mr_engineer

The church of pick-up states 'If thou shalt approach thousands of women, thou shalt get laid'. Here's my question. Why thousands? Why not tens, or hundreds, or tens of thousands, or millions? Is there any reason to have this specific order of magnitude of the number of women you should approach?

@Princess Arabia ✌️

@Consept Out of all the girls you come across on an everyday basis, how do you choose whom to approach? What's the ultimate goal here? And, what are we trying to get better at? What is the KPI of our so-called 'game'?!

So, the choice of method doesn't depend on the goal?

@Consept Should I want to approach every woman I come across on the street? To 'get good at approaching'? Or, should I be allowed to pick and choose? If I'm not actually interested in her, there never really were any stakes on the approach to begin with, right?! I understand doing 1-2 practice approaches. But thousands is an absolutely ridiculous number.

Let's say, you go to a church. They give you a prayer, that you have to chant for a thousand times every day. Would you just blindly do it?! Or, would you be asking yourself 'Why should I do this?' Also, if you ask the priest 'Why?', they say 'Why do you care?! You're not chanting!' So, am I supposed to be passionate about chanting the prayer?! Am I supposed to be passionate about approaching itself?! Or, are we supposed to just grind through it, no matter how much it sucks?!

@Leo Gura What does 'success' even mean in this context? Surely you've gotta have a definition for 'success' to come up with a process to get it.

If there is no answer to the 'why', this tells me that it's a dogma. Like a church. 'Thou shalt approach thousands of women'.

The last point in this article is 'you can become a dating-coach if you do this!' Is this what this is?! A pyramid-scheme?! 'Get good at approaching women, so that you can teach other guys to get good at approaching women!' Where does this all lead to? What is the point of doing it? And, why thousands?!

No, it does not count as experience and it won't be valuable in the future. Negative experiences don't have value. Hindi movies romanticize heartbreak and 'one-sided love' too much. It's total nonsense. You should focus on rising out of negativity and moving towards positivity. You're in college right now, you're very young, so you have very little opportunity to meet girls. Once you start working, though, you will have your own money and you'll be able to travel and meet a lot more people. P.S. To everyone else reading, we Indians have a cultural pattern in which we glorify negativity and crappy circumstances and pain and suffering, because it 'makes us grounded/realistic' (cynical). If we tell him that 'negative experiences are valuable', he'll deliberately go out and seek out negative experiences, instead of doing something that'll improve his life!

Most of your clicks are not going to come because they manually enter the URL into the search-bar. They will be clicks from backlinks and from the links that you share with people.

Simps aren't of any use to hot women where it actually matters. They will just parrot feminist talking-points when it suits them, socially. Or, they will put hot women on a pedestal in social contexts. They don't actually give a shit about women's safety! But, it's very easy to play women when you parrot feminist talking-points. They will only be seen to us when we say something like 'Women need men to protect them because the average man is physically bigger and stronger than the average woman'. There, they'll be like 'REEE!!! Equality!! Women can do everything a man can do!!' And the problem is that women lap up this rhetoric, until something like this happens. Then, the 'you go girl' simps are nowhere to be seen!

Let's say you've gone through some traumatic shit. Now, self-blame is a common coping-mechanism when that happens. And, the 'take responsibility' rhetoric often-times reinforces this issue. To break a cycle of self-blame, you have to blame others for your problems. You have to 'put the blame where it belongs', so to speak. In the short-term situation, someone else is to blame. Of course, in the grand scheme of things, this blame-game is pointless and it doesn't matter who is to blame, now fixing it is your responsibility. But, to get to that point, you have to get the facts straight relative to the short-term situation. I don't know about you, but I would rather hate someone else than hate myself. If OP is going to publicly own that they hate some group of people, they think it's the right thing to do. Meaning, they think that the only alternative is to hate themselves. Now, the problem here, is that if you're going to hate the wrong group of people, those who aren't actually to blame for your short-term issues, you will get stuck. So, in my opinion, it helps to give some perspective on who is to blame and where the high-leverage points are in this whole equation. Then, you can direct your negative energy to constructive ends, as opposed to destructive ends. If I could snap my fingers and get him to stop hating people, I would. But, I can't do that. And, he is trying to get laid with hot women. So, hating them is counterproductive. But, if you see who the real problem is (the simps who enable the pedestalization of hot women), you can do something about that. You can stop following IG models, you can quit porn, you can stop thinking with your dick around hot women. You can channel your sexual-energy towards constructive ways. And, for the record, I did say that his problem is not with women, it's with simps.

Well, we're not talking about me here, we're talking about OP. And, if he wants to be sexist, that's his choice. What we can do, though, is point out that it's not productive and what would be a more productive way of solving his problems. (And not just our projection of what 'his problems' are, actually looking at his definition of 'his problems with women' and showing him the solutions) Obviously, women aren't the problem. No matter how toxic they get, we shouldn't blame them for our problems. OP does have some aggression, though. If channeled in the right direction, it would actually get him somewhere! It does pay him to see that these rules have been set by simps. And that simps suck with women! So, the question arises - how should you treat women? And, who should be given the right to answer this question?

There is a social reality, that when you get into a fight with a hot woman, the hot woman will win. Why? She has simps siding with her. This can make it seem like hot women have all the power in the world. When, in reality, it's the simps enabling it. If you find a way to hold the simps accountable, you won't be so intimidated by hot women. Something's probably happened in his past and the point of the aggression is to defend against that thing happening in the future. What I am trying to get him to see, is that a lot of the rules around 'you should treat women with respect' and 'put women on a pedestal' and stuff like that have not been set by women themselves. They've been set by simps!! So, if you have an issue with following these rules, your fight is not against hot women, it's against simps.

@bebotalk Your problem is not with hot women. It's with the simps who suck up to these hot women. They are who you have real danger from. Without simps, hot women have no power to hurt you.

So, is this relationship the cause of love or the effect of love? Or, is it 'love' in and of itself? That is my entire question. What is the right paradigm within which love can fit in? I'm asking questions! What more do you want me to do to open myself beyond my current paradigm?! To be completely honest with you, I have to know what I'm signing up for when I 'open up and connect' with people. The reality of our world is that people use our vulnerabilities against us. And what helps them sleep at night doing this, is that they're doing it 'out of love'. The most abusive individuals on the planet think they're doing what they're doing 'out of love'. So, this is a very important conversation.

There are multiple authority-figures giving multiple definitions of 'love'. Maybe our parents say that 'love is the self-sacrifice we do for you'. Or, rom-coms say that 'love is a positive feeling-state towards someone'. Or, religion says that 'love is the desire to do good for your fellow humans'. Or, non-duality says that 'love is the realization of Oneness'. All of these definitions refer to different 'direct experiences'. So, what's your definition? So, you're talking about 'love' as a noun or a verb? This sounds like a verb to me. The problem at hand is that the process of understanding love on a rational/intellectual level has already begun with the different types of conditioning we have about it from different sources. Everyone has a different definition of it. So, love is 'friendliness'? Why does friendzoning happen, then?

Keep in mind that we're trying to solve the shame-problem here. So, when you're saying 'you won't understand it until you experience it', that's not very helpful to them. And, if you don't want to help solve this problem, what was the point of talking about it in the OP to begin with?

@Emerald I don't even know what you mean by 'love'. Let's start there. What is 'love'?

Is it a 'sense of family'? And, if it is, what would that be based on? Define 'support'. 'Personality' changes with time. Even who you are on the inside changes with time. The 'flavor' will also change with time. What will keep you committed to him long-term? Forget about whether he's stable/secure, what would make you stable/secure? What's 'you'? Who are 'you'? 'You' are such a complex topic that you've probably written 10 journals about yourself. So, which aspect of 'you' is he supposed to 'love'? And, what is 'love'? That is correct. But, they will choose whom to bond with, solely on the basis of transactional need! It may not be physical needs or logistic needs, it will be emotional-needs. Define 'commitment'. Commitment to do what? Define 'investment'. Investing what? These were well-defined before feminism, when men's job was to provide. No matter how much love a man feels for you, commitment will always be a rational decision for him. (If he is high-quality and smart and he understands the stakes.) There are life-altering consequences based on who you commit to, it's a high-stakes decision for your life. Is it his job to make your life happy?

Now, I'm going to share the biggest challenge with this from male perspective. In the 1950s, there was religion, i.e. a belief in God by default. So, through the Bible (or your religious scripture), 'God' defined 'family'. This is important, because if God says that you are meant to be together in a certain configuration which God calls 'family', it would give you a sense of purpose that is strong enough for you to defend your family from a tiger, at the risk of your own life. And, 'God' laid down the rules for how a 'family' should be run. Then, when you followed those moralistic rules and did those religious rituals, you were being 'good' in the eyes of 'God' and for that, you would get a sense of 'family' or 'belonging'. Then, what happened is that technology made progress, because of which people's minds started to become more scientific and intellectual, and less dogmatic. They started to question the concept of 'God', they became atheistic. So, factor #1 - no more 'God'. And, when you reject the concept of God that comes from religion, you start to disagree with the religious definition of 'family'! Meaning, the single-family household, the rules your parents made you follow in your religious upbringing start to be a problem for you. Up until this point, we're fine. The problem, now, is that we don't have a 'right definition of family'. Because of which, when we date, we don't know what we're trying to construct! We say 'we have emotional-needs, we have these boundaries, we have these dreams and goals and aspirations and these elaborately intricate definitions of compatibility' but in reality, will that result in a 'sense of family'? Which is exceedingly important, because only when you have God telling you that you're meant to be together, will you be willing to make sacrifices to be together. Only then will the commitment be strong! Or else, the commitments will stay loose. And, obviously, if there is no sense of family that's coming out of your dating-experiences and this results in weak commitments, this will result in the 'shame' that you talk about in the OP and all of the problems that come from that. Now, how do we fix this? Let's say we get a newer, more non-dual, spiritual definition of 'God'. I'm assuming that you have some degree of enlightenment. Now, given this definition of 'God', what societal structure would work better than the single-family household to create a sense of family?

Except for parenthood, all of these can be had with a friend. Or, a 'friends-with-benefits', so to speak. A big shadow of the patriarchy is that if women don't have equal rights, men have to provide for the family and if a man does that successfully, he can be assured that she will stay, she won't leave. And he will be valued for providing. Providing was 'enough' for a man to be valued by a woman, before feminism. I'm not saying that women getting equal rights is a bad thing, by any means. Women should absolutely have professional skills and the ability to survive on their own in the modern world. Having said that, feminist women have swung the pendulum to the opposite extreme, where they want to be 'boss babes'. Meaning, this idea of 'women being independent and doing everything alone' is really being glorified. This makes the 'mutual contribution' thing unappealing to a man who wants to be valued as a provider. Now, here's the tricky part. You could get this with any conscious man. Any conscious man recognizes that connection and companionship are needs in him and in others and you can have it with him. Why should one individual stand out from another for you? What would result in a genuine strengthening of the relationship? How does he know that the relationship with you is secure? Isn't he replaceable? By the same token, he can also get these things with any conscious woman. Aren't you also replaceable? Wouldn't the commitment stay loose, in reality, if these are your most important deciding-factors with a man? What would make you stay with an individual man long-term? How would you choose between two men who can give you this type of relationship?

Agreed. What are those social/emotional needs? Which ones can be met by a male friend and which ones do you need a long-term male partner for? Define 'contribution'. It was 'providing for a family' in the past. After feminism, that's not an acceptable definition anymore. So, what does 'contribution' mean, practically? Define 'value'. What value do men hold, in a world after feminism? If you could answer this question, it would help with the shame.

@Emerald Alright. I understand the problems you're presenting and I agree with you. You are right. Now, let's be solution-oriented. First, I would like to posit that men can't do this on their own, amongst each other. We will need help from conscious women to resolve this. It's not just because men can't learn to feel and process emotions on their own. That we are actually capable of. Where we need your help, is in figuring out where we fit into society. Let me explain. With feminism came a wave of 'female independence'. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, this is a good thing. However, a side-effect of this, a cost that men had to pay for this, is that men lost their role in the family as a 'provider'. And, in relationships with women and children, men need to feel useful. Because if the man isn't useful, he will start to feel insecure in his ability to keep women and children in his life. Individually, every man's life is different but collectively, if we want to understand these big waves of 'misogynistic' movements, this factor cannot be ignored. Unconscious women cannot figure this out, because they don't see themselves as responsible for society at large, much less men's problems. The whole point of feminism, under the surface-level ideology of 'equality', is to show men a big middle-finger after the 'oppression' that happened 70 years ago. We can sense it. But, conscious women, who have their own shit sorted to the degree that they are capable of doing something for society, should intuit that this is something worth their attention. Here is my question for you - now that the patriarchy is effectively done and we have a more 'civilized', 'equal' society, where do men fit in?