Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So I've read "The Rational Male" as Skills360 suggested. Now I'm confused :/

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So I've read "The Rational Male" as Skills360 suggested. Now I'm confused :/

    First off, I want to thank Skills360 for pointing me to that book. Was a very interesting read, got it yesterday and finished it almost in one read (slept once in between). I really enjoyed several points made, like the different SMV peaks of men/women and a lot of other stuff. Reading it has also helped me realize how much of a Beta (by the books definition) my father really was and to this day is. Not sure about myself (who could really be honest about that to himself?)

    Yet there are certain points made that find myself struggling with, so I'd like to ask further opinions of some of you guys:

    I seem to have (more or less by accident) gotten a lot of the stuff he advises right over the last few years, like, spinning more plates, letting go of the idea of OneItIs or white knighting. Last December I even kind of heaved it onto another level by realizing how a) I'll always be poly in nature and b) the competition of any woman I connect with isn't mainly with other women. The question is whether she adds value to my life or not, she can be dropped from my life without needing another woman to replace her as a reason. I can be by myself if needed, which is a very interesting sort of "power".

    You might say I'm lying to myself there and that I'm far from that level, but let's just assume it is indeed true. It would make me quite "powerful" in a way, and perhaps have many women compete for my attention (which generally seems to be the case although I'm usually too stupid or not interested enough to make much use of that). It still makes me wonder though whether I would not deny myself the possibility to achieve more in my life, for one by himself who decides he will not rely on others completely can only accomplish so much, can he not?

    As far as I understand it, the book basically tells me to not rely on women because they cannot really be trusted long-term. So the solution is only trust men, for they are more reliable or at least come with the potential for reliability?

    I'm not that old and experienced yet (29 to be exact), but at least I kind of realized how I'm very competent in certain areas of life while I'm fairly incompetent at others. Sure, I can work hard to better myself in those areas, but that's somewhat ineffective. I could pay someone to take care of them and thus create more reliability perhaps, but is it really that inconceivable or impossible that one could create and sustain a relationship with one or more than one women (in addition to the ones with men) that actually endures and is reliable? If the book is right and opposites attract (which would make sense to me), staying opposite and relying on each other would then be at the same time somewhat attractive (he's different from me) and create trust because you actually depend on each other to a point?

    Up to this point I rather had this mental model about how there's unconditional love you may feel for someone, and then there's conditional love you feel depending on whether people meet the expectations of roles they play in your life. The second is circumstancial, the first is pretty much "just there". Over time people change and they may not fit their original roles anymore, but if there was an unconditional love part there you can grow into new roles for each other. Happened with one of my ex-gfs who I still love but wouldn't take back as a gf even if she begged me (she seems to be happy the way it is herself). So.. you think this is pretty much just imaginary, and in fact all there is is the conditional part (which would fit the book's description pretty well I guess)?

    Please mind I'm not trying to annoy you or tell you how I'm right, I'm actually trying to integrate what the book says into my past experience (or the other way round) in a way in which it makes sense, and I'm struggling somewhat with certain parts of it.

    Jester
    Bunterrichten - Alternativen zum Unter-richten:

  • #2
    As far as I understand it, the book basically tells me to not rely on women because they cannot really be trusted long-term. So the solution is only trust men, for they are more reliable or at least come with the potential for reliability?
    Jester that is not what the book says, what is explain is how men view relationship and how women view relationships and how men think they built emotional equity and due to that women but be loyal to them such as, kids, they know my family, i did this and that for her etc...

    He calls it emotional equity... Did you read the part about the long distance btw?


    the only bit kj i saw in the book is the mentioning lay count, i never mention it but women figure it out and i never had a problem with women knowing i have high lay count.... I don't know were you got the trust stuff man, that is not what i read...

    the reason i recommended the book to you is cause he goes in detail about long distance relationships...

    your sometimes connections and feelings you talk in your post about the women you are dealing with and how you don't want to use them etc... (i am talking about your subcommunication sometimes etc...)

    I am reading the second preventive medicine is pretty good cause break down women stages and what they are looking for at different stages of their life... (i had an aha moment of so many things in my game, and is due to i am gaming different demographics that most guys here)


    Comment


    • #3
      It's somewhat hard to "objectively" figure out "what the book says", really, for anyone reading a book will connect what he reads to his past experience and use that to make sense of what he thinks the author wants to say. Let's just say the way he wrote it struck a cord that reminded me about a certain way of looking at life. He does write about believing only what he can observe when he talks about behaviourism.

      I've talked with a male friend of mine about this yesterday (he's married and has 2 kids but pretty happy about it), and he basically said what had been bothering me about this way of looking at life: that the way you see the world acts as kind of a "filter", so if, as in this case, you'll only accept observable evidence as "real", that's probably going to be what you'll experience regardless of whether objectively that's all there is to it.

      So for example if I was to believe that "women view relationships in X way", chances are that's what I'll subjectively experience even if what actually happens could be interpreted in many different ways, until I have reinforced my believes long enough to turn them into an almost unshakable reality for me.

      About "emotional equity": If it might come off like this in my writing at times that's interesting to know, but I don't expect women (or anyone, really) to act a certain way because I did something (I did that so now you have to do that). I don't even care much about social conventions that are "universal" in my culture. Because of that, though, I'm annoyed if someone is unreliable after he proclaimed he would do something by his own choice. I don't expect people to follow social norms, but I expect them to be true to their own norms. It was always very important to me to be this way towards others. Up until a few months ago, I was accepting others to fail this standard, but this is kind of changing nowadays.

      I've read the part about long-distance relationships (as the rest of the book), and although I agree with part of it, my situation was somehow different from the extreme example he desribed:
      - I was openly having other women on the side, as many and as often as I wanted to, which significantly lessened the idea of "lost opportunity" there.
      - Because I was very clear about who was and would stay my main, I didn't have to hold myself back in interacting with those other women.
      - Whether or not my main relationship would continue or not depended entirely on my main, not "better" women coming along by chance.

      However, there were some parts that were admittedly somewhat fucked up:
      - There was no clear prediction of any shared future. It's one thing to know you'll be apart for X months, but in our case she would frequently change plans and be somewhat unreliable in all that.
      - She was kind of insane in a certain way. Seems I love those, but I've learned to go for not that insane women in the future. Had been an improvement to the BPD women before though :P
      - She wasn't willing to really do what it would have taken to make this work. At first I thought she just needed some support, but in hindsight I think she wasn't really willing to.

      With all that said, I think it was well worth it anyway. I learned a lot of important stuff during that time:
      - I want to work in a way that's mostly location-independent. I'm on it to making it happen atm.
      - I'll always be polygamous in nature, it's just who I am. And it's ok to be this way.
      - I know much better now what I'll need, expect and enforce in a future main.

      I'm somewhat curious about another topic atm to be honest: do you usually decline opportunities even if there are no better ones around? Like, yesterday I was out at my favourite pub and having a blast. Saw some woman again which I had noticed before but never really talked to, and found many hints of attraction there. She is pretty attractive (and was by far the most attractive woman there yesterday), and it would probably have been somewhat easy to take her home, but I just didn't really want it. It felt alright to not hook up with her (or even try for real) and still feels like it was the right choice, but it made me wonder whether I'm just rationalizing some fear there. Do you guys have some attraction threshold of sorts and be opportunistic about it, or do you only go for women with which it seems to make sense to hookup with? I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have connected as deeply as I'm used to with other women, but it might have been a nice "practice run"..

      Jester

      P.S.: I do find it funny that you bring up the "iron rule" about not the lay count thing, because in my experience that never had been a problem as well. Usually I tell women they can ask whatever they want and I'll always answer 100% honestly, but because of that it's their responsibility to chose what they ask about and whether they can deal with the possible answers. Works pretty well in most cases.
      Bunterrichten - Alternativen zum Unter-richten:

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jester View Post
        .

        I'm somewhat curious about another topic atm to be honest: do you usually decline opportunities even if there are no better ones around? Like, yesterday I was out at my favourite pub and having a blast. Saw some woman again which I had noticed before but never really talked to, and found many hints of attraction there. She is pretty attractive (and was by far the most attractive woman there yesterday), and it would probably have been somewhat easy to take her home, but I just didn't really want it. It felt alright to not hook up with her (or even try for real) and still feels like it was the right choice, but it made me wonder whether I'm just rationalizing some fear there. Do you guys have some attraction threshold of sorts and be opportunistic about it, or do you only go for women with which it seems to make sense to hookup with? I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have connected as deeply as I'm used to with other women, but it might have been a nice "practice run"..

        Jester

        P.S.: I do find it funny that you bring up the "iron rule" about not the lay count thing, because in my experience that never had been a problem as well. Usually I tell women they can ask whatever they want and I'll always answer 100% honestly, but because of that it's their responsibility to chose what they ask about and whether they can deal with the possible answers. Works pretty well in most cases.
        yeah i found the lay count stuff a bit kj.... Jester most of the guys fear rejection and have ego investment, so they rationalize not going for the interaction, this does not sound like you in the above example... But what happens to me is that sometimes you will make a guestimate of the women based on past experience and do a projection of you and her together and make a technical/fundamental analysis/risk/reward prediction on it (just like buffet before purchasing a stock) and what would happen is that your forecast sometimes make you pass.... (this is theory by the way, and yes has happened to me couple of times).... Just make sure is not cause you are worry of rejection...


        This is maybe wrongly what reminded me of you:

        Far too many men maintain the notion that for them to receive the female intimacy they desire, they should become more like the target of their affection in their own personality. In essence, to mold their own identity to better match the girl they think will best satisfy this need. So we see examples of men compromising their self-interests to better accommodate the interests of the woman they desire to facilitate this need for intimacy (i.e., sex).”

        – p. 86

        The most ironic thing about this ‘Identity Crisis’ is that the least attractive thing to most women is a man who is willing to compromise any part of his identity to placate to her, much less a wholesale selling-out of it. Women are naturally attracted to that masculine independence as it represents a very strong cue for security and the potential to provide that security to her (and any children she might have).

        Women don’t want a man who’ll ‘do everything she says’ because this sends the message that this man can be bought with even the prospect of a sexual encounter…. Women want to be told ‘No,’ and constantly test a man’s resolve to say this to her… in order to affirm that she’s made the right choice… of a guy who’ll put his sexual impulse… on hold to stick to his own self-interest, beliefs, ambitions.”

        – p. 87


        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jester View Post
          It's somewhat hard to "objectively" figure out "what the book says", really, for anyone reading a book will connect what he reads to his past experience and use that to make sense of what he thinks the author wants to say. Let's just say the way he wrote it struck a cord that reminded me about a certain way of looking at life. He does write about believing only what he can observe when he talks about behaviourism.

          I've talked with a male friend of mine about this yesterday (he's married and has 2 kids but pretty happy about it), and he basically said what had been bothering me about this way of looking at life: that the way you see the world acts as kind of a "filter", so if, as in this case, you'll only accept observable evidence as "real", that's probably going to be what you'll experience regardless of whether objectively that's all there is to it.

          So for example if I was to believe that "women view relationships in X way", chances are that's what I'll subjectively experience even if what actually happens could be interpreted in many different ways, until I have reinforced my believes long enough to turn them into an almost unshakable reality for me.

          About "emotional equity": If it might come off like this in my writing at times that's interesting to know, but I don't expect women (or anyone, really) to act a certain way because I did something (I did that so now you have to do that). I don't even care much about social conventions that are "universal" in my culture. Because of that, though, I'm annoyed if someone is unreliable after he proclaimed he would do something by his own choice. I don't expect people to follow social norms, but I expect them to be true to their own norms. It was always very important to me to be this way towards others. Up until a few months ago, I was accepting others to fail this standard, but this is kind of changing nowadays.

          I've read the part about long-distance relationships (as the rest of the book), and although I agree with part of it, my situation was somehow different from the extreme example he desribed:
          - I was openly having other women on the side, as many and as often as I wanted to, which significantly lessened the idea of "lost opportunity" there.
          - Because I was very clear about who was and would stay my main, I didn't have to hold myself back in interacting with those other women.
          - Whether or not my main relationship would continue or not depended entirely on my main, not "better" women coming along by chance.

          However, there were some parts that were admittedly somewhat fucked up:
          - There was no clear prediction of any shared future. It's one thing to know you'll be apart for X months, but in our case she would frequently change plans and be somewhat unreliable in all that.
          - She was kind of insane in a certain way. Seems I love those, but I've learned to go for not that insane women in the future. Had been an improvement to the BPD women before though :P
          - She wasn't willing to really do what it would have taken to make this work. At first I thought she just needed some support, but in hindsight I think she wasn't really willing to.

          With all that said, I think it was well worth it anyway. I learned a lot of important stuff during that time:
          - I want to work in a way that's mostly location-independent. I'm on it to making it happen atm.
          - I'll always be polygamous in nature, it's just who I am. And it's ok to be this way.
          - I know much better now what I'll need, expect and enforce in a future main.

          I'm somewhat curious about another topic atm to be honest: do you usually decline opportunities even if there are no better ones around? Like, yesterday I was out at my favourite pub and having a blast. Saw some woman again which I had noticed before but never really talked to, and found many hints of attraction there. She is pretty attractive (and was by far the most attractive woman there yesterday), and it would probably have been somewhat easy to take her home, but I just didn't really want it. It felt alright to not hook up with her (or even try for real) and still feels like it was the right choice, but it made me wonder whether I'm just rationalizing some fear there. Do you guys have some attraction threshold of sorts and be opportunistic about it, or do you only go for women with which it seems to make sense to hookup with? I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have connected as deeply as I'm used to with other women, but it might have been a nice "practice run"..

          Jester

          P.S.: I do find it funny that you bring up the "iron rule" about not the lay count thing, because in my experience that never had been a problem as well. Usually I tell women they can ask whatever they want and I'll always answer 100% honestly, but because of that it's their responsibility to chose what they ask about and whether they can deal with the possible answers. Works pretty well in most cases.
          Off topic: I am going through a high-level course about Speed Seduction now. Stop writing these terrible, analytical, dry and boring walls of text not only for the sake of readers but for your own sake. It primes you to communicate in a verbose, unexpressive and dry fashion which probably degrades your reallife communication skills.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by sparxx View Post

            Off topic: I am going through a high-level course about Speed Seduction now. Stop writing these terrible, analytical, dry and boring walls of text not only for the sake of readers but for your own sake. It primes you to communicate in a verbose, unexpressive and dry fashion which probably degrades your reallife communication skills.
            Did you ever consider not reading people whose style you dislike?

            That would leave you with more time to perfect your verbal stack.
            The older the violin, the sweeter the music. Augustus McCrae

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Silvertree View Post

              Did you ever consider not reading people whose style you dislike?

              That would leave you with more time to perfect your verbal stack.
              Has nothing to do with style. This is objectively wrong. Just ask Ross J or David Riker.
              Also this guy has a mission in Pedagogics and should learn to talk to other people than autists.

              Comment


              • #8
                Sparxx,

                You are drifting into the Undocumented Moderator zone.

                I'm advising you not to go there.
                The older the violin, the sweeter the music. Augustus McCrae

                Comment


                • Teevster

                  Teevster

                  commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Interesting. Indeed

              • #9
                Originally posted by Silvertree View Post
                Sparxx,

                You are drifting into the Undocumented Moderator zone.

                I'm advising you not to go there.
                That is very fine, I will not.

                You seem to confuse "style" with "bad game", in this case "bad communication".

                It is totally uncontroversial even outside pickup that

                1) If you communicate in a certain way you will immerse yourself in that style of communication and
                2) If you can to be an effective communicator you need to master a broad range of modes of communication. This is especially true when communicating with women in seductive settings (everything from ONS to LTRs).

                Now this Jester guy is into OLTRs and pedagogics, he needs to know this. He is only writing in this very monotone style. It even annoys me who have worked as a researcher and teacher in Physics, imagine how an ordinary IQ 100 chic feels or some emotional kid.

                Anyway this place has become a time sink for me. I asked you once before to delete my account. I request it again now. I am not mad at neither you, BD or anybody else here. Let us just say that the differences in world view are a bit too big for the interaction to be productive and I also have a bad habit of spending time on internet forums and chats, so I have recently quitted multiple other time sinks. You don't need to remove my posts.

                Comment


                • #10
                  Originally posted by sparxx View Post

                  That is very fine, I will not.

                  You seem to confuse "style" with "bad game", in this case "bad communication".

                  It is totally uncontroversial even outside pickup that

                  1) If you communicate in a certain way you will immerse yourself in that style of communication and
                  2) If you can to be an effective communicator you need to master a broad range of modes of communication. This is especially true when communicating with women in seductive settings (everything from ONS to LTRs).

                  Now this Jester guy is into OLTRs and pedagogics, he needs to know this. He is only writing in this very monotone style. It even annoys me who have worked as a researcher and teacher in Physics, imagine how an ordinary IQ 100 chic feels or some emotional kid.

                  Anyway this place has become a time sink for me. I asked you once before to delete my account. I request it again now. I am not mad at neither you, BD or anybody else here. Let us just say that the differences in world view are a bit too big for the interaction to be productive and I also have a bad habit of spending time on internet forums and chats, so I have recently quitted multiple other time sinks. You don't need to remove my posts.
                  sparxxx i totally agree with your view on jester style of writting (it was even worst before, he has gotten a bit better, i brought that point to him, but deleted the post, i felt harsh in other thread)....

                  Now this is a personal point i am going to make and again it seems i nitpick on the facebook group... But something i notice is that you go off, for meaningless, silly stuff, and make threats and ultimatums just like jester communication style is not good with women.... I have found this type of behavior not good with women either, a lot of women engage in some of the behaviors of some poster you guys go off on...

                  Anyways hope you reconsider and stay, you are a good poster...


                  Comment


                  • #11
                    I would also recommend jester change it up. I find his posts too long and often soul crushing to read so I skip them. My impression is other guys do as well

                    Silvertrees drive by sassy comments are an interesting new moderation style

                    Comment


                    • Teevster

                      Teevster

                      commented
                      Editing a comment
                      Ditto. BD is surely back!

                  • #12
                    Originally posted by sparxx View Post
                    Anyway this place has become a time sink for me. I asked you once before to delete my account. I request it again now. I am not mad at neither you, BD or anybody else here. Let us just say that the differences in world view are a bit too big for the interaction to be productive and I also have a bad habit of spending time on internet forums and chats, so I have recently quitted multiple other time sinks. You don't need to remove my posts.
                    OK
                    The older the violin, the sweeter the music. Augustus McCrae

                    Comment


                    • #13
                      Frankly, I’m glad he’s gone… And not because he’s one of the haters of online game.

                      He’s been getting increasingly angry, dogmatic, and borderline verbally abusive.

                      I even sent him a PM about the way he was cyber stalking iiiji a few weeks ago.

                      I don’t care how good a PUA you are, that kind of toxicity suppresses reasonable debate, and will hurt us if we want to attract new users

                      EDIT: This was written in anger - and after sparxx, to his credit, had given me some private advice about TRE. Please see my mea culpa below.

                      But that said, I still maintain that a lot of his behavior was hostile and toxic, and a net negative.
                      Last edited by No More Mr Nice Guy; 04-18-2018, 01:03 AM.
                      You go to war with the women you have, not the ones you wish to have.
                      -Ronald Dumsfeld

                      Comment


                      • #14
                        This discussion between Silvertree and sparxx proves the point that we truly need someone who is an active PUA in charge to run a pick up forum, because silvertree, despite being a great guy fails to see the true problem here.

                        To Silvertree,

                        I do agree that sparxx may have come off as slightly antagonistic lately, but perhaps we should all look at the cause of this antagonism. Perhaps it is time to take seriously the real problem? The real problem has been listed many times in the previous thread on the future of sedfast and it does not need to be repeated here. I will not derail this thread any further - if anybody wants to discuss this further, quote my message and comment in the sedfast thread in general - which I check regularily.


                        Originally posted by Silvertree View Post


                        That would leave you with more time to perfect your verbal stack.
                        Nice drive by. So now we troll people who knows their shit, based on the fact that they know their shit? Interesting ... indeed.

                        Thanks,
                        Teev
                        Teevster (TVA_Oslo) AKA. Alek Rolstad

                        Projects 2018:
                        - Still Rocking
                        - Flipping Lesbians (have sex with lesbians)
                        - 10 year in PU anniversary!

                        Comment


                        • #15
                          Originally posted by No More Mr Nice Guy View Post
                          Frankly, I’m glad he’s gone… And not because he’s one of the haters of online game.

                          He’s been getting increasingly angry, dogmatic, and borderline verbally abusive.

                          I even sent him a PM about the way he was cyber stalking iiiji a few weeks ago.

                          I don’t care how good a PUA you are, that kind of toxicity suppresses reasonable debate, and will hurt us if we want to attract new users
                          You got the nerves to ask sparxx privately for advice on TRE and now you talk trash behind his back when you know he won't respond. How noble. And kijjji is a bigger problem than sparxx.

                          -Teev
                          Teevster (TVA_Oslo) AKA. Alek Rolstad

                          Projects 2018:
                          - Still Rocking
                          - Flipping Lesbians (have sex with lesbians)
                          - 10 year in PU anniversary!

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X