Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are we by definition as sexist as men can possibly be in this community?

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

  • Kit
    replied
    hahahahaha

    this reminds me of that time i went to visit a sex-temple

    somewhere in this world there was a religion that was based on sex during the medieval age

    Leave a comment:


  • Silvertree
    replied
    I'm working on a 16 DVD set that will be available soon at the low introductory price of $999.99.

    Leave a comment:


  • pureevil
    replied
    Originally posted by Silvertree View Post
    The social order has collapsed, so now, some guys can live in an ape paradise again.

    Enjoy the ride if you can.
    Silvertree's "Ape paradise for those who can" method coming soon I love the ape paradise phrasing lol.

    Leave a comment:


  • Silvertree
    replied
    The difference between us and other guys is, we are honest about our desires.

    Sexism and objectivization are bogus concepts invented by Feminists to shame men for their normal sexual desires. People like fucking other attractive people. Men and women find different traits attractive, but both sexes prefer sex with those they find attractive, and don't want sex with those they do not find attractive, be they straight or gay.

    Humans and our close relatives, Chimpanzees and Bonobos, are the horniest, fuckinist critters on this planet. We have recreational sex, that is, sex just for the pleasure of doing it. Most animals have sex only during the mating season, exclusively to reproduce, and otherwise don't waste energy on it. The only reason we don't live in the clusterfuck your average ape pack is, is we have developed a complex set of social rules designed to create an orderly society that can successfully raise the next generation in our complex way of life. Having sex with attractive strangers disrupts this vital social function, so it became taboo in successful cultures. This does not disrupt life in an ape pack, so they satisfy their base desires. The social order has collapsed, so now, some guys can live in an ape paradise again.

    Enjoy the ride if you can.


    Leave a comment:


  • Supernova
    replied
    I read the definition in Objectification up above and is it just me or isn't it that when we do all of those things, isn't that when we become better at game? Lol.

    Wouldn't surprise me as that goes against the current counter men agenda and societal narrative, but I don't know about you guys, I have found I do better in game when I:

    -Use the same openers and routines on every girl
    -Use the same dates
    -Usually what they say doesn't matter. This is most present in girls who have society correct ideas, or other nonsense going on. Usually this is just talk I don't pay attention to, that is changed rather easily later.
    -I forget shit about girls all the time, and can't say that I am really listening all the time (This is rather recent, but i keep getting one girl confused with another)
    -Treat them as if they don't know any better and lead anyway
    -Treat them as if they are replaceable
    -Knowing that it is likely something that will fail me (violability)
    -Treating them as if they can be bought or sold. I am generally with Gun on the hookers argument, but even if I am not, the vast majority will still treat women as if they are bought. This being buying them rings, clothes, or houses. To be honest, I actually think that we are on the other side of this one. But an important point is, are you buying your women with your time?

    The one I didn't agree with was not paying attention to their feelings. You gotta do that or it will bite you in the ass.

    But other than that, could it be that we are in fact objectifying women and it is a good thing, at least in terms of seduction?

    Leave a comment:


  • DJ_Z
    replied
    If I ever rely on something called social philosophy I can only hope its after I've died on a whorehouse heart attack lol. Social arts like philosophy and psych constantly want to redefine words, if they didn't none of those idiots would have a job anymore in academia.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sase
    replied
    Originally posted by Gunwitch View Post
    ... I mean by definition though with pickup community at its core....

    Aren't we more "gender separating" than any group?
    You mean when it comes to seduction and sex? I guess so. I certainly do discriminate against men. Only women need apply. Does that make me more sexist than other heterosexual humans? Rhetoric aside, I have no idea how sexist people on this forum are. Hopefully they have a full life outside seduction. For me, I have a career that comes before seduction. And I have other hobbies that come before seduction. (Currently rock-climbing, whitewater canoeing, and dance come before seduction. And I've learned from and had my ass kicked in those fields by both other men and women. So, no, I don't prejudge or discriminate based on gender.)
    Originally posted by Gunwitch View Post
    .
    At our core from AFC to Master pua, we objectify women without a doubt.
    ...]
    I don't. That'd be a be a bit boring and a boner killer. I love women. And I'm fascinated and imbued by the emotional richness that women bring to the interaction. Yes, I like to still be leading the interaction but the women seem to be more than happy when I take on that role. But the beauty we create is a joint endeavor. Physical or emotional starfish are a big turnoff to me. So, no, I'm not into objectophilia.

    Why are we left alone? Why shouldn't we be? Many seducers (myself included) leave women better than they found them. The only complains I've ever had was when women wanted (felt entitled to ?) more of what I had offered them. Never that I had taken away something from them or diminished their life in some way. They love what they are getting, the only hurt comes when they want more of it. No woman ever said to me she wishes we never met. I can't imagine them feeling that way. Women have expressed to me how much they wished there were more man that knew what they were doing (i.e. learn seduction.) So, if anything, our teachings should be sponsored, not attacked by women. I'd be more afraid by whiteknight chodes attacking us. (But of course they won't. In their hearts they want to, and know they should learn how to be a good seducer.) Am I going to trumpet my affiliation here? No. Society is still full of fear, jealousy and prejudice. And I'd be breaking the Discretion rule. But that doesn't make seduction evil.
    Lastly, I do experience a lot of guilt in the community. Like we feel it's something unhealthy. I can think of a few reasons/solutions:
    • residual M/W complex? .........Well, women like (good) sex more than men do. Get used to it and get over the idea you're taking something away.
    • serious sex addiction?........... Get help.
    • mild sex addiction. Obsessing over sex at the expanse of other things you should (would like to) be doing?(= this is me) ...............Get better. Abundance breeds contempt.
    • selfishness/ entitlement/ lying, cheating, deceiving, humping her leg just to get yourself off with no regard for her experience? ...............Learn seduction. Her mind is the most important erogenous zone. OK, knowledge of some sex techniques helps too. Do it for yourself too. Stop being a dog. You'll enjoy it more.
    • lack of a life outside seduction? ... I like BD's analogy: your love life and your financial life are like the wheels on your motorcycle. Not the most important part, but essential nevertheless. No matter how powerful your engine, you won't go anywhere without wheels. Get those two in order first but then you MUST get a life.

    Leave a comment:


  • glow
    replied
    From wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism
    Objectification[edit]

    In social philosophy, objectification is the act of treating a person as an object or thing. Objectification plays a central role in feminist theory, especially sexual objectification.[139] Feminist writer and gender equality activist Joy Goh-Mah argues that by being objectified, a person is denied agency.[140] According to the philosopher Martha Nussbaum, a person might be objectified if one or more of the following properties are applied to them:[141]
    1. Instrumentality treating the object as a tool for another's purposes: "The objectifier treats the object as a tool of his or her purposes."
    2. Denial of Autonomy treating the object as lacking in autonomy or self-determination: "The objectifier treats the object as lacking in autonomy and self-determination."
    3. Inertness treating the object as lacking in agency or activity: "The objectifier treats the object as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity."
    4. Fungibility treating the object as interchangeable with other objects: "The objectifier treats the object as interchangeable (a) with other objects of the same type, and/or (b) with objects of other types."
    5. Violability treating the object as lacking in boundary integrity and violable: "The objectifier treats the object as lacking in boundary integrity, as something that it is permissible to break up, smash, break into."
    6. Ownership treating the object as if it can be owned, bought, or sold: "The objectifier treats the object as something that is owned by another, can be bought or sold, etc."
    7. Denial of Subjectivity treating the object as if there is no need for concern for its experiences or feelings: "The objectifier treats the object as something whose experience and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account."

    Rae Helen Langton, in Sexual Solipsism: Philosophical Essays on Pornography and Objectification, proposed three more properties to be added to Nussbaum's list:[139][142]
    1. Reduction to Body the treatment of a person as identified with their body, or body parts;
    2. Reduction to Appearance the treatment of a person primarily in terms of how they look, or how they appear to the senses;
    3. Silencing the treatment of a person as if they are silent, lacking the capacity to speak.

    According to objectification theory, objectification can have important repercussions on women, particularly young women, as it can negatively impact their psychological health and lead to the development of mental disorders, such as unipolar depression, sexual dysfunction, and eating disorders.[143]
    1, 4, and 7 seem to be things PUAs check onto to a degree whereas the rest i would say no. some more than others.

    the add-on of "the reduction of person to body an appearance points" which is more pornographically related gives a different nuance to sexism/objectification that i think hit PUAs more: im wondering if thats one of the key things - that we/many reduce women to "body" which is what - a form of pornofication-similar definition of them in terms of how we reduce them at large across the community? im thinking how discours and the underlying focus points in products/literture etc.

    dunno - last part i found to maybe capture a key dynamic that seems key to something that may give a key to how the community is sexist. A reduction to "body" type sexism that overrules the rest and provides a specific form of sexism.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thau007
    replied
    Originally posted by Bexx View Post
    Well to be honest to some degree I see the "community" (no one personally) too much focused on getting sex. It looks to me the community is obsessed with getting sex.
    i think one reason it might appear that way is because sex is a clear and quantifiable objective. You can count lays... you can't really quantify the quality of a LTR or a female friend or hell how much self improvement you have in confidence/self esteem. However, also women inherently guard sex and utilize it as means to an end or leverage over men, along with actually enjoying it (like Gun has said before).

    One chick who i made out with not that long ago told me roughly "that I can't just get the treat (aka sex) but i need to buy the whole package..." ... Later I found out that some male friends of her were "helping her" with her dating. The fact remains that SHE STILL believes and utilizes the advice.... and a majority of women in general believe this as well.

    But ... truly.... the community is a reflection of what men really want deep down.... without the bullshit of social influence of perceived female scarcity and other negative social programming... its what we arguably want and are wired for... so if it seems like an obsession... i suppose it is... is it necessarily completely off base and too focused on sex? no, i don't believe so.

    so then back to the original question....Are we sexist? I think by today's standards everyone, but the most extreme feminists are not sexist against women.

    Leave a comment:


  • Must
    replied
    I think it's because majority of people don't think PU works, at least as we say it does.
    I think it's because the vast majority has sort of seen women. And have said that these women are not worth going out to do PUA.

    The incentive for a PUA is sex,
    the incentive for the average guy is what?

    Also like I said in my reply to Bacchus is that it is strange we are for the most part left alone.
    |

    We are left alone, because we are like the last of guys who actually want to bother interacting with these women in real life. I think most men are otherwise just like, "Uhhh thanks but no" maybe same phenomenon is happening with chicks?

    Leave a comment:


  • DJ_Z
    replied
    I mean first off, I don't think most of us objectify women. I think we sexualize women, absolutely 100%. We observe women for their sex appeal or lack thereof, and acknowledge it. What I don't think happens is sexual objectification, where we deny her agency. Like, if I open a girl and she shuts me down, I just say "have a good night" and move on. Objectifying is when that situation pans out and the rejection is followed by the guy freaking out and insulting her because, in his mind, she's an object without the right to say no to his advance. Her rejection pummels his idea that she is an object, and that angers him.

    Are we sexist? I guess so. I don't think it comes from a place of hatred, though. I think it comes from the result of a cost-benefit analysis. For instance, most guys here know that I went through a false pregnancy claim. The woman said it was mine, then a combination of her feeling guilty and scientific fact relating to medical examinations I attended revealed it was not the case. As a result, I assume all women are lying when they say they are on birth control or when they say they can't get pregnant because I have experienced the psychological toll and understand the fiscal cost of pregnancy. It's just never worth the risk, hell if I'm dating a hispanic girl I'll wear a condom under my jeans when I meet her because I could sneeze too hard and get her pregnant. Is it sexist to assume that? Hell yes. Do I hate all women for it? No, just that one, but I also realize the cost and the risk of incurring it make aversion a safe option. And while that's my personal experience, it is situations like those and ones even worse that led to the first gen PUAs saying things like "alpha fucks beta bucks."

    And you know what? I think that's totally fine. If you're not denying a woman a job, or pulling a Ray Rice on her over something, etc, you're not causing harm. That's discrimination. PUA sexism seems way more passive.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kit
    replied
    "why we are left alone"

    a friend of mine thought of PUA as careless/emotionless... meant for people who are kind of broken attachment wise

    i personally dunno, sometimes I think thats true, at other moments I think its just a generalisation, that living in freedom of when with whom you spend time and how you want to is rather freeing, and a "better" way of life than attaching yourself to someone where it always feels like a compromise..

    dunno
    ​​​for me the jury is still out on what I think it is and what the practise of pua kind of lifestyles in reality truly mean.

    I mean.. on one hand i want to practise "seduction" or whatever you call it... on the other i couldnt give a fuck about aeducing people at this point and prefer to be "genuine"whatever that may mean in the moment.


    Note; i did read an article on science today about how dominance can make the submissive person in the relationship feel less satisfied in life. Soo better if people think they are immune to PUA and in control of the exchange, that way they will be happier as well Regardless of whom leads the interaction in reality.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bacchus
    replied
    Originally posted by Gunwitch View Post
    I suppose we are so fringe that as long as they can't get video of Julien Cabbage patching some chick and take it out of context, they know we are long circled wagons who wont listen to their bullshit anyway (media shame), and we don't wield enough power of any kind to be worth attacking (no votes, no celebs, no big money) so we get left alone. Though we are massively crazy fringe.
    Yeah the question of why we're left alone is a good one. Me personally, I think it's because majority of people don't think PU works, at least as we say it does.

    We're fringe and we're left alone because according to the accepted narrative we're just a bunch of nerdy dudes who prey on dumb women with LSE. Since no woman in today's society would believe that she is ANYTHING but intelligent and capable of complete autonomy. . . all of em think "yeah those pick up arts don't work on me."

    Like majority of women who would look at an infield, or a pickup before their own eyes and would list a bunch of reasons as to why it worked on THAT chick but won't work on her.

    Example of this happened last month. I was out at a sports bar with my buddy and his new girlfriend. Anyway I leave the table at some point and walk up to a girl ordering a drink at the bar, game her for a bit, then invite her to come sit with us, she accepts and follows me back to the table.

    I introduce her to everyone briefly and continue gaming her. At some point my girl goes to the bathroom. Before she comes back my buddy's girlfriend turns to me and says something along the lines of "wow she's hot and she looks really dumb, so good job picking her."

    Now the ironic thing here is the only reason she is dating my buddy, is thanks to my pickup skills lol.

    I did the exact same thing months ago (probably even word for word) to her and her best-friend (I preferred her best-friend looks-wise tho) who were ordering drinks at the bar, gamed them both and invited them to come sit at our table, where my buddy was sitting chugging beers.

    Basically my point is that if mainstream culture / media had the slightest impression that pickup MIGHT work on THEM and *gasp* influence their decisions of who they're gonna fuck, the media would be on our ass like no tomorrow. Since they don't think it'd work on them, we get left alone.

    Although for that change in perception to happen, I think an elite level PUA would have to run through a bunch of celebs. Kinda opposite of the Weinstein debacle, but yeah he'd go out and have (consensual) sex with a bunch of attractive famous people, then turn around and out himself as a PUA.

    And because of how everyone, media-included worships celebs, they'd realize that if Kendall Jenner, Taylor Swift and Rihanna could get seduced then it would probably happen to them too. That's when they'd come for our asses with headlines, news reports, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • pureevil
    replied
    Originally posted by sparxx View Post
    Because, you know what, NWP? You don't get people to join your cause or support you by behaving like this. So whatever valid points you may have, and there are clearly some, are just lost in internet rants. The same thing is going on at the left-wing, these angry SJWs getting "triggered" by everything from gender pronouns to Halloween costumes are polarizing out moderates who have a bit of common sense.
    He'll simultaneously attract those equally emotional about stuff as him (a very small percentage), while losing any power of influence over everyone else (a very large percentage.) So there's something of a false validator involved in acting this way, that pats you on the back but ultimately works to destroy the power your message.

    NWP does make some good points, that often get lost due to his delivery.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by NWP View Post
    You are adopting the garbage PC language of our declared enemies
    No, but you, NWP, are adopting getting triggered by ordinary discussions, just like the PC SJWs.
    The Manosphere in general is becoming like this, just look at ROK nowadays. Triggered and focused on fringe elements like Radical Feminism. Seems like this is a potent drug for the brain. And I am starting to wonder whether that is the actual motivation.

    Because, you know what, NWP? You don't get people to join your cause or support you by behaving like this. So whatever valid points you may have, and there are clearly some, are just lost in internet rants. The same thing is going on at the left-wing, these angry SJWs getting "triggered" by everything from gender pronouns to Halloween costumes are polarizing out moderates who have a bit of common sense.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X