Parththakkar12

I know they are! I just haven't seen you talk much about them. I could be wrong though. If I put words into your mouth, my bad!

It was a pretty intellectually arrogant generalization. Pretty neat way of invalidating the male perspective. You're just asking for it from men in return, quite frankly.

A general word when you take women's advice - Don't listen to the don'ts. Listen to the do's! The don'ts come out of fear, the do's will give you clarity on what they want. (That was an interesting strange-loop)

Nope. She screamed first, then he did a 360 and left her! That was the 'evil thing' that he did. Yupp!! Well done. You have officially proved that you are morally superior to men. You get to have a very special cookie for this one. The 'this is why you're not getting laid, for these bullshit reasons' manipulation-tactic is not going to work with me. I don't care about sex! I care about truth. And I will speak it no matter how much you attack me for it! Who gave you the moral authority to decide that? The 'you're acting low value' is a projection of your lack of self-worth. I'm not acting low value here, I'm acting high value! A lot of the guys reading here will be silently feeling respect for me for standing up to this dynamic. I speak on behalf of them too!! Now you're generalizing women. You don't know her. So that you get to control us into being passive little yes-men and being the controlled little men that you want! No thanks. He doesn't see the truth of the matter yet. Wait till he wakes up to it! He'll sing a completely different tune. He's buying the bullshit right now. Goddamn, your manipulations work. It's because men are too obsessed with sex. Wait till men start paying attention to relationship-dynamics. All this shit will fly out the window! So, what is the truth? I am not a 'misogynist', 'sexist' or whatever bullshit term you want to use to shame me. Neither is he. I love women. I just don't put up with bullshit from certain individual women! That's it.

Why do you always make it about the 'right to deny sex'?! I never said anything about that. Somehow it'll always get interpreted as 'women shouldn't have the right to reject men', which makes no sense. Let's have a conversation more intelligent than that, please. He said 'she was screaming at him'. There must've been some nagging and criticizing involved in there. It is abusive and it may plausibly justify his anger towards her, which made him do it. Was it right or justifiable on his part to do what he did? No. But, this gives her plausible deniability on the issue as well! And, the anger itself could be justified. We don't know that! Women don't know how much investment is involved from the male perspective in the relationship, which is why you take the rejection so casually. And then say that the morally superior narrative 'helps us reject guys who want to use us to dig their dicks' and use that as a justification to collectively nag and criticize men!

Leo's advice tends to be practical advice and oriented towards getting laid. He doesn't really care much about relationship-dynamics. There are reasons, cultural reasons why men cannot express the reality of why they're so angry on the inside. You keep shaming it but that's not helping! The shaming will happen even in the therapist's office, even in the mainstream mental-health facilities. My claim is that this is precisely wrong. You have your own agenda as to how you want men to be like in society and that's what's showing itself in your advice! The advice that you give has all sorts of assumptions that make you morally superior to the person you're advising. Correction. You're not seeing the fault because it benefits you. You're covering up the fight for moral superiority with the claim that you're 'trying to help him', which is very convenient. Shaming is not helping! It's a battle for moral superiority. And you want to silence dissenters and invalidate what they're saying.

And why do you think that inner anger exists? Right. You're going to find a way to make that shameful too. Which is only going to fuel the anger. Feminism, 'male insecurities', it's all the same thing. It's all 'man bad, woman good', it's the scapegoating of men for moral superiority that you use to manipulate men. Why do you think 'male insecurities' exist?! Are you going to find a way to also make that shameful? Some morally superior narrative that says that 'it's all men's fault'?! You actually benefit from male insecurities. That is what you manipulate! Which is why you shame them, to keep them going! It gives you a morally superior role which you use to moralize to and control men.

On paper. In practice, though, it's very different. How do you know that what he did was not a reaction to something that she did?! Why are we assuming 'man bad, woman good' here? Most of the guys here are PUAs and only want sex, which makes it very easy for women to manipulate them. They will buy whatever women say, they will let women indoctrinate them with the 'man bad, woman good' feminist ideology. And you, somehow, are doing him a service by shaming him and telling him that he's bad and wrong and evil. On paper or in theory, this does discourage his spite. However, in practice, it doesn't! In practice, whatever you resist persists. You're not doing him a service. You're doing yourself a service. And you're projecting what's good for you onto the other person. Because PUAs are so easy to manipulate for you, they buy it. And they'll do whatever the woman says, blindly. They will not see the hidden meanings and assumptions that you're making when you do this! For example, 'spite is bad', 'moralization works to reform evil criminals like you', 'you're stupid and you need to be shamed into 'being smart'', etc.

Yupp. Just say it out loud. Women are intellectually superior to men. And men are 'STUPID!!' We're starting to see the reality now. Mods, is this hate-speech?

@StarStruck You understand that what you're saying that you did, women do all the time to men, right?! Women are past masters at manipulating male morality to gain moral superiority and to control everything around them. Look at the female shaming you're getting right here! Totally hypocritical. It is more than understandable that you did what you did. Mistakes happen, shit goes wrong, things blow up. The important thing for you is to not repeat your side of mistakes again. And, to not delude yourself into believing that you were the only side that made mistakes or that is to blame in this situation. Even the way you framed the thread is self-blaming! Don't do that. It acts as a free bait for manipulative, morally superior women to gaslight you into self-hating yourself even more in the guise of helping you, all the while telling you to 'love yourself more'. Ingenious, right?! Important point to note - When you dig deeper in the situation to find your side of the mistake, it may totally surprise you at what the actual answer of that question is. It may be totally different from what everyone else is telling you it is! So, keep an open mind to all possibilities on that one. To the women shaming him here - You're doing to him exactly what he's saying he did to her. You're hitting him where it hurts. You have absolutely no right to be acting 'holier than thou' on this issue. There are very good reasons he felt like he grew from this experience. It was real growth! Today's relationships are a battle for moral superiority because of women and we're just playing the game. We're catching on to your shit. And, don't you dare say that women aren't responsible for what he did. They absolutely are!

@StarStruck We've all done shit we're not proud of. Especially the people here acting 'holier than thou'! The only thing I'll warn you about is repeating the same mistakes over and over again. One thing I'm seeing from your posts is that you're not getting the help you actually need here. Your situation definitely is too complicated for this forum to be able to make sense of it! Or for a therapist even.

I get that it isn't actual rape, that there aren't any actual boundary-violations, if the implementation goes according to plan, which is its own can of worms. But the idea of 'rape', which is a boundary-violation, apparently turns you on...? Correct me if I'm wrong. What's the difference between a rape-fantasy and BDSM? I would suggest you do deeper research into this. Because if it is rooted in trauma, the sexual experience will be a reliving of that trauma! There are a lot of pretty serious ways it could go wrong. I would hesitate to call a domination fetish a 'rape fantasy' though. The devil really is in the details of how you put it. You're using a term that's associated with disrespect and unsafety. That doesn't have to be the case with a domination fetish! It's concerning because when you're using the term 'rape fantasy', what this tells me is that you're somehow liking and fetishizing the aspect of degradation/humiliation in the experience. This tells me that it's a trauma-response! A different kind of domination fetish doesn't have to be that way. There are more respectful ways of doing domination/submission!

@Preety_India I don't know, man. Are you sure you can make it safe for yourself? And that the fantasy isn't a trauma response? The fact that you insist on using the word 'rape' is making alarm-bells go off in my mind about this. I cannot comprehend the feeling of unsafety or boundary-violation being a turn-on. I don't get it.

@Preety_India Preferably don't call it a rape-fantasy. Using the word 'rape' makes it really politically incorrect and it can send the wrong message to the wrong kind of guys. Calling it S&M or BDSM is a much better idea in my opinion!

Yeah. And why would you be scared of being rejected? Because she will spread rumours and gossip about how 'creepy' you are, she may even falsely accuse you. There is this line 'The worst that could happen is that she could say 'no', right?' Wrong. A lot worse things could happen. The 'really harassing her' could be an assumption! Based on the way he looks, if he has some weird quirk that reminds you of something unsettling. It's subjective! If she had a narcissistic father, she was not safe in her childhood. She doesn't know what 'safety' even means! But, she's been conditioned with an idea of what safety means by her culture. And to look for a man like her father. So, even though she truly does want safety, she'll be caught in the pattern of being paranoid towards guys who are safe and going for guys who are unsafe and narcissistic. Most of them are. There are very few guys with girlfriends who actually care about women's safety! The norm is asshole/bad-boy/jock/brash guy who doesn't give a damn. Is this an awesome thing for women? No. But, it's the norm! And women do this because of daddy-issues. The trauma from violence and rape is legit. That is precisely the reason they mis-evaluate and misjudge the safety of a man! And they keep going for the unsafe guy. It's a Stockholm-syndrome thing. I never said I'm against the screening. I'm saying that the screening tends to be inaccurate and unfair to all involved. It's because they don't know. Also, it's because it's something that's frowned upon to be talking about as a guy. It's 'weak' or something. That is precisely what makes it happen! Do you know why most guys are so scared of challenging female opinion in general? Because the cancel-culture and judgements can get pretty bad. The misuse of the system can get pretty bad! Depends on the self-esteem and self-worth of the women in question. If they have low self-worth, their assessments of 'safety' will be shallow.

Do you know why most men don't approach women? I'll tell you why - there is a very high probability that she'll assume he's harassing her. It's a massive risk to approach a woman nowadays. This does not reflect well on women's femininity. At all. If you want to 'challenge' men like this, this is not fair game. It's easier when you're a narcissist who doesn't really care about the woman's safety but is very good at pretending that you do! I don't know and I don't care how they have sex. What I do know is that women's assessments of who is 'safe' and who is 'unsafe' tend to be pretty unfair and based on inaccurate perceptions, because of daddy-issues. That's why women go for the narcissistic guy (definition of unsafe) in order to escape the 'unsafe' guy or the guy who she thought looked at her the wrong way! Women tend to delude themselves about a guy being 'unsafe'. This is because women are biologically hardwired to be in fear all the time! Those aren't 'my limiting beliefs'. It's the truth. Your perception of them as 'limiting beliefs' is because of anti-male conditioning! Well, they aren't telling you their deepest fears in that case. They want to show you how 'strong' they are! 'Strong' and 'masculine' and 'fearless'. Most men want a lay-count. Not a challenge! Especially if they're narcissists.

Well, then you don't know what's going on. Ignorance is bliss! Forget about what I told you. Well, men don't owe women an explanation for what you think is 'inappropriate' either! Women purposefully blur lines to accuse men and act out their man-hate. You're making up stories about my 'limiting beliefs'. You don't know a fucking thing about me. Anti-male bias alert! You believe that men, in general, are lazy and they'll create beliefs about women to do so. You're the one making shit up. It generates offense because it's true. I speak from direct experience, I know what I'm talking about. I'm sure about it. I don't give a fuck about your opinion on whether I should date or not. I'm telling you what's true. Nope. Women like being the challenge! It inflates the female ego to have a man struggle and suffer to finally get her, it means that he values her a lot. You are projecting what you like onto the man! You're the one twisting the meaning of what I'm saying according to your biases. Why do you think I'd want advice from you, of all people?! Do you really think you're that smart and perceptive?!

So, you would mind-control him into not having what you're calling a 'toxic mindset'? I don't think that would be helpful. How is it toxic to want a woman or to want a relationship? That's pretty female-biased. Not helping him actually get a girl, instead, teaching him to be okay with not having one so that women don't have to put up with the horror of a human being your son is, so that you can enslave him to yourself. Way to go, mothers! I think a better idea would be to tell him 'Don't worry about stuck-up, holier-than-thou, morally superior women who reject you. You deserve better than that!' It's hard because there are way too many women waiting to falsely accuse you. And, if you think that's a good thing, you think that having men under your control is a good thing, that shows me who you really are. The normalization of these behaviors just shows how much man-hate there is in the world and how low women are willing to stoop in their man-hate to ruin their son's lives, let alone other men! We really do live in a culture of man-hate. I know what your smug faces are calling me. 'Sexist, misogynist'. I don't care, it just proves my point.

To add to this or to make it more precise, anti-vax people have an open mind to the possibility that covid is not dangerous. The idea is to question the epistemology of Western medicine, which includes germ theory. Germ theory is held as an absolute in Western medicine. Whether it's true or not, it is profitable! To the pharma companies. To the people asking 'So what?', I'm going to tell you so what. They're giving people an experimental gene-therapy vaccine that they don't know for sure will work or not. They'll say they know it'll work but it's in their best-interests to do so! When you quote them on this, your logic is actually circular. Consider the possibility that the scientists who questioned germ-theory are conscious scientists who actually care about epistemology and who found certain corruptions in the creation of germ-theory. That it was framed that way to come up with the business-idea of a 'synthetic medicine' and to incorporate it into the education-system.

@StarStruck From what you're saying, it sounds like dating is too much of a struggle for you. Do you really think your life is going to get better by having a relationship? I urge you to visualize that situation and look at whether your life actually gets better or worse. Is this something you're 'just getting done' so that you can be done with it?

It's to learn lessons from past hurt so that I don't make the same mistakes again.

I care about the truth, not about the women themselves! I care about the hypocrisy, not the hypocritical women. If I see the hypocrisy, then I see the truth about them, then I know not to care about them. The point is to see the hypocrisy consciously and not delude myself about it, so that I can make up my mind!

The problem isn't the rejection itself. The problem is that women SAY they want a nice guy but then proceed to go for the asshole! My problem is not with women going for assholes! Go for whoever the hell you want. Your loss, I don't give a shit. But, the problem is when they say they want a nice guy and then go for the asshole. That's low-integrity behavior from women. That's women stringing along the nice guy. On a certain level, I do get the self-worth issue. If women did admit they liked assholes, then the nice guy would cast them aside and go for a woman who does like nice guys.

About this one, I have a personal anecdote to share. I was in the 7th grade or 8th grade. That was the time when the boys would talk a lot about sex. And they would talk about women in an objectifying manner. I did not like the fact that they were being objectifying towards women and I thought it was wrong. I thought 'toxic masculinity', right? But then, I started thinking about the fashion-industry and eye-candy women in movies and I was like 'Wait. Why are women being complicit in their own objectification?! Do they want men to objectify them?' This really confused me at the time. It's something I still haven't fully wrapped my head around, quite frankly.

Okay. By the way, how can someone be emotionally closed-off AND pushy? Isn't it an either/or? Out of curiosity.