So, some of you are probably wondering why I'm alowing such sophmoric comments on my blog.
It's to show how adolecent "the community" is in it's orientation and thinking.
There are some very powerful ideas floating around regarding seduction on the internet. Unfortunately, they are oftent the product of feeble minded chauvanism, both on the part of females (the "rules") and males ( Way of the "alpha male")
A sure sign of this is when a guy accuses another of being gay or closeted.
These same guys like to divide women into madonnas and whores. They are not at all integrated sexually, and there identity is bound up in what they percieve as "correct" gender roles.
This is to be expected I suppose - gender roles have been in flux over the ast 40 years, and a backlash against femenism and the wimpification of men was inevitable I suppose.
The problem is, it's gone too far. I was banned from mASF for advocating what amounts to love as the basis for an ethical approach to mutual seduction between the sexes:
Acceptance
Compassion
Empathy
Detachment
It's all well and good to give men back thier masculine power. It needed to be stripped away for a time as punishment for it's excesses and the resulting oppression and abuses it generated. Femenisim went to far too.
Now, as the sexes seek a balanced center, the extremes of both movements are laid bare.
Niether sex is superior to the other. Each has a biological destiny that guides it's emotional life. Niether should be denegrated, rather, both should be accepted, embraced, and celebrated. Empathy is the key to understanding, and compassion the act of engaging these differences in a positive way.
Detachment kills needy supplicating behavior for both sexes - the willingness to walk away from bad people, bad encounters, and bad relationships without the HATE, ANGER, disapointment and frustation that most of us feel when we don't get what we want from others emotionally.
Aced represents mature, agape love. I feel that this is the best basis for relating to other human beings. Lust and romantic love are a rush - but they ultimately leave s in a bad state if not tempered with more mature states of relating to others.
I'll never post another "lay report" or divulge when I've had sex with a new woman, or for that matter, how many women I've had sex with publicly. That sort of thing should be kept private, and only revealed to those it matters to - my sexual partners.
I do not regret my involvement with the seduction community - on the contray - it opened my eyes to some very profound and basic truths about human behavior. Once you master seduction however ( and every man should seek to master it, just as every woman should) you are confronted with some very deep ethical delimas. Each person must live with the consequences of his actions - all I'm advocating is that we take the effect our actions have on others very seriously.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Difficult Girl Part 2
OK, here's part 2...
Her:
"He's sooo cute that I just cannot get over with.
We had soooo much in common, and with him, I felt warm and secure.
It took me a LONG time move on.
Hot BJ is not as good as hot water + ice BJ:p"
Me:
Well, at least we are on the same page with that...
Her:
No matter how drunk I am, I still remember all the things I did. The best sex I had was when I was stoned.
Me:
lol...when you are stoned it's hard to remember stuff too...
Her:
Even me and him cannot agree on ALL the politically issues. But still, I like him a lot! And he is NOT a retard. He's very successful, smart, fun, sweet, loving and caring, traditional family oriented, has strict morality. I respect that.
Me:
Me too. At least we agree that morals are important - especially for a man.
Her:
You have several GFs. Do they each have several BFs?
Me:
Some do, some don't. All are free to choose thier sexual partners without judgement from me. I love all the women in my life - even you....
Note - I'm offering her acceptance now
Her:
I do know where babies come from. But there are differences between the planned/wanted babies and unplanned/unwanted/oops/surprise babies. No one wish for abortions and STDs.
She is QUALIFYING herself
Me:
The voice of experience talking. I don't know about you, but I always use condoms. Never had an STD or an unwanted pregnancy. Sex without condoms is disgusting - like fucking a public toilet.
I'm setting boundries - She has had an unwanted pregnancy, and probably an STD or two also...
Her
That's sad. When you really love someone, you can't see anyone else around you. All you can see is that one person.
This another attempt at re-framing on her part
Me:
What's sad is jealousy and insecurity. The need to own someone is selfish and childish. When you love people the way I do, you don't try to restrain the fee expression of their sexuality. Some women need multiple guys. I'm a guy who is happiest with multiple women. The funny thing is, they respect my honesty, and that I don't lie about my lifestyles or desires.
This is clear statement of my morals and values
Her:
LOL~ I AM nice to my BF's family. His brother came last week, and he liked me:) Just I'm worried that his mom might be one of those red neck McCain fans.
Btw, my BF is one who keeps asking "r u mine" or saying "u r mine", not me. But...I like it.
Note the contradiction - she chooses a BF with opposing political views. She is a minority, and his political views tend to oppress her people. She likes this tension, and is trying to control it. Note also the depth of supplication of her "needy nice guy" boyfriend...things will end badly for him....
Me:
Sure you like it - it gives that big fat ego of yours a boost. He is supplicating to you - kissing your ass. But the guy who really turns you on is the gay motorcycle racer. He wont kiss your ass, he has options with other men sexually, and so he presents the ultimate challenge to your womanhood.
Well, I'm just plain fucking with her here....remember - never take women seriously. This paragraph subcommunicates to her that I think she is a silly girl =)I'm also blatantly "amogging" the "hot" guy she keeps talking about
Here's my advice:
Manipulate the plain, moral, wimpy nice guy until he proposes marriage, and then have a bunch of babies with him. Remember, you are not getting any younger. He will never leave you, and will make a good father and provider.
LOL...now I'm simply calling her on her bullshit...indirectly of course...
When you loose attraction for him (after the inital infatuation wears of in about 18 months) have an affair with the hot gay racer guy who gives you great orgasms, and have another unplanned pregnancy by him. Don't tell your hubby, and you get to spread your genes across two males.
The gay racer won't make a good father, so simply tell hubby the baby is his.
It's called "Cuckholding" and human females do it all the time to nice guy husbands. It's actually quite beneficial for our species and creates genetic diversity. Between 10% and 20% of all siblings are only 1/2 siblings according to random DNA testing.
Note, this whole part was meant to elict a strong emotional response from her. It also communicates that I empathise with her biological condition. Just wait till you see how she responds.. =)
Her:
How's work and everything?
Me:
Ahhhh, work is boring. Sex is much more interesting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next Exchange:
Me:
... and so he presents the ultimate challenge to your womanhood.
Her:
Y r u keep saying that he's gay? U think so? Did you ask him out or did he ask you out? Did you guys hav sex? TELL ME~!!!!! How did you find out that he's gay????????????
She is obsessed with the idea of two men having sex...I have smoked out a deep, dark fantasy of hers now...more later =)
Me:
Manipulate the plain......(he) will make a good father and provider.
Her:
I'm sure he will b the best father. Manipulating is WRONG!
Me:
When you loose attraction for him .....spread your genes across two males.
Her:
I'm sure our honey moon will last longer than that.
Btw, I have orgasms w my BF almost every time; but 0 from (hot guy)
(Hot guy) is like a wild horse, unpredictable and uncontrollable.
Me:
The gay racer won't make a good father, so simply tell hubby the baby is his.
Her:
(Hot guy) will never make a good father/hubby/BF.
See? She is in agreement with the meta frame I set. Women KNOW this dichotomy exists between "lover" and "provider". She desires the hot guy's genes, but needs the nice guy's resources....
Me:
It's called "Cuckholding" ....
Her:
That is not called the "Cuckholding"
Cuckholding
When a couple (typically a husband and wife) pick up another man, then the husband watches as the other man cums inside his wife then eats the cum from out of the womans vagina. (typically the couple are white while the other man is black)
Joe and Shannon brought Bernard home for a long night of Cuckholding .
Ok Gentlemen. What is she doing here? Think about it, I'll wait....
OK,...got it?
She is telling me her sexual fantasy - to have a supplicating male at home that will take care of her children and eat the sperm of a dominant man straight out of her pussy, and not just tolerate it, but enjoy it!....
hahahha...maybe she's not so vanilla after all....
She must have spent quite some time on-line doing research to find THAT definition of "Cuckholding" bwahahahahahaa....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Her:
I'm sure he will b the best father. Manipulating is WRONG!
Me:
Yea, then why do you wear sexy clothing? To manipulate a man's libido so you can have sex with him. Nothing wrong with that.
Her:
Btw, I have orgasms w my BF almost every time; but 0 from (hot guy):(
Me:
That's because he has a small penis. He is very ashamed of it.
Her:
(hot guy)is like a wild horse, unpredictable and uncontrollable.
Me:
I know, right?
The gay racer won't make a good father, so simply tell hubby the baby is his.
Her:
(Hot guy) will never make a good father/hubby/BF.
Me:
Correct.
Her:
Cuckholding
When a couple ....other man cums inside his wife then eats the cum from out of the womans vagina....
Me:
That's some hardcore stuff you are into there.....but the real definition is different:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckold
Again, agreement, then reframing "That's some hardcore stuff you are into" -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More of her gay male fantasies follow...
Her:
When did I tell you that (hot guy is gay)?
I never say anything. I think he's straight. U r the one who said he's gay. What make you think that he's gay? You'd NEVER answer my Q!
Huh?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me:
You just told me....
Mis-direction and reframing. This girl is ALWAYS talking about gay guys, and accusing, suspecting or teasing various men she is attracted to of being gay. It is both a test for the men, and a sexual obsession of hers....thus when I said "you just told me (her hot x bf is gay)" it forces her to go into her subconcious to make sense out of my partial, ambiguous commnuncation. This is where her sex drive lives - but she is conciously unaware of her male homosexual fantasies - they are too taboo and strong for her concious mind, threatening to overwhelm her carefully constructed sexual and social persona, so it stays underground - but still finds expression in her "anti" gay musinging.... =)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hahahaha...wait for it.....
Her:
When did I tell you that?
I never say anything. I think he's straight. U r the one who said he's gay. What make you think that he's gay? You'd NEVER answer my Q!
Me:
You are really obsessed with male homosexuality.
It must be a secret fantasy of yours to watch two guys french kiss passionately, while slowly running thier strong hands over each others firm naked buttocks. The blonde guy then starts slowly licking the head of the asian guy's little pink penis, as pre-cum leaks out uncontrollably.
He quickly inserts a finger into his rectum and slowly strokes his prostate. 1 finger, then 2, 3 and 4. Can he get his whole fist in this time?
Too late!
Suddenly, a huge flood of semen sprays from his cock...he cums so much that it leaks out of his mouth and down his smooth, muscular chest.
He then licks up the cum and feeds back to his lover.....
etc, etc, etc....
Is this what you imagine when you mastrubate with "Mr. Buzzy" your pink vibrating dildo?
Be honest...it's OK if you do.
I'll still accept you as a person and a friend no matter how sick, twisted, and depraved your sexual desires are. Actually, it makes you more interesting - vanilla sex sucks.
=)
Lol.... Again, this is a super hot young girl who is sexually repressed, but horny as hell. She likes drama and games. The key is to control the frame. Most guys are afraid to go sexual - I'm the opposite - I've figured out what her fantasy is, then developed a narrative that will arouse her - all playfully....and in an ACCEPTING way...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Her:
y r u avoiding my questions?
Me:
Do you think about hot gay man sex while you masturbate with Mr. Buzzy? As orgasm after orgasm racks your body with wave after wave of twiching, spasmotic pleasure?
Answer the question you kinky little bitch......
=)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Her:
It's NOT cool u never answer my questions:(
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me:
I had sex last night with one of these girls. Guess wich one:
(photos of me with 10 different women I'm dating or sleeping with at the moment followed)
Analysis
This shows how females - especially this "type" (young, hot, horny, and repressed) process male sexuality, while blinded to thier own. It's really quite facinanting. I'll not divulge how intimate I've been with her in the past, because that's not important. What IS important is how her communications reveal her sexual desires, and also the path to seducing (or re-seducing) her. Women will always tell you "how" to arouse them, though often not conciously. She is sending out so many signals.....they appear to be "mixed" and they require you to properly interpret them.... I've been playing with this girl for a long time....and she always comes back for more....She does this because she finds me challenging, and can't quite pigeonhole me as a lover or provider, straight or gay or even bi. I switch from pacing her reality, to leading it, to disagreeing with it, to throwing outrageous sexual statements at her. A girl like this NEEDS to be kept off balance - she is used to being in total control of men, and it's not EXCITING. That's why the relationship with the "needy nice guy" is ultimately doomed. He's safe, but BORING...
=)
Her:
"He's sooo cute that I just cannot get over with.
We had soooo much in common, and with him, I felt warm and secure.
It took me a LONG time move on.
Hot BJ is not as good as hot water + ice BJ:p"
Me:
Well, at least we are on the same page with that...
Her:
No matter how drunk I am, I still remember all the things I did. The best sex I had was when I was stoned.
Me:
lol...when you are stoned it's hard to remember stuff too...
Her:
Even me and him cannot agree on ALL the politically issues. But still, I like him a lot! And he is NOT a retard. He's very successful, smart, fun, sweet, loving and caring, traditional family oriented, has strict morality. I respect that.
Me:
Me too. At least we agree that morals are important - especially for a man.
Her:
You have several GFs. Do they each have several BFs?
Me:
Some do, some don't. All are free to choose thier sexual partners without judgement from me. I love all the women in my life - even you....
Note - I'm offering her acceptance now
Her:
I do know where babies come from. But there are differences between the planned/wanted babies and unplanned/unwanted/oops/surprise babies. No one wish for abortions and STDs.
She is QUALIFYING herself
Me:
The voice of experience talking. I don't know about you, but I always use condoms. Never had an STD or an unwanted pregnancy. Sex without condoms is disgusting - like fucking a public toilet.
I'm setting boundries - She has had an unwanted pregnancy, and probably an STD or two also...
Her
That's sad. When you really love someone, you can't see anyone else around you. All you can see is that one person.
This another attempt at re-framing on her part
Me:
What's sad is jealousy and insecurity. The need to own someone is selfish and childish. When you love people the way I do, you don't try to restrain the fee expression of their sexuality. Some women need multiple guys. I'm a guy who is happiest with multiple women. The funny thing is, they respect my honesty, and that I don't lie about my lifestyles or desires.
This is clear statement of my morals and values
Her:
LOL~ I AM nice to my BF's family. His brother came last week, and he liked me:) Just I'm worried that his mom might be one of those red neck McCain fans.
Btw, my BF is one who keeps asking "r u mine" or saying "u r mine", not me. But...I like it.
Note the contradiction - she chooses a BF with opposing political views. She is a minority, and his political views tend to oppress her people. She likes this tension, and is trying to control it. Note also the depth of supplication of her "needy nice guy" boyfriend...things will end badly for him....
Me:
Sure you like it - it gives that big fat ego of yours a boost. He is supplicating to you - kissing your ass. But the guy who really turns you on is the gay motorcycle racer. He wont kiss your ass, he has options with other men sexually, and so he presents the ultimate challenge to your womanhood.
Well, I'm just plain fucking with her here....remember - never take women seriously. This paragraph subcommunicates to her that I think she is a silly girl =)I'm also blatantly "amogging" the "hot" guy she keeps talking about
Here's my advice:
Manipulate the plain, moral, wimpy nice guy until he proposes marriage, and then have a bunch of babies with him. Remember, you are not getting any younger. He will never leave you, and will make a good father and provider.
LOL...now I'm simply calling her on her bullshit...indirectly of course...
When you loose attraction for him (after the inital infatuation wears of in about 18 months) have an affair with the hot gay racer guy who gives you great orgasms, and have another unplanned pregnancy by him. Don't tell your hubby, and you get to spread your genes across two males.
The gay racer won't make a good father, so simply tell hubby the baby is his.
It's called "Cuckholding" and human females do it all the time to nice guy husbands. It's actually quite beneficial for our species and creates genetic diversity. Between 10% and 20% of all siblings are only 1/2 siblings according to random DNA testing.
Note, this whole part was meant to elict a strong emotional response from her. It also communicates that I empathise with her biological condition. Just wait till you see how she responds.. =)
Her:
How's work and everything?
Me:
Ahhhh, work is boring. Sex is much more interesting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next Exchange:
Me:
... and so he presents the ultimate challenge to your womanhood.
Her:
Y r u keep saying that he's gay? U think so? Did you ask him out or did he ask you out? Did you guys hav sex? TELL ME~!!!!! How did you find out that he's gay????????????
She is obsessed with the idea of two men having sex...I have smoked out a deep, dark fantasy of hers now...more later =)
Me:
Manipulate the plain......(he) will make a good father and provider.
Her:
I'm sure he will b the best father. Manipulating is WRONG!
Me:
When you loose attraction for him .....spread your genes across two males.
Her:
I'm sure our honey moon will last longer than that.
Btw, I have orgasms w my BF almost every time; but 0 from (hot guy)
(Hot guy) is like a wild horse, unpredictable and uncontrollable.
Me:
The gay racer won't make a good father, so simply tell hubby the baby is his.
Her:
(Hot guy) will never make a good father/hubby/BF.
See? She is in agreement with the meta frame I set. Women KNOW this dichotomy exists between "lover" and "provider". She desires the hot guy's genes, but needs the nice guy's resources....
Me:
It's called "Cuckholding" ....
Her:
That is not called the "Cuckholding"
Cuckholding
When a couple (typically a husband and wife) pick up another man, then the husband watches as the other man cums inside his wife then eats the cum from out of the womans vagina. (typically the couple are white while the other man is black)
Joe and Shannon brought Bernard home for a long night of Cuckholding .
Ok Gentlemen. What is she doing here? Think about it, I'll wait....
OK,...got it?
She is telling me her sexual fantasy - to have a supplicating male at home that will take care of her children and eat the sperm of a dominant man straight out of her pussy, and not just tolerate it, but enjoy it!....
hahahha...maybe she's not so vanilla after all....
She must have spent quite some time on-line doing research to find THAT definition of "Cuckholding" bwahahahahahaa....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Her:
I'm sure he will b the best father. Manipulating is WRONG!
Me:
Yea, then why do you wear sexy clothing? To manipulate a man's libido so you can have sex with him. Nothing wrong with that.
Her:
Btw, I have orgasms w my BF almost every time; but 0 from (hot guy):(
Me:
That's because he has a small penis. He is very ashamed of it.
Her:
(hot guy)is like a wild horse, unpredictable and uncontrollable.
Me:
I know, right?
The gay racer won't make a good father, so simply tell hubby the baby is his.
Her:
(Hot guy) will never make a good father/hubby/BF.
Me:
Correct.
Her:
Cuckholding
When a couple ....other man cums inside his wife then eats the cum from out of the womans vagina....
Me:
That's some hardcore stuff you are into there.....but the real definition is different:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckold
Again, agreement, then reframing "That's some hardcore stuff you are into" -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More of her gay male fantasies follow...
Her:
When did I tell you that (hot guy is gay)?
I never say anything. I think he's straight. U r the one who said he's gay. What make you think that he's gay? You'd NEVER answer my Q!
Huh?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me:
You just told me....
Mis-direction and reframing. This girl is ALWAYS talking about gay guys, and accusing, suspecting or teasing various men she is attracted to of being gay. It is both a test for the men, and a sexual obsession of hers....thus when I said "you just told me (her hot x bf is gay)" it forces her to go into her subconcious to make sense out of my partial, ambiguous commnuncation. This is where her sex drive lives - but she is conciously unaware of her male homosexual fantasies - they are too taboo and strong for her concious mind, threatening to overwhelm her carefully constructed sexual and social persona, so it stays underground - but still finds expression in her "anti" gay musinging.... =)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hahahaha...wait for it.....
Her:
When did I tell you that?
I never say anything. I think he's straight. U r the one who said he's gay. What make you think that he's gay? You'd NEVER answer my Q!
Me:
You are really obsessed with male homosexuality.
It must be a secret fantasy of yours to watch two guys french kiss passionately, while slowly running thier strong hands over each others firm naked buttocks. The blonde guy then starts slowly licking the head of the asian guy's little pink penis, as pre-cum leaks out uncontrollably.
He quickly inserts a finger into his rectum and slowly strokes his prostate. 1 finger, then 2, 3 and 4. Can he get his whole fist in this time?
Too late!
Suddenly, a huge flood of semen sprays from his cock...he cums so much that it leaks out of his mouth and down his smooth, muscular chest.
He then licks up the cum and feeds back to his lover.....
etc, etc, etc....
Is this what you imagine when you mastrubate with "Mr. Buzzy" your pink vibrating dildo?
Be honest...it's OK if you do.
I'll still accept you as a person and a friend no matter how sick, twisted, and depraved your sexual desires are. Actually, it makes you more interesting - vanilla sex sucks.
=)
Lol.... Again, this is a super hot young girl who is sexually repressed, but horny as hell. She likes drama and games. The key is to control the frame. Most guys are afraid to go sexual - I'm the opposite - I've figured out what her fantasy is, then developed a narrative that will arouse her - all playfully....and in an ACCEPTING way...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Her:
y r u avoiding my questions?
Me:
Do you think about hot gay man sex while you masturbate with Mr. Buzzy? As orgasm after orgasm racks your body with wave after wave of twiching, spasmotic pleasure?
Answer the question you kinky little bitch......
=)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Her:
It's NOT cool u never answer my questions:(
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me:
I had sex last night with one of these girls. Guess wich one:
(photos of me with 10 different women I'm dating or sleeping with at the moment followed)
Analysis
This shows how females - especially this "type" (young, hot, horny, and repressed) process male sexuality, while blinded to thier own. It's really quite facinanting. I'll not divulge how intimate I've been with her in the past, because that's not important. What IS important is how her communications reveal her sexual desires, and also the path to seducing (or re-seducing) her. Women will always tell you "how" to arouse them, though often not conciously. She is sending out so many signals.....they appear to be "mixed" and they require you to properly interpret them.... I've been playing with this girl for a long time....and she always comes back for more....She does this because she finds me challenging, and can't quite pigeonhole me as a lover or provider, straight or gay or even bi. I switch from pacing her reality, to leading it, to disagreeing with it, to throwing outrageous sexual statements at her. A girl like this NEEDS to be kept off balance - she is used to being in total control of men, and it's not EXCITING. That's why the relationship with the "needy nice guy" is ultimately doomed. He's safe, but BORING...
=)
Friday, November 14, 2008
Dealing with Challenging Women (Part 1)
The following is an e-mail exchange I had recently with one of my more difficult girlfriends:
She started the exchange with a e-mail about a "Boat and Breakfast":
http://www.boatandbed.com/index.html
Please feel free to email me if you have any questions.
Thank you!
Best,
(Difficult Girl)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me:
Are you asking me out on a date?
;-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haha, you wish?
I actually meeting my BF's parents for dinner next week:)
Best,
(Difficult Girl)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me:
Which one?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
what do u mean which one?
the one and only:)
he's not the hottest or best looking, but he's definitely the sweetest, the cutest!
Please feel free to email me if you have any questions.
Thank you!
Best,
(Difficult Girl)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me:
lol...see...
You have at least two others:
The hottest...
and
The best looking... well, I know I'm super good looking, but I'm much hotter than "good looking", and I'm sure as hell not "sweet" or "cute"...
We should hang out again sometime soon...great gourmet shop around the corner...I've been cooking a lot for my girlfriends lately...one's on her way over right now...
=)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL~
Mr. hottest and Mr. best looking are the same person, the one you met at my birthday dinner:)
Ha! My bf's cooking / making sandwich all the time:)
We should all get together for dinner some time:)
We usually have family dinner on Sunday night. Pasta and wine plus Dexter. You should bring your GF.
I'm soooo nervous about meeting his mom~
Please feel free to email me if you have any questions.
Thank you!
Best,
(Difficult Girl)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Her: LOL~
Mr. hottest and Mr. best looking are the same person, the one you met at my birthday dinner:)
Me: Yea, but I though he was gay?
Her: Ha! My bf's cooking / making sandwich all the time:)
Me: That's woman’s work... I buy the food, the bitch cooks it...that's just how I roll...
Her: We should all get together for dinner some time:)
Me: Last time I did that, I ended up having a 3 way with the guy and his girlfriend. I was fun! I know you are pretty adventurous, but what about your guy?
Her: We usually have family dinner on Sunday night. Pasta and wine plus Dexter. You should bring your GF.
Me: Which one? The Vietnamese model, The Persian girl, The Swedish girl, The French one, the Croat, one of the Americans, or all of them?
(Just how adventurous are you anyway?)
Her: I'm soooo nervous about meeting his mom~
Me: Hahahahaha.....why?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Her:
What makes you think that he's gay?
Did he checked you out? Did he ask you out?
I know there are guys came out of the closet because of him.
He's SOOOOOOOOOOOO HOT! And VERY masculine.
He's really fast when it come to driving.
Whenever we go out, ppl check him out ALL THE TIME!
Ha! My bf's cooking / making sandwich all the time:)
Me:
That's woman’s work... I buy the food, the bitch cooks it...that's just how I roll...
Her:
Cooking is ABSOLUTELY NOT A WOMAN'S WORK~!
My sweetie bought the food, and he cooks.
Btw, Majority of the cooks are male in case you don't know.
And your GF is NOT your maid~!
IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE/KEEP YOUR GF HAPPY EVERYDAY~!
I didn't know that you are part of the butt plug club.
Don't even think about it.
1. I'm not as "adventurous" as you think.
2. My sweetie was raised in Catholic school, he's super conservative, he votes for McCain, and "YES" on 8.
3. I thought you have a GF.
We usually have family dinner on Sunday night. Pasta and wine plus Dexter. You should bring your GF.
Me:
Which one? The Vietnamese model, The Persian girl, The Swedish girl, The French one, the Croat, one of the Americans, or all of them?
(Just how adventurous are you anyway?)
You are terrible.
Just like my BF's roommate.
Male whore.
One day, you will fall in love with a girl, sooo in love that you will give up everything for her, and I hope she will dump you, so that you will finally learn something about karma.
(FYI, I'm NOT adventurous AT ALL with others).
I'm soooo nervous about meeting his mom~
Hahahahaha.....why?
Errrrrrrrrrrr... Hello? Coz I'm meeting his mom for the 1st time!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me:
hahaha...you are so egotistical.... You remind me of douchebag guys who drive Ferraris and date hot chicks just to show off. Get over yourself...
:-P
Her:
IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE/KEEP YOUR GF HAPPY EVERYDAY~!
Me:
Hey, as long as you give me hot blowjobs on demand (no teeth either!), no problem. I also like my shirts ironed and folded, and lightly starched. The kids better be clean and well fed when I get home too.
Her:
I didn't know that you are part of the butt plug club.
Butt plugs are fun! But what I really like are strapon dildos.....unfortunately, very few women know how to properly fuck a guy with one. It requires strong hips and proper rhythm and timing to get me off.
Her:
Don't even think about it.
1. I'm not as "adventurous" as you think.
Me:
Oh, I know are not adventurous - you are like a church mouse when it comes to sex...timid, and full of shame and hang ups about your body. Very judgmental too. I'll bet it's easier for you when you're drunk though....Be honest - that's when you have the best sex - trouble is you cant remember what you did the next day...
=)
Her:
2. My sweetie was raised in Catholic school, he's super conservative, he votes for McCain, and "YES" on 8.
Me:
You didn't tell me you were dating a retard. That gives you one point in the plus column in my book. Compassion for retards is important. Just remember - there is no god, McCain is an erratic, mean old man, and gays should be able to see how hellish marriage is for themselves.
Her:
3. I thought you have a GF.
Me:
I have several. You have a problem with that?
Her:
You are terrible.
Me:
Why?
Her:
Just like my BF's roommate.
Male whore.
Me:
That's not a very nice thing to say. You do know where babies come from right?
Her:
One day, you will fall in love with a girl, sooo in love that you will give up everything for her, and I hope she will dump you, so that you will finally learn something about karma.
Me:
I love all my girlfriends, even the difficult ones like you. They all know about each other - look at my facebook page. Some have sex with me, some are just friends. We all care about each other very much. Romantic love is a mental disease however - it's the worst reason to do anything, much less "give up everything".
I have no respect for women who demand that from men. They are leeches. A women has to contribute as much as I do or more.
That's just how I roll.....
Her:
Errrrrrrrrrrr... Hello? Coz I'm meeting his mom for the 1st time!
Me:
So? Just be yourself......
Wait, no don't do that....try to be nice, generous, and non judgmental. Drop your egoism and try to connect with her as a human being...not some hurdle to overcome on your quest to exclusively own your boyfriend's cock, balls, and resources in holy matrimony....
Good Luck!
lol.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Her:
Lol.
He's sooo cute that I just cannot get over with.
We had soooo much in common, and with him, I felt warm and secure.
It took me a LONG time move on.
Hot BJ is not as good as hot water + ice BJ:p
So you do like to be plugged. Reverse role play? EWWWWWWWWWWWW~
No matter how drunk I am, I still remember all the things I did. The best sex I had was when I was stoned.
Even me and him cannot agree on ALL the politically issues. But still, I like him a lot! And he is NOT a retard. He's very successful, smart, fun, sweet, loving and caring, traditional family oriented, has strict morality. I respect that.
You have several GFs. Do they each have several BFs?
I do know where babies come from. But there are differences between the planned/wanted babies and unplanned/unwanted/oops/surprise babies. No one wish for abortions and STDs.
That's sad. When you really love someone, you can't see anyone else around you. All you can see is that one person.
LOL~ I AM nice to my BF's family. His brother came last week, and he liked me:) Just I'm worried that his mom might be one of those red neck McCain fans.
Btw, my BF is one who keeps asking "r u mine" or saying "u r mine", not me. But...I like it.
How's work and everything?
(Difficult girl)
ANALYSIS
Note how I deal with her challenges. She brings up her "BF" in an attempt to establish herself as the prize in the interaction, and to manipulate me into supplicating or pursuing her. She is a very beautiful girl, with a lot of male attention. Women do this instictually - don't get angry or hurt - use it to your advantage. She is actually subcommunitcating that she wants me to chase her - that she see me as desireable. Remeber that it is a trap she is setting, and that she is not even aware of it.
I redirect the meaning of her communication with selective mis-interpretations of her words, and by changing the subject. This puts her on the defensive - and in the end, she spends a long time qualifying herself and her motives. You will rarely have sex with women who do not qualify themselves. You need to set frames where they are foreced to qualify themselves of end the interaction.
Note that she constatly tests the frames I establish by implying or stating that I'm a "Whore" or that I'm "Terrible" or even "Gay" Note how I re-direct that negative energy back at her in a playful way.
Dont get angry - this is how many women become sexually aroused - through game playing.
She started the exchange with a e-mail about a "Boat and Breakfast":
http://www.boatandbed.com/index.html
Please feel free to email me if you have any questions.
Thank you!
Best,
(Difficult Girl)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me:
Are you asking me out on a date?
;-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haha, you wish?
I actually meeting my BF's parents for dinner next week:)
Best,
(Difficult Girl)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me:
Which one?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
what do u mean which one?
the one and only:)
he's not the hottest or best looking, but he's definitely the sweetest, the cutest!
Please feel free to email me if you have any questions.
Thank you!
Best,
(Difficult Girl)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me:
lol...see...
You have at least two others:
The hottest...
and
The best looking... well, I know I'm super good looking, but I'm much hotter than "good looking", and I'm sure as hell not "sweet" or "cute"...
We should hang out again sometime soon...great gourmet shop around the corner...I've been cooking a lot for my girlfriends lately...one's on her way over right now...
=)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL~
Mr. hottest and Mr. best looking are the same person, the one you met at my birthday dinner:)
Ha! My bf's cooking / making sandwich all the time:)
We should all get together for dinner some time:)
We usually have family dinner on Sunday night. Pasta and wine plus Dexter. You should bring your GF.
I'm soooo nervous about meeting his mom~
Please feel free to email me if you have any questions.
Thank you!
Best,
(Difficult Girl)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Her: LOL~
Mr. hottest and Mr. best looking are the same person, the one you met at my birthday dinner:)
Me: Yea, but I though he was gay?
Her: Ha! My bf's cooking / making sandwich all the time:)
Me: That's woman’s work... I buy the food, the bitch cooks it...that's just how I roll...
Her: We should all get together for dinner some time:)
Me: Last time I did that, I ended up having a 3 way with the guy and his girlfriend. I was fun! I know you are pretty adventurous, but what about your guy?
Her: We usually have family dinner on Sunday night. Pasta and wine plus Dexter. You should bring your GF.
Me: Which one? The Vietnamese model, The Persian girl, The Swedish girl, The French one, the Croat, one of the Americans, or all of them?
(Just how adventurous are you anyway?)
Her: I'm soooo nervous about meeting his mom~
Me: Hahahahaha.....why?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Her:
What makes you think that he's gay?
Did he checked you out? Did he ask you out?
I know there are guys came out of the closet because of him.
He's SOOOOOOOOOOOO HOT! And VERY masculine.
He's really fast when it come to driving.
Whenever we go out, ppl check him out ALL THE TIME!
Ha! My bf's cooking / making sandwich all the time:)
Me:
That's woman’s work... I buy the food, the bitch cooks it...that's just how I roll...
Her:
Cooking is ABSOLUTELY NOT A WOMAN'S WORK~!
My sweetie bought the food, and he cooks.
Btw, Majority of the cooks are male in case you don't know.
And your GF is NOT your maid~!
IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE/KEEP YOUR GF HAPPY EVERYDAY~!
I didn't know that you are part of the butt plug club.
Don't even think about it.
1. I'm not as "adventurous" as you think.
2. My sweetie was raised in Catholic school, he's super conservative, he votes for McCain, and "YES" on 8.
3. I thought you have a GF.
We usually have family dinner on Sunday night. Pasta and wine plus Dexter. You should bring your GF.
Me:
Which one? The Vietnamese model, The Persian girl, The Swedish girl, The French one, the Croat, one of the Americans, or all of them?
(Just how adventurous are you anyway?)
You are terrible.
Just like my BF's roommate.
Male whore.
One day, you will fall in love with a girl, sooo in love that you will give up everything for her, and I hope she will dump you, so that you will finally learn something about karma.
(FYI, I'm NOT adventurous AT ALL with others).
I'm soooo nervous about meeting his mom~
Hahahahaha.....why?
Errrrrrrrrrrr... Hello? Coz I'm meeting his mom for the 1st time!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me:
hahaha...you are so egotistical.... You remind me of douchebag guys who drive Ferraris and date hot chicks just to show off. Get over yourself...
:-P
Her:
IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE/KEEP YOUR GF HAPPY EVERYDAY~!
Me:
Hey, as long as you give me hot blowjobs on demand (no teeth either!), no problem. I also like my shirts ironed and folded, and lightly starched. The kids better be clean and well fed when I get home too.
Her:
I didn't know that you are part of the butt plug club.
Butt plugs are fun! But what I really like are strapon dildos.....unfortunately, very few women know how to properly fuck a guy with one. It requires strong hips and proper rhythm and timing to get me off.
Her:
Don't even think about it.
1. I'm not as "adventurous" as you think.
Me:
Oh, I know are not adventurous - you are like a church mouse when it comes to sex...timid, and full of shame and hang ups about your body. Very judgmental too. I'll bet it's easier for you when you're drunk though....Be honest - that's when you have the best sex - trouble is you cant remember what you did the next day...
=)
Her:
2. My sweetie was raised in Catholic school, he's super conservative, he votes for McCain, and "YES" on 8.
Me:
You didn't tell me you were dating a retard. That gives you one point in the plus column in my book. Compassion for retards is important. Just remember - there is no god, McCain is an erratic, mean old man, and gays should be able to see how hellish marriage is for themselves.
Her:
3. I thought you have a GF.
Me:
I have several. You have a problem with that?
Her:
You are terrible.
Me:
Why?
Her:
Just like my BF's roommate.
Male whore.
Me:
That's not a very nice thing to say. You do know where babies come from right?
Her:
One day, you will fall in love with a girl, sooo in love that you will give up everything for her, and I hope she will dump you, so that you will finally learn something about karma.
Me:
I love all my girlfriends, even the difficult ones like you. They all know about each other - look at my facebook page. Some have sex with me, some are just friends. We all care about each other very much. Romantic love is a mental disease however - it's the worst reason to do anything, much less "give up everything".
I have no respect for women who demand that from men. They are leeches. A women has to contribute as much as I do or more.
That's just how I roll.....
Her:
Errrrrrrrrrrr... Hello? Coz I'm meeting his mom for the 1st time!
Me:
So? Just be yourself......
Wait, no don't do that....try to be nice, generous, and non judgmental. Drop your egoism and try to connect with her as a human being...not some hurdle to overcome on your quest to exclusively own your boyfriend's cock, balls, and resources in holy matrimony....
Good Luck!
lol.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Her:
Lol.
He's sooo cute that I just cannot get over with.
We had soooo much in common, and with him, I felt warm and secure.
It took me a LONG time move on.
Hot BJ is not as good as hot water + ice BJ:p
So you do like to be plugged. Reverse role play? EWWWWWWWWWWWW~
No matter how drunk I am, I still remember all the things I did. The best sex I had was when I was stoned.
Even me and him cannot agree on ALL the politically issues. But still, I like him a lot! And he is NOT a retard. He's very successful, smart, fun, sweet, loving and caring, traditional family oriented, has strict morality. I respect that.
You have several GFs. Do they each have several BFs?
I do know where babies come from. But there are differences between the planned/wanted babies and unplanned/unwanted/oops/surprise babies. No one wish for abortions and STDs.
That's sad. When you really love someone, you can't see anyone else around you. All you can see is that one person.
LOL~ I AM nice to my BF's family. His brother came last week, and he liked me:) Just I'm worried that his mom might be one of those red neck McCain fans.
Btw, my BF is one who keeps asking "r u mine" or saying "u r mine", not me. But...I like it.
How's work and everything?
(Difficult girl)
ANALYSIS
Note how I deal with her challenges. She brings up her "BF" in an attempt to establish herself as the prize in the interaction, and to manipulate me into supplicating or pursuing her. She is a very beautiful girl, with a lot of male attention. Women do this instictually - don't get angry or hurt - use it to your advantage. She is actually subcommunitcating that she wants me to chase her - that she see me as desireable. Remeber that it is a trap she is setting, and that she is not even aware of it.
I redirect the meaning of her communication with selective mis-interpretations of her words, and by changing the subject. This puts her on the defensive - and in the end, she spends a long time qualifying herself and her motives. You will rarely have sex with women who do not qualify themselves. You need to set frames where they are foreced to qualify themselves of end the interaction.
Note that she constatly tests the frames I establish by implying or stating that I'm a "Whore" or that I'm "Terrible" or even "Gay" Note how I re-direct that negative energy back at her in a playful way.
Dont get angry - this is how many women become sexually aroused - through game playing.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
The importance of having hobbies
Here is another area where I have a big problem with the whole seduction community. All they talk about, obsessively, is sex and women.
Well, guess what? Guys need to have more than that going on if they want to enjoy the company of quality women. They need to be well rounded individuals who are actually interesting to be around. I have several hobbies and sports I engage in - things that I enjoy for thier own sake - like photography and video editing:
The slide show here in the side bar shows some of my other interests, interests that I share with women I find attractive. It's a great screening tool for men too. If she is not interested in what you are interested in, why go to the trouble of seducing her?
You will both have a miserable time together. Sure, sex is fun and all, but really, it's a very small part of even a casual relationship.
;-)
Well, guess what? Guys need to have more than that going on if they want to enjoy the company of quality women. They need to be well rounded individuals who are actually interesting to be around. I have several hobbies and sports I engage in - things that I enjoy for thier own sake - like photography and video editing:
The slide show here in the side bar shows some of my other interests, interests that I share with women I find attractive. It's a great screening tool for men too. If she is not interested in what you are interested in, why go to the trouble of seducing her?
You will both have a miserable time together. Sure, sex is fun and all, but really, it's a very small part of even a casual relationship.
;-)
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Women, The Id, The Ego, The Super Ego, and Ethics
Who would have thought, I'd become the voice of ethics within the seduction community?
First, I'll define terms.
Id: Unconscious instincts and emotional drives - The sex drive comes from here.
Ego: The "Self" or sense of self. Literally "I" Consciousness, experience, and thought.
Super Ego: The unconscious judge. Punishes the Ego for violating moral and ethical rules. Creates anxiety and self doubt.
The Seduction Community was founded by a bunch of amoral semi-psychopathic nerds who leveraged the internet for it's parallel processing capabilities. Lacking and rejecting true empathy or compassion for others, especially women, they relied on their Ids and Egos to systematically study and develop sets of social stratagems and tactics that exploit vulnerable aspects of female psychology centering on emotions.
These tactics are highly effective for purposes of seduction. These guys became masters at the social and emotional manipulation of females. Their tactics operate largely at the unconscious level of the female Id. These guys also unfortunately had woefully underdeveloped Super Egos.
I do not personally have a problem with the manipulative aspect of what they discovered, and codified anymore than I have a problem with females reading fashion magazines, and then wearing high heels, short dresses or push-up bras to manipulate the male Id.
The problem with the community's lack of ethics is a practical one:
Generally speaking, females do not have strong Super-Egos.
Freud was aware of this, and wrote about it in "The Ego and the Id" (1923) and in "Civilization and Its Discontents" (1930) . His theory was that women, not suffering from Oedipal conflict in the way that men do, develop weak Super Egos.
This was of course eventually challenged by feminism, one of the great utopian ideologies of the 20th century. The idea that women lacked morals to the extent that men do on a fundamental level was unpalatable politically, and Freud's theories were discredited, replaced by Behaviorism and other hair-brained notions of environmental determinism, notions that stated that humans were "Tabla Rasa" at birth, and all cognitive imprinting cultural.
Simply put, feminism states that boys behave like boys because that is how they are raised, and girls behave like girls for similar reasons. Reverse the stimulus, and boys will enjoy tea parties, and girls guns.
There are reasons to doubt this hypothosis, and little evidence to support it, but it was politically expedient, and so became conventional wisdom.
- Stephen Pinker gives a good talk about the blinding consequences of such speculative, politically driven cultural theories in his talk "Chalking it up to the Blank Slate" (The first 5 minutes or so tell the story):
So, if we accept that humans are not blank slates at birth, and that there are gender differences between the emotional/cognitive strategies of our species, strategies that evolved for a variety of environmental and reproductive reasons, then Freudian psychological modeling provides one way to attempt understanding these differences as they manifest behaviorally.
For Instance:
Any guy with much experience in bars or nightclubs, or for that matter in any public place, has noticed that when he is accompanied by a woman, he receives more attention from other females in that setting. This attention takes the form of flirting and other indicators of sexual interest.
The Seduction community chalks this up to the idea of "Social Proof", but this only partly explains the dynamic. Certainly men accompanied by other men are seen by females as more desirable than "lone wolves" in social settings, but the highest form of "social proof" comes from other females.
But is it truly social proof that is at work here, or sexual selection? I believe that the answer comes from the distinct make-up of the typical female ego, which is shaped by her unconscious Id, and weak Super Ego. If a woman can gain the sexual attention of a man who is already with another woman, this creates a conscious sense of validation for her ego. She does not egage in such behavior consciously, it is instinctual.
The lack of a strong Super Ego as counter weight to her Id allows her ego to ignore the fact that the male is with another woman. It simply "feels good" to flirt with the "taken" man.
The Seduction Community uses this fact to lethal effect.
A "Pivot" is a female who accompanies a man socially simply to trigger this sort of female behavior, and pivots make the work of a male seeking sexual companionship much easier.
However, there is a flipside for females to this instinct:
Jealousy.
This is one reason why the Seduction Community recomends not having sex with women who serve them as pivots.
If you are a female in a public place with your mate, you instinctively know that you have raised his mating value significantly in the eyes of other females. Thus, if he entertains the attentions of other females, you feel betrayed - you feel a loss of "trust" in him.
But what is the mechanism for this loss of trust? Why is this the way the instinct manifests itself?
Why is it directed at the man?
I believe that women also instinctually know that they lack absolute ethics, morals, and a sense of honor, especially when it comes to mating competition. Because of this, they project these feeling onto other females, and assume they lack morals too. There is a certain amout of forgiveness that comes with this projection in some females, others become "catty" and openly attack thier sexual competition, either indirectly through social networks and gossip, or directly through verbal or even physical means.
This excites some males, witness the prevalence of female "wrestling" videos and pronography.
Lacking the sense of absolute morals provided by a strong Super Ego, they also instinctively seek an "alpha" male's strong Super Ego to balance their weaker one.
When her man hints at letting his monagamous morals slip, especially if he has assumed a beta "provider" role with her, she feels a double sense of betrayal and loss - She is losing the competition with other females, and the man she relied on to set boundaries for her is not doing his job.
Thus strong ethics are an "Alpha" quality, a quality conditioned by a strong masculine Super Ego. A man's ethical behavior is the most obvious expression of the strength of his Super Ego, and thus indicative of his "Alphaness"
The male Super Ego also has negative aspects, aspects that women are constantly struggling against. The Super Ego allows men to detach emotionally, and is thus antithical to the Id, and also to emotional connection, something that women seek with men, but rarely find. In fact, when they do find it, they are often sexually repulsed by it, because instinctively she knows that this reflects a weak Super Ego on his part, one out of balance with his Id.
His ethics are thus suspect - and clear ethical boundaries are the very thing she finds comforting and sexual about strong males.
The Super Ego has another, even darker side:
If it is overdeveloped, it can be cruel and heartless - sadistic even. This may be one reason that dominance from a mate is sought by many females - especially those with low self esteem. This lack of self esteem manifests as a desire for punishment, punishment that her own weak Super Ego is incapable of providing for her Ego.
Thus, many females seek to be the object of a strong male Super Ego to balance the stronger pull of their Id. Many men seek "feminine" (Low Self Esteem) women with strong Ids and weak Super Egos to balance their own emotional detachment.
In the end, both sexes find themselves in cognitive and emotional double binds. Mainstream psychology attempts to mediate compromise between these drives and instincts with harmony the goal.
I believe that harmony is the wrong objective - rather recognition and celebration of these emotional tensions should be the goal - as such tensions lead to, dare I say it?
Great Sex.
=)
When men abdicate their ethical duties in relationships, they are abandoning the very thing that sets up a proper dynamic for mating. If left to the women, ethics will be defined relative to her changing emotional states, not the absolute, benevolent dictatorship of a strong, balanced male Super Ego.
Is this bad?
Is this true?
I don't know, but it goes a long way towards explaining female social behavior, and answering Freud’s unanswerable question:
"What do Women want?"
First, I'll define terms.
Id: Unconscious instincts and emotional drives - The sex drive comes from here.
Ego: The "Self" or sense of self. Literally "I" Consciousness, experience, and thought.
Super Ego: The unconscious judge. Punishes the Ego for violating moral and ethical rules. Creates anxiety and self doubt.
The Seduction Community was founded by a bunch of amoral semi-psychopathic nerds who leveraged the internet for it's parallel processing capabilities. Lacking and rejecting true empathy or compassion for others, especially women, they relied on their Ids and Egos to systematically study and develop sets of social stratagems and tactics that exploit vulnerable aspects of female psychology centering on emotions.
These tactics are highly effective for purposes of seduction. These guys became masters at the social and emotional manipulation of females. Their tactics operate largely at the unconscious level of the female Id. These guys also unfortunately had woefully underdeveloped Super Egos.
I do not personally have a problem with the manipulative aspect of what they discovered, and codified anymore than I have a problem with females reading fashion magazines, and then wearing high heels, short dresses or push-up bras to manipulate the male Id.
The problem with the community's lack of ethics is a practical one:
Generally speaking, females do not have strong Super-Egos.
Freud was aware of this, and wrote about it in "The Ego and the Id" (1923) and in "Civilization and Its Discontents" (1930) . His theory was that women, not suffering from Oedipal conflict in the way that men do, develop weak Super Egos.
This was of course eventually challenged by feminism, one of the great utopian ideologies of the 20th century. The idea that women lacked morals to the extent that men do on a fundamental level was unpalatable politically, and Freud's theories were discredited, replaced by Behaviorism and other hair-brained notions of environmental determinism, notions that stated that humans were "Tabla Rasa" at birth, and all cognitive imprinting cultural.
Simply put, feminism states that boys behave like boys because that is how they are raised, and girls behave like girls for similar reasons. Reverse the stimulus, and boys will enjoy tea parties, and girls guns.
There are reasons to doubt this hypothosis, and little evidence to support it, but it was politically expedient, and so became conventional wisdom.
- Stephen Pinker gives a good talk about the blinding consequences of such speculative, politically driven cultural theories in his talk "Chalking it up to the Blank Slate" (The first 5 minutes or so tell the story):
So, if we accept that humans are not blank slates at birth, and that there are gender differences between the emotional/cognitive strategies of our species, strategies that evolved for a variety of environmental and reproductive reasons, then Freudian psychological modeling provides one way to attempt understanding these differences as they manifest behaviorally.
For Instance:
Any guy with much experience in bars or nightclubs, or for that matter in any public place, has noticed that when he is accompanied by a woman, he receives more attention from other females in that setting. This attention takes the form of flirting and other indicators of sexual interest.
The Seduction community chalks this up to the idea of "Social Proof", but this only partly explains the dynamic. Certainly men accompanied by other men are seen by females as more desirable than "lone wolves" in social settings, but the highest form of "social proof" comes from other females.
But is it truly social proof that is at work here, or sexual selection? I believe that the answer comes from the distinct make-up of the typical female ego, which is shaped by her unconscious Id, and weak Super Ego. If a woman can gain the sexual attention of a man who is already with another woman, this creates a conscious sense of validation for her ego. She does not egage in such behavior consciously, it is instinctual.
The lack of a strong Super Ego as counter weight to her Id allows her ego to ignore the fact that the male is with another woman. It simply "feels good" to flirt with the "taken" man.
The Seduction Community uses this fact to lethal effect.
A "Pivot" is a female who accompanies a man socially simply to trigger this sort of female behavior, and pivots make the work of a male seeking sexual companionship much easier.
However, there is a flipside for females to this instinct:
Jealousy.
This is one reason why the Seduction Community recomends not having sex with women who serve them as pivots.
If you are a female in a public place with your mate, you instinctively know that you have raised his mating value significantly in the eyes of other females. Thus, if he entertains the attentions of other females, you feel betrayed - you feel a loss of "trust" in him.
But what is the mechanism for this loss of trust? Why is this the way the instinct manifests itself?
Why is it directed at the man?
I believe that women also instinctually know that they lack absolute ethics, morals, and a sense of honor, especially when it comes to mating competition. Because of this, they project these feeling onto other females, and assume they lack morals too. There is a certain amout of forgiveness that comes with this projection in some females, others become "catty" and openly attack thier sexual competition, either indirectly through social networks and gossip, or directly through verbal or even physical means.
This excites some males, witness the prevalence of female "wrestling" videos and pronography.
Lacking the sense of absolute morals provided by a strong Super Ego, they also instinctively seek an "alpha" male's strong Super Ego to balance their weaker one.
When her man hints at letting his monagamous morals slip, especially if he has assumed a beta "provider" role with her, she feels a double sense of betrayal and loss - She is losing the competition with other females, and the man she relied on to set boundaries for her is not doing his job.
Thus strong ethics are an "Alpha" quality, a quality conditioned by a strong masculine Super Ego. A man's ethical behavior is the most obvious expression of the strength of his Super Ego, and thus indicative of his "Alphaness"
The male Super Ego also has negative aspects, aspects that women are constantly struggling against. The Super Ego allows men to detach emotionally, and is thus antithical to the Id, and also to emotional connection, something that women seek with men, but rarely find. In fact, when they do find it, they are often sexually repulsed by it, because instinctively she knows that this reflects a weak Super Ego on his part, one out of balance with his Id.
His ethics are thus suspect - and clear ethical boundaries are the very thing she finds comforting and sexual about strong males.
The Super Ego has another, even darker side:
If it is overdeveloped, it can be cruel and heartless - sadistic even. This may be one reason that dominance from a mate is sought by many females - especially those with low self esteem. This lack of self esteem manifests as a desire for punishment, punishment that her own weak Super Ego is incapable of providing for her Ego.
Thus, many females seek to be the object of a strong male Super Ego to balance the stronger pull of their Id. Many men seek "feminine" (Low Self Esteem) women with strong Ids and weak Super Egos to balance their own emotional detachment.
In the end, both sexes find themselves in cognitive and emotional double binds. Mainstream psychology attempts to mediate compromise between these drives and instincts with harmony the goal.
I believe that harmony is the wrong objective - rather recognition and celebration of these emotional tensions should be the goal - as such tensions lead to, dare I say it?
Great Sex.
=)
When men abdicate their ethical duties in relationships, they are abandoning the very thing that sets up a proper dynamic for mating. If left to the women, ethics will be defined relative to her changing emotional states, not the absolute, benevolent dictatorship of a strong, balanced male Super Ego.
Is this bad?
Is this true?
I don't know, but it goes a long way towards explaining female social behavior, and answering Freud’s unanswerable question:
"What do Women want?"
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Morals and Ethics - Who should set them - Men or Women?
This may be the most controversial topic I've yet addressed:
Who is better suited to set ethics - men or women? The following video states my position:
I believe that women depend on men to set firm ethical boundaries.
I was playing a card game with two women just the other night. It was a new game to me. They found it simply delightful that I didn't know the rules, and took advantage of that fact at every turn. They also changed the rules occasionally.
Most men would not do this - it goes against masculine instincts of fair play. Even the most brutal male sports like Mixed Martial Arts have rules. Mike Tyson was vilified for biting the ear off his opponent in boxing. Even in all out war, including gang wars and the Mafia there are codes of honor and rules.
The women I was with were not "bad" or "evil" women. They were typical. They are both long term friends of mine. You can probably think of similar examples in your own life, and the literature is full of examples of this sort of female behavior.
Look at what happens in divorces and child custody cases.
Women do not have a set of absolute ethics the way men do. Their ethics are relative, and subject to their emotional moods. For instance, women frequently try to "steal" boyfriends and even husbands from each other. Seducers know this and use this fact to their advantage - for instance, putting a married woman in the proper emotional state will allow a skilled seducer to have sex with her (If you do not believe this, you have not studied seduction or done enough field work).
Emotionally determined ethics are what allow this to take place.
"If it feels right, it's OK"
We see this at work also in the way women seek men who have women with them in social settings. To get a guy who already has a girlfriend is emotionally compelling for most heterosexual women. It validates their attractiveness.
Most men on the other hand will not seduce the wife or girlfriend of a close friend, no matter how attractive or seductive she is out of a sense of honor and fair play. Other men's women from outside their social circle might be seen as fair game, but most men still have a very tough time going after "taken" women. One of the most common excuses I hear from guys in the field for refusing to approach a woman is that "She probably has a boyfriend"
Men assume that women have the same set of ethical boundaries regarding sex as they do, but by and large, they do not.
What sort of society would we have if MEN did not establish and set ethical boundaries? - a good one, a bad one, neutral, simply different, or would it be the same?
The seduction community is "amoral" and advocates no ethics, and I find this extremely troubling.
Ethics go to the core identity and beliefs that males have about themselves, and their interactions with women. It has huge implications for everything from individual sarges to family structures on up to entire societies.
Feminism claims that we would have a perfect, utopian society if women were in charge of ethics. There would be no war, and a loving, non-competitive social structures.
...I'm not so sure....
Note that I am not promoting any particular ethical position. I'm simply pointing out that either men will set up ethical structures, or in their absence, women will.
What will the consequences be if men don't do it?
Who is better suited to set ethics - men or women? The following video states my position:
I believe that women depend on men to set firm ethical boundaries.
I was playing a card game with two women just the other night. It was a new game to me. They found it simply delightful that I didn't know the rules, and took advantage of that fact at every turn. They also changed the rules occasionally.
Most men would not do this - it goes against masculine instincts of fair play. Even the most brutal male sports like Mixed Martial Arts have rules. Mike Tyson was vilified for biting the ear off his opponent in boxing. Even in all out war, including gang wars and the Mafia there are codes of honor and rules.
The women I was with were not "bad" or "evil" women. They were typical. They are both long term friends of mine. You can probably think of similar examples in your own life, and the literature is full of examples of this sort of female behavior.
Look at what happens in divorces and child custody cases.
Women do not have a set of absolute ethics the way men do. Their ethics are relative, and subject to their emotional moods. For instance, women frequently try to "steal" boyfriends and even husbands from each other. Seducers know this and use this fact to their advantage - for instance, putting a married woman in the proper emotional state will allow a skilled seducer to have sex with her (If you do not believe this, you have not studied seduction or done enough field work).
Emotionally determined ethics are what allow this to take place.
"If it feels right, it's OK"
We see this at work also in the way women seek men who have women with them in social settings. To get a guy who already has a girlfriend is emotionally compelling for most heterosexual women. It validates their attractiveness.
Most men on the other hand will not seduce the wife or girlfriend of a close friend, no matter how attractive or seductive she is out of a sense of honor and fair play. Other men's women from outside their social circle might be seen as fair game, but most men still have a very tough time going after "taken" women. One of the most common excuses I hear from guys in the field for refusing to approach a woman is that "She probably has a boyfriend"
Men assume that women have the same set of ethical boundaries regarding sex as they do, but by and large, they do not.
What sort of society would we have if MEN did not establish and set ethical boundaries? - a good one, a bad one, neutral, simply different, or would it be the same?
The seduction community is "amoral" and advocates no ethics, and I find this extremely troubling.
Ethics go to the core identity and beliefs that males have about themselves, and their interactions with women. It has huge implications for everything from individual sarges to family structures on up to entire societies.
Feminism claims that we would have a perfect, utopian society if women were in charge of ethics. There would be no war, and a loving, non-competitive social structures.
...I'm not so sure....
Note that I am not promoting any particular ethical position. I'm simply pointing out that either men will set up ethical structures, or in their absence, women will.
What will the consequences be if men don't do it?
Sunday, October 26, 2008
More debate about ethics and the seduction community
Below is a response to a client email taking me to task for promoting Acceptance, Compassion, Empathy, and Detachment on one of the seduction communitiy's message boards.
In it, I ask my client a series of questions about his values:
Me:
> 1) Are you ashamed that you study Pick-up and Seduction? Do you keep it
> secret? Does your family know about it? Your friends? The women you are
> close to?
Client:
not really, but i don't consider myself a pick-up artist. i
definitely share with people that i study human interaction, which is
more accurate as i've been reading about psychology and sociology
since i was a kid and majored in psychology in college, and mASF is
one small recent part of that. i've talked to everyne from chicks to
friends to my mom (who's a devout catholic, and actually agrees with
most everything i've said regarding meeting and interacting with
girls, i just leave out the sex when talking to her. she thinks modern
men are weak and is relieved to know that i don't think that way).
Me:
So sex is shameful? Why? Can you talk to your father openly about it? My mother is catholic, and we talk about sex....not explicitly of course, but we don't shy away from the topic - she knows about my lifestyle and ideas regarding women...I am not ashamed of anything I do socially, or the fact that I am sexual.
Client
but i do feel there's something inherantly lame in a person calling
themselves a pick-up artist.
Me:
Lol...yes
Client:
that shows that they define themselves
by their ability to pick up chicks, which is lame to a lot of people
because it's so outcome dependent, and dependent on CHICKS no less.
that's lame.
Me:
yup. Same with lables like "gay" and and "Bi" and "Fem" and "Emo" - things I'm currently being called on the boards....all while I lead a vibrant and open social and sex life with women...
Client:
just like salesmen are regarded by many as inherantly
lame. i define myself as an artist, .... whether or not i have a chick
around means absolutely nothing to my self worth or self definition.
Me:
You have DETACHMENT. Women generaly dislike men who are needy or clingy. They respect men with ambition and a sense of purpose and direction in thier lives.
Me:
> 2) If you are ashamed, ask yourself why....what is shameful about the
> community and what it teaches?
>
> 3) Ask yourself how and if my approach differes, if you do indeed sense that
> something is "not quite right" about the whole seduction community and it's
> approach to socialization.
Client:
i like the idea of "check your ethics at the door and let's figure
this shit out." that is pure science and how progress is made. are
some of the guys off? of course. you want ethics though? go to
church! the LAST thing dudes need on mASF is another holier than thou
motherfucker PREACHING ETHICS to them while they're trying to learn
how to get laid, esp when the rules of the board clearly state "no
ethics." dude the greeks figured out its best to check your ethics
1000s of years ago.
Me:
You just brought up ethics, not me. But since you did....
=)
Client:
also, you're "sensing" something "isn't right." that's chick shit
dude. women's intuition.
Me
"Chick shit"? another perjorative label....I love women, and don't consider what they do "shit" - eapecially thier cognitive starategies and emotional make-up. It may occassionaly be disfunctional or counter productive to happieness and well being, but then men have disfunctional cognitive strategies and beliefs too.
Do you think you are perfectly rational?
Men have no intuition? Intuition should not be trusted? You never have "gut" feelings? You don't take them into consideration when making decisions?
I believe the human mind is like a monkey (conciousness) riding an elephant (the unconcious). If the elphant really wants to go somewhere, it's going, and the monkey is just along for the ride.
Look at the stock market - that's run by MEN. You think it's RATIONAL?
Football, mountain climbing, mixed martial arts.
What about MUSIC?...lol....
Men are just as emotional as women, we delude ourselves into thinking we are not. Denial of our emotional make-up is weakness. It is the source of much unhappieness and pain and disfunction.
Client:
....acting on feelings. most of mASF is based
on raw scientific research without judgment.
Me:
"raw scientific research"?
c'mon...what we do at best rises to level of amature social anthropology. There are no formal studies, no control groups, and no peer reviewed journals.
True scientists would laugh at our methods - what we do is guided much more by intuition, hunches, feeling, and sensing than by cold hard logic. It must be - human beings are fluid and unpredictable creatures.
Client:
it even follows the
scientific method in having an idea, putting together a procedure that
tests it, putting that procedure to action in the field, and
summarizing the results. after being tested successful several times
in the field by different dudes, it becomes theory. thats what dudes
come to mASF for. not ethics. .
Me:
Eventualy all social, medical, and even physical science must confront ethics.
Ever hear of the hypocratic oath? Why do doctors make a vow to "First, do no harm"?
It goes back 2500 years to the Greeks.
Client:
now you ask yourself, why do you need to be mr. ethics on the mASF
board? what are YOU trying to prove? have you slipped into defining
yourself as a pick-up GURU and now need your angle? are ethics REALLY
the only place you're able to bring something new to the community?
could it be theres a hole there because EVERYONE ELSE CHECKS THEIR
ETHICS AT THE DOOR as is stated in the rules?
Me:
What are rules? Who made them? Why were they made? Are we allowed to question rules?
The very lack of ethics in the community constitutes an ethic. I'm simply questioning the form the ethics of community take, and thier utility for promoting happiness.
What is your meta purpose in studying seduction?
The guys I coach think that "getting pussy" is going to solve all thier problems and make them happy. Guess what?
It wont, at least not in and of itself. They are deluded in the same way lottery winners think money will solve all thier problems. The truth is sobering - but it's where I start with my clients, because what I promote is well being - sex is a part of that, but it is not sufficient to create it.
Nothing external is.
The thing is, once you reach a state of inner well being, sex will happen naturally and organically for you. You will no longer need "game" or status or any other external trappings. This is what I mean by Acceptance - you must have self acceptance before you can offer acceptance to others. It's actually selfish in that sense in that it operateson the principal of reciprocal altruism.
Client:
you know what happens when you color everything with ethics? you
become like every other religious fool that becomes absolutely
impossible to discuss and debate with. try having a rational
discussion about pro-life/pro-choice with a religious person. you
can't. you go to science, they go to ethics (the bible), and the
debate can't even begin! guess what? that's YOU right now on masf!
Me:
What interests me as that none of the masterminds have a cogent response to the points I'm making about historic seducers - both positive ones like Gahndi, and negative ones like Manson.
What exactly is the difference between them? They all use the same tactics like hypnosis, frame control, and dominance to impose thier will on others - to get others to follow them and do thier bidding.
What is the difference
Think about it....
In it, I ask my client a series of questions about his values:
Me:
> 1) Are you ashamed that you study Pick-up and Seduction? Do you keep it
> secret? Does your family know about it? Your friends? The women you are
> close to?
Client:
not really, but i don't consider myself a pick-up artist. i
definitely share with people that i study human interaction, which is
more accurate as i've been reading about psychology and sociology
since i was a kid and majored in psychology in college, and mASF is
one small recent part of that. i've talked to everyne from chicks to
friends to my mom (who's a devout catholic, and actually agrees with
most everything i've said regarding meeting and interacting with
girls, i just leave out the sex when talking to her. she thinks modern
men are weak and is relieved to know that i don't think that way).
Me:
So sex is shameful? Why? Can you talk to your father openly about it? My mother is catholic, and we talk about sex....not explicitly of course, but we don't shy away from the topic - she knows about my lifestyle and ideas regarding women...I am not ashamed of anything I do socially, or the fact that I am sexual.
Client
but i do feel there's something inherantly lame in a person calling
themselves a pick-up artist.
Me:
Lol...yes
Client:
that shows that they define themselves
by their ability to pick up chicks, which is lame to a lot of people
because it's so outcome dependent, and dependent on CHICKS no less.
that's lame.
Me:
yup. Same with lables like "gay" and and "Bi" and "Fem" and "Emo" - things I'm currently being called on the boards....all while I lead a vibrant and open social and sex life with women...
Client:
just like salesmen are regarded by many as inherantly
lame. i define myself as an artist, .... whether or not i have a chick
around means absolutely nothing to my self worth or self definition.
Me:
You have DETACHMENT. Women generaly dislike men who are needy or clingy. They respect men with ambition and a sense of purpose and direction in thier lives.
Me:
> 2) If you are ashamed, ask yourself why....what is shameful about the
> community and what it teaches?
>
> 3) Ask yourself how and if my approach differes, if you do indeed sense that
> something is "not quite right" about the whole seduction community and it's
> approach to socialization.
Client:
i like the idea of "check your ethics at the door and let's figure
this shit out." that is pure science and how progress is made. are
some of the guys off? of course. you want ethics though? go to
church! the LAST thing dudes need on mASF is another holier than thou
motherfucker PREACHING ETHICS to them while they're trying to learn
how to get laid, esp when the rules of the board clearly state "no
ethics." dude the greeks figured out its best to check your ethics
1000s of years ago.
Me:
You just brought up ethics, not me. But since you did....
=)
Client:
also, you're "sensing" something "isn't right." that's chick shit
dude. women's intuition.
Me
"Chick shit"? another perjorative label....I love women, and don't consider what they do "shit" - eapecially thier cognitive starategies and emotional make-up. It may occassionaly be disfunctional or counter productive to happieness and well being, but then men have disfunctional cognitive strategies and beliefs too.
Do you think you are perfectly rational?
Men have no intuition? Intuition should not be trusted? You never have "gut" feelings? You don't take them into consideration when making decisions?
I believe the human mind is like a monkey (conciousness) riding an elephant (the unconcious). If the elphant really wants to go somewhere, it's going, and the monkey is just along for the ride.
Look at the stock market - that's run by MEN. You think it's RATIONAL?
Football, mountain climbing, mixed martial arts.
What about MUSIC?...lol....
Men are just as emotional as women, we delude ourselves into thinking we are not. Denial of our emotional make-up is weakness. It is the source of much unhappieness and pain and disfunction.
Client:
....acting on feelings. most of mASF is based
on raw scientific research without judgment.
Me:
"raw scientific research"?
c'mon...what we do at best rises to level of amature social anthropology. There are no formal studies, no control groups, and no peer reviewed journals.
True scientists would laugh at our methods - what we do is guided much more by intuition, hunches, feeling, and sensing than by cold hard logic. It must be - human beings are fluid and unpredictable creatures.
Client:
it even follows the
scientific method in having an idea, putting together a procedure that
tests it, putting that procedure to action in the field, and
summarizing the results. after being tested successful several times
in the field by different dudes, it becomes theory. thats what dudes
come to mASF for. not ethics. .
Me:
Eventualy all social, medical, and even physical science must confront ethics.
Ever hear of the hypocratic oath? Why do doctors make a vow to "First, do no harm"?
It goes back 2500 years to the Greeks.
Client:
now you ask yourself, why do you need to be mr. ethics on the mASF
board? what are YOU trying to prove? have you slipped into defining
yourself as a pick-up GURU and now need your angle? are ethics REALLY
the only place you're able to bring something new to the community?
could it be theres a hole there because EVERYONE ELSE CHECKS THEIR
ETHICS AT THE DOOR as is stated in the rules?
Me:
What are rules? Who made them? Why were they made? Are we allowed to question rules?
The very lack of ethics in the community constitutes an ethic. I'm simply questioning the form the ethics of community take, and thier utility for promoting happiness.
What is your meta purpose in studying seduction?
The guys I coach think that "getting pussy" is going to solve all thier problems and make them happy. Guess what?
It wont, at least not in and of itself. They are deluded in the same way lottery winners think money will solve all thier problems. The truth is sobering - but it's where I start with my clients, because what I promote is well being - sex is a part of that, but it is not sufficient to create it.
Nothing external is.
The thing is, once you reach a state of inner well being, sex will happen naturally and organically for you. You will no longer need "game" or status or any other external trappings. This is what I mean by Acceptance - you must have self acceptance before you can offer acceptance to others. It's actually selfish in that sense in that it operateson the principal of reciprocal altruism.
Client:
you know what happens when you color everything with ethics? you
become like every other religious fool that becomes absolutely
impossible to discuss and debate with. try having a rational
discussion about pro-life/pro-choice with a religious person. you
can't. you go to science, they go to ethics (the bible), and the
debate can't even begin! guess what? that's YOU right now on masf!
Me:
What interests me as that none of the masterminds have a cogent response to the points I'm making about historic seducers - both positive ones like Gahndi, and negative ones like Manson.
What exactly is the difference between them? They all use the same tactics like hypnosis, frame control, and dominance to impose thier will on others - to get others to follow them and do thier bidding.
What is the difference
Think about it....
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Acceptance
Acceptance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Acceptance usually refers to cases where a person experiences a situation or condition (often a negative or uncomfortable situation) without attempting to change it, protest, or exit. The term is used in spirituality, in Eastern religious concepts such as Buddhist mindfulness, and in human psychology. Religions and psychological treatments often suggest the path of acceptance when a situation is both disliked and unchangeable, or when change may be possible only at great cost or risk. Acceptance may imply only a lack of outward, behavioral attempts at possible change, but the word is also used more specifically for a felt or hypothesized cognitive or emotional state. Thus someone may decide to take no action against a situation and yet be said to have not accepted it.
Types:
Acceptance typically contains the concept of approval, it is important to note that in the psychospiritual use of the term infers non-judgmental Acceptance is contrasted with resistance, but that term has strong political and psychoanalytic connotations not applicable in many contexts. By groups and by individuals, acceptance can be of various events and conditions in the world; individuals may also accept elements of their own thoughts, feelings, and personal histories. For example, psychotherapeutic treatment of a person with depression or anxiety could involve fostering acceptance either for whatever personal circumstances may give rise to those feelings or for the feelings themselves. (Psychotherapy could also involve lessening an individual's acceptance of various situations.)
Notions of acceptance are prominent in many faiths and meditation practices. For example, Buddhism's first noble truth, "All life is suffering", invites people to accept that suffering is a natural part of life. The term "Kabbalah" means literally acceptance. Minority groups in society often describe their goal as "acceptance", wherein the majority will not challenge the minority's full participation in society. A majority may be said (at best) to "tolerate" minorities when it confines their participation to certain aspects of society. Acceptance is the fifth stage of the Kübler-Ross model (commonly known as the "stages of dying").
The Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous describles the importance of acceptance in the treatment of alcoholism. It states that acceptance can be used to resolve situations where a person feels disturbed by a "person, place, thing or situation -- some fact of my life -- [which is] unacceptable to me". It claims that an alcoholic person cannot find serenity until that person accepts that "nothing happens in God's world by mistake" and that the condition of alcoholism must be accepted as a given.[1]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Acceptance usually refers to cases where a person experiences a situation or condition (often a negative or uncomfortable situation) without attempting to change it, protest, or exit. The term is used in spirituality, in Eastern religious concepts such as Buddhist mindfulness, and in human psychology. Religions and psychological treatments often suggest the path of acceptance when a situation is both disliked and unchangeable, or when change may be possible only at great cost or risk. Acceptance may imply only a lack of outward, behavioral attempts at possible change, but the word is also used more specifically for a felt or hypothesized cognitive or emotional state. Thus someone may decide to take no action against a situation and yet be said to have not accepted it.
Types:
Acceptance typically contains the concept of approval, it is important to note that in the psychospiritual use of the term infers non-judgmental Acceptance is contrasted with resistance, but that term has strong political and psychoanalytic connotations not applicable in many contexts. By groups and by individuals, acceptance can be of various events and conditions in the world; individuals may also accept elements of their own thoughts, feelings, and personal histories. For example, psychotherapeutic treatment of a person with depression or anxiety could involve fostering acceptance either for whatever personal circumstances may give rise to those feelings or for the feelings themselves. (Psychotherapy could also involve lessening an individual's acceptance of various situations.)
Notions of acceptance are prominent in many faiths and meditation practices. For example, Buddhism's first noble truth, "All life is suffering", invites people to accept that suffering is a natural part of life. The term "Kabbalah" means literally acceptance. Minority groups in society often describe their goal as "acceptance", wherein the majority will not challenge the minority's full participation in society. A majority may be said (at best) to "tolerate" minorities when it confines their participation to certain aspects of society. Acceptance is the fifth stage of the Kübler-Ross model (commonly known as the "stages of dying").
The Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous describles the importance of acceptance in the treatment of alcoholism. It states that acceptance can be used to resolve situations where a person feels disturbed by a "person, place, thing or situation -- some fact of my life -- [which is] unacceptable to me". It claims that an alcoholic person cannot find serenity until that person accepts that "nothing happens in God's world by mistake" and that the condition of alcoholism must be accepted as a given.[1]
Monday, October 20, 2008
The realitionship between aggression, dominance, and penis size
I've been promoting the idea of interacting with others socially from an accepting, compassionate, empathetic standpoint for a couple of months now on
www.fastseduction.com
This has lead to a firestorm of controversy - especially from guys who advocate what's refer ed to as "Alpha Male" sexual selection theory.
This thoery states that "females only respond sexually to men who dominate social interactions with both other men (this is called "amogging" in the community - "Alpha Male, Other Guy") and with women.
They compare themselves to alpha male gorillas who fight off all the other males in a group, and build harems of female gorillas to breed with.
They have a point. We share around 96% of thier DNA structure as well as a common ancestor:
"Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn't go far enough," said Frans de Waal, a primate scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. "We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament."
They also say that men can build harems just like apes through dominant/agressive social behavior. So what are we to make of the fact that male gorillas have extremely small penises?
From Miller's "The Mating Mind"
"If we were a species in which males dominated the sexual system, we would have 1" penises like dominant gorillas" (Pg.236)
I therefore posit that human males who display excessive agressive or dominant behavior towards other males and females are endowed with very small penises.
Baddogs Law: There is an inverse/proportional relationship between social dominance and agression and penis size in human males.
The vairables can be defined thusly:
Let P= The product of penis lenth * girth
Let D= Agressive / Dominant behavior on the part of the human male on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 representing no agressive or dominant tendencies, and 10 being perfectly dominant and agressive.
Then we can state the relationship mathmatically as:
P=1/D
The resulting number is what I'll call the XXX Factor. The smaller the number, the shorter and skinnier the penis.
As an example, Martin Luther King would have a social agression and domninance value of 1
So according to Baddog's law, MLK had an XXX factor of 1, or an absolutely gargantuan penis due to his gentle spirit....he could probably have had sex with women in other zip codes...
Similarly, A guy like Charlie Manson (he was quite a player!) would have an XXX factor of .1 - ten times smaller than a guy like say, Ghandi. Now, just like dominant male gorillas, our friend Charlie got lots of girls:
Note that both Manson and MLK were ladies men...
This law seems to be borne out by pornography - John Holmes and Ron Jeremy, both males with freakishly large penises, are both reputed to be / have been very gentle, friendly, accepting males. Hundreds of women attended John Holmes funeral.
Note that women consistently report that "size matters". Not only that, they are always looking for physical behavioral cues that indicate a man's penis size. Everything from shoe size to middle finger length are posited in popular culture as indicative of this important metric.
More research needs to be done on this important topic.
For instance, is the relationship direct as I have posited, or is it exponential, fibbonachian, Fractal, or regulated by some other proportional progression?
Can males increase penis size by decreasing dominant / agressive behavior?
Are there similar inverse relationships between penis size and the size of a man's car, or the loudness of his exhaust system? His car stereo? The size of his muscles?
The cost of his pinky ring?
(Grabs popcorn....)
www.fastseduction.com
This has lead to a firestorm of controversy - especially from guys who advocate what's refer ed to as "Alpha Male" sexual selection theory.
This thoery states that "females only respond sexually to men who dominate social interactions with both other men (this is called "amogging" in the community - "Alpha Male, Other Guy") and with women.
They compare themselves to alpha male gorillas who fight off all the other males in a group, and build harems of female gorillas to breed with.
They have a point. We share around 96% of thier DNA structure as well as a common ancestor:
"Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn't go far enough," said Frans de Waal, a primate scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. "We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament."
They also say that men can build harems just like apes through dominant/agressive social behavior. So what are we to make of the fact that male gorillas have extremely small penises?
From Miller's "The Mating Mind"
"If we were a species in which males dominated the sexual system, we would have 1" penises like dominant gorillas" (Pg.236)
I therefore posit that human males who display excessive agressive or dominant behavior towards other males and females are endowed with very small penises.
Baddogs Law: There is an inverse/proportional relationship between social dominance and agression and penis size in human males.
The vairables can be defined thusly:
Let P= The product of penis lenth * girth
Let D= Agressive / Dominant behavior on the part of the human male on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 representing no agressive or dominant tendencies, and 10 being perfectly dominant and agressive.
Then we can state the relationship mathmatically as:
P=1/D
The resulting number is what I'll call the XXX Factor. The smaller the number, the shorter and skinnier the penis.
As an example, Martin Luther King would have a social agression and domninance value of 1
So according to Baddog's law, MLK had an XXX factor of 1, or an absolutely gargantuan penis due to his gentle spirit....he could probably have had sex with women in other zip codes...
Similarly, A guy like Charlie Manson (he was quite a player!) would have an XXX factor of .1 - ten times smaller than a guy like say, Ghandi. Now, just like dominant male gorillas, our friend Charlie got lots of girls:
Note that both Manson and MLK were ladies men...
This law seems to be borne out by pornography - John Holmes and Ron Jeremy, both males with freakishly large penises, are both reputed to be / have been very gentle, friendly, accepting males. Hundreds of women attended John Holmes funeral.
Note that women consistently report that "size matters". Not only that, they are always looking for physical behavioral cues that indicate a man's penis size. Everything from shoe size to middle finger length are posited in popular culture as indicative of this important metric.
More research needs to be done on this important topic.
For instance, is the relationship direct as I have posited, or is it exponential, fibbonachian, Fractal, or regulated by some other proportional progression?
Can males increase penis size by decreasing dominant / agressive behavior?
Are there similar inverse relationships between penis size and the size of a man's car, or the loudness of his exhaust system? His car stereo? The size of his muscles?
The cost of his pinky ring?
(Grabs popcorn....)
Handling Social Rejection
This topic comes up a lot in the personal e-mails I recieve -
Guys ask, "how can avoid rejection" or "I'm afraid of rejection" It's one of the biggest fears guys have - "what if she doesn't like me?". The pressure is on males to approach and lead interactions, and this can lead to paralysing fear.
The solution to fear of rejection is simple - go out and get "rejected".
A lot.
It's no big deal. I got "rejected" by a woman today - I offered her one of my trademark smiley face stickers, and she rejected it - right in front of a good friend of mine.
He said "Dude - that was EMBARASSING ....."
I said, "Yea, I know...silly girl ... she must be having bad day - she could have gotten a SMILEY FACE STICKER from me!"
Who knows....maybe her pet Anaconda choked death on her pet Chihuawawa that morning, and they are both dead. Seriously....I've come across all sorts of crazy things. Dont take it personally.
Again....rejection is all about your belifes. I actually feel sorry for the women who don't want to engage me - they are truly missing out on some fun. For god's sake, I'm BADDOG! One of the most fun, interesting guys in the world! They blew a chance to have a life changing interaction with ME.
Some women simply don't qualify for your time and attention....don't get hurt or angry at this - accept it, then move on to another girl immediately, right in front of her if at all possible....
....That's detachment. It will work wonders for your mindset if you practice it consistently.
Your beliefs are what matter if you wish to lead social interactions.
Guys ask, "how can avoid rejection" or "I'm afraid of rejection" It's one of the biggest fears guys have - "what if she doesn't like me?". The pressure is on males to approach and lead interactions, and this can lead to paralysing fear.
The solution to fear of rejection is simple - go out and get "rejected".
A lot.
It's no big deal. I got "rejected" by a woman today - I offered her one of my trademark smiley face stickers, and she rejected it - right in front of a good friend of mine.
He said "Dude - that was EMBARASSING ....."
I said, "Yea, I know...silly girl ... she must be having bad day - she could have gotten a SMILEY FACE STICKER from me!"
Who knows....maybe her pet Anaconda choked death on her pet Chihuawawa that morning, and they are both dead. Seriously....I've come across all sorts of crazy things. Dont take it personally.
Again....rejection is all about your belifes. I actually feel sorry for the women who don't want to engage me - they are truly missing out on some fun. For god's sake, I'm BADDOG! One of the most fun, interesting guys in the world! They blew a chance to have a life changing interaction with ME.
Some women simply don't qualify for your time and attention....don't get hurt or angry at this - accept it, then move on to another girl immediately, right in front of her if at all possible....
....That's detachment. It will work wonders for your mindset if you practice it consistently.
Your beliefs are what matter if you wish to lead social interactions.
October Seminar Location
Here is a map to the seminar:
View Larger Map
I've rented a nice conference room....it should be a lot of fun - hope to see you there..
=)
View Larger Map
I've rented a nice conference room....it should be a lot of fun - hope to see you there..
=)
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Ethics and Dating
The philosophy of Acceptance, Compassion, Empathy, and Detachment has been causing a lot of trouble on mASF, the worlds oldest "Seduction" website:
http://www.fastseduction.com/discussion/fs?action=9&boardid=2&read=86638&fid=173
Without ethics, we become psychopaths, and mASF just a training ground:
At the risk of being labled and "emo, fem, ivory tower, pious, intellectual" I'll cite mainstream psychology:
From http://www.minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Hare-Psychopathy-Checklist.html
The Hare PCL-R contains two parts, a semi-structured interview and a review of the subject's file records and history. During the evaluation, the clinician scores 20 items that measure central elements of the psychopathic character. The items cover the nature of the subject's interpersonal relationships; his or her affective or emotional involvement; responses to other people and to situations; evidence of social deviance; and lifestyle. The material thus covers two key aspects that help define the psychopath: selfish and unfeeling victimization of other people, and an unstable and antisocial lifestyle.
The twenty traits assessed by the PCL-R score are:
glib and superficial charm
grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self
need for stimulation
pathological lying
cunning and manipulativeness
lack of remorse or guilt
shallow affect(superficial emotional responsiveness)
callousness and lack of empathy
parasitic lifestyle
poor behavioral controls
sexual promiscuity
early behavior problems
lack of realistic long-term goals
impulsivity
irresponsibility
failure to accept responsibility for own actions
many short-term marital relationships
juvenile delinquency
revocation of conditional release
criminal versatility
The interview portion of the evaluation covers the subject's background, including such items as work and educational history; marital and family status; and criminal background. Because psychopaths lie frequently and easily, the information they provide must be confirmed by a review of the documents in the subject's case history.
Results
When properly completed by a qualified professional, the PCL-R provides a total score that indicates how closely the test subject matches the "perfect" score that a classic or prototypical psychopath would rate. Each of the twenty items is given a score of 0, 1, or 2 based on how well it applies to the subject being tested. A prototypical psychopath would receive a maximum score of 40, while someone with absolutely no psychopathic traits or tendencies would receive a score of zero. A score of 30 or above qualifies a person for a diagnosis of psychopathy. People with no criminal backgrounds normally score around 5. Many non-psychopathic criminal offenders score around 22.
Think about it..... I'd say about half of those traits are strongly associated with mainstream sedcution tactics, things like
"Glib superficial charm" (routines)
grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self (Alpha Male Theory)
need for stimulation (Self explanatory)
pathological lying (Fake DHV stories, Patterns, etc)
cunning and manipulativeness (See above)
shallow affect(superficial emotional responsiveness)
callousness and lack of empathy (My personal favorite)
parasitic lifestyle (Player Supreme's glorification of financial exploitation of women - leeching off of them, having them support you - basic pimp / MAC lifestyle)
sexual promiscuity (The community raises this to a virtue - it's not the quality, it the QUANTITY)
many short-term marital relationships (This one is borderline - many PUAs reject mariage entirely)
I think we can all agree that Hitler was a psycho. He had no empathy for others, no compassion, and no acceptance. He was a bad guy - an extreme example of what a lack of those things leads to. He seduced an entire nation.
The seduction community was founded by guys who were in my opinion either psychopathic or at least borderline psychopathic personalities. They were geniuses at observing social interactions, then bending those interactions to meet thier own selfish desires. The advent of the internet allowed them to engage in "parallel processing" Psychopaths linking together, testing and sharing ideas across the world.
Read "The Game" and you see two of them clash in real life....
There is valuable, powerful information in this community, but it needs to be tempered with the sort of values I'm talking about. Without them, we become monsters.
With them....well, let's just say I'm getting everything I ever imagined I could get from the women in my life, and more....
The thing is, I give back to them as much or more....
http://www.fastseduction.com/discussion/fs?action=9&boardid=2&read=86638&fid=173
Without ethics, we become psychopaths, and mASF just a training ground:
At the risk of being labled and "emo, fem, ivory tower, pious, intellectual" I'll cite mainstream psychology:
From http://www.minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Hare-Psychopathy-Checklist.html
The Hare PCL-R contains two parts, a semi-structured interview and a review of the subject's file records and history. During the evaluation, the clinician scores 20 items that measure central elements of the psychopathic character. The items cover the nature of the subject's interpersonal relationships; his or her affective or emotional involvement; responses to other people and to situations; evidence of social deviance; and lifestyle. The material thus covers two key aspects that help define the psychopath: selfish and unfeeling victimization of other people, and an unstable and antisocial lifestyle.
The twenty traits assessed by the PCL-R score are:
glib and superficial charm
grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self
need for stimulation
pathological lying
cunning and manipulativeness
lack of remorse or guilt
shallow affect(superficial emotional responsiveness)
callousness and lack of empathy
parasitic lifestyle
poor behavioral controls
sexual promiscuity
early behavior problems
lack of realistic long-term goals
impulsivity
irresponsibility
failure to accept responsibility for own actions
many short-term marital relationships
juvenile delinquency
revocation of conditional release
criminal versatility
The interview portion of the evaluation covers the subject's background, including such items as work and educational history; marital and family status; and criminal background. Because psychopaths lie frequently and easily, the information they provide must be confirmed by a review of the documents in the subject's case history.
Results
When properly completed by a qualified professional, the PCL-R provides a total score that indicates how closely the test subject matches the "perfect" score that a classic or prototypical psychopath would rate. Each of the twenty items is given a score of 0, 1, or 2 based on how well it applies to the subject being tested. A prototypical psychopath would receive a maximum score of 40, while someone with absolutely no psychopathic traits or tendencies would receive a score of zero. A score of 30 or above qualifies a person for a diagnosis of psychopathy. People with no criminal backgrounds normally score around 5. Many non-psychopathic criminal offenders score around 22.
Think about it..... I'd say about half of those traits are strongly associated with mainstream sedcution tactics, things like
"Glib superficial charm" (routines)
grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self (Alpha Male Theory)
need for stimulation (Self explanatory)
pathological lying (Fake DHV stories, Patterns, etc)
cunning and manipulativeness (See above)
shallow affect(superficial emotional responsiveness)
callousness and lack of empathy (My personal favorite)
parasitic lifestyle (Player Supreme's glorification of financial exploitation of women - leeching off of them, having them support you - basic pimp / MAC lifestyle)
sexual promiscuity (The community raises this to a virtue - it's not the quality, it the QUANTITY)
many short-term marital relationships (This one is borderline - many PUAs reject mariage entirely)
I think we can all agree that Hitler was a psycho. He had no empathy for others, no compassion, and no acceptance. He was a bad guy - an extreme example of what a lack of those things leads to. He seduced an entire nation.
The seduction community was founded by guys who were in my opinion either psychopathic or at least borderline psychopathic personalities. They were geniuses at observing social interactions, then bending those interactions to meet thier own selfish desires. The advent of the internet allowed them to engage in "parallel processing" Psychopaths linking together, testing and sharing ideas across the world.
Read "The Game" and you see two of them clash in real life....
There is valuable, powerful information in this community, but it needs to be tempered with the sort of values I'm talking about. Without them, we become monsters.
With them....well, let's just say I'm getting everything I ever imagined I could get from the women in my life, and more....
The thing is, I give back to them as much or more....
Friday, October 17, 2008
Lessons in Social Calibration
Me:
The Competition:
GUESS WHO WINS?
As some of you know, one of my hobbies is Autoracing. It's a great way to get an adrenaline rush, and also requires a mix of intuitive and intelectual skills to perfect.
In my first season racing, I was awarded "Rookie of the Year" by my local club - one of the most winning groups in the nation, with several legendary National Class Champions in it's ranks. I see a lot of paralells between developing my skills as an Amature racing champion and a guy who's skilled in the social arts. Both took time, hard work, comitment and discipline.
The lesson I'd like to draw today comes from the numerous posts on my racing discussion forum from new guys asking "what are the best tires for my car" or "what are the best brake pads" or exhaust system, or fuel injectors, shocks, etc, etc, etc....
This is similar to the question I get on the social sites and via e-mail about "what is the best method for meeting women?" and "what should I say to a woman when I first meet her?"
Well, as with racing equipment, the truth might surprize you.
The "best" tires are the ones that give the most feedback and grip. The best brake pads are the ones that are easiest to modulate at the limit without lock-up. But when you are starting out, none of that matters until you "fix the nut behind the wheel":
Guys will spend thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars on high end sports cars and modifications, but NOTHING on real world practice and training. The only way to get good at autoracing is GO OUT AND RACE. Go to racing schools - and learn from guys that are at the top of thier game.
(You won't get good playing GT4 either...just like on-line dating is NOT true socializing)
I was like the others - I spent thousands on my car before taking a driving school. The modifications cut maybe 1 second from my lap times.
The school? 5 seconds, and it only cost me a couple of hundred dollars.
Likewise, if you can spend time with someone who is well calibrated socially, your improvement will be much more rapid than if you try to figure it out yourself. I used to let National Champions drive my car to see what it was capable of. After riding with them, my lap times would improve dramatically, because my self limiting beliefs would be challenged:
"I didn't know my car could do THAT!!!" I'd say, then promptly go out and match or even beat the times they had set.
So when socializing in mixed groups,It's important to calibrate to the people, the venue, and the particular circumstances you find yourself in - and not worry too much about the particular topic you introduce or method you employ. 
To prove this to beginers when I teach auto racing, I'll often hop in thier cars, cars that they claim are "horrible" and turn in lap times 10 seconds faster than them in a sport where Championships are often decided by 1000ths of a second.
Well, I'm 44, 5'9", balding, and have uneven front teeth from some bad bridgework. I'm not especially good looking:
So when I'm with a guy who is negative like this, I'll prove to him that the only thing that REALLY matters is your ATTITUDE in social settings. Mine is one of playfullness, openess, and accepatance of everyone. This sets the venue on fire, and as I ineract positively with people, my social proof grows, and soon, me and my group become the center of fun.
So stop worrying about finding that "one perfect routine". Just get out and start talking to people - men and women, and paying attention to how they react to you and the larger social setting. Focus on fun and leading the interaction with just a hint of sexual subtext, and you will have no trouble dating even the most beautiful women, no matter what you look like, how old you are, or what you own.
Oh, and just so you know, I regularly beat that red Camaro above in the local "Outlaw" class with my Civic SI. So don't ever think it's about your looks - it's about your SKILL.
The Competition:
GUESS WHO WINS?
As some of you know, one of my hobbies is Autoracing. It's a great way to get an adrenaline rush, and also requires a mix of intuitive and intelectual skills to perfect.
In my first season racing, I was awarded "Rookie of the Year" by my local club - one of the most winning groups in the nation, with several legendary National Class Champions in it's ranks. I see a lot of paralells between developing my skills as an Amature racing champion and a guy who's skilled in the social arts. Both took time, hard work, comitment and discipline.
The lesson I'd like to draw today comes from the numerous posts on my racing discussion forum from new guys asking "what are the best tires for my car" or "what are the best brake pads" or exhaust system, or fuel injectors, shocks, etc, etc, etc....
This is similar to the question I get on the social sites and via e-mail about "what is the best method for meeting women?" and "what should I say to a woman when I first meet her?"
Well, as with racing equipment, the truth might surprize you.
The "best" tires are the ones that give the most feedback and grip. The best brake pads are the ones that are easiest to modulate at the limit without lock-up. But when you are starting out, none of that matters until you "fix the nut behind the wheel":
Guys will spend thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars on high end sports cars and modifications, but NOTHING on real world practice and training. The only way to get good at autoracing is GO OUT AND RACE. Go to racing schools - and learn from guys that are at the top of thier game.
(You won't get good playing GT4 either...just like on-line dating is NOT true socializing)
I was like the others - I spent thousands on my car before taking a driving school. The modifications cut maybe 1 second from my lap times.
The school? 5 seconds, and it only cost me a couple of hundred dollars.
Likewise, if you can spend time with someone who is well calibrated socially, your improvement will be much more rapid than if you try to figure it out yourself. I used to let National Champions drive my car to see what it was capable of. After riding with them, my lap times would improve dramatically, because my self limiting beliefs would be challenged:
"I didn't know my car could do THAT!!!" I'd say, then promptly go out and match or even beat the times they had set.
So when socializing in mixed groups,It's important to calibrate to the people, the venue, and the particular circumstances you find yourself in - and not worry too much about the particular topic you introduce or method you employ.
...put another way, it's not what you say, it's HOW you say it. Pay attention to the feedback the people are giving you - the same way a racer adjusts to the particular car and race conditions.
The best guys adapt to changing conditions with ease, and are able to read situations quickly and intuitively - this is analgous to brake and throttle modulation in racing - you must develop a feel for the balance of the car and it's acceleration, weight transfer, and braking characterists if you ever hope to drive it quickly around a course.
The best guys adapt to changing conditions with ease, and are able to read situations quickly and intuitively - this is analgous to brake and throttle modulation in racing - you must develop a feel for the balance of the car and it's acceleration, weight transfer, and braking characterists if you ever hope to drive it quickly around a course.
(Yes - we race in the rain!)
To prove this to beginers when I teach auto racing, I'll often hop in thier cars, cars that they claim are "horrible" and turn in lap times 10 seconds faster than them in a sport where Championships are often decided by 1000ths of a second.
It's not the car that's the problem, its the driver.
Likewise, guys will complain to me in social settings that they are not rich, or good looking, are too old, or that there are too many guys in the venue for them to suceessfull socialize with the women there.
Likewise, guys will complain to me in social settings that they are not rich, or good looking, are too old, or that there are too many guys in the venue for them to suceessfull socialize with the women there.
(Guess which car was faster in the rain - This 300hp Subaru WRX STI AWD):
.....Or my little 160 HP Honda Civic SI - FWD?
(I was faster this day...and I can prove it!)
Well, I'm 44, 5'9", balding, and have uneven front teeth from some bad bridgework. I'm not especially good looking:
So when I'm with a guy who is negative like this, I'll prove to him that the only thing that REALLY matters is your ATTITUDE in social settings. Mine is one of playfullness, openess, and accepatance of everyone. This sets the venue on fire, and as I ineract positively with people, my social proof grows, and soon, me and my group become the center of fun.
Below is another competitor who I used to beat on occassion - and he was a hair's breath away from a National Championship a few years back....
So stop worrying about finding that "one perfect routine". Just get out and start talking to people - men and women, and paying attention to how they react to you and the larger social setting. Focus on fun and leading the interaction with just a hint of sexual subtext, and you will have no trouble dating even the most beautiful women, no matter what you look like, how old you are, or what you own.
Oh, and just so you know, I regularly beat that red Camaro above in the local "Outlaw" class with my Civic SI. So don't ever think it's about your looks - it's about your SKILL.
Developing good social skills is like supercharging your car - you will SMOKE the so called competition when it comes to dating.
(...and Hawk HPS are my favorite autocross brake pads for the Honda Civic....)
=)
=)
Saturday, October 11, 2008
October Preliminary Seminar course outline
Here is my seminar course outline. Click in the upper right corner for a large view. Please feel free to share this file with anyone you think might benefit from it. Also, if you are planning on attending, post any suggestions as comments below.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Friday, October 10, 2008
First Seminar spot is listed!
The first spot is up for auction - it's a 3 day auction, so act fast to reserve a spot.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250306946396
10% of the proceeds will be donated to the Mathew Shepard Foundation, since it was a major part of the inspiration for aced:
http://www.matthewshepard.org
Good luck, and thanks for looking
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250306946396
10% of the proceeds will be donated to the Mathew Shepard Foundation, since it was a major part of the inspiration for aced:
http://www.matthewshepard.org
Good luck, and thanks for looking
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Sexual Selection - How to be Attractive to Women
I just finished Scott Ridley's "The Red Queen," and I've been reading Geoffrey Miller's excellent "The Mating Mind" this week - Here are my conclusions regarding human female mate choice as it relates to human male sexual display:
1) Why men think things like Rolexes and BMWs are attractive to women
2) Why they are ultimately NOT as attractive to women.
3) Why intangible things are the most reliable "ornaments" for reproductive fitness -
Intelligence, generosity, humor and kindness - aced in short
Let's take these one by one, and put them in the context of human mating drives:
First, if we accept that humans are moderately promiscuous (not completely monogamous) animals, then other species like birds and apes show mate selection tactics that are driven by female choice.
This is because females invest much more in sexual encounters than males in species where there is not perfect monogamy. Albatrosses are perfectly monogamous, and the male makes significant investment in child rearing because of this. Sage grouse males are promiscuous, one male may mate with 30 or more female at a "lek" ( ritualized mating gathering, much like a human nightclub) where male birds gather to display their sexual fitness. Without going into the genetic theories, suffice it say that females benefit greatly by only mating with the MOST extravagant male, who has the best plumage and grooming. This is because such an extravagant, wasteful display ( the plumage dramatically DECREASES the males odds of survival) sub-communicate genetic fitness to the female bird - robust health, freedom from disease and parasites. Her offspring will thus inherit this fitness.
The more wasteful the display, the better the fitness - Peacocks are an extreme example of this. None of this is news to the Seduction Community - Mystery coined the term "peacocking" many years ago to describe how dressing to attract attention will inevitably increase a human male's chances of finding a mate in a night-club or bar.
What Mystery and others have neglected are the mechanisms by which Peacocking works, and also what limits it. Peacocking is not fundamentally about attracting attention - it is about sub-communicating genetic fitness. A ridiculous hat or outfit will attract attention, but then the female will TEST the male. If the male folds, she will be disappointed, or perhaps get an ego boost, but he will get nothing. So what is the female REALLY testing for?
Let's back up a bit and discuss attraction. Attraction seems to be the focus of most courtship behavior, especially male to female attraction. But wishing to be attractive is PASSIVE. It implies that the attractive person can just sit back and choose who to mate with. When men focus on being attractive, they are being passive. Problem is, passive men are NOT attractive to most females! Oh, the irony....the very act of trying to be attractive sows the seeds of unattractiveness. This is the male courtship paradox.
Our consumer driven society exploits this paradox, a paradox driven by the false premise that attraction from female to male is needed in the initial stages of courtship. It is not (more on that later) Mass culture reinforces this myth of attraction by showing pictures of buff, good-looking celebrity males with buff, good-looking celebrity females. The assumption is that beauty marries beauty, but in fact celebrities marry celebrities the same way royals marry royals - it's a class thing. Celebrities tend to be rich and good looking, so people draw the wrong conclusions about cause and effect....Correlation is not causation.
But occasionally, a glitch in the matrix appears -
Billy Joel marries Christy Brinkley:
Well, what is going on here? Why do these supermodels, who could marry literally ANY of the hottest male models settle for TROLLS like these guys? These guys do not have "game" either.
Let's look at sexual selection and ornamentation through the lens of Evolutionary psychology and biology. In particular, the fact that animals, males in particular seem to evolve sexual ornaments that are both wasteful and costly. Females on the other hand evolve ways to detect fake ornaments. It is like an arms race - men trying to project an image of greater genetic fitness and women trying to detect fraudulent posturing. I know this sounds cynical, but nature is brutal. A female's genes have a vested interest in mixing with the best genes they can find. So do male genes.
This is the fundamental problem with using external peacocking strategies - they are doomed to failure because they can be exaggerated and/or faked. Go ahead - spend $5000 on a Rolex. With so many guys wearing FAKE Rolexes, the woman will not be impressed. Buy that BMW - all it means is that you have good credit...and if it's more than a year or two old, maybe you got it used. Maybe it's a rental. You are trying to show off wealth in a vulgar way that can be easily faked. These displays are costly and wasteful ONLY if they are real. Therefore, they are indicators of fitness only to the degree the female buys into their authenticity.
Diamond rings, flowers, expensive dinners, vacations, etc.etc., etc... can all be bought on credit - or easily faked.
Ever wonder why women obsess over whether the diamond is "real"?
A cubic Zirconium sparkles just as brightly, but costs just a fraction of a flawless diamond. It's because the diamond is WASTEFULL and USELESS that it has VALUE in courtship. If a man can afford to waste money on such a frivolous thing, he must be fit genetically, and the fact that he has given such a costly, wasteful thing to her means he is committed to helping her raise children - he is generous and trustworthy.
But wait you say... what about Rick and Billy above? How did they, with their awful, horrible, monstrous looks out-compete male actors and models with much better looks, and similar or even greater amounts of money?
HMMMMMMM????? HOW?????? I mean WTF, Right?
Ahhhh...Evolutionary thinking regarding the development of the human brain offers a way forward:
Ridley and Miller propose a striking suggestion- That human consciousness, art, science, and basically all creativity are the result of sexual rather than environmental pressure. Stated another way, Survival of the fittest is bullshit - what counts is sexiness. The human mind is thus the product of sexual rather than natural selection, due to an accidental preference of ancient females for clever males. If this is true, the implications are staggering. Rolexes denote "fitness" with regard to environmental pressure. The wearer has achieved a certain rank or status, in his environment (modern culture) and the timepiece reflect this.
Problem is, it can be easily faked.
Guess what CANT be faked?
Intelligence. Creativity. Humor. Kindness. Acceptance. Compassion. Empathy. Detachment...
lol...
So you see, females sexually select based on traits that are RELIABLE indicators of sexiness, because these traits are COSTLY and WASTEFULL. Monkeys do just fine in jungles with their puny little monkey brains - put any modern man up in a tree in a rain forest, and he will be screwed - big brain and all.
Oh, wait, you can't, because he is DEAD... The monkeys killed him.... =(
Humans do not need big brains for SURVIVAL - they evolved big brains for sexual selection as indicators of genetic fitness - at least this is Miller's claim.
Well, what does this have to do with Billy and Rick, or all the smart, lonely guys in the world? How did those horrible Ugs outcompete the buff, good-looking competition?
The question itself has a flawed premise - that females respond to physical beauty in the same way that males do. This is WRONG. Human females select for intelligence, creativity kindness, leadership, etc (not all females of course - just most). Physical attributes of "beauty", even "attractiveness" itself are irrelevant - she has a different set of biological imperatives than males, who seek to mate with as many women as possible of the highest fertility and fitness. Her fitness indicators are not the same as his, and thus she responds to different things.
So Rick and Billy get to marry supermodels because they are both in the right social caste, AND most importantly, are much more TALENTED and INTERESTING than the rich, pretty boy, brain dead actors and models that fill the supermodel's world.
This is fundamentally the mechanism by which Community tactics operate - it is NOT the tactics themselves that create "attraction" in the female, it is the way that skillful employment of them communicates that the user has a big, sexy brain. The fact that a man can learn this is even sexier! - what an expensive, wasteful endeavor! .....Years of study and field work...All to seduce a ME! He must LOVE women..... and he must be REALLY fit, and smart, confident, and tenacious to have mastered such a complex thing as human courtship and mating.
Cocky/funny, Speed Seduction, Mystery Method, etc, etc, etc are just ways of showing the woman how clever you are (sexual display). Add in Acceptance, Compassion, Empathy, and Detachment, and you will win her heart completely. Remember - women also select for moral and emotional leadership in males. Give her aced, and she will stick around for much more than a one night stand.
So get out there you geeks, and show off that sexy brain of yours to the women! Forget about the Rolex, the Gym, and the BMW....any idiot can do THAT. Make women happy, and good things will happen....I promise.
=)
1) Why men think things like Rolexes and BMWs are attractive to women
2) Why they are ultimately NOT as attractive to women.
3) Why intangible things are the most reliable "ornaments" for reproductive fitness -
Intelligence, generosity, humor and kindness - aced in short
Let's take these one by one, and put them in the context of human mating drives:
First, if we accept that humans are moderately promiscuous (not completely monogamous) animals, then other species like birds and apes show mate selection tactics that are driven by female choice.
This is because females invest much more in sexual encounters than males in species where there is not perfect monogamy. Albatrosses are perfectly monogamous, and the male makes significant investment in child rearing because of this. Sage grouse males are promiscuous, one male may mate with 30 or more female at a "lek" ( ritualized mating gathering, much like a human nightclub) where male birds gather to display their sexual fitness. Without going into the genetic theories, suffice it say that females benefit greatly by only mating with the MOST extravagant male, who has the best plumage and grooming. This is because such an extravagant, wasteful display ( the plumage dramatically DECREASES the males odds of survival) sub-communicate genetic fitness to the female bird - robust health, freedom from disease and parasites. Her offspring will thus inherit this fitness.
The more wasteful the display, the better the fitness - Peacocks are an extreme example of this. None of this is news to the Seduction Community - Mystery coined the term "peacocking" many years ago to describe how dressing to attract attention will inevitably increase a human male's chances of finding a mate in a night-club or bar.
What Mystery and others have neglected are the mechanisms by which Peacocking works, and also what limits it. Peacocking is not fundamentally about attracting attention - it is about sub-communicating genetic fitness. A ridiculous hat or outfit will attract attention, but then the female will TEST the male. If the male folds, she will be disappointed, or perhaps get an ego boost, but he will get nothing. So what is the female REALLY testing for?
Let's back up a bit and discuss attraction. Attraction seems to be the focus of most courtship behavior, especially male to female attraction. But wishing to be attractive is PASSIVE. It implies that the attractive person can just sit back and choose who to mate with. When men focus on being attractive, they are being passive. Problem is, passive men are NOT attractive to most females! Oh, the irony....the very act of trying to be attractive sows the seeds of unattractiveness. This is the male courtship paradox.
Our consumer driven society exploits this paradox, a paradox driven by the false premise that attraction from female to male is needed in the initial stages of courtship. It is not (more on that later) Mass culture reinforces this myth of attraction by showing pictures of buff, good-looking celebrity males with buff, good-looking celebrity females. The assumption is that beauty marries beauty, but in fact celebrities marry celebrities the same way royals marry royals - it's a class thing. Celebrities tend to be rich and good looking, so people draw the wrong conclusions about cause and effect....Correlation is not causation.
But occasionally, a glitch in the matrix appears -
Billy Joel marries Christy Brinkley:
or Rick Okasic marries Paulina Porizkova:
Well, what is going on here? Why do these supermodels, who could marry literally ANY of the hottest male models settle for TROLLS like these guys? These guys do not have "game" either.
Something else is at work....
Let's look at sexual selection and ornamentation through the lens of Evolutionary psychology and biology. In particular, the fact that animals, males in particular seem to evolve sexual ornaments that are both wasteful and costly. Females on the other hand evolve ways to detect fake ornaments. It is like an arms race - men trying to project an image of greater genetic fitness and women trying to detect fraudulent posturing. I know this sounds cynical, but nature is brutal. A female's genes have a vested interest in mixing with the best genes they can find. So do male genes.
This is the fundamental problem with using external peacocking strategies - they are doomed to failure because they can be exaggerated and/or faked. Go ahead - spend $5000 on a Rolex. With so many guys wearing FAKE Rolexes, the woman will not be impressed. Buy that BMW - all it means is that you have good credit...and if it's more than a year or two old, maybe you got it used. Maybe it's a rental. You are trying to show off wealth in a vulgar way that can be easily faked. These displays are costly and wasteful ONLY if they are real. Therefore, they are indicators of fitness only to the degree the female buys into their authenticity.
Diamond rings, flowers, expensive dinners, vacations, etc.etc., etc... can all be bought on credit - or easily faked.
Ever wonder why women obsess over whether the diamond is "real"?
A cubic Zirconium sparkles just as brightly, but costs just a fraction of a flawless diamond. It's because the diamond is WASTEFULL and USELESS that it has VALUE in courtship. If a man can afford to waste money on such a frivolous thing, he must be fit genetically, and the fact that he has given such a costly, wasteful thing to her means he is committed to helping her raise children - he is generous and trustworthy.
But wait you say... what about Rick and Billy above? How did they, with their awful, horrible, monstrous looks out-compete male actors and models with much better looks, and similar or even greater amounts of money?
HMMMMMMM????? HOW?????? I mean WTF, Right?
Ahhhh...Evolutionary thinking regarding the development of the human brain offers a way forward:
Ridley and Miller propose a striking suggestion- That human consciousness, art, science, and basically all creativity are the result of sexual rather than environmental pressure. Stated another way, Survival of the fittest is bullshit - what counts is sexiness. The human mind is thus the product of sexual rather than natural selection, due to an accidental preference of ancient females for clever males. If this is true, the implications are staggering. Rolexes denote "fitness" with regard to environmental pressure. The wearer has achieved a certain rank or status, in his environment (modern culture) and the timepiece reflect this.
Problem is, it can be easily faked.
Guess what CANT be faked?
Intelligence. Creativity. Humor. Kindness. Acceptance. Compassion. Empathy. Detachment...
lol...
So you see, females sexually select based on traits that are RELIABLE indicators of sexiness, because these traits are COSTLY and WASTEFULL. Monkeys do just fine in jungles with their puny little monkey brains - put any modern man up in a tree in a rain forest, and he will be screwed - big brain and all.
Put a monkey in a city, and I'll bet he does pretty well - just ask the Mayor of Deli, the Capital of India:
http://tinyurl.com/4mdffx
http://tinyurl.com/4mdffx
Oh, wait, you can't, because he is DEAD... The monkeys killed him.... =(
Humans do not need big brains for SURVIVAL - they evolved big brains for sexual selection as indicators of genetic fitness - at least this is Miller's claim.
Well, what does this have to do with Billy and Rick, or all the smart, lonely guys in the world? How did those horrible Ugs outcompete the buff, good-looking competition?
The question itself has a flawed premise - that females respond to physical beauty in the same way that males do. This is WRONG. Human females select for intelligence, creativity kindness, leadership, etc (not all females of course - just most). Physical attributes of "beauty", even "attractiveness" itself are irrelevant - she has a different set of biological imperatives than males, who seek to mate with as many women as possible of the highest fertility and fitness. Her fitness indicators are not the same as his, and thus she responds to different things.
So Rick and Billy get to marry supermodels because they are both in the right social caste, AND most importantly, are much more TALENTED and INTERESTING than the rich, pretty boy, brain dead actors and models that fill the supermodel's world.
This is fundamentally the mechanism by which Community tactics operate - it is NOT the tactics themselves that create "attraction" in the female, it is the way that skillful employment of them communicates that the user has a big, sexy brain. The fact that a man can learn this is even sexier! - what an expensive, wasteful endeavor! .....Years of study and field work...All to seduce a ME! He must LOVE women..... and he must be REALLY fit, and smart, confident, and tenacious to have mastered such a complex thing as human courtship and mating.
Cocky/funny, Speed Seduction, Mystery Method, etc, etc, etc are just ways of showing the woman how clever you are (sexual display). Add in Acceptance, Compassion, Empathy, and Detachment, and you will win her heart completely. Remember - women also select for moral and emotional leadership in males. Give her aced, and she will stick around for much more than a one night stand.
So get out there you geeks, and show off that sexy brain of yours to the women! Forget about the Rolex, the Gym, and the BMW....any idiot can do THAT. Make women happy, and good things will happen....I promise.
=)
Monday, September 29, 2008
The power of belifes
This is a clip from a severely "disabled" guy named Sean Stepenson:
What are YOUR limiting beliefs?
How can you change them?
What are YOUR limiting beliefs?
How can you change them?
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
Attraction Triggers
The differences between males and females regarding attraction triggers:
As always, your comments are appreciated!
As always, your comments are appreciated!
Friday, September 19, 2008
Some more Ben Harper...
Hmmmm this guy should write anthems:
I believe in a few things
God the devil and love
cause I've looked up from the bottom
and I've stared down from above
I have faith in a few things
divinity and grace
but even when I'm on my knees
I know the devil prays
and you're working your way
from the ground on down
I hate to say I love you
because it means that I
will be with you forever
or will sadly say goodbye
I love to say I hate you
because it means that I
will live my life happily without you
or will sadly live a lie
and you're working your way
from the ground on down
life is short
and if your lookin' for extension
with your time
you had best do well
cause there's good deeds
and there is good intention
they're as far apart
as heaven and hell
and you're working your way
from the ground on down
Sorry guys, but there is no escaping ethics when it comes to sex, love, and human socialization.....
I believe in a few things
God the devil and love
cause I've looked up from the bottom
and I've stared down from above
I have faith in a few things
divinity and grace
but even when I'm on my knees
I know the devil prays
and you're working your way
from the ground on down
I hate to say I love you
because it means that I
will be with you forever
or will sadly say goodbye
I love to say I hate you
because it means that I
will live my life happily without you
or will sadly live a lie
and you're working your way
from the ground on down
life is short
and if your lookin' for extension
with your time
you had best do well
cause there's good deeds
and there is good intention
they're as far apart
as heaven and hell
and you're working your way
from the ground on down
Sorry guys, but there is no escaping ethics when it comes to sex, love, and human socialization.....
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Clift Thesis Analysis Part 1
I'm still working through the Clift Thesis -
My observations so far are that she is presenting a fairly sympathetic portrait of The Community, but is WAY too bound up in the "Fraternal" thing. Also, what's with the Feminist Rhetoric? - "Playboy objectifies women" - give me a break! WOMEN OBJECTIFY THEMSELVES in an attempt to please and manipulate men...
Sheesh...and this is 2008!
...Pg 53: Men and women awash in a sea of bewilderment because of the breakdown of cultural codes
Collapse of traditional Courtship (great meme)
Hmmmm Colonial values regarding marriage sound eerily similar to my proposal about "children without marriage"...Marriage was based on "reason" not love back then!...hahahahaha..."traditional family values" indeed...
"Romantic love" is seen as "immature and unreliable" ...again...eerily similar to my recent discussions, and even backed by science...My "Crack heads getting married and raising children" metaphor....only it's at least 200 years old, lol....
hahahaha..."bundling boards"!..they surely found a way around THAT contraption, lol...30% pre-marital conception? sounds like "modern times"!
"Men were lustful, so it stood to reason that women—contrary to the theories of the colonial era—were chaste and possibly passionless."
So THATS where the current matrix got it's start!
The roles of men and women were distinct. Common perception valued domesticity and viewed women as virtuous and morally superior to men; at the same time, a man's primary role was to support his family through work outside the home.
Ditto - WTF?
During courtship, men emphasized their own feelings while women did not do so with equal intensity. This was most likely due to the greater control that men had over their own futures than did women. Rothman notes this power imbalance and attributes the difference in emotional openness to the fact that men were responsible for being "the initiators of intimate relationships. Women were expected to receive offers of marriage."6
By the 20ies....this crap has been systematized....men must supplicate....it's STILL WITH US! Damn....... The program was written a LONG time ago...and it has some how survived the "sexual revolution" and Fememism. What a powerful idea we are fighting eh? Resiliant and virulent too...
"The problem with being a pickup artist is that there are concepts like sincerity, genuineness, trust, and connection that are important to women. And all the techniques that are so effective in beginning a relationship violate every principle necessary to maintain one."
Damn..."Style" said THAT? Not bad....sounds like he hit the same wall I did....
"Men and women often defined themselves and each other as commodities, the woman valued by the level of consumption she could demand… and the man by the level of consumption he could provide."
Ross talks about this in his 1999 tapes - It's very inhuman if you really consider it.
Despite the control that monetary power may provide them, PUAs implicitly reject their own commodification by encouraging each other not to pay during the initial stages of dating. The men of the Seduction Community insist that the expectation that a man should pay is a socially constructed and harmful gender role. In an interview withThe Hollywood Podcast, Strauss explains, "The whole point of this community is to be able to do it [pickup women] without fame, looks, or wealth, and it's totally possible."
Again - what a GREAT idea... Ross started this. This is the revolutionary aspect of the modern Pick-up community - rejection of the dehumanization of both men and women.
Too many guys are textbook black and white, trying to follow a protocol set by other PUA fuckups. If she's a cool girl and you can still pay your rent, buy the girl a damndrink and tell your friends to shut the hell up."
EXACTLY - a lack of generosity is death to any relationship...
As the era of dating continued and the relationship between economy and sex intensified, breast size, according to Bailey, became a determinant of a woman's value due to the fact that it could be easily quantified as an objective measurement of a woman's worth.
This is just sad...but all to true... =( I had a GF who mutilated her chest like this to have bigger breasts...it was sad. She lost all sensation in one of her breasts from the operation... =(((((
Much of the pickup theory within the Seduction Community is based on evolutionary theory rather thansocially prescribed norms of behavior. By doing so, PUAs find a solution to the current lack of dating structure
Nice conclusion - the "science" of reproduction and courtship dictating inter-gender dynamics - a return to the "rationalism" of the 1700's =)
More to follow as I continue working through the paper
My observations so far are that she is presenting a fairly sympathetic portrait of The Community, but is WAY too bound up in the "Fraternal" thing. Also, what's with the Feminist Rhetoric? - "Playboy objectifies women" - give me a break! WOMEN OBJECTIFY THEMSELVES in an attempt to please and manipulate men...
Sheesh...and this is 2008!
...Pg 53: Men and women awash in a sea of bewilderment because of the breakdown of cultural codes
Collapse of traditional Courtship (great meme)
Hmmmm Colonial values regarding marriage sound eerily similar to my proposal about "children without marriage"...Marriage was based on "reason" not love back then!...hahahahaha..."traditional family values" indeed...
"Romantic love" is seen as "immature and unreliable" ...again...eerily similar to my recent discussions, and even backed by science...My "Crack heads getting married and raising children" metaphor....only it's at least 200 years old, lol....
hahahaha..."bundling boards"!..they surely found a way around THAT contraption, lol...30% pre-marital conception? sounds like "modern times"!
"Men were lustful, so it stood to reason that women—contrary to the theories of the colonial era—were chaste and possibly passionless."
So THATS where the current matrix got it's start!
The roles of men and women were distinct. Common perception valued domesticity and viewed women as virtuous and morally superior to men; at the same time, a man's primary role was to support his family through work outside the home.
Ditto - WTF?
During courtship, men emphasized their own feelings while women did not do so with equal intensity. This was most likely due to the greater control that men had over their own futures than did women. Rothman notes this power imbalance and attributes the difference in emotional openness to the fact that men were responsible for being "the initiators of intimate relationships. Women were expected to receive offers of marriage."6
By the 20ies....this crap has been systematized....men must supplicate....it's STILL WITH US! Damn....... The program was written a LONG time ago...and it has some how survived the "sexual revolution" and Fememism. What a powerful idea we are fighting eh? Resiliant and virulent too...
"The problem with being a pickup artist is that there are concepts like sincerity, genuineness, trust, and connection that are important to women. And all the techniques that are so effective in beginning a relationship violate every principle necessary to maintain one."
Damn..."Style" said THAT? Not bad....sounds like he hit the same wall I did....
"Men and women often defined themselves and each other as commodities, the woman valued by the level of consumption she could demand… and the man by the level of consumption he could provide."
Ross talks about this in his 1999 tapes - It's very inhuman if you really consider it.
Despite the control that monetary power may provide them, PUAs implicitly reject their own commodification by encouraging each other not to pay during the initial stages of dating. The men of the Seduction Community insist that the expectation that a man should pay is a socially constructed and harmful gender role. In an interview withThe Hollywood Podcast, Strauss explains, "The whole point of this community is to be able to do it [pickup women] without fame, looks, or wealth, and it's totally possible."
Again - what a GREAT idea... Ross started this. This is the revolutionary aspect of the modern Pick-up community - rejection of the dehumanization of both men and women.
Too many guys are textbook black and white, trying to follow a protocol set by other PUA fuckups. If she's a cool girl and you can still pay your rent, buy the girl a damndrink and tell your friends to shut the hell up."
EXACTLY - a lack of generosity is death to any relationship...
As the era of dating continued and the relationship between economy and sex intensified, breast size, according to Bailey, became a determinant of a woman's value due to the fact that it could be easily quantified as an objective measurement of a woman's worth.
This is just sad...but all to true... =( I had a GF who mutilated her chest like this to have bigger breasts...it was sad. She lost all sensation in one of her breasts from the operation... =(((((
Much of the pickup theory within the Seduction Community is based on evolutionary theory rather thansocially prescribed norms of behavior. By doing so, PUAs find a solution to the current lack of dating structure
Nice conclusion - the "science" of reproduction and courtship dictating inter-gender dynamics - a return to the "rationalism" of the 1700's =)
More to follow as I continue working through the paper
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
