Raze

This is one underdiscussed reason why I think all the talk about mens issues and loneliness will backfire. I was watching this channel from a woman who was a former stripper where she streams with advice to men on how to be attractive, and she actually said that she didn’t even realize the average man had so few options and had to put so much effort to attract women or had similar insecurities to her. While she was empathetic to it she also said it kind of made her less attracted to men, because before when she sees a attractive masculine man he was almost mystical to her, now she just thinks of all the insecurities he might have and all the ways he had to work to be like that. I think guys assume if everyone understood their dating difficulties it would help somehow, in reality it may just make it harder for them and everyone else. I used to be more outspoken about mens issues and wanting them in the mainstream discussing and to be more understood by women, but now that it’s actually happened it seems like a disaster. So many guys argue with women about the male loneliness crisis thinking if they convince them it’ll help them somehow, in reality a woman would likely be less interested in dating a man if she finds out he’s lonely.

I had a drive with most of them but sadly it just got removed. I’m kicking myself for not saving them when I had the chance.

How is that any different than for the guy if he is pursuing the woman he likes more than she likes him? If anything given that women are the ones to end relationships the majority of the time it seems more likely it’ll fail if the guy is the one who likes her more.

Expelling people is also a crime, just less so then annihilating them. The point remains. If Germans expelled Jews that would also have been wrong. I guess if Germans just killed a hundred thousand Jews and expelled the rest you would be ok with it then. Also the gas the Jews thing was one random incident in Australia. That wasn’t the “entire Muslim world hates Jews”. Meanwhile Israelis literally march in Jeresulem every year chanting “death to arabs“, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/thousands-of-israeli-nationalists-chant-death-to-arabs-during-annual-procession-through-jerusalem but you don’t complain about that or think that justifies killing and occupying Jews. Why? Because you have a bigoted double standard. Also, like I already told you, it’s not just Muslims, here is Israel’s worldwide approval, as you can see even the non-Muslim countries disapprove of them. Basically it’s the opposite of what you’re saying, you think it’s evil to kill Jews but fair to kill Palestinians, the rest of the world no longer agrees. https://www.pewresearch.org/?attachment_id=260877 Wrong on every level. - when Palestinains weren’t attacking, israel didn’t give them any more rights and kept stealing their land, and later funded Hamas itself. It has nothing to do with security. - the Israeli Arabs have parties, they don’t fight because they aren’t undergoing constant attack. Police do not control them, in fact currently Israeli media is reporting police are ignoring them while they beg them to help deal with criminals. - Answer this: if it was about security, why do they block food, medicine, wheelchair parts, and desalination equipment from Gaza when they aren’t at war? Why do they let settlers burn down Palestinian homes? How does this increase security? Basically in your world israel can reject any two states deal and permanently hold Palestinians without rights because of “security”, but any Palestinian attempt to even defend themselves from literal constant arrests, torture, killings, and land seizure is terrorism and just further justifies the oppression. It’s on the same level of moral reasoning as American slave owners who would say slavery was “holding the wolf by the ear”, as in it’s justified to keep an entire race of people oppressed because they might attack you if they aren’t. Completely wrong. Gaza was never given to Palestinians, Israel never let up control of the borders, air space, or anything that enters. What you mean is israel removed illegal settlements from inside. If you lived in a town then the US government removed all police and federal employees but blocked the entire perimeter and limited and controlled everything that came and left, you wouldn’t say they “gave you the town”. Hamas won the election for the same reason your entire argument is nonsense. Because after the PLO agreed to recognize Israel and give up armed resistance to Israel, israel just increased illegal settlements and refused to give Palestinians freedom, so they voted for Hamas because Israel rejected peace. In 1948 when they offered the state that was after they had expelled 400,000 Palestinians and killed thousands to seize all the economically viable territory for themselves. That would be like if Arab countries took half of Israel and kicked hundreds of thousands of Jews out then when Israel doesn’t agree to it, it’s their fault. There was already a blockade before Hamas won the election, they just strengthened it after they won. Again, Hamas offered a long term ceasefire if the occupation ended, so the reason they couldn’t develop was because israel blockaded it after rejecting this, not because of Hamas. A blockade is only a problem for economic development if economic interests are blocked, a blockade just for security could just block weapons and allow development. But leaked emails so israel purposefully blockaded it to crush the economy for civilians. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna40926651 We are talking about limiting food and medicine for over 1 million children, and all you can do is rant about how actually it’s Palestinians fault and Israel is right and if Palestinians ever do anything about it israel should reject it and they are just “crying” when Israel kills them by the thousand. You know very little about this conflict and demonstrate the moral development on par of a racial supremacist, all while thinking you can look down on a people who are currently facing a man made famine, it’s quite disgusting.

I definitely think there is something to the idea the feminine is pursued and the masculine pursues. However that can be taken as implying men and women are obligated to do those roles or it is the best most effective way. It actually isn’t, the highest form of game is getting the girl to chase you. In a sense that puts the man in the feminine and the women in the masculine, but it’s also the most effective way to gain her interest and investment. Though for a woman a bunch of men pursuing her is the best way as she becomes a selector from among many options and can pick the best one. But paradoxically this makes her crave the man she chases all the more because men who pursue her implies they are lower value than her / the pursuit makes them needy because they invest so much, and she is drawn to higher status men and repelled by lower status men. There is also a mechanism of the man pursuing itself as making the women more interested as his emotions of desire project onto her through emotional state transferences. A study found that straight women were physically aroused even by images of homosexual and animal sexuality, because the concept of sexuality being brought in their awareness at all seemed to automatically turn them on even if they weren’t interested in the subject. That and the whole love bombing thing kind of gives some credence to the idea of men pursuing being effective as well. Masculine and feminine are really like unstable dances within each person and between each relationship.

This is representative of maybe 4% of Israeli Jews and that is being generous.

In America it was stable until 2018 and began slowly declining after the great march of return. Odds are it will continue to trend downward after everything that happened.

Once again, because I also already told you this, I am not Muslim. Here is the list of countries that voted at the UN to end the occupation. Do you think Vietnam, Chile, France, Finland, New Zealand, Japan, Jamaica are all “the Muslim perspective”?

The Germans also considered Jews their enemy, if you were around then you’d be defending what they did too according to your logic. Also, this reasoning falls apart when we look at what happened. Palestinians don’t have a state and guess what, attacks increase. The conclusion that giving them self determination causes violence fails when the opposite happened, restricting it causes violence. Palestinain citizens in Israel also face discrimination but have some self determination such as a right to vote and travel. And they are much less dangerous than the occupied Palestinians. Its truly such idiotic logic. We have two groups of Palestinians, Palestinian citizens who face some discrimination but overall have rights, and occupied Palestinian who are arrested, tortured, beaten, or killed on a daily basis. Occupied Palestinians carry out attack after attack damaging Jewish safety, whereas Palestinian citizens attack much less. And your conclusion? They must keep occupying Palestinians forever for safety. Aside from the blatant double standard of thinking millions of people don’t deserve human rights because it makes a different race feel unsafe, it isn’t even logically consistent with reality. The difference is I’m not defending Hamas targeting civilians, you are defending Israel targeting civilians every day in the very structure of its occupied society. It’s interesting how to you, Jews forming terrorist militias, (literally classified terrorists by the British and even important Jews like Albert Einstein) is self defense. But in the next breath you admit Jews were literally trying to take the country. So when Arabs don’t want their homes stolen and resist that it’s unexcusable violence, but Jews bombing hotels to take their homes is just self defense? People keep accusing me of having simplistic black and white morals. But I don’t, I just recognize that israel defenders have animalistic ethnonationalist morals and I’m trying to bring them up a step by giving them basic moral understandings such as “if it’s bad when they do it, it’s bad when you do it”. Also your text is full of errors, it says 130 Jews were killed in the Hebron massacre. In reality it was 67. Stop putting biased prompts into AI and thinking you now know about the conflict.

The first intifada began overwhelmingly peaceful, in the first year Palestinians killed 0 Israelis, in the second they killed six which is still small for a massive protest of millions of people. Meanwhile in the first year israel killed 22, and in the second over 600. The great march of return was overwhelmingly peaceful, there was some violence such as throwing flaming kites and rocks later on, but overall in the first weeks the only injury was one idf soldier who had a minor wrist thing. Meanwhile israel had snipers who purposefully targeted children, medics, and disabled people, and shot off their kneecaps. They created so many child amputees Gaza made a whole amputee soccer league. Every year at the UN general assembly there is a vote on the resolution to the Palestinian occupation, and Israel votes against it and has the US veto it, That is a peaceful diplomatic resistance, and it is blocked. The PA controls the West Bank and for the last decade has engaged in security collaboration with Israel. Meaning they actually help israel in arresting and killing palestinains. What did Israel do? They increased settlements and freely allow settlers to burn down homes and shoot and beat Palestinians. Even a high ranking Idf official admitted the government often helps these rampages. Youve been told this all multiple times, but you just ignore it. The reality is Palestinians did collaborate with Jews as they lived peacefully with the Jewish minorities prior to Zionism, they ceased collaboration because Zionist militias were literally doing bombing of civilians and kicking them out of their home and shooting them when they try to return unarmed. Since then Palestinians have tried peaceful protests and diplomatic resolutions and Israel just blocks it and ramps up violence. You refuse to accept this, why? You need to believe that somehow the mass starvation and murder of children is justified, even to the point of contorting reality and ignoring the facts of the situation. All because you have to come to the conclusion it’s actually the fault of the children killed that they were killed.

Notice how you were saying all Palestinians and Muslim states won’t accept it, and when I point out they do all you can do is revert to pointing out Hamas, much smaller at the time, did a single attack. This is called moving the goalposts. No matter how many times you are shown Arab states accepting it and Israel rejecting it, you always fall back on its the Arabs fault for not accepting it but also Israel is right to reject it and it’s the Arabs fault they reject it. If Palestinians paraded the corpses of 10,000 young girls, they would still have killed a fraction of the girls Israel had killed since its founding to before oct 6. If Palestinians then paraded the corpses of 10,000 children, they would have still paraded half the amount of children killed by Israel since Oct 7. But you don’t think that justifies any sort of attack or resistance from Palestinians, yet a single girl killed by militants justified israel killing thousands of Palestinian girls, and somehow retroactively justified the thousands killed before that happened apparently. Why? The answer is because to you some human life is worth more than others.

Meanwhile here is Israel’s own Supreme Court saying they hold the territories in “belligerent occupation”. https://web.archive.org/web/20220913053510/https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl-nat.nsf/46707c419d6bdfa24125673e00508145/09d47365bd007706c12575c20046ec2a This is getting ridiculous, you’ve been discussing this here for nearly two years now and you still do not know basic things.

In the west it’s only the US still at 50/50 territory, and that goes when the boomer goes. Israel is reaching Apartheid South Africa territory, which is why they are rushing to finish the job. You don’t realize it because you have consensus bias, but it is false, most people don’t have beliefs of Jewish supremacy or dehumanization of Palestinians to the same level as Israel supporters.

Are you incapable of absorbing new information? I have told you three times now about the Arab peace initiative, which offers full normalization in exchange for a Palestinian state. What part of this do you not get? Meanwhile this is from the charter of Israel’s ruling party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Similar_sayings_by_the_Israeli_right This is the longer serving and current prime minister https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-boasts-of-thwarting-the-establishment-of-a-palestinian-state-for-decades/ This is the UN vote for a Palestinian state, feel free to look at how all Muslim countries voted.

The highest level of game is shifting your approach toward the women based on predicting what she likes and getting her to chase you.

Right, but the wider society tells men to listen to women, take them seriously, and care about what they think. So to turn around and call them weak for doing it is basically punishing socially conscientious men. Also that has less to do with genes and more to do with status / neediness. We also clearly have the genes to fail tests otherwise no guy would do it.

I forgot to add, the concept of shit tests themselves, basically they provoke the guy and if he reacts emotionally he fails, if he is unreactive he succeeds. But what does that really test? Why would a unreactive guy be a better partner? If anything the reactive guy indicates you can get more from him because he cares so much. It’s a subconscious mechanism to detect status as a unreactive guy has more abundance and thus likely higher status. You’ll notice the more a woman gets hit on the harsher she tests. This was evolved for tribal settings, doesn’t mean it would work for maintaining a dating market today that sorts what people want it to sort for.

In bars you have to deal with higher competition and people putting their walls up. A woman who tells guys to F off in a bar can be sweet and polite outside of it because of the environment. Environments like school and friends where you have a reputation are in some ways harder to manage because if you mess up your repetition is at risk.

Yes and I never have. I know it isn’t common. It’s probably more common if you lack social skills. But it’s also not common for women to be attacked by a random male, yet women fear it because they see examples of it. Also the issue I was pointing out was the wider trend of societal etiquette. If a woman records a guy approaching her secretly and uploads it, you can bet people will bash him especially if he does so poorly. When guys see this social standard, many of them will not approach. But now it gives an advantage to those who ignore social standards. But is that a good thing for women? And that’s just one example, there are other areas with similar issues. Cold approach itself is unnatural and essentially is a social cheat code, you don’t see things like the PUA industry popping up in other countries where their dating markets aren’t as broken because the demand for such help isn’t enough for businesses to form.

These are studies that controlled for such factors and still found a trend: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-25811-011 "Both structural equation and group comparison analyses demonstrated that sexual restraint was associated with better relationship outcomes, even when controlling for education, the number of sexual partners, religiosity, and relationship length." https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pere.12009 "The research objective was to test whether the number of sexual partners was associated with sexual quality, communication, relationship satisfaction, and relationship stability, while controlling for relationship length, education, race, income, age, and religiosity, using the two competing theories of sexual compatibility and sexual restraint. The results, with a sample of 2,654 married individuals, indicated that the number of sexual partners was associated with lower levels of sexual quality, communication, and relationship stability, providing support for the sexual restraint theory."

Casual dating success can be an advantage for an individual, but it is detrimental for the wider society. Every enduring civilization valued chastity and long term relationships. It’s pretty obvious why. We see now a disproportionate amount of young males single than women, because when dating is casual one high smv man can occupy the attention of many women. This will make the women bitter because his options makes him cherish them less, and make the other men even worse with women as without abundance or experience they become even less confident, awkward, and desperate. This makes it even harder for them, and women will dislike them even more in comparison to the men they dated before. Historical analysis finds large amounts of single men results in societal instability. We aren’t seeing that now because they’re occupied by vices, but we are seeing a massive drain of potential, there are more working age men in the USA not working or looking for work than there were unemplyed during the Great Depression. Aside from obvious issues like STDS and out of wedlocke births, studies find men and women with higher partner counts are more likely to divorce and be less satisfied in relationships. Before you say correlation not causation, other studies controlled for relevant factors and still found this trend.

Studies find women are more attracted to men higher in dark triad traits, disagreeableness, and you can find plenty of women themselves on attachment issue videos discussing how they are drawn to toxic men for starters. On average they want a man who earns as much or more than them, which becomes an issue when they are also in the workforce and outcompeting many men. Another is preselection and wanting men who are smooth or great in bed, these are all signals he has been with many women. Even something as simple as confidence, how do you get more confident? By doing something a lot. A guy who has approached 1000 women will approach more confidently than a guy who did it once, but does that mean he would actually be a better prospect? You can also have delusional confidence such as being high in narcissism. It makes sense biologically when we lived in tribal collective societies which is what we evolved for, but if you want loyal and caring partners long term in modern society being drawn to massive players isn’t an asset. Women make it socially taboo to approach them. The wider culture they push is constantly demonizing men for approaching women. I can give plenty of examples if you don’t believe me. You may deny this, but that’s because you have influence from the pickup industry possibly through Leo, but that itself is a underground subculture because women push against most mainstream truly effective dating advice for men. It’s now taboo to approach women in their day to day lives, or at places like work that used to be commonplace, at least that is the messages men who listen to the social conditioning get. You even get mixed messages from women saying they want to get to ‘know a guy as friends first, but then bemoaning how their male friends eventfully pursue them romantically. You yourself brought up looking for signals. This is also told to men, but it’s nonsense. Studies find men are bad at reading signals and usually assume things that aren’t signals are, and when they aren’t it messes with their head and they become paranoid about misreading them. At the same time most women don’t give signals, in fact they will purposefully scowl and look away, but if you do cold approach you’d know how often you can approach anyway and it goes great. This is yet another duality that causes problems. A man who doesn’t want to offend or bother women will fixate on looking for signals, he now has a massive disadvantage to the guy who doesn’t care and approaches all without looking for a signal. Whereas he limits his prospects massively and will spend time overthinking before going for it damaging his approach, the other guy may get rejected more but he will get more results. And again, women themselves will say they don’t signal or give signals that are so small there is no objective way of knowing it’s a signal. At the same time, they demand men chase and aggressively pursue them, even discussing how they purposefully make themselves unapproachable. I saw a New York post Article about how the PUA Todd v was teaching students at some park and women walking there kept getting approached, and the article called them creeps and perverts and celebrated some random musician who tried to embarrass them. Then a couple years later the post had a new article from a woman talking about how men should be approaching women. This discourages men higher in empathy or with less experience, and gives a massive advantage to players. A study was done where they measured men for narcisissm then had them approach women, and found that the higher the narcissism the more likely the approach would succeed. I’ve seen PUA instructors discuss how if they got a sociopathic student they’d usually do much better. It isn’t normal for a guy to brush off hundreds of rejections feeling nothing and walk up to complete strangers being confident. If they do they either have some psychological issue that stops the social conditioning from penetrating, or they’re a PUA with tons of practice, either way that isn’t an indicator of them being a better long term partner, but it is what is encouraged. Then these traits will have other side effects, and you’ll see the women complaining men are jerks and used her, see the situationship discourse, and now she is just embittered towards men as a group. Women when they say their standards usually basically ask for men to be simps. They’ll say they just want kindness and he should pay for dates and buy gifts. There is even a new phenemeon of “if he wanted to he would” which is basically covert contracts about wanting the guy to support them in ways he wouldn’t even realize. The average guy without access to underground advice will believe this and get destroyed, it’s very common for a guy who pursues women this way to be put on a multiple date track before she gets at all sexual with him because she sees him as a long term prospect, meanwhile she sleeps with a player type right away, and often this bonds with him and she ends up dropping the long term prospect. This results in the bitterness you see from “nice guys” or redpillers. But guess what, rather than acknowledge this they just double down. I’ll attach some more examples of the kinds of confusion guys will face.

It’s not about right or wrong, it’s about what’s sustainable and what they themselves say they want. In that regard, yes some traits they go for are wrong. And really the idea that this wouldn’t be the case is illogical if you understand how attraction actually works and where it comes from. The standards are often contradictory with each other and what they themselves go for, which is exactly the point I am making, so no they aren’t. So on one hand you acknowledge the system has issues, but one of the biggest relevant factors is irrelevant? Things like a PUA industry, radical movements like incel, FDS, etc. are all signs of the system failing. Also a high rate of things like infidelity, divorce, single parenthood, singledom, and low rates of marriage and fertility, are signs the market inputs are failing.