Consept

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    3,062

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Consept

  1. Posted

    Your parents may have been dysfunctional but I'm not sure the example is necessarily indicative of that. It's not like people are robots and it's very possible that a child could make their parent upset, you can't remember what you said but it could've been hurtful. Also your mother could've just told your father but not expected him to tell you about it, she could've just said jav said 'something hurtful to me don't say anything to him'. If she was going to manipulate you it could've been directly at you from her, like guilt tripping or stonewalling you or something like that. 

    Your dad could have handled a bit better maybe talking it through with you etc but I'm guessing that's not something he does. 

    But don't get me wrong you could have 1000 concrete examples of them being narcissistic and they could be. I'm just saying this particular example doesn't confirm it. Generally though, I think we can be a bit harsh on our parents, from whatever consciousness they're at they are trying their best. Some are of course very toxic and there's no way around that, but it's important to be able to look at things as objectively as possible. 

  2. Posted

    19 minutes ago, bebotalk said:

    I dont care if I look "bad" for these views. 

    So what? people have dark views.

    If it is the "norm" that people can be racist, sexist, etc. then I don't see the issue. 

    let people have bad views. 

    Or will some pretty women (since they're the arrogant people who get to "decide" who has views or not) who gets off from being "human" and having prejudices?

    people are human. we're imperfect. 

    maybe others should be consistent in their condemnation, or not assume they're "above" things. or "regulate" who does what. 

    Well theres 2 sides to peoples response to you, one is questioning your "bad views", so this as im sure you understand would be a normal response to the prejudice you hold. This would be the same if someone posted on here that they dont like black people or men or muslims for whatever reason. Essentially this position doesnt really work because it generalises a group of people around a negative perspective of a stereotype, for example you dont like pretty women because you think they are all arrogant. Its the same as saying you dont like black people because theyre all criminals, obviously generalisations are wrong because you wouldnt have interacted with every pretty woman or black person so there is no way you could make a statement like that. So because you are "wrong" people will of course challenge your position, which you cant really defend and i guess youre not defending it youre just saying you should be allowed to have 'bad views' without having to defend them, which begs the question why even post about said views where people would disagree?

    The second side which can exist parallel to the above is that people see the issue you have is internal to you and want to help, either to make themselves feel better or just to genuinely help someone, probably a mixture of both. This makes sense because you are on a self-development forum, so obviously if you post something that reeks of inner turmoil you will get advice that is deeper and directed at your inner self. Again your rejection of this advice doesnt really follow as it seems obvious if you post what your posting you will get that kind of response. In fact youre lucky that people are not just condeming you for your beliefs bat are actually taking the time to try and reach you. My advice would be actually take in and listen to what people say in response to you or just dont post this type of stuff as i dont see what you aim to get out of it. Youre either crying out for help or youre looking for validation for 'bad views' or youre just looking for attention. 

     

  4. Posted

    The reality is @bebotalk hates these women because he wants them but doesnt feel worthy, so lashing out is a way to gain power over a sutuation where he feels powerless. If he can make these women feel bad or feel any emotion he has exerted power and also in someway gained some kind of connection with them.

    The problem he will find is that he will constantly live on this state of hatred and self defence. For the women maybe it'll annoy them for a day, for him he will be in this negative emotion indefinitely, so much so that the longer it goes the harder it will be to get out. How he feels inside will be reflected back to him as he pushes these women to go down to his level. 

    This will be the ongoing consequences for this type of mentality and unless he recognises this and makes effort to change he will be doomed to go through this. I'm not sure anyone's words can pull him out it's really on him to go through this, but if he does want out I'm sure many will help him 

  7. Posted

    It's usually indirect, so like a girl will look directly at me for slightly too long or even smile or do something as an invite to come and talk to her. This is basically a female approach, it can be very difficult to read because it can be so subtle, in their mind they're are literally approaching you, whereas in our mind we mightve blinked and missed it or just not been paying attention.

    I have had girls just come directly up to me and basically try and chat me up, more when I was younger. Girls game is terrible btw if they had to approach we'd all be screwed. One time I was eating in a KFC restaurant and these 2 girls just came and sat next to me, asking random questions and one asked to have some of my chicken, when I said go for it, she tried to take it in a sexy way, it was hilarious. I had one where she said her ex-boyfriend was watching and asked if she could talk to me so he would leave her alone. After she told me there was no ex bf.  To be fair though, it just would come down to whether I was attracted to them or not, they wouldn't need to have a lot of game, although the chicken thing might have put me off. 

  9. Posted

    @Emerald 

    I agree with a lot of what you say but I'm not sure this is exclusive to red pill type communities. How i look at it is shame if you like, is a human condition that many are suffering for a variety of different reasons, most prominantaly parental and societal. 

    I agree that the solution to this and probably a lot of issues is unconditional self-love as you say, in fact I strongly believe this. However I don't understand the specificity of lumping the male groups all together under this umbrella, there are many communities with the same issues. Potentially it could be simplistic to just boil it down to self love.

    Another angle for example, is that as women have become more independent, the role of men has somewhat diminished to the point where women no longer need a man but maybe still want a man. Meaning that their criteria for a partner has evolved to wanting guys with attributes like emotional intelligence, which previous generations have not even thought about. Boys have been brought up without these extended skills as they weren't seen as important, now they come into a dating landscape that they are just not prepared for. This can push them into things like red or black pill groups as they feel that the situation is hopeless. Now just these series of events can affect men dramatically if they are not able to adapt, this doesn't necessarily come from lack of self love it's more circumstantial. 

    But overall I get what you're saying, I just think the issue is a bit more complex.

  11. Posted

    59 minutes ago, Raze said:

    I don’t buy the narrative that it’s the “masculine” role to attract and women naturally want to be “feminine” and select.

    For one in my experience and the experience of just about every guy I know, the more you chase and try to win over a woman the less she likes you. On the other hand every girl I know seems to demonstrate the guy they went the most crazy for, was one that they chased, not the other way around.

    Scientific studies have also found women tend to be more interested in guys whose feelings for them are unclear / they see other women are interested in / who aren’t nice at first meet. Indicating women actually desire the chase and competition.

    Its usually a bit of a dance in the initial stage, but in my experience it goes something like -

    • if a woman finds a guy attractive she will give some sort of signal, this can be extremely subtle and a lot of guys miss it, it could be just a look for a second too long. 
    • If the man picks up on the signal, in theory, he would go up and talk to her which would show confidence 
    • As long as he doesnt mess it up and comes across, cool, non-needy, interesting etc they would agree to go on a date and then just work out if they like each other and where it goes from there 

    Obviously theres more to it but in reality it is the girl giving off signs at first, its not hardcore chasing on either side. I agree, women do like a bit of intrigue and mystery initially, its kinda like they want to uncover who you are gradually, they dont want to read the whole book in one go. 

    1 hour ago, Raze said:

    If you look at the animal kingdom, our two closest living relatives and chimps and bonobos, but as far as I know they don’t necessarily have a mating process of males pursue and females select or reject. 

    I know with gorillas, the alpha male is 'chased' by females, i think its similar with chimps. Beta chimps do chase though and they have to be sneaky to get some, like taking the female to a location that away from any alphas. Bonobos are more egalitarian so i think they just all bang each other, including females on females, its used to reduce tension during conflicts amongst other things. But in general with apes females obviously have a preference for Alphas and would reject an ape they thought didnt have good genes for whatever reason. 

    1 hour ago, Raze said:

    Women may prefer the role of being the selector, but then again so do men, I doubt the average guy would say he’d rather go through the stress of trying to pursue someone (risking awkwardness, embarrassment, rejection, or even reputation damage) over an alternative of women hitting on him and deciding that way, maybe if he felt too bad rejecting someone else. 

    How it plays out though which is similar to apes, is you just be at the top of your game, look for signals and make your move. Women ultimately are the selectors, that doesnt mean we have to chase in a way thats off putting.   

  12. Posted

    48 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

    The balance is in the relationship already, that's why there's a man/woman relationship in the first place. That's the balance right there. Women don't have to learn to SPEAK the logical language of men, she needs to embrace her feminine when around men and tap into her masculine when he's absent. 

    I disagree, i think understanding comes from learning the language of the other person. Keep in mind im not saying that a woman should be masculine or a man feminine, im saying that they should be aware of both polarities within themselves and also that they should understand the others perspective. Its like if I dont understand why my woman acts in an emotional way when shes feeling overwhelmed, i might demonise her behaviour instead of understanding it. Conversely if my woman doesnt understand my tendency to make a logical choice when she thinks its an emotional one, then we're doomed. 

    Also there are different levels of masculine and feminine in different people, its important to be able to gauge this on both sides to work out a good fit. Its often not as simple as saying well im a man and thats masculine and youre a woman so thats feminine. Some women need an overly masculine dude, some women not so much, its very subjective. 

  13. Posted

    39 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

    This is why I'm not very fond of men who live in the gym, have a ton of muscles, are too handsome

    Ah man why'd I have to be too handsome 😩 

    For real though, I think a lot of guys problem with women is because men can be over logical and so as women decide, at least in the initial phase, whether theyre going to accept a man's advances, men need to know its on them to learn how to speak the 'emotional language'. 

    Having said that women can also be overly reliant on their emotions and feelings to make sense of the world, which can then affect the relationship negatively if they're not able to speak the 'logical language' of men. 

    So essentially I'm saying there has to be a balance where both sexes embrace they're opposite polarity within themselves. In that way it can be much easier to understand and communicate with the other side. 

    A big problem with ideologies like red pill is that they are 100% logic and they believe that women are stupid because they don't operate from logic. So they attempt to logic the female into their way of thinking so they can have power over them in the masculine realm. This can work but eventually women will feel the strain, which is why a lot of red pill guys don't have healthy relationships. It also exists on the other side with things like female dating strategies which is toxic femininity 

  14. Posted

    30 minutes ago, Emerald said:

    I don’t have any personal experience with non-monogamy, so my advice might be a little thin.

    But if I were considering trying polyamory, I’d probably seek out tons of non-monogamous perspectives and reading material like “The Ethical Slut”.

    But most importantly I’d try to get clear on why I’m interested in polyamory.

    And given the avoidant attachment style, I’d want to notice if my desire for a non-monogamous relationship is about going TOWARDS what is wanted about that dynamic… or if it’s about going AWAY FROM feelings like being trapped and others things avoidant people are trying to avoid.

    OK yeah I understand, thanks for your perspective :)

  15. Posted

    9 minutes ago, Emerald said:

    But what the OP was talking about once that initial attraction phase hurdle is cleared and what strategies a woman can use to keep a man once a sexual relationship has been established

    I get you, I think in general if either sex wants a solid, fulfilling, loving relationship, strategies will not work long term. 

    As men we seem to have this idea that we need strategies for a relationship. Strategies can work for men and women but only temporarily ie for men if they just want short term sexual encounters. 

    Out of personal curiosity, do you have any insights on non-monogamy? I just got out of a relationship but I'm kind of enjoying the freedom although I'm wondering how sustainable it is and if I'm just wasting others time, even though I am being honest. I think I have an avoidant attachment style which I'm working getting to secure. Sorry don't mean to selfishly derail the topic lol

  16. Posted

    3 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

    Strategies are there to not piss off those who like you. 

    I don't think that's strategies though, it's more compromise. Let's say a woman has certain needs and she wants you to fulfill them but nags if you don't, then you have to communicate to each whether you the man can fulfil those needs or if those needs and what she wants you to do are reasonable. You may decide you don't want or can't fulfil those needs and then the relationship won't work (this goes both ways).

    If you just say don't nag and be peaceful she might be repressing, genuine needs that are easy to fulfil for the sake of the man's peace. This just doesn't work in practice. 

    On the 'prize' talk I honestly think both sexes should believe they are the 'prize', meaning they should have confidence and self-respect for themselves. How that looks for woman is being selective and choosing a guy that they are sure really cares for them. For guys it could be choosing a women that cares for them but that they are also compatible with, a lot of guys will just choose a girl based on looks and then try and make everything else work after the fact, which can lead to unfulfilling relationships. 

  17. Posted

    2 hours ago, Emerald said:

    So, a lot of the advice from earlier posters around making herself useful to a guy or giving him sex or looking good or any advice like that is just bad strategy... because it is usually a woman who likes a guy who isn't interested trying to find a way to cause a man to fall in love with her and want to be her partner.

    The thing is, that no woman can make a man want to be with her and fall in love with her. If it isn't there from the beginning, it will never ever be there.

    Yeah i agree, its interesting because this dynamic exists on the male side as well. So a guy will either not recognise or ignore his instinct that a girl he likes is not really into him, then he'll do things that he believes will get her to like him. What he does depends on what hes learnt through media or wherever, if its rom-coms he'll be the typical 'good guy' and maybe be really nice to her, buy her presents, give her all his time etc. Obviously this is known as the friendzone, the female equivalent is the fuckzone. So it is the same in that a guy needs to be true to himself and only really pursue girls that he feels are genuinely into him.

    All in all 'strategies' are essentially ways to convince someone who doesnt like you as much you want them to, to like you. They rarely work because at some point the mask will drop and if you feel that youre not good enough for the person, you will become insecure. 

     

  18. Posted

    4 hours ago, Cosmin Visan said:

    Lol, you didnt understand anything from what I said.

    Youre obviously much more intelligent than me and I'm amazed at your ability to sum up the whole free will argument in less than 3 lines. But try again with your explanation. So far what ive understood is that 1+1=2 and not something else which would be chaotic, therefore there is free will, is that right?

  19. Posted

    Just my 2 pence and its interesting thinking from a female perspective, I think for a man to stay, first of all he himself has to be in the mindset of genuinely wanting a long term relationship. So 'female game' starts from this point which is selection, through the courting phase she has to ascertain whether he actually wants to settle down and be with her long term. I think a lot of the time women know that the guy is not really looking for that by they try and keep him around with sex or by demonstrating 'wifey' characteristics. 

    Some guys will settle down for a particular girl but she needs to work out whether he actually feels strongly for her. This can get slightly confused if they're having sex and a lot of women believe that if he's having sex with her regularly, he loves her but this is rarely the case. Guys will definitely talk a lot of bullshit to keep a girl around. 

    Once she's passed this hurdle and is sure that he's at least up for a long term relationship with the right woman, all she can really do is be herself and see if that connection can grow and they fall in love. There will be traits that will signal that she would be a good long term mate, but this is very dependent on the guy. For me personally it'll be things like being a person worthy of respect, high emotional intelligence, ability to navigate conflict well, dealt with previous trauma or at least working on it, good at communication, honest, fair, able to take criticism. There's many more probably. 

     

  20. Posted

    2 hours ago, Cosmin Visan said:

    Yes, is trivial. Without free will everything would be chaos. You would never be able to say things like 1+1=2. You would say random things like 1+1=3, 1+1=475789, 1+1=-^<_<>/_<&, because your reason would simply be the effect of random events outside of yourself.

    1+1=2 would be an example of no free will, as in something outside you is fact and you have no will over it 

     

  21. Posted

    @Yousif

    You criticise living by your feelings, but you yourself are living by your feelings, you feel like you want to fuck this girl because she's come onto you, she's literally manipulated your feelings to the point where you would betray your friend. It's not exactly very stoic not having sexual discipline. 

    Also I'm not talking about criminal law, of course you are free to do what you want. What im saying is that if create ill feeling within people because of your actions eventually that will come back to you. Think of someone who lives a life of crime in the mafia, even if they get away with it there's rarely a happy ending, they'll normally get killed or something will happen because of the amount of victims they've accrued. 

    If you're a shitty person then negative things will happen to you, even if it's just a low as not being able to connect with others 

     

  23. Posted

    36 minutes ago, Yousif said:

    morality is relative, no such a thing as morality, your morality is different from mine 

     

    I don’t see how I’m not being honest or fair, I’m saying what I will do out in the open in the front of all of you. xD

    Moral definition - concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour. holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct.

    What you're saying isn't honest to the friend involved if you act on it without telling him. 

    Ultimately it doesn't matter what you want to define yourself as, the consequences will be the reactions of those around you, so for example if your friend doesn't talk to you anymore or it's hard to settle down with a girl because she doesn't trust you or you don't trust her then you will have to accept that. Everything you do has a karmic price, if I'm continually ripping people off in business then I'll win short term but will most likely lose long term if I get caught or no one wants to do business with me. Every action has a reaction. 

    There are obvious potential negative consequences down the road if you do shit like sleep with your friends girl. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't I'm just saying actions have consequences for a better or worse. 

     

  24. Posted

    Honourable definition - honest and fair, or deserving praise and respect

    Integrity definition - the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles.

    Just to make the definitions clear, I don't think the actions you proposed align with these definitions. You are mot being honest with your friend and these are not actions of strong moral principal or deserving of respect. 

    Again you're free to do whatever you want, but to say that these are actions of integrity is just factually not true 

  25. Posted

    5 minutes ago, Yousif said:

    I’m cold, I don’t care about nobody’s feelings, unless I rape her you can’t tell me shit. 

    you can cry yourself to sleep after I have your girl to myself. 
     

     

    my integrity and dishonor isn’t diminished just because you got hurt, fuck your feelings. 

    This is my point though, you value having sex over others feelings or friendship or whatever, which is fine you can do that but obviously people will react to you in a certain way. 

    If we were still in tribes and you didn't give a fuck about your fellow tribesmen, chances are they would see you as dishonorable and kick you out of the tribe if not worse. 

    Also if we're talking about your own personal integrity you can make up whatever justifications you want, murderers do it, rapists do it etc but just because you do it, doesn't mean you are honourable. It just goes to what you value, as you don't value others feelings I don't see how you can say that's honourable in the same breath.