something_else

If you want relationships that cannot extend past basic primal urges then by all means go and dominate 18 year old girls until they hit 20 and then dump them for the next 18 year old. Lots of guys have a phase somewhat like that. It's great fun, but it's not sustainable. If you want a conscious, developed, and happy relationship at some point in your life you might find that strategy stops working because any women with a decent amount of self-respect and maturity who you might actually still enjoy being around after 2 or 3 years is not going to go for a setup where you are bossing her around all the time like Tate, or a 1950s husband. You can have masculine/feminine polarity without anyone needing to be the boss.

Depends how you define pickup guy. If you go out to clubs and bars and meet women that way, they absolutely don't. I think that's a healthy thing for a lot of guys to do, especially if undersocialised. And most women I've met that way have been pretty receptive to advances because of the environment. Those are environments where you're literally meant to go up and talk to new people. Going out hunting for sex at 11am on a Saturday in your local grocery store though... yea you're getting sorted out by a lotta women

You just pulled those numbers out of your ass my friend Yea maybe guys can look at 80% of the women in the dating pool and say "I'd have sex with her" but that doesn't mean after the novelty of sex goes away that they'd actually be emotionally compatible and enjoy spending time together. To say that any man could spend the rest of his life happily with 80% of the women in the dating pool is really pretty absurd. Humans are so vastly diverse that such a statement is just not true.

Are you trying to speedrun divorce with this strategy? Just wait til you're in a long-term relationship with a woman you're not compatible with emotionally/spiritually and see how miserable it makes you, no matter how pretty she is. Yea, guys can detach and fuck just about any woman without needing emotional compatibility, but if you want anything remotely long-term, those are extremely important factors. For something long term, sacrificing some looks for compatibility is an obvious choice. If you can't see that, you're probably going to end up old and miserable. I think every guy should go out and fuck really hot women, it grows you as a man. But that's different from a more mature relationship. Once you actually want to start building something long term and sustainable, you need someone who is compatible.

Healthy pickup is about all of those things. Healthy pickup is mostly about teaching men how to be authentic, confident, masculine etc. in a way that is attractive to women. Fundamentally, it's about building really top-notch social skills. But pickup comes with a lot of baggage that you are correctly picking up on, and that's why it's better for guys to refer to it as something else. Pickup culture is really toxic towards women and has bad connotations. Also, guys have a tendency to use awfully crude language like value and the rating scale, but it's not like women don't do that either. It's just more subtle. Women are often brutally horrible to men who are for example socially inept and unintentionally come across as weird, creepy or otherwise unattractive. And that's a rapidly growing category of men. For that category of man, somewhat toxic pickup culture is actually an improvement over a self-pitying suicidal incel who might end up murdering a bunch of people. Generally (and I'm stealing this from, I think, Leo) you should wish for yourself to be stronger rather than for the world to be easier and more forgiving.

@Raze posted stats here Those stats are also questionable however. There are sources which contradict them to an extent, for example: https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/brown-manning-relationship-status-trends-age-gender-fp-21-25.html

https://www.google.com/search?q=submissive+employee&rlz=1C5CHFA_enGB977GB977&oq=submissive+employee&aqs=chrome..69i57.2241j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 The word is not only sexual/kinky. It is used in other contexts to mean "ready to conform to the authority or will of others". You know this, because you use the word in a non-sexual context to mean exactly that yourself already, see below. You're just being obtuse and focusing on minutia to avoid the actual substance of the discussion.

No! No one needs to be submissive in healthy relationships, lol. You should drop this idea that one person always needs to be in charge. Relationships should be as equal as you can make them. The polarity of masculine/feminine is important, but framing it as dominant/submissive for anything other than sex is not healthy.

There's so, so much generalisation here. Just because something has been a norm for a long time doesn't mean it's healthy either. It's not even that women being submissive in a relationship is bad, it's possible for that to be healthy when it happens in stage blue cultures naturally. The problem arises when you have guys in Western green/orange cultures who want to seek out 'submissive' women who are still in that blue stage of development. It's toxic because the reason they desire that is essentially overcompensation for insecurity. You realise that submissive has non-sexual meaning, right? The definition is "ready to conform to the authority or will of others" which is exactly the relationship between a boss and employee generally. You do what they tell you.

But is that not really just what submissive means? They aren't really equal. They are paid differently specifically because there are not treated as equals. You are submissive to your boss and you're below them in the hierarchy, not equal. It works for companies because they must be cold and rational, but that's no way to run healthy personal relationships or friendships. Transfer of value is not the same as submissive vs dominant. You can both provide value to the other without someone needing to be in charge. But you also say you want a submissive girl. Is that not a desire for control and domination?

Have you ever had a great friendship where neither of you were really 'captain' and both of you treated each other as equals? They are the best friendships. Imagine you were going around only looking for submissive friends who you could dominate? That would absolutely be a red flag, and a sign of an insecurity. It's similar with relationships. You can absolutely have relationships where you both view each other as equals and no one is the captain of the entire relationship. Relationships don't really need a 'leader' beyond when you're fucking and flirting, and yea, in those circumstances, the power dynamics are fun as fuck. But they should not extend into the deeper parts of the relationship. Like, what decisions are you even planning on making for your 'submissive' girl?

Then explain to me what you mean by mildly submissive?

It is compulsive/complete, I don’t know what other words to use. You’re either equals in the relationship or you’re not. It’s one thing to play with power dynamics when you’re flirting/fucking, but if you have the desire for those dynamics to extend into day-to-day life (and important relationship decisions) there’s a good chance that’s not coming from a healthy place. Hell, that’s the dynamic that causes domestic abuse

Oh fair enough, that's my bad, I mostly focused on your direct reply to me rather than other posts you made. In terms of working through your stuff while sober instead of using something like psychedelics, yea, you could. And for some people that's probably the right choice. But I think it is somewhat arrogant to claim that psychedelics cannot create any lasting impact or help you work through stuff sustainably. Humanity has been using psychedelics to do that for 2 million years. It's not like you take some psychedelics, have an experience, then return to baseline without any lasting change in your base consciousness. They are called trips and journeys for a reason. They create lasting change in perspective just like travelling to a new country that differs vastly from your own. For example, the mushrooms that were given to dying cancer patients; whatever happened during their trips, it removed their anxiety and depression around death permanently, even after returning to baseline. And they took a tiny amount too! How is that anything other than healing? They then no longer had to work through that while sober. It's an efficient solution worth investigating and having an open mind towards at the very least. In a similar vein, if you take some MDMA or ketamine while you talk to your therapist, there are indications that creates wildly more powerful change than just talking to your therapist sober because it helps you open up so much more intensely. Of course you will need to do work while sober too, I don't think anyone denies that, but suggesting that psychedelics can in no way help anyone permanently grow or heal as a person is really just a bit arrogant.

I find you to be somewhat intellectually dishonest by ignoring the bulk of my post and focusing on the only part of it you could construct a response to. This is an argumentation strategy that immediately makes me discount anything that a person has to say because it's such a strong indicator to me that a person isn't interested in questioning the opinions they've already formed. And the response you did give here does not even address my point which you quoted, you simply reiterate your own viewpoint again; that psychedelics are bad, with no reasoning as to why. This is a further indicator to me that you have no interest in questioning your own established viewpoints. So what's the point in anyone even discussing anything with you when you already think you have all the answers? I think there are negatives and limitations to psychedelics, for sure. No sensible person disagrees with that. But to outright say they are useless, can't help anyone, and can't produce any lasting improvements, is a very, very bold claim to make, especially without any evidence or experience to back that claim up. I gave you several examples to the contrary, and you ignored them because they don't conform to your existing viewpoint.

The question I find most interesting is 'why is there something instead of nothing?'

There's an element of irony here my friend

That's heavily, heavily stereotyped. Does it not seem like a red flag to you that you compulsively need a girl to be completely submissive to you in a relationship? I would say sustainable, healthy and developed relationships are more about both partners learning to exist as equals rather than the man needing to dominate the girl in day-to-day life. Yea, girls like a guy who can lead and succeed out in the world, and being able to lead a girl is great for initial phases building attraction, but beyond that, I would not say this compulsive idea that you need a girl to be submissive to your every whim all the time is not coming from a healthy place within you.

How do you know? Have you tried them? Just google ketamine/MDMA studies on depression/PTSD and you can see that they've been shown as very effective at healing people. If I remember correctly, they were possibly the most effective healing tool that was tested for some mental illnesses when taken sensibly. A set of terminally ill patients were also given mushrooms in a study at one point and it drastically reduced their depression and fear of death. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/psilocybin-a-journey-beyond-the-fear-of-death/ You're very confident about something I don't think you have that much experience with, which is actually the definition of self-deception.

This is an 'internet opinion' by which I mean that you only end up thinking this way if you get most of your social reference points from the internet. If you actually go and talk to lots of girls you see it isn't true.

Of course, it's not concrete proof. But it is a fairly strong indication. Strong enough of an indication that you should not be seriously worried about it happening to you if you're a normal dude. We can also do more napkin statistics: There are ~70k reported rapes per year in the UK. I've seen estimates placed anywhere from 2%-10% of all rape allegations being false. Assuming that is worst case 10%, then there are 7,000 false rape accusations per year. That means you have about a (7,000 / 35,000,000)*100 = 0.02% (or 1 in 5000) chance of being falsely accused of rape in a given year in the UK. And even if 100% of rape accusations were false, that's still only a 0.2% (or 1 in 500) chance of being falsely accused in a given year. The statistics there are pretty rough (mainly because we assume someone's behaviour is independent from the probability of being accused, when really there are certain types of people who are far more likely to find themselves accused both truthfully and falsely) but you get the idea. It's really not likely. Also, reasoning qualitatively, a woman has almost nothing to gain from giving a false accusation against a dude as well. The strongest motivator would probably be revenge at the end of a messy relationship, but if you're not a dickhead the chance of that goes down even further. You'd likely have to end up in a relationship with a girl who was sociopathic or something, which if you have a decent sense of people and some wisdom is also pretty unlikely.

100% remote isn't beneficial for most people anyway. At least not long term. It's too isolating. Large companies would probably be inclined to say that the optimal is like 1 or 2 remote days a week for control reasons, but I would say it's probably something like 1 or 2 office days a week that would be ideal for most people.

Probably not as rare as a plane crash but rare enough you shouldn’t worry about it. The chance of you being retroactively accused of rape after sleeping with a girl consensually in a western country is really, really, really low. A women has so little to gain from making such a false accusation and it would be an exceptionally involved and stressful process. Also, see here https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/key-facts-about-how-CPS-prosecutes-allegations-rape “Research has shown that false allegations of rape are rare. A CPS report published in 2013 showed that over a 17-month period, there were 5,651 prosecutions for rape and, during the same period, there were 35 prosecutions for making false allegations of rape.” Women need to be far, far more concerned with actually being raped (probably on the order of 100x more concerned) than you do with being falsely accused. So the system needs to be somewhat biased in women’s favour, as a perfect system is impossible. Your biggest risk is misjudging a situation and making an unwanted escalation. But women are not evil. They understand that guys misjudge. If a women tells you to get lost after you make an advance and you leave her alone, 99%+ of the time you’ll be fine. The guys who get into trouble are the ones who don’t understand what no means and either keep trying or throw some kind of hissy fit at being rejected. If you learn how to properly sense whether a girl is into you or not, learn how to properly escalate, and understand when to give up and move on, you are so so unlikely to run into any issues. I think your issue is that you’re calibrated mostly by what you read online rather than mostly by real life experience, which has put the fear of god into you. Because only the bad stories get circulated on the internet so it isn’t a fair representation of reality. It’s essentially selection bias.

You can learn all of what it has to offer without immersing yourself in its culture. The culture of redpill is mostly designed by sketchy grifters to prey on desperate men

And there's the trauma