about her day. It seems that the PUA trick is one that betas can use that says "you ever a beta do this before? no, well then I must be an alpha, right". If an alpha treats women differently than all of her beta friends treat her, and the PUA is clearly not acting like her beta friends, he's an alpha. He might have nothing in common with an alpha, except that he's different than the typical beta.

Maybe, the woman doesn't want to be treated badly, but she'll accept being treated badly if it means she's being treated badly by an alpha. In her experience, all betas treat her very well. This person isn't treating her well, therefore, he's an alpha.

Maybe the PUA tricks are the easiest way to say to a girl "I'm an alpha" extremely quickly. So, the women that a PUA attracts are either 1) naturally wanting to be treated badly or 2) tricked into thinking the guy is an alpha, because betas don't treat her badly and alphas sometimes do. The tricking factor increases the odds of success for the PUA.

[dannno]

Maybe the PUA tricks are the easiest way to say to a girl "I'm an alpha" extremely quickly. So, the women that a PUA attracts are either 1) naturally wanting to be treated badly or 2) tricked into thinking the guy is an alpha, because betas don't treat her badly and alphas sometimes do. The tricking factor increases the odds of success for the PUA.

I think Phil has it right, it's not that they want to be treated badly.. They would likely be just as attracted if not more if the man was able to display those alpha traits in his environment rather than by domineering her, but by domineering her she sees those traits being displayed and is sexually turned on, she then makes a conscious decision whether to act on those impulses or not.

The issue is that many women would RATHER be treated badly by a guy who displays his alpha traits against her than by a guy who treats her well but shows weakness... and in fact, treating a woman well can be a sign of weakness. Alpha males don't have to treat women well, they treat them as disposable and this is an attractive trait for women, though some make a conscious decision at some point to stop being with an alpha type...they will often fall back onto a beta and often will not give them the same type of sexual attentiveness that they gave their alphas.

[parocks]

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

I dunno. "I'm gonna $#@! all y'all" said the football player pretty much says it all for me, but they did spend about a minute with a chart and I can't remember all of the details of the chart except that the upper middle class college educated folks didn't have as many kids as the poorer less educated ones.

[Rothbardian Girl]

I think Phil has it right, it's not that they want to be treated badly.. They would likely be just as attracted if not more if the man was able to display those alpha traits in his environment rather than by domineering her, but by domineering her she sees those traits being displayed and is sexually turned on, she then makes a conscious decision whether to act on those impulses or not.

The issue is that many women would RATHER be treated badly by a guy who displays his alpha traits against her than by a guy who treats her well but shows weakness... and in fact, treating a woman well can be a sign of weakness. Alpha males don't have to treat women well, they treat them as disposable and this is an attractive trait for women, though some make a conscious decision at some point to stop being with an alpha type...they will often fall back onto a beta and often will not give them the same type of sexual attentiveness that they gave their alphas.

I really have no idea where you and Phil are getting this stuff from. One can argue that it's a stretch to even assume that a woman is actually turned on by this sort of behavior. It's fundamentally harder to tell what excites women than men for a whole host of reasons - physiological as well as cultural. What people claim they are attracted to and what they actually are attracted to oftentimes don't match up, and I'm sure outside observers are even less good at reading signs. I don't think it's an alpha-beta thing, I think it's that sexual attraction is fundamentally more difficult to read in females than it is in males. Daniel Bergner has several fascinating articles and books that touch on this very topic - see the NYT review of his book for a fairly good summary. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/bo...anted=all&_r=0 (there's some evolutionary/animal-analogy arguments in there that I don't necessarily agree with, but overall it's still a good read.)

[parocks]

The Army thing isn't that important, although when I returned and we ended up dating, she stated that our relationship was like "The Notebook." There was a certain romantic element that was appealing to her, I'm sure.

Other than that, my point was that I experimented in changing and improving myself rather than hoping that a unicorn would one day just fall out of the sky.

People don't really "know" what is improving. What's lacking. What needs improvement. What's valuable and what isn't. The geek could reasonably think that geek is fine and geek with muscles might not be an improvement. "I should be able to get laid who I am" isn't the same thing as saying "unicorn's a comin". There is no list, where you can be guaranteed any success if you make 1,2,3 simple changes. Theoretically, having a better degree than anyone in almost any room you walk in to should, somehow, convert to value. If that's untrue, at least it's not unreasonable to think that it should. So, you could make that improvement, based on a reasonable guess as to what an improvement is, and it could just not work at all. What I'm saying is - what's an improvement? Where is that book? We have a PUA book that says - treat women like $#@!. You have the feminist doctrines which apparently teach you beta behavior, but no real clue as about the the improvement you make that will work.

This is all a very useful conversation a long time ago.

[Christian Liberty]

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.

The fact that this country is so military-worshipping that this type of post even finds its way onto RPF is just sick. "Joining the army and going off to war" is something you should be ashamed of, not something you should say was part of you improving yourself.

Of course, the average person, man or woman, would agree with you on that point, but that shows how messed up our culture is.

[parocks]

I think Phil has it right, it's not that they want to be treated badly.. They would likely be just as attracted if not more if the man was able to display those alpha traits in his environment rather than by domineering her, but by domineering her she sees those traits being displayed and is sexually turned on, she then makes a conscious decision whether to act on those impulses or not.

The issue is that many women would RATHER be treated badly by a guy who displays his alpha traits against her than by a guy who treats her well but shows weakness... and in fact, treating a woman well can be a sign of weakness. Alpha males don't have to treat women well, they treat them as disposable and this is an attractive trait for women, though some make a conscious decision at some point to stop being with an alpha type...they will often fall back onto a beta and often will not give them the same type of sexual attentiveness that they gave their alphas.

Are you saying that Alpha and PUA are the same?

I grant that both you and Phil do seem to know what you're talking about, and what I'm trying to do is figure out exactly what you and Phil are saying. You both have wisdom there.

[parocks]

Why would that be something that pisses you off about modern feminism? Plenty of feminists claim that the conditions you speak of are themselves part of the patriarchy, because patriarchy places unreasonable assumptions and expectations on men just as much as it does women. The whole point is that a lot of women don't *want* to be coddled by staying at home and raising kids. There is plenty of feminist literature discussing these issues out there, if you care to look instead of just relying on feminism's representations in the media.


My understanding is that this sometimes isn't true, especially if we're measuring "mysteriousness" by how much sex a woman's had. I've seen too much slut-shaming to assume that a good percentage of men don't care. By a similar token, it's also a shame because to me mysteriousness also implies intelligence and self-confidence. Women like it when men display authentic and/or positively-valenced confidence (in other words, negging is horrible, and we can smell insecurity from a mile away). Sometimes good-natured teasing and cockiness works, as was mentioned earlier in the thread - playful verbal sparring is one of the most fun things about flirtation to me.


This is generally wrong. I'm sure emotionally well-adjusted women would prefer the confident man over the $#@! every single time. The problem is when, as in your case, men can't differentiate between the two.

Oh, yeah,

"emotionally well-adjusted women"

Some women like being treated badly, some women like army guys.

I'm saying that "emotionally well-adjusted women" aren't uniformly common. There are a lot more of them who are not that than people are arguing.

Before, I made up the number 40% not. And PUA at 5%.

If PUAs were looking for needles in the haystack, it wouldn't work. A lot more needles than people think.

[Rothbardian Girl]

Oh, yeah,

"emotionally well-adjusted women"

Some women like being treated badly, some women like army guys.

I'm saying that "emotionally well-adjusted women" aren't uniformly common. There are a lot more of them who are not that than people are arguing.

Before, I made up the number 40% not. And PUA at 5%.

If PUAs were looking for needles in the haystack, it wouldn't work. A lot more needles than people think.

Again, if you put a PUA next to a genuine man, women would choose the genuine one every single time. It's a lot easier for us to spot insecurity and rehearsed social gestures than you're implying. Even if PUA does work, the fact that men still use it suggests that they are not interested in trying to actually make themselves fascinating to other people. It's the easy way out and probably feeds on deep-seated feelings of inadequacy... and for what? Racking up numbers like in a video game? How boring. All people really need to do is to be honest with themselves about who they really are, and once they have that confidence, go out and project that to other people. "Being honest with oneself" is cited as a cliche a lot, but how many people really do so? TS Eliot in particular had a lot to say about that topic.

[willwash]

"I don't believe that women want to be treated badly."

Which women? The core of this PUA argument is that more of them do like being treated badly than you'd think. Screw with their heads, and they'll love it. We aren't talking about "women". We're talking about some women. A lot more than most think. Conventional wisdom says to not treat women like $#@!. All women will say that. But, when push comes to shove, they do like it. Some of them. A lot more than we think. And that's what this story is about. (Except the part where women can ban guys from countries for telling that secret)

Apart from that one sentence, everything you're saying sounds exactly right. You're providing good insight there. I think what you're saying is that hot girls have guys who want to have sex with them, but can't. They'll only only have sex with Alpha's right? But couldn't one of her beta friends start with the PUA tricks, which, if she has the right mentality, could somehow make her think that the beta is an alpha, maybe? I mean, we're talking about 2 different things. Alphas might or might not treat women "badly", but they don't want to listen to her talk about her day. It seems that the PUA trick is one that betas can use that says "you ever a beta do this before? no, well then I must be an alpha, right". If an alpha treats women differently than all of her beta friends treat her, and the PUA is clearly not acting like her beta friends, he's an alpha. He might have nothing in common with an alpha, except that he's different than the typical beta.

Maybe, the woman doesn't want to be treated badly, but she'll accept being treated badly if it means she's being treated badly by an alpha. In her experience, all betas treat her very well. This person isn't treating her well, therefore, he's an alpha.

Maybe the PUA tricks are the easiest way to say to a girl "I'm an alpha" extremely quickly. So, the women that a PUA attracts are either 1) naturally wanting to be treated badly or 2) tricked into thinking the guy is an alpha, because betas don't treat her badly and alphas sometimes do. The tricking factor increases the odds of success for the PUA.

First, may I just say, GOD I love this thread! I really want to go out for beers with Dannno, PhilHelm, Rothbardian Girl and Pessimist and engage on this all night. Everyone should read the book "Why beautiful people have more daughters" as well.

I think there is some confusion about what women "want". They don't *want* to be treated badly. They *want* to mate with alphas, just as males want to mate with alpha females. I want to mate with alpha females. Philhelm wants to mate with alpha females. Sola Fide wants to mate with alpha females. Pessimist, tell yourself whatever you want, you want to mate with alpha females. Rothbardian girl, you want to mate with alpha males (assuming everyone I just mentioned is heterosexual and I got all the genders right). Yes there are competing considerations and that desire to mate with alphas is not the end all be all, but it is there, and it is there universally for physically and psychologically healthy human beings. All things (ie, those competing considerations) being equal, one will ALWAYS choose an alpha over a beta if the option is there.

So as I've said, women don't want to be treated badly. It's just that quite a large proportion of them are willing to *tolerate* being treated badly if it means a chance to mate with an alpha. This is why polygyny exists but not polyandry. Also, everything Philhelm has said about it not being about PUAs not treating them badly, just as disposable, is correct. I've read the PUA literature, and nowhere does it recommend treating women "badly." It does recommend "negging" which is just a deliberate advertisement of a male's alpha status. A neg is not treating women badly....it's not an insult. It's a backhanded compliment said in an utterly uninterested way that a desperate, p***y-on-a-pedestal beta would NEVER say. "Oh, is that dollar store nail polish?" Executed by an amateur pua, yes, Rothbardian Girl, it is obvious and easy to defend against. Executed by a true alpha you will never know it happened until he doesn't call the next day.

An alpha female is immediately evident. It is almost entirely based on physical appearance, though there are some mannerisms that go along with it too, like the way they delicately swing their wrists as they walk. A female does not need to exert any social effort to demonstrate her alpha-ness. She wins automatically.

Males have to project their alpha-ness through dominant social interaction. Successful PUAs are simply betas who have learned how to fake it until they make it, and graduate into alphas.

[Christian Liberty]

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.

First, may I just say, GOD I love this thread! I really want to go out for beers with Dannno, PhilHelm, Rothbardian Girl and Pessimist and engage on this all night. Everyone should read the book "Why beautiful people have more daughters" as well.

I think there is some confusion about what women "want". They don't *want* to be treated badly. They *want* to mate with alphas, just as males want to mate with alpha females. I want to mate with alpha females. Philhelm wants to mate with alpha females. Sola Fide wants to mate with alpha females. Pessimist, tell yourself whatever you want, you want to mate with alpha females. Rothbardian girl, you want to mate with alpha males (assuming everyone I just mentioned is heterosexual and I got all the genders right). Yes there are competing considerations and that desire to mate with alphas is not the end all be all, but it is there, and it is there universally for physically and psychologically healthy human beings. All things (ie, those competing considerations) being equal, one will ALWAYS choose an alpha over a beta if the option is there.

So as I've said, women don't want to be treated badly. It's just that quite a large proportion of them are willing to *tolerate* being treated badly if it means a chance to mate with an alpha. This is why polygyny exists but not polyandry. Also, everything Philhelm has said about it not being about PUAs not treating them badly, just as disposable, is correct. I've read the PUA literature, and nowhere does it recommend treating women "badly." It does recommend "negging" which is just a deliberate advertisement of a male's alpha status. A neg is not treating women badly....it's not an insult. It's a backhanded compliment said in an utterly uninterested way that a desperate, p***y-on-a-pedestal beta would NEVER say. "Oh, is that dollar store nail polish?" Executed by an amateur pua, yes, Rothbardian Girl, it is obvious and easy to defend against. Executed by a true alpha you will never know it happened until he doesn't call the next day.

An alpha female is immediately evident. It is almost entirely based on physical appearance, though there are some mannerisms that go along with it too, like the way they delicately swing their wrists as they walk. A female does not need to exert any social effort to demonstrate her alpha-ness. She wins automatically.

Males have to project their alpha-ness through dominant social interaction. Successful PUAs are simply betas who have learned how to fake it until they make it, and graduate into alphas.

Wait, is Sola_Fide back or something? How did I miss that?


More seriously, what do you guys mean exactly by "alpha" and "beta"? I could guess but I'm curious specifically what you are talking about.

[pessimist]

@philhelm

as an experiment i am going to try to pick up this cute waitress.

what technique should i use?

should i walk on in with swagger and say: "hey baby, what do you say i pick you up off work and we do a little sumthin sumthin?"

or should i pull "the nice romantic guy" routine?

*smile* "you have such beautiful eyes- they are as a pretty as a rainbow on a hot sunny day". "hey, would like to go to dinner and movie sometime?"

what about the "witty" guy?

*make a joke about packed restaurant as she takes order*

here is me in that situation...

*walks in...gets food...pays...leaves*

"have good day"

"you too"

[ghengis86]

Wait, is Sola_Fide back or something? How did I miss that?


More seriously, what do you guys mean exactly by "alpha" and "beta"? I could guess but I'm curious specifically what you are talking about.

If you have to ask, you're definite beta!!

J/K

Alpha as in the top male of the pack. Beta as in all other non-alpha males in said pack.

[pessimist]

If you have to ask, you're definite beta!!

J/K

Alpha as in the top male of the pack. Beta as in all other non-alpha males in said pack.

is it possible for an alpha guy to be intimidated by a beta guy? what if the beta guy is making the females laugh and the alpha guy just can't mentally keep up? is that possible?

[ghengis86]

@philhelm

as an experiment i am going to try to pick up this cute waitress.

what technique should i use?

should i walk on in with swagger and say: "hey baby, what do you say i pick you up off work and we do a little sumthin sumthin?"

or should pull the "the nice romantic guy" routine?

*smile* "you have such beautiful eyes- they are as a pretty as a rainbow on a hot sunny day". "hey, would like to go to dinner and movie sometime?"

what about the "witty" guy?

*make a joke about packed restaurant as she takes order*

here is me in that situation...

*walks in...gets food...pays...leaves*

"have good day"

"you too"

Lol, that's some good stuff. If it was a coffee shop, you should have asked if she ever wanted to go for....coffee?

[pessimist]

Lol, that's some good stuff. If it was a coffee shop, you should have asked if she ever wanted to go for....coffee?

nah, too obvious.

i'd have to be more clever. she's probably heard them all from the truck drivers or something.

[ghengis86]

is it possible for an alpha guy to be intimidated by a beta guy? what if the beta guy is making the females laugh, and the alpha guy just can't mentally keep up? is that possible?

Intimidated or threatened, yes, of course. But that just means the alpha will have to exert his authority and try to scare the beta off or reclaim the female.

Haven't you watched the discovery channel?!

[willwash]

is it possible for an alpha guy to be intimidated by a beta guy? what if the beta guy is making the females laugh, and the alpha guy just can't mentally keep up? is that possible?

No, that is not possible. In that case the man you are referring to as the beta is actually the alpha and vice versa. Your question is like saying "what if there were a round square?"

[parocks]

Again, if you put a PUA next to a genuine man, women would choose the genuine one every single time. It's a lot easier for us to spot insecurity and rehearsed social gestures than you're implying. Even if PUA does work, the fact that men still use it suggests that they are not interested in trying to actually make themselves fascinating to other people. It's the easy way out and probably feeds on deep-seated feelings of inadequacy... and for what? Racking up numbers like in a video game? How boring. All people really need to do is to be honest with themselves about who they really are, and once they have that confidence, go out and project that to other people. "Being honest with oneself" is cited as a cliche a lot, but how many people really do so? TS Eliot in particular had a lot to say about that topic.

Well PUAs aren't genuine, and what they do, works.

It's just simply wrong to assert that all women would choose the genuine man. Most (or many) of us here recognize that women are saying what they want to believe, and what they want other people to believe, but most (many) recognize that women are lying about this. Women don't say that they want to be mistreated, but PUAs do mistreat them, and it does work.

You say that you're spotting insecurity, but it's probably something else that's going on.

"Men" don't use PUA. It's uncommon. I hadn't heard PUA until I saw this thread. There was a movie in the 80s with Robert Downey Jr. I didn't realize it was a thing.
From reading this thread, it seems like a rare thing, that feminists want banned (which is not a rare thing).

Maybe lots and lots of women have that deep seated feelings of inadequacy thing you're talking about. Almost so much that it's normal.

If I'm given a pack of women, and I wanted to take something that would work, I'd argue that "deep seated feelings of inadequacy" would be more common than, let's say "shared musical tastes with me"

So, if you're wanted to have in common with a random woman "you are of low quality in some way" is more likely to be something they can agree with than "what do you think about that band, good huh?"

Her sucking (because she's nuts) is just trying to find something that both people agree with.

And "your music sucks" is most likely true, and hearing it might get the women turned on. Talking about the bands that you like will only confuse them.

Women like to smarter. When the women most certainly are not, well then you have a problem.

[pessimist]

No, that is not possible. In that case the man you are referring to as the beta is actually the alpha and vice versa. Your question is like saying "what if there were a round square?"

geez. this alpha/beta/omega stuff is so confusing to me. (seriously)

[Christian Liberty]

If you have to ask, you're definite beta!!

J/K

Alpha as in the top male of the pack. Beta as in all other non-alpha males in said pack.

Fair enough. I'm definitely not terribly popular so thus not "alpha", lol...

[Rothbardian Girl]

I think there is some confusion about what women "want". They don't *want* to be treated badly. They *want* to mate with alphas, just as males want to mate with alpha females. I want to mate with alpha females. Philhelm wants to mate with alpha females. Sola Fide wants to mate with alpha females. Pessimist, tell yourself whatever you want, you want to mate with alpha females. Rothbardian girl, you want to mate with alpha males (assuming everyone I just mentioned is heterosexual and I got all the genders right). Yes there are competing considerations and that desire to mate with alphas is not the end all be all, but it is there, and it is there universally for physically and psychologically healthy human beings. All things (ie, those competing considerations) being equal, one will ALWAYS choose an alpha over a beta if the option is there.

This paragraph is stretching the usual PUA definitions of alpha and beta so far as to be quite meaningless. If "alphas" are always chosen over "betas," then you are defining the personality traits of the "chosen ones" in terms of "alpha"ness and "beta"ness (seriously, get better terms), instead of the other way around. This seems to me like it would wind up contradicting your thesis that "true alpha"s are successful at negging every single time. For example, if a woman chooses the authentic man who quite obviously doesn't use robotic PUA tactics instead of the scripted one, that doesn't mean the authentic one suddenly is an "alpha." PUAs don't get to claim people who don't even use their tactics.

So as I've said, women don't want to be treated badly. It's just that quite a large proportion of them are willing to *tolerate* being treated badly if it means a chance to mate with an alpha. This is why polygyny exists but not polyandry. Also, everything Philhelm has said about it not being about PUAs not treating them badly, just as disposable, is correct. I've read the PUA literature, and nowhere does it recommend treating women "badly." It does recommend "negging" which is just a deliberate advertisement of a male's alpha status. A neg is not treating women badly....it's not an insult. It's a backhanded compliment said in an utterly uninterested way that a desperate, p***y-on-a-pedestal beta would NEVER say. "Oh, is that dollar store nail polish?" Executed by an amateur pua, yes, Rothbardian Girl, it is obvious and easy to defend against. Executed by a true alpha you will never know it happened until he doesn't call the next day.

Treating someone as a means to an end isn't treating them badly? That is news to me and pretty much every civilized person on the planet. Sorry, but I can tell when someone is being cute and when someone is trying to purposely make me feel bad. Personally, I've never cared if someone hasn't called me back, because I've never really been invested in personal relationships in that situation. In short, I don't have any delusions about or any investment in PUA bros. Again, they're really easy to spot. I'm an exceedingly perceptive person for multiple reasons, and I can honestly say the people I genuinely have cared about have never picked up a PUA manual in their lives.

PS: your statement about polyandry not existing is wrong - there are more concrete examples of it than people think, and falling back on such statistics is problematic anyway because accepted "relationship formats" are highly subject to cultural scrutiny; meaning there is too much noise in the "data" to tell whether polygyny is inherently more natural than polyandry. Just because something holds true in a certain cultural framework does not mean it's the natural order of things.

Males have to project their alpha-ness through dominant social interaction.

Unless your type is the reclusive, moody stranger. There's a reason why Jane Eyre is a beloved classic.

[willwash]

This paragraph is stretching the usual PUA definitions of alpha and beta so far as to be quite meaningless. If "alphas" are always chosen over "betas," then you are defining the personality traits of the "chosen ones" in terms of "alpha"ness and "beta"ness (seriously, get better terms), instead of the other way around. This seems to me like it would wind up contradicting your thesis that "true alpha"s are successful at negging every single time. For example, if a woman chooses the authentic man who quite obviously doesn't use robotic PUA tactics instead of the scripted one, that doesn't mean the authentic one suddenly is an "alpha." PUAs don't get to claim people who don't even use their tactics.


Treating someone as a means to an end isn't treating them badly? That is news to me and pretty much every civilized person on the planet. Sorry, but I can tell when someone is being cute and when someone is trying to purposely make me feel bad. Personally, I've never cared if someone hasn't called me back, because I've never really been invested in personal relationships in that situation. In short, I don't have any delusions about or any investment in PUA bros. Again, they're really easy to spot. I'm an exceedingly perceptive person for multiple reasons, and I can honestly say the people I genuinely have cared about have never picked up a PUA manual in their lives.

PS: your statement about polyandry not existing is wrong - there are more concrete examples of it than people think, and falling back on such statistics is problematic anyway because accepted "relationship formats" are highly subject to cultural scrutiny; meaning there is too much noise in the "data" to tell whether polygyny is inherently more natural than polyandry. Just because something holds true in a certain cultural framework does not mean it's the natural order of things.


Unless your type is the reclusive, moody stranger. There's a reason why Jane Eyre is a beloved classic.

Seems like the main thing we disagree on is whether there is an element of objectivity as to what constitutes an attractive male. I say there is. Those things that are objectively attractive in males have been exhaustively described in this thread.

PUAs seek to cultivate those things in themselves.

How many meaningless bangs did that attractive, "genuine" man go through before he got to you? If you were to meet him before he'd experienced said meaningless bangs, would you still think he was so $#@! hot?

[Philhelm]

I really have no idea where you and Phil are getting this stuff from. One can argue that it's a stretch to even assume that a woman is actually turned on by this sort of behavior. It's fundamentally harder to tell what excites women than men for a whole host of reasons - physiological as well as cultural. What people claim they are attracted to and what they actually are attracted to oftentimes don't match up, and I'm sure outside observers are even less good at reading signs. I don't think it's an alpha-beta thing, I think it's that sexual attraction is fundamentally more difficult to read in females than it is in males. Daniel Bergner has several fascinating articles and books that touch on this very topic - see the NYT review of his book for a fairly good summary. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/bo...anted=all&_r=0 (there's some evolutionary/animal-analogy arguments in there that I don't necessarily agree with, but overall it's still a good read.)

With men, attraction is pretty straightforward. Men want a woman who is young, pretty, and sexually available; all else is secondary. Women are the gatekeepers of sex which is why the vast majority of men don't have a faaaaar higher partner count (note that partner count amongst homosexual males is a lot higher than average since women are taken out of the equation).

Women on the other hand have a much different yardstick, which is why many men end up confused as to why women don't want them. Being handsome is good, but there are plenty of handsome men that don't get laid much; I used to be one of them. That is because women don't judge men the same way men judge women. Having used online dating extensively back in the day, there are several traits that the majority of women would request, even the ugly women: tall, handsome, job, car, home, ambition, confidence, etc. A man doesn't give a $#@! if a woman is flat broke so long as she is young, pretty, and sexually available.

While a woman does indeed want a handsome man, ultimately she wants one that is powerful and high status. The confidence and swagger of an Alpha male is simply a signal that he is a man that is most likely capable. A confident man will likely be more ambitious, or capable of bringing his ambitions to fruition, than an unconfident man. Being smart, funny, and kind are certainly admirable traits, but those aren't the traits that get a woman ready to lay down and spread her legs.

On the flip side, women "can't find a good man" since men are the gatekeepers of commitment. It is easy for an average or moderately attractive woman to have sex with handsome or highly attractive men who are confident and reasonably successful; therefore, they become used to a certain standard even if they are dating above their post. Of course, the higher value man will never fully commit to or marry these women since he's looking for the 9's and 10's. This is also why women always say that they don't like games, players, etc., since they have become accustomed to being cast aside once the Alpha male has had his fun.

Scott 7 would be a perfect fit for Susie 7, but Susie 7 is used to banging Alan 8's, Nick 9's, and Trevor 10's. Of course, Trevor 10 would only ever commit to or marry Tammy 10, but he'll happily fraternize with Susie 7 for fun. The end result is that Scott 7 has to date Franny 5 and Susie 7 will never find happiness since she can't find a man who will commit to her. Meanwhile, Trevor 10 gets the lion's share of the women.

Women have it easy when it comes to obtaining sexual fulfillment, but there is a price to pay.

[pessimist]

Men want a woman who is young, pretty, and sexually available; all else is secondary.

Not all men.

[ghengis86]

No, that is not possible. In that case the man you are referring to as the beta is actually the alpha and vice versa. Your question is like saying "what if there were a round square?"

Beta can intimidate and threaten, but until he overthrows the alpha and takes over the alpha role with the females and other betas, he is still beta.

Man, this thread is loads of fun!