TK2021

Again you are not understanding. In my example for you, you were supposed to understand that the unwholesome action was done by the manipulating girl. The girl doesn't owe anything to the guy, but she is being a cu** for using him. It is unwholesome to lead people on, manipulate them and make them suffer just to fulfill your own selfish desires. Whether it's a guy or a girl. What is so hard to understand? You keep bringing up incels and I wonder, perhaps this amount of confusion in your thinking can only be caused by some incel rage on your part? Perhaps you feel that because men are just told to suck it up when they are used, it is therefore alright to use girls? It's just part of life, huh? Because incels don't have a right to their grievances - therefore women shouldn't either. I actually believe everyone, even incels, deserve much more understanding. They aren't owed anything, but they shouldn't be purposefully treated like shit for your own pleasures either, if you can avoid it.

You don't understand. This thread is made to analyze right/wrong behavior. Wholesome action/unwholesome action. Okay, since you cannot step into the girls shoes yourself lemme help out. It's the same as you going on some huge dinner date with a girl, and the girl has basically already decided she doesn't wanna have sex with you, because you are ugly or whatever. Yet she knows that you wanna have sex. And she uses that premise to fleece you for a free meal. Then when the dinner is over she just says she is tired and tells you to leave. You feel like a chump.

Exactly my point. Because other people are selfish, you feel that it is right to be selfish too. And then we end up in a dog-eat-dog world, which will end up self-terminating with our technological development. On top of that - embodying this sort of mindset is not only causing suffering to others, but to yourself. Your life lacks integrity, love and beauty, and you become hollow and feel a constant sense of lack.

It's also a belief that billionaires shouldn't enslave you for their agendas. But you wouldn't like that very much would you? I get it. It's very hard to practice love in a world filled with severely selfish and unconscious people like most of us. Many times you get the short-end of the stick "business" wise. But you gain something much more valuable.

Which one? It would have to have some scientific measurements how it works on the impurities for me to be interested. It can't really make any difference to your day to day experience unless you are drinking radioactive waste water or something - so it can't be really attributed to you feeling great. This is a long term investment.

Learn to read vibes and concentrate on listening more. They prolly weren't liking what you were communicating at all, and just being nice to avoid a scene. Cause chances are that people who talk weird shit do dumb weird shit. Don't make autistic monologues about period blood infused with jizz, unless you are very good at reading the room. Yes, we all hate small talk....but it's supposed to be a precursor to vibe and find the real conversation that you can have between each other. In a convo, all participants have to compromise and meet in the middle to find a subject they can all relate with, not go on autistic rants about some weird shit only they care about. If the conversation stays stale and on the surface or you veer it into unrelatable weird shit, you gotta ask yourself what you did wrong.

Dude, you have to understand this from the perspective of the woman. They have the opportunity to get fucked by much hotter guys if they just snapped their fingers. Even if you're an average looking girl. Then you have these guys who are not attractive approaching you. It's not just that these guys think that they are worthy of you. The difference of the sexes also has to be taken into consideration. The implication is that they are good enough to fuck you. No matter how nice the approach is, this is the underlying message. Now imagine yourself being approached by gay men who are much stronger than you. These guys want to fuck you in the ass. And they always think it's such a great idea to interrupt whatever you're doing to propose to fuck you in the ass. It's pretty annoying and repulsive. If you have very low self-esteem it might seem even like a compliment the first couple of times, but it gets old really fast.

They are supposed to avoid cold approaching girls. The odds of success are so small it just becomes a massive time sink. And as @Vzdoh has said, it's even quite annoying to girls. You are just basically an annoying street salesman at that point. Find out a better way to meet girls. It amazes me that @Leo Gura hasn't found a better way, and tells guys to approach 1000's of people. Not to even mention things like the fact that if you don't live in a big metropolitan city, you basically carpet bomb the entire city and your reputation while at it if you're a noob. Be more creative fellas. One of my creative solutions: Where I am from, I can enroll in as many universities as I like for free, and get to know people through orientation parties and activities. People are basically forced to get to know each other. If you are actually good enough to succeed in cold approach, you'll be a superstar this way. This is just one of many ways to meet people without the odds being completely stacked against you, even if you are attractive. We need much more creative thinking here. This place is a mess. "BRO just approach 100000 girls with 1% success rate". Like wtf? Is that the level of advice we are at? Yeah it is one of the biggest delusions people have about themselves. Adam is okay enough for some cold approaching success tho.

No, I don't agree with you. I recognize that a part of your thinking is right, but your ego has hijacked your brain into using that thinking in an unfruitful way - resulting in wrong conclusions. Focusing on subjective qualities is beyond irrelevant for male sexual strategy. It is counterproductive. Now understand the difference between sex and romance. This is not just for you but also for @roopepa and @aurum: You are mixing your refined egoic desires(romantic fantasies) with sexual attraction. Then you go so far as to think that these egoic desires will result in true Love. How can true Love be born out of these egoic desires of another person filling your emptiness?

How can you people not realize that the men are talking from their agenda and the women are from theirs? Even though you are all partially right, you are basically not even talking about the same subject. Men are focused on what will be sexually attractive to the most number of women - just like their reproductive strategy. Spreading the seed. Women are focused on what kind of singular man would be the best partner and provider for them and their possible children. Finding one best mate. In this case loyalty etc. trumps status. This doesn't necessarily mean they will be most sexually excited by this person. Women would love to be most sexually excited by their best relationship option, that is for sure. But my God, just look around. Therefore there is the need for mind games to feel less conflict inside themselves. Men are so intolerant towards this because their sexual strategy has been sabotaged by women who have been lying and misleading them all their lives just to preserve their own ego. Listen, you have to understand the male sexual agenda here. Men care about passing the bar to have sex. For women it is a bigger risk, so they want more. But still, the bar for you women to give sex is for the man to meet the objective criteria and so it is for 99% of women. Emerald admitted to several one night stands, Ethereal cat to casual sex relationships with random high status guys. All of this subjective criteria is almost completely IRRELEVANT TO THE MALE SEXUAL AGENDA. Please get this through your head. Of course the sex will be better and you will vibe better if your personalities click - what is there to even argue? But you WILL give sex even if the subjective criteria aren't met, just the objective.

Wait did you heart that? Did you hear a massive "whoosh" sound as you were writing this post? It was my point going over your head. Perhaps you didn't hear it because you talked yourself so deeply into a corner with your earlier post that your ears got covered by the walls of your own ignorance. Let me simplify: you haven't been fucked by a single high conscious guy in your life most likely, yet you have been fucked by several high status guys. We are talking about who women ACTUALLY open their legs to. Not these mind games. What does even a high consciousness guy mean to you? It is just your own projections and biases.

---> So you and your girlfriends let high status guys fuck you in your peak fertility. Got it.

I find this to be the case with all ladies. Even the old ones. But I don't know all ladies, so I won't generalize that far. A funny anecdote: I was hanging out with my Granpa's sister in a coffee shop last winter. A man started bugging us that we are sitting too close together regards to quarantine rules etc. whining to the waiters to move us, just being a piss-ant in general. So when this man left, I followed him outside and slapped him around hard, yelling at him and losing my temper. This behavior was unnecessary and probably counterproductive. It could've been solved much better. But my Granpa's sister caught a glimpse of this, and when I returned - the glimmer in the eyes of this old lady and the underlying respect she gained for me (even though she didn't approve of it verbally) was just really sad. Now I'm not telling this to prove any wide-arching point. I'm just saying that even nice old ladies love some unnecessary violence. In this case my Granpa's sister could've as well have been a male. I'm just telling that I have been turned into a less sensitive, less empathetic and more violent person, thanks to what women reward. It is because I am weak and need their rewards. Sex and procreation for man is a great reward. Many sociopathic behaviors have been INGRAINED in me because it has been so well rewarded and conditioned into me by women (and also men; but that's another can of worms we don't wanna open here and get sidetracked).

Can u provide a few examples ? I mean just look at history. Just look around. It is absolutely horrifying. If you want some autistic scientific proof, here is some: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/147470491301100122 TL;DR: In a study of 1212 women, it was concluded that women in their peak fertility prefer needlessly violent men. I have some great anecdotes of this too, but I think this is enough for now. It's almost as if being nice or kind isn't worth anything in regards to a woman's sexual attraction - it is actually a NEGATIVE. You are punished for being nice even if you are strong. Say for example you are threatened violently and you de-escalate the situation peacefully. She will not respect and be as attracted to you on a sexual level as much as if you had violently destroyed this other person. And not just that. According to this study if you just needlessly make others suffer, you are sexier.

I see. I think that primitive sexuality is quite negative for evolution. It's quite objectively less evolved to be sexually attracted(read: to have a biological reaction to procreate)to a person with great tits than intelligence. It's also quite negative for our species that most women are attracted to barbaric displays of power. I think most conflicts would end if our sexualities were actually more evolved. I think deep down we know this and are ashamed of it. Even as a man I have a hard time accepting the fact that the people who are further developed mentally, spiritually etc. really don't have much correlation with my sexual urges towards them. My dick will get harder for a stage beige girl than a stage turquoise girl just if she has a better body, or deepthroats better. I think this is a massive flaw and my relationships and motivations have truly suffered from it. Now I can't even imagine what it would be like as a girl to have to admit these things with all the cultural conditionings etc. shaming and the need to be more integrated to the herd due to survival threats. I'm sure personality matters more for girls, but the to the extent you are trying to paint a picture of - I just don't buy it. Even the personality stuff is iffy. One could be attracted to a very harmful personality because of traumas and conditionings. And it certainly is more the case of being attracted to the wrong personality than the right personality for most people. I take it that you are a single mother? Now I am not saying that this directly causes bitterness towards men - but I certainly would be extremely surprised if there wasn't ANY bitterness from that. The need to see yourself only sexually turned on by some guy with specific values etc. personality, could actually be an unconscious way of pedestalizing yourself above men, who hurt you by not being attracted enough to you for objective/primitive reasons. This way at least you are higher and holier than these guys sexually. And they are also not worthy of your true attraction. Now I'm not saying this is exactly what is happening. It is just one example out of hundreds how your mind could be playing games regarding this.

These objective qualities(status, looks, money, charm etc.) act as a barrier for women before they even CONSIDER the subjective(deeper personality). And as you said, the subjective qualities can't even be changed. Tho I don't really agree with that. In simpler terms: you gotta fix the outside, before people care about the inside. Now there's some truth to what you write, but I honestly get the vibe from your posts that you are kind of ashamed of your sexuality deep down. I feel like you're still unconsciously slut shaming yourself. Otherwise there wouldn't be such motivation for these texts of proving how your sexuality is somehow so evolved and less primitive. I mean what motivates you truly to write all these posts? I can't believe that it is just innocently and unconditionally motivated by trying to educate. You are deeply invested in particularly this - and I wonder why such investment? What do you gain from it?

The thing is that we cannot even honestly think of a solution if we are not empathizing with the situation. And we won't be able to accept any given solution, for it will undoubtedly be a compromise in a direction, which is against the ego of the person not able to empathize. @Peter Miklis Don't write me these paragraphs before understanding or even reading my post. @Leo Gura This is a much easier problem, and slightly derailing the topic at hand. The moment women stop confusing their sexual market value with their relationship market value is the moment when this "struggling" greatly reduces. The problem here is that women are delusional about their relationship market value, confusing it with their sexual market value which is much higher, hence disappointment and suffering. And if you had any empathy towards these struggling women, perhaps you wouldn't peddle pick-up advice so willy-nilly, since all the ideologies behind it promote more casual sex - which of course lowers the relationship market value of women. And men to some extent also. I'm not saying it cannot be used for relationship purposes - but be honest. The more casual sex a woman has had, the vast majority of men will see them as having lower relationship value. An easy girl seems to have the same relationship value as a wimp guy has sexual value. Because the easy girl is a threat to his reproductive and survival purposes, just as the wimp guy is a threat to the girls reproductive and survival purposes. This is not some excuse not to talk to girls, what in the world? This is a big issue, which is getting bigger and bigger, which requires seriousness. It might be that you have been so deeply conditioned by pick-up and stage orange culture, that you can't really see clearly here. Just because you have invested so much time in this thinking doesn't mean it is the right way to go. At least stay open to further possibilities instead of doubling down, or mocking everyone trying to talk about this issue. @Emerald You are making assumptions about the post and the poster according to your own egoic biases. I personally don't have a cat in the fight. I'm in a long term, well functioning relationship. Socializing is good - but you are ignoring the fact that outside your anecdotal experience, women will not choose some non-attractive guy for sex or a relationship. And the standards for an attractive guy is always rising. Once upon a time a caveman was attractive, because women's sexual nature works in relation to its surrounding. The disgusting caveman just had to be less disgusting than the majority of the other cavemen and he was good. Today, if you are a caveman - good luck. You have to be more attractive than the majority, in the majority of the cases. Of course there will be some anecdotes of bottom of the barrel guys succeeding sometimes(the bottom of the barrel is surprisingly getting bigger and bigger), but that proves nothing. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

He's not alluding to forcing women to have sex or something. That's quite a ridiculous strawman. He's seeing and pointing out to a MASSIVE societal issue, which is the unmet needs of a vast majority of men, and seeking to find healthy solutions. Not for himself, but on a societal scale. I don't think any of the answers so far really understand the gravity of this problem - and the propositions given so far have missed the root of the problem. The problem is that when women are given sexual freedom it results into a Pareto Distribution, where 20% of the males get 80% of the women - at least in a purely sexual sense. This is the case, even if all the men are attractive. Only the top 20% most attractive ones will clear the table. Now I'm not saying that we should revert back to arranged marriages or something, but this is some really serious inequality, which is just mopped under the rug. And nobody has any solutions for this inequality, except for these sexless men to pick themselves up by their bootstraps. Which is such a silly and naive, dead end proposition anyways, when taking into consideration the sexual nature of men and women. There is zero empathy for these people - in fact, there only seems to be disdain. Just like the cliche capitalist views a poor person. "He is just a loser, he deserves his fate. UNLESS HE WORKS HARD. And even if he works hard and doesn't succeed, then he is just a loser, who deserves his suffering and it is not my problem." We cannot extend our empathy towards this issue - why is that?

You fellas need to stop thinking and babbling that Ramana Maharishi only taught self-inquiry and therefore inadvertently shunned meditation practices. In fact how the hell are you going to self-inquire if you can't even concentrate? All your efforts self-inquiring will be wasted unless you have concentration power. https://indiandownunder.com.au/2011/11/how-to-meditate-ramana/

You guys are completely delusional if you don't think that these fitness gurus with no morals, integrity, wisdom or long term thinking aren't using substances like steroids. They are so easy to get and use. It would actually be extremely dumb for them not to take steroids, since they only know their ego, and their ego depends on it. I wonder why you guys are so gullible? What do you get out of it?

@Leo Gura So, do you think that there is absolutely no value in the attention this creates, in order to change the rules of the game? Or that the negative it creates outweighs the positive? How does change happen without attention? This is essentially saying that there needs to be no "marketing" for changes to take place. Sounds naive to me. I might be wrong, but perhaps a little ruckus is needed at this stage, perhaps it is even absolutely necessary. Could you clarify. There is possibly a lot to learn here for everyone.