Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another taken man's proposal....lol

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

  • #76
    Tell you what NWP, since job, status, and money or ability to provide and pay bills is so unimportant in life, why dont you just quit your lawyer nonsense and go BE that KFC guy you dream of being? Do it because the real freaks will love you for it and money, security, education and status are so unimportant. Show the world that there is no shame in being a chicken man. Live your dream.

    Comment


    • #77
      Also, NWP, I love how you go on about how your fuck buddies are so accepting of guys who work at McDonald's, then mention that they are 19. When you are 19, everyone you know works at McDonald's, lol!! Gosh, back when I was just out of high school I had the hookup for free food at virtually any fast food restaurant in town because I had friends working at each place. No one expects a 19 year old to have it together yet. And Hitori isn't showing much interest in the fry guys either, sorry to disappoint! Lol

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Lovergirl View Post
        Tell you what NWP, since job, status, and money or ability to provide and pay bills is so unimportant in life, why dont you just quit your lawyer nonsense and go BE that KFC guy you dream of being? Do it because the real freaks will love you for it and money, security, education and status are so unimportant. Show the world that there is no shame in being a chicken man. Live your dream.
        Two things:

        1. I never said that money, paying bills, and living a comfortable life are unimportant. What I said was that those things are unimportant as they pertain to sex. There's nothing wrong with loving luxury or being a materialistic person as long as you don't connect those things with sexuality or man/woman relations. That's when you cross the line. Let's build a permenant wall of separation between sex and business.

        Personally, I would hate being as poor as the chicken guy. I wouldn't tolerate such a dramatic pay cut. I have non-sexual needs pertaining to comfort, financial security, and having the means to do what I want to do in life without having to struggle or eek out a living at the bottom of the barrel. I want to keep my current house (I'll never move back into an apartment), I want to provide for my future children, and so forth.

        Basically, I have the same financial needs that you have. The difference is that I don't connect them to sex and I hate people who do.

        Yes, it's true, social status is garbage and has never interested me. I'll admit that and I'll save that consideration for the sheep. But, all in all, I love being financially comfortable (more or less) and I wouldn't want to give it up for a low paying blue collar job. BUT I am pissed that success is a curse because of women like you. The more successful I become, the more I have to hide it because women who use men as ATM machines, or just as status symbols, come out of the woodwork, thus further dehumanizing our interaction.

        The chicken guy has a huge advantage over me in that all of his women like him for him, whereas the women I have I must test to make sure they're with me for the orgasms and/or the emotional affection or just because they want to use me for the status of fucking a lawyer/hoping I'll provide for them. It's frustrating and it really hurts.

        Which brings me to:

        2. By age 35 (hopefully), I'll no longer be an attorney. I plan to start my own business and free up a massive amount of my time. I have six years to accomplish this and I've already set my dates. By then, it will be SO MUCH EASIER to hide my money and success. In my spare time, I just might become that chicken guy. It would be GREAT COVER! Then I'll learn who really likes me and who wants to just use me for gender neutral garbage!

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Lovergirl View Post
          Also, NWP, I love how you go on about how your fuck buddies are so accepting of guys who work at McDonald's, then mention that they are 19. When you are 19, everyone you know works at McDonald's, lol!! Gosh, back when I was just out of high school I had the hookup for free food at virtually any fast food restaurant in town because I had friends working at each place. No one expects a 19 year old to have it together yet. And Hitori isn't showing much interest in the fry guys either, sorry to disappoint! Lol
          Read what I write more carefully. Only one of my fuck buddies is 19. She is my youngest one. Actually, she's no longer a fuck buddy because I have upgraded her to the status of MLTR. She made comments about how she "wants me all to herself," emotionally speaking, and wants to upgrade our relationship to more than just sex and I told her I want the same thing. We then talked about how serious we want to be and she told me very plainly, "Just so you know, we will never be sexually exclusive. I don't do that." My response: "Ummm, okay." Ha ha! She's a keeper! I'm already getting all NRE and thinking what we would name our children, lol!

          My engaged FB is 26 and my married one is 32, I think (although I don't count her because she's an IRS agent who knew I was a lawyer well before she fucked me).

          I tend to stay away from women in their mid to high 30s and beyond because I prefer open minded free spirits. But I have been with the entire age range from 14 (when I was 15) to 29. I think two or three of my women were in their 30s, but I don't make that age group a regular habit since they tend to be buzz kills. I think I'll just stick with the 18-29 crowd who actually believe in a gender neutral economy.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Lovergirl View Post
            Ya think? I will say you seem way more worried about whether or not women care what you do for a living than most men. Its really not that big of a deal. Most guys are proud of their success in life and there is nothing wrong with that!
            Sigh. Let me tell you something about me and my past. This is going to be a long post, but bare with me. I want to tell you two stories - one of them happened to me and the other I heard about happening to another guy:

            Story 1:

            When I was in 7th grade (age 13 and still a virgin) a rumor circulated around my class that this one particular girl likes me "a lot." She wasn't particularly bad looking, but I never really considered her in that way. I certainly didn't reject her or anything. I kept my options open and considered her to be fuckable and definitely acceptable in terms of being "girlfriend material."

            But, I did not act on her supposed interest as quickly as my classmates (male and female) told me I should. Again, I wasn't very enthusiastic about her and I wanted to keep my options open and, first and foremost, make sure that this wasn't just some joke everyone was playing on me (I was a skinny AFC at the time).

            Instead of accomodating my wishes and respecting my free will in the matter, everyone, especially the girl's friends, starting making fun of me for not chasing after her like a dog. She herself was very shy and submissive and really didn't want to talk to me unless she was sure that I liked her. But her friends were extremely rude and hateful to me for not giving her what she wants. One of them said to me, "What's your problem? You have a chance with her. Are you gay?" Others, especially the boys, taunted me in the same way.

            In other words, the idea that I have the option of saying no, or that she wasn't good enough for me, or that I'm just not interested and that this is my perogative, never occured to anyone. Only girls have free will, not boys. Boys are just seals balancing beach balls on their noses, desperately hoping to catch a scrap of fish that any girl would generously throw in their direction. We're all just pathetic chumps who "get lucky" when some bitch generously decides to condescend to us. And if we refuse the princess's overwhelming generosity, we must be gay or retarded.

            I remember feeling so offended at this mindset, so boiling with rage, that I purposely walked up to her in front of everyone and literally spit in her face, even though she herself was never rude to me (just her friends). Everyone was shocked and I ended up getting detention. Then I received the reputation of being gay for the remainder of the year.

            Ever since then, not much has changed with most males. Most of them, even as adults, see themselves as lucky and women, to this day, don't respect them or take them seriously when it comes to them having options. Men are just expected to give women what they want. If he's stalker, she says, "I said no. What's wrong with him." If she wants him but he's not interested, she says, "I said yes. What's wrong with him?" This idea of female generosity and male pussy begging is alive and well in adult culture. This was the first thing I've always hated about women - their total lack of respect for us and their belief in the "golden pussy."

            Then came story #2, which is not about me, but a story I heard a friend relate to me. It isn't about him and I'm not sure where he got it from, so I'm not sure if this is a true story or not, but it definitely sounds true:

            Story 2:

            Once upon a time, a guy went to a club with his male friend (both adults). They were both lawyers. One guy had a reputation for being a successful and rich attorney. The other lawyer was completely unknown. The famous guy instantly managed to surround himself with a flock of females. Since the other guy was his friend, the females wanted to talk and dance with him too. But he was sensitive to golddiggers and wanted to remain low profile.

            One girl was extremely friendly to him. She insisted on dancing with him, talking to him, and slightly making out with him. After a few conversations on the dance floor, she asked him what he does for a living. He lied and said he is a garbage collector. She finished the dance and disappeared on him. She then went to talk to his famous friend. He was very offended at this (he was charming and they had a great convo), so he decided to act like an asshole to her because she was a disrespectful bitch.

            30 minutes later, all of a sudden, she came back to him and insisted on dancing with him again. This time, he declined, called her a cunt, and left the club. She was shocked.

            The next day, he talked with his famous friend on the phone and the famous guy asked why he left and why he treated her so rudely. He explained to her that she was a bitch for disappearing on him when he lied and told her he's a garbage collector. The famous friend then said: "Oh, that explains a lot. When she finished dancing with you, she came to my table and asked me, 'So how do you know trash boy?' I said to her that she is crazy and he is really a lawyer. Then she came and wanted to dance with you again. Then after you left, she came back to my table and started crying, saying, 'Why was he so rude to me? I was just trying to be friendly."

            Now let's combine the two stories. The cultural matrix tells us two things:

            1. Women are generous and men are lucky. Men have no free will and it is extremely rude of them to refuse a woman who wants them.

            2. Women's generosity is dependent on the man proving himself financially, professionally, and socially. Not only do men not have any free will which they should be respected for, but if they want sex (and it is rude for them not to want it if the woman does), they owe it to the women to be successful so that those women don't end up sexually frustrated!

            In other words, we are slaves to women in every way - no dignity, no honor, no freedom, and no choice. Everything is predicated on her generosity and us earning that generosity!

            Until the seduction community came along and said - FUCK THAT! We are free. We have free will. Women are not generous when they fuck us. They are selfish when they fuck us. To suggest otherwise is hatred of men, and a denial of women's sexuality.

            We are the answer to the culture which believes women are princesses and men are slaves! So please understand that I will not tolerate some woman telling me that I need to impress her in some gender neutral or financial way in order for her to generously reward me with sex. It's for her too. And she is certainly no prize that I somehow have to impress with my resume. Appealing to women's selfish sexuality has always distinguished the seducer from the chump and I will not go back to the "chump mentality" because some women tell me that successful men are attractive due to a subconscious desire to find a provider for their children. Fuck that! That's what chumps are for...

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Bad Boyfriend View Post
              Her: "So what do you do?"
              Me: "Huh?"
              Her: "What do you do for a living?"
              Me: [Small, somewhat insincere smile]"Tell ya what, let's fill out the paperwork later, I'm here for the scenery (looking her over once real good, lingering on "problem areas" if need be )"
              That is fucking stolen. Sorry, but it is.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Lovergirl View Post
                As a mom of 5 it is rare that I get to sit down or have a few moments where I am not doing several things at once.
                I probably shouldn't even post in this thread, let alone read it, but holy fuck. I just find this entirely hypocritical considering how much work you've been doing in this thread, not to mention other parts of the forum and your post count.

                Then to consider the problems you have with your child, seriously, I cant' imagine what your life actually looks like.

                Sometimes you give good advice. Sometimes. But if I were you I would ask myself what is really important in my life, and where it stands on my list of things I actually prioritize.

                If I were a woman with 5 kids, dealing with those behavioral problems, I can't imagine that spending time on a MALE pickup artist forum would even remotely be on my radar. I feel sorry for your son/sons.

                With that said:

                In before page 10!!!

                And out of this thread forever. (Which means don't bother responding directly to this if you think I'll engage you.)

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Jazzmaster View Post
                  I probably shouldn't even post in this thread, let alone read it, but holy fuck. I just find this entirely hypocritical considering how much work you've been doing in this thread, not to mention other parts of the forum and your post count.

                  Then to consider the problems you have with your child, seriously, I cant' imagine what your life actually looks like.


                  Yeah, I'm just over here sitting on my lazy ass as usual. Posting away while my homemade chicken noodle soup and homemade biscuits are cooking. A few things I have done today:

                  Cleaned out my side by side refrigerator/freezer , took out all the drawers and washed them in the sink and put everything back in then cleaned off the top of it.
                  Fixed the hood over my oven that had fallen down with the help of my 12 year old. We'd been waiting for over a week on the landlord so finally bought nails and screws and did the damn thing ourselves
                  Washed, dried, folded and put away 3 loads of laundry
                  Put away 3 loads of dishes from my dishwasher
                  Washed two loads of dishes
                  Made homemade lemon/oat muffins for breakfast and cleaned the kitchen after
                  Made lemonade with my little ones
                  Gave baths to my little ones and ran the older ones through their showers
                  Picked up toys, clothes, books, papers and other items around the house
                  Made lunch and cleaned up after
                  Swept my kitchen, bathroom, (very large) living room and hallway and took apart the couches and cleaned under the cushions
                  Dried the floors after having the kids mop
                  Made my 10 yr old clean the bathroom and I refilled the soaps and changed some lightbulbs
                  Changed diapers and nursed the baby
                  Dealt with the school principal, vice principal and attendance secretary plus the bus driver because my son was at school for breakfast then he and a friend LEFT and were truant. I called him repeatedly and he lied and texted that he was in school then said he was in the principals office and had a kid get on and pretend to be a teacher. Had to call the bus driver to see if he'd been on the bus. Got ahold of my son finally and got him to go to school where he got in school suspension. Then I get another call about how he and this kid thought they saw a dead person downtown under the bridge. Had to give permission to the school police to take him out there and it was just a homeless guy sleeping. Then I get another call about how my son has another day of ISS due to "reading aloud in class and being a clown and causing the whole class to disrupt into chaos" after the teacher told them to read quietly. Called his dad to tell him what was going on.
                  Then my son doesn't show up on the bus home from school so had to track him down (walking with friends) and ground him (due to that and all the behaviors earlier) and listen to him rage and threaten to leave for an hour and a half while I was trying to clean.
                  Had to go outside and deal with him while he acted like he was running off 3 different times and ran around the corner when he is not supposed to leave the yard
                  Cleaned permanent marker off my wood floors that my darling daughter drew on
                  Took out the trash

                  That's just a start....what did you do?

                  Some of the things I still have left to do:

                  Feed the kids
                  Work out!
                  Reading lessons and work with my middle three that got set aside while dealing with my oldest's issues
                  Superivsing my oldest son doing homework. He claims not to have any but I told his teachers I would make him do 30-45 minutes of work I give him myself if he says he doesn't.
                  Cleaning up after dinner, dishes, sweep the kitchen and living room again, getting the kids ready for bed and hopefully reading to them
                  Making my 8 yr old mop the laundry room
                  Ordering more homeschool supplies online after the kids go to sleep

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by NWP View Post
                    So you believe that sex is something women "give" you as a reward for your hard work?
                    A key feature of masculinity is achieving challenging goals despite resistance, pain and hardship. If women appraised men holistically and profoundly, as many of them claim, I'd expect hard-earned achievements to have a strong effect on them.

                    Unfortunately, my experience is that most women, and especially the younger ones, judge shallowly. I met a lot of tall, muscular looking guys who are viewed as masculine despite being weak and cowardly. Women who accepted them rejected me, despite bold approaches in high-pressure situations, and lots of evidence that I can be very tough and achieve difficult goals in other areas of my life.

                    There are women who actually appreciate that, but they are a tiny minority.

                    These sound like the women I play with: Freaks who don't give a shit who's poor or rich as long as he is masculine, attractive, and charming.
                    You keep getting back to material wealth for some reason. Read my post again, I never mentioned that.

                    I'd consider a firefighter or a jungle rescue worker to be very masculine, despite making little money. Unfortunately, my experience is that a short skinny firefighter will lose to a gym rat with 9 out of 10 women, who will also have the audacity to call the gym rat "more masculine" because he has big muscles.

                    Carrying yourself with an aura of masculinity, confidence, and indifference towards women will get you laid like a porn star, even if you're not financially successful.
                    It's easy to carry yourself like that if you were born with the right genes, and women throw themselves onto you since you were 15. I knew a lot of guys who carried themselves like that, and had the personality of a frightened pussycat. I wish women cared more about the things they like to say they care about. I'm always surprised by how easy guys have it if they were just born with the right genes and nothing else.

                    Success is at least something you can fight for and win by your own strength. Passively relying on your looks to get you laid is a feminine choice. I fail to see why you are celebrating these guys, and the shallow women who pursue them.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Tarzan View Post
                      A key feature of masculinity is achieving challenging goals despite resistance, pain and hardship.
                      Agreed.

                      If women appraised men holistically and profoundly, as many of them claim, I'd expect hard-earned achievements to have a strong effect on them.
                      But it is rather narrow minded to believe that those hard earned achievements must confine themselves exclusively to a man's professional life or money-making endeavors. As I was saying to Lovergirl, if a man is a janitor, it does not necessarily mean that he does not have any hard earned achievments under his belt. It just means that those achievements have not translated themselves into money. Maybe he financially sacrificed himself for a sick family member. Maybe he didn't have the right connections. Maybe he couldn't figure out how to monetize his passions, such as art, music, philosophy, and so forth. I agree that in a perfect world, every man's job is a reflection of his personality because no one does anything professionally unless their spirits call them to do so, but we do not live in a perfect world.

                      Even some alpha males are not cut out for college, adhering to someone else's schedule, kissing ass, climbing the ladder, and so forth.

                      My point to Lovergirl was if a man is a janitor or the guy in the chicken costume outside KFC, she should ask what other non-monetary achievements has this man accomplished in his life which may reflect upon his masculinity? Masculinity does not always translate into money. Sometimes, the way you make a woman feel in your arms - safe, secure, protected - and the dominance which she can literally feel through the energy that you convey, charm, confidence, charisma, outcome independence, and the way you carry yourself can be the best marker of masculinity. You can make the argument that those personality traits should translate into money, but they don't necessarily have to.

                      Also, being rich and successful does not necessarily mean you are masculine. It could be you have the right connections, were born into it, or are just a nerd with a specific skill. Women cheat on their billionaire husbands with broke security guards, strip club bouncers, and alpha cable repair men for that reason. Also, bad boys who are broke because they just got out of prison are extremely attractive because they are very masculine, dominant, and alpha who didn't achieve anything in life because kissing ass is not for them.

                      That's the problem with Lovergirl. It's your masculine personality (which may or may not make you rich and successful) that should be determinitive. But Lovergirl takes a mental short cut and judges men by their financial circumstances, thus falsely assuming a lack of masculinity on the part of the janitor (at least potentially falsely). Thus, she leaves human consciousness at the door, which leads to her criteria being dehumanizing and degrading, especially to those alphas who have not monetized their passions but have a achieved a great deal of non-monetary goals through effort and hardship.

                      Unfortunately, my experience is that most women, and especially the younger ones, judge shallowly.
                      No. They just judge the way more guys like me judge women: If you look good to her and feel good to her in terms of your masculine energy and dominance, she will fuck you. Likewise, if a woman looks good and feels good to me in terms of her feminine energy, I will fuck her. I'm sure these women wouldn't rule out fucking billionaires, but it is their personality and consciousness which matters the most (plus looks). And if masculinity leads to great achievements, that's great, but his successful job must only be a symptom of why she's with him, not the cause. If the symptom is not there, the cause may still be there, in which case, she should still sleep with him (unless the cause is not there either). Anything other than that would be dehumanizing.

                      I met a lot of tall, muscular looking guys who are viewed as masculine despite being weak and cowardly. Women who accepted them rejected me, despite bold approaches in high-pressure situations, and lots of evidence that I can be very tough and achieve difficult goals in other areas of my life.
                      Well, at least their bodies are masculine, so that's a plus, just like you wouldn't fuck a woman with no breasts, a wrinkled 75 year old woman, or a woman with a pre-pubescent body. Signs of fertility are what nature programmed us to be attracted to. Masculine energy is all well and good as well, but it should be in tune with your consciousness. I know you think your professional accomplishments are in tune with your masculinity (and maybe you're right), but the most attractive quality of masculinity is - what can it do for her? In terms of physical protection, being competent to give her advice and help her solve her problems, and making her feel as if her problems are a million miles away when she's with you, masculine energy will do the trick.

                      But in terms of being her slave and actually solving her problems for her, giving her money, etc..., she is looking for an AFC provider. I know you don't expect to slave for women, but barring that, your professional success really does nothing for her. Human nature being what it is, if you expect women to be impressed with your ability to suffer through even the worst problems, she will eventually see you as provider material. You're talking about the pre-feminist chivalrous matriarchy where men suffered for women and only then did they earn the pussy.

                      There are women who actually appreciate that, but they are a tiny minority.
                      Appreciation of that leads to a provider-hunting mentality (human nature being what it is).

                      You keep getting back to material wealth for some reason. Read my post again, I never mentioned that.
                      I know. But you failed to see the connection between that and the professional achievements that you want women to be impressed by. You may not link the two, but the women will.

                      I'd consider a firefighter or a jungle rescue worker to be very masculine, despite making little money. Unfortunately, my experience is that a short skinny firefighter will lose to a gym rat with 9 out of 10 women, who will also have the audacity to call the gym rat "more masculine" because he has big muscles.
                      The gym rat displays physical signs of fertility. He may also display a psychological dominance (masculine energy) produced by his confidence and outcome independence.

                      The skinny firefighter produces signs of a good provider/slave. Maybe not a financial slave, but at least a physical slave who can lift heavy things for them or fix their leaky faucet. That kind of masculinity women DO have use for, but not in the bedroom, especially since women can take care of themselves now. The kind of masculinity that they do have sexual use for his the psychological (and physical) kind that is displayed by the gym guy.

                      It's easy to carry yourself like that if you were born with the right genes, and women throw themselves onto you since you were 15. I knew a lot of guys who carried themselves like that, and had the personality of a frightened pussycat. I wish women cared more about the things they like to say they care about. I'm always surprised by how easy guys have it if they were just born with the right genes and nothing else.

                      Success is at least something you can fight for and win by your own strength. Passively relying on your looks to get you laid is a feminine choice. I fail to see why you are celebrating these guys, and the shallow women who pursue them.
                      You are completely missing the masculine energy factor in reference to her, (instead of in reference to gender neutral areas of life which she can only take advantage of by enslaving you as a provider). In reference to her, you can be dominant, confident, outcome independent, competant, protective, loyal, loving, charming and give her the impression that she is loved, protected, and cared for in a dominant and dignified fashion. Those aspects of masculine energy are what turn women on. But expecting them to be turned on by your masculinity in reference to gender neutral areas of life, is expecting them to channel it toward them somehow, and the only way to do that is to hunt for a provider.

                      That's why you don't understand why I keep bringing up material wealth. It's a connection that you don't see, but women do because human nature won't allow them not to, thus eventually leading you to be taken advantage of just like in the pre-feminist chivalrous days, which you seem to want to go back to.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by NWP View Post
                        But it is rather narrow minded to believe that those hard earned achievements must confine themselves exclusively to a man's professional life or money-making endeavors.
                        I agree completely. If a guy is a janitor, but in spare time does something courageous and challenging, then he is masculine.

                        Even some alpha males are not cut out for college, adhering to someone else's schedule, kissing ass, climbing the ladder, and so forth.
                        These alpha males are going to find life more challenging going forward, I fear. The days a man could make money on balls and mental strength alone are passing.

                        Sometimes, the way you make a woman feel in your arms - safe, secure, protected - and the dominance which she can literally feel through the energy that you convey, charm, confidence, charisma, outcome independence, and the way you carry yourself can be the best marker of masculinity. You can make the argument that those personality traits should translate into money, but they don't necessarily have to.
                        All the women who liked me commented on how good I make them feel when they are in my arms. And yeah, I wish that would translate into money, where do I apply for a position in hugging some cutie for 10 hours a day?

                        Also, being rich and successful does not necessarily mean you are masculine. It could be you have the right connections, were born into it, or are just a nerd with a specific skill.
                        I would go so far as to say, most rich people are like that. The self-made rich are a rare exception. It takes a real man to win a fair fight. Most people win only matches that were fixed.

                        Women cheat on their billionaire husbands with broke security guards, strip club bouncers, and alpha cable repair men for that reason. Also, bad boys who are broke because they just got out of prison are extremely attractive because they are very masculine, dominant, and alpha who didn't achieve anything in life because kissing ass is not for them.
                        Kissing ass is not for me either, and I got a few girls who knew me in a past life interested because of that. I'm a little bitter that none of the girls I approach recognizes that, but that might be an unreasonable expectation from a 5 minute approach. They don't actually know me, and it makes sense for them to judge me by looks.

                        But Lovergirl takes a mental short cut and judges men by their financial circumstances, thus falsely assuming a lack of masculinity on the part of the janitor (at least potentially falsely).
                        I agree, that's as shallow as judging by looks alone.

                        Thus, she leaves human consciousness at the door, which leads to her criteria being dehumanizing and degrading, especially to those alphas who have not monetized their passions but have a achieved a great deal of non-monetary goals through effort and hardship.
                        Those alphas will have to deal with that, the way I deal with

                        No. They just judge the way more guys like me judge women: If you look good to her and feel good to her in terms of your masculine energy and dominance, she will fuck you.
                        True to an extent, especially if she's in state. If she's not, expect to be judged by how "society" - mostly, her friends - will perceive your value. I had girls make out with me, then ditch me the next day in front of their friends because I'm not good looking enough and they were ashamed to be seen with me (their explanation).

                        If the symptom is not there, the cause may still be there, in which case, she should still sleep with him (unless the cause is not there either). Anything other than that would be dehumanizing.
                        Starting to lose you here. Are you sure you're not letting your insecurities get the better of you?

                        A woman should sleep with you because you have strong masculine energy, and if she doesn't, she's dehumanizing you?

                        I have my own issues (just check out the thread in General), and trust me, nothing makes you bitter like getting a booty text from a DTF chick at 2am, then have her "go back to sleep" as soon as you send a clear self-photo. I also think American women are shallow and retarded in their obsessive focus on male body and looks. But nobody "should" sleep with me, no matter how ballsy my approach was, and how much shit I went through in my life. If they are dehumanizing me by judging my looks, I do the same to them.



                        I know you think your professional accomplishments are in tune with your masculinity (and maybe you're right), but the most attractive quality of masculinity is - what can it do for her?
                        Sure, but that's a bit shallow, especially in this day and age. They're free to choose that, of course, and I'm free to laugh in their face when they peg me for a husband after they are tired of playing with their gym rats.

                        your professional success really does nothing for her.
                        Your remarks on human nature notwithstanding, I find success an attractive quality in women myself. I enjoy being with silly young girls who accomplished nothing yet in their lives, they make me feel good. But I still appreciate success and a cultivated mind.

                        Human nature being what it is, if you expect women to be impressed with your ability to suffer through even the worst problems, she will eventually see you as provider material. You're talking about the pre-feminist chivalrous matriarchy where men suffered for women and only then did they earn the pussy.
                        Nope. An alpha in nature (like, monkey hierarchies) gets challenged all the time. Alpha and "weak" or "quitter" are incompatible. You won't be alpha male for long with either of these qualities.

                        That's why you don't understand why I keep bringing up material wealth. It's a connection that you don't see, but women do because human nature won't allow them not to, thus eventually leading you to be taken advantage of just like in the pre-feminist chivalrous days, which you seem to want to go back to.
                        Nope. Here's what you're missing:

                        Like most broadly defined groups, successful men include both alphas and betas. Women distinguish them, sometimes very clearly. There are rich men who will only get into her pants in a provider frame, or by direct payment. And there are rich men she's have a brief affair in a vacation resort with while her husband is watching the kids downstairs. This many times has a lot to do with how the guy got rich, see comment about self-made vs fixed game above.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Tarzan View Post
                          These alpha males are going to find life more challenging going forward, I fear. The days a man could make money on balls and mental strength alone are passing.
                          Those alphas do one of two things - turn to crime, or start their own legal business. I know one such old school needy alpha who had no choice but to become an entrapeneur because he couldn't stand having a boss. He's fairly successful today. Also, look at Blackdragon: He owns his own business (more than one, as I understand it) and he doesn't have to kiss anyone's ass, much less have a boss (unless you count his customers as bosses).

                          I agree, that's as shallow as judging by looks alone.
                          Judging by looks alone is perfectly fine for a one night stand or a pure fuck buddy situation, but the personality should come into play if the woman wants more than just sex.

                          True to an extent, especially if she's in state. If she's not, expect to be judged by how "society" - mostly, her friends - will perceive your value.
                          This is only true for the non-freaks. In my experience, sexual free spirits are individualists with their own values. They own themselves and are not social whores. Those are the only women I pick. They don't give a fuck about status because society has given them the status of "trashy sluts."

                          I assure you, there are women out there who are outside the matrix. One of them is sleeping naked in my bed as I'm typing this.

                          Starting to lose you here. Are you sure you're not letting your insecurities get the better of you?

                          A woman should sleep with you because you have strong masculine energy, and if she doesn't, she's dehumanizing you?
                          She's dehumanizing me if she refuses to sleep with me despite my good looks and masculine energy because of some social defect in my external circumstances. Refusing to sleep with me if I were a janitor would be quite dehumanizing. But in my reality, deciding to sleep with me just because I'm an attorney is equally dehumanizing. I have no desire to be used as a status symbol or a cash cow.

                          If they are dehumanizing me by judging my looks, I do the same to them.
                          It depends what they want. Again, I believe looks are the end all if all you want is sex. If you want more, it should be a mixture of looks and personality.

                          Your remarks on human nature notwithstanding, I find success an attractive quality in women myself. I enjoy being with silly young girls who accomplished nothing yet in their lives, they make me feel good. But I still appreciate success and a cultivated mind.
                          As long as you don't take mental short cuts by assuming a woman's mind isn't cultivated just because she's a grocery store cashier. Talk to her first.

                          Nope. Here's what you're missing:

                          Like most broadly defined groups, successful men include both alphas and betas. Women distinguish them, sometimes very clearly. There are rich men who will only get into her pants in a provider frame, or by direct payment. And there are rich men she's have a brief affair in a vacation resort with while her husband is watching the kids downstairs. This many times has a lot to do with how the guy got rich, see comment about self-made vs fixed game above.
                          And there are also poor men whom women will sleep with and cheat on their rich providers with, because of their looks and masculine game. These poor men are alphas as well.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by NWP View Post
                            He owns his own business (more than one, as I understand it) and he doesn't have to kiss anyone's ass, much less have a boss (unless you count his customers as bosses).
                            Customers aren't bosses. The closest they can get is if you have one single customer, and no hope of getting any other, which would be extremely rare. Even in that case, it would be psychologically different.

                            This is only true for the non-freaks. In my experience, sexual free spirits are individualists with their own values. They own themselves and are not social whores. Those are the only women I pick. They don't give a fuck about status because society has given them the status of "trashy sluts."
                            I've met plenty of freaks, arguably they comprise most of my recent lays.

                            There's a huge range between "non-freak" and "trashy slut". Lots of freaks still obey some social standards, and have friends they value, including non-freak friends. So for example, if I approach a freak in a set where she has non-freak friends, she may reject me because of what her friends would think, though I admit this is more common with non-freaks, as freaks do tend to be more independent of their social connections.

                            The only sharp distinction I would draw between freak and non-freak in this context is that a freak would never show ASD in isolation.

                            She's dehumanizing me if she refuses to sleep with me despite my good looks and masculine energy because of some social defect in my external circumstances.
                            How is that dehumanizing, whereas refusing to sleep with you if you were born with a lazy eye (a perfectly human condition) is not?

                            Refusing to sleep with me if I were a janitor would be quite dehumanizing. But in my reality, deciding to sleep with me just because I'm an attorney is equally dehumanizing.
                            I could play the sophist here and mention that if I work in construction, I might have a great body simply because of my work...

                            It depends what they want. Again, I believe looks are the end all if all you want is sex. If you want more, it should be a mixture of looks and personality.
                            You seem to insist that rejecting on looks is not dehumanizing, whereas rejecting on your professional success is.

                            If we define dehumanizing as disregarding that which makes you human, I'd argue that my work says a lot more about me than my lazy eye. I can't see why someone rejecting you on lack of professional success is dehumanizing, while someone rejecting you over some defective genes is perfectly fine.

                            For the record, I believe the whole discussion of "dehumanizing" in this context is a tarpit that will lead nowhere. Women reject men for many reasons, just as we reject them, and it's all legitimate though you and I may personally not like it.

                            You dislike women rejecting you on career, probably because that happen to you. I get rejected a lot on looks, and it's painful, especially since I get those numbers by approaching boldly in tough situations (there's a big thread in general just about that), and yet I don't blame them. They have the right to do so, just like she can get wet for a confident businessmen who orders people around, and not for the janitor receiving such orders.

                            I certainly passed on many women based purely on factors in their looks which are completely outside their control. I'm sure you have too. Who are we to say that if they reject us based on factors we may or may not control, like looks or professional success, they are "dehumanizing" us?

                            Also for the record, I never ever got laid based on my career. In fact, I make sure to never tell girls about my success before she is sexually invested.

                            As long as you don't take mental short cuts by assuming a woman's mind isn't cultivated just because she's a grocery store cashier. Talk to her first.
                            Oh, don't worry; if she's cute, I'll talk to her anyway.

                            And there are also poor men whom women will sleep with and cheat on their rich providers with, because of their looks and masculine game. These poor men are alphas as well.
                            Alpha is subjective, and the women who sleep with those men certainly see them as such, so there's no occasion to disagree.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Tarzan View Post
                              Customers aren't bosses. The closest they can get is if you have one single customer, and no hope of getting any other, which would be extremely rare. Even in that case, it would be psychologically different.
                              Many self employed people have told me that "the customer is my boss." But I suppose it was meant in a less literal way than you took it. Basically, unless you're homeless, you're always going to be answerable to someone, if not a boss, then a customer who is giving you money and complaining about a defective product or demanding a refund.

                              There's a huge range between "non-freak" and "trashy slut".
                              You are absolutely right!

                              I meant "trashy slut" in a positive way, by the way. I would never be negative towards such girls. Ever!

                              Lots of freaks still obey some social standards, and have friends they value, including non-freak friends. So for example, if I approach a freak in a set where she has non-freak friends, she may reject me because of what her friends would think, though I admit this is more common with non-freaks, as freaks do tend to be more independent of their social connections.

                              The only sharp distinction I would draw between freak and non-freak in this context is that a freak would never show ASD in isolation.
                              Plus, a freak believes in a gender neutral economy.

                              Anyway, in that case, let's get away from the generic "freak, good girl, ho" labels since they are open to so many misinterpretations. Instead, let's use my more concrete system I articulated in my "Three Types of Female Thinking About Sex" thread in the General forum.

                              I was talking about my Type 3s. Above, you described the Type 2s, who may be freaks to an extent, but are more hybrids than anything else because they are still too weak to dispense with the culture and attain true intellectual and emotional freedom.

                              How is that dehumanizing, whereas refusing to sleep with you if you were born with a lazy eye (a perfectly human condition) is not?
                              I guess matters which pertain to your physical body have never bothered me. What does bother me is a rejection based on things which have nothing to do with the body or the personality, like money or professional status. Yes, yes, these things may link a man to his personality but they also may not. I have no problem with women rejecting a man for being a janitor as long as his lack of masculinity made him that way. Likewise, I have no problem with women fucking a billionaire because of his billions, as long as his masculinity made him that way. This means, she has to talk to the billionaire and the janitor first before making a decision, which means that the real cause of the sex is his masculinity, not his success. It may be that their professions are due to luck, circumstances, or other things which say nothing about their masculinity. In which case, a woman like Lovergirl who would reject a janitor just for being a janitor, is a social whore at best and a bigot at worst.

                              I could play the sophist here and mention that if I work in construction, I might have a great body simply because of my work...
                              Then women should fuck you for your great body, with your construction job simply being a symptom. But if your construction job is the cause of them fucking you, than I would say they want a chivalrous chump who will fix their leaky toilet or try to use him as some kind of gender neutral utility.

                              Understand that it is fucking a man for gender neutral reasons which bugs me. Rejecting or accepting a man for gender based reasons, on the other hand, like his body or his masculine personality (while fully recognizing that his success is just a symptom of his masculinity, not the cause of wanting to sleep with him), I have no problem with.

                              You seem to insist that rejecting on looks is not dehumanizing,
                              Yes, that's what I insist. Your looks are a part of you and your fertility. I never said it was 100 percent fair.

                              whereas rejecting on your professional success is.
                              Yes, unless women are with you because of your masculine personality and your financial success is a symptom of that.

                              But to accept or reject a man based on his financial success or a lack of it, as the cause of her decision, is dehumanizing. She is then making her decision based on gender neutral criteria solely due to her desire for his money, physical utility (like fixing her car or being a beta handy man), or social status. This is prostitution, whereas picking a man because of his masculine personality/energy, or his hot body (preferably both), is not prostitution, because she is enjoying herself genuinely instead of selling out like a whore/sheep, and therefore, enjoying the culturally constructed validation from society more than him.

                              If we define dehumanizing as disregarding that which makes you human, I'd argue that my work says a lot more about me than my lazy eye.
                              Sure, if you are following your dreams and your work is a reflection of that. Some men aren't in that position yet. Most men following their passions make the least amount of money, because writing children's books is not in high demand, while doing something that you hate just may be.

                              As for the lazy eye, I agree that it may not be fair, but at least this was a rejection based on your body, not something as markedly disconnected from anything gender based as being a janitor because you spent five years recovering from a major car accident.

                              I'm saying that there is a superior criteria - your masculine energy in relation to her (confidence, outcome independence, charm, etc...). This may or may not make you financially successful, but just your financial success per se should not be the sole basis of a woman's decision.

                              You seem to believe that it is either looks or money. No, there is a third thing - your personality - which has superior ways of displaying itself to her than through your money or profession, like maybe your game?

                              I can't see why someone rejecting you on lack of professional success is dehumanizing, while someone rejecting you over some defective genes is perfectly fine.
                              Because strong genes is what fertility is all about, while "professional success" may be just the result of being born with a silver spoon, winning the lottery, or knowing the right people simply through a type of luck that has nothing to do with genetics or fertility. I always wanted to ask a golddigger, does it turn you on to fuck betas with money? How does it feel fucking unattractive chumps?

                              For the record, I believe the whole discussion of "dehumanizing" in this context is a tarpit that will lead nowhere. Women reject men for many reasons, just as we reject them, and it's all legitimate though you and I may personally not like it.
                              Fine, then we'll agree to disagree that rejection for gender based reasons is just as legitimate as rejection for gender neutral reasons.

                              You dislike women rejecting you on career, probably because that happen to you.
                              No. I'm an attorney. No woman has ever rejected me for being an attorney. I've rejected women who seemed to want to sleep with me only because I'm an attorney and showed signs that they would never touch me if I weren't one. This is dehumanizing because they just wanted my money or my social status, which means sexual attraction (to my body or personality) had nothing to do with it.

                              If a woman rejects you for reasons that have nothing to do with her sexual attraction to you, or lack thereof, but for some sexless reason, that is when I start having a problem. These women weren't attracted to my masculine energy which made me an attorney. They were attracted to my attorney status and didn't seem to care how I got it. For the record, attaining to that status had little to do with serious masculinity.

                              I get rejected a lot on looks, and it's painful, especially since I get those numbers by approaching boldly in tough situations (there's a big thread in general just about that), and yet I don't blame them. They have the right to do so, just like she can get wet for a confident businessmen who orders people around, and not for the janitor receiving such orders.
                              Yes, as long as it's precisely that confidence that makes her want to fuck him (which made him a businessman), not the sole fact of him being a businessman. It may be a subtle distinction, but it makes all the difference in the world.

                              I certainly passed on many women based purely on factors in their looks which are completely outside their control. I'm sure you have too. Who are we to say that if they reject us based on factors we may or may not control, like looks or professional success, they are "dehumanizing" us?
                              Gender neutral criteria = dehumanizing
                              Gender based criteria (looks + personality) = fine.

                              Also for the record, I never ever got laid based on my career. In fact, I make sure to never tell girls about my success before she is sexually invested.
                              Then you and I are more on the same page than you realize.

                              Alpha is subjective, and the women who sleep with those men certainly see them as such, so there's no occasion to disagree.
                              Good!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X