mr_engineer

Screw it, then. My link has my real name.

@Emerald What is the point of doing this work, according to you? This sounds very theoretical to me. I don't fully see the practical relevance of this work. I mean, fine, you want to say 'rationality is masculine and emotionality is feminine and that's not inferior', but isn't it all just a word-game at the end of the day? I mean, I consider 'passion' to be masculine! If both are energies, to call all of emotionality 'feminine' is an attempt to monopolize all energy as 'feminine', right?!

@Emerald Yeah, of course, there are tons of resources for theory. I'm talking about the actual psychological work, though. Can it be done alone? Or, does it have to be done in the context of relationship? And, if so, which is better? Therapy or the experience of bad relationships and then learning from them? The thing is that there is a lot of good theory out there. But, there can be a dearth of practical data-points/good demonstrations of the application of the theory. Which is where the problematic role-models sneak in with their twisted interpretations of it.

@Devin You're the first guy I've ever heard saying that she's a 6. Who would be a 10 for you, then?!

@Emerald Okay. I get what you're saying. Do you think that individuals can do this work alone? Or that they need therapy? Or that they have to go through the experience of bad relationships first and then go the hard way?

@Something Funny I guess everyone will agree that Scarlett Johannsen is a 10.

In case you missed it last time - how does this solve men's problems in relation to dating, sex and relationships?

The OP asserted that 'the fact that men are scared of their feminine side is the problem'. So, I'm asking for further elaboration on that. I'm really not sure what 'feminine' means and what it means in the context of men. I'm getting some education here!

And, how does this solve men's problems in relation to dating, sex and relationships?

What is your solution? How do you stop being scared of your feminine side?

@Roy I can totally relate. I have a similar story. I was a naive kid at the time, thinking that 'Technology is what separates humans from animals. In fact, technology is what separates first-world countries from third-world countries, the rich from the poor. So, more technology = more progress!' The reality is that in an unconscious world, we will use technology to create more and more separation. And, that is a more important problem to solve.

@Emerald It would be a pyramid-scheme. Because the 'high-status' is by proxy! And, who is that proxy?! Similar women. This is how Andrew Tate's thing would work.

@Emerald So, from a woman's perspective, it's a big pyramid-scheme. Am I right?! It's like 'I want the status I get with him cuz he's desirable to other women' and everyone's thinking that. The value of the man is being deferred to what the other party thinks of him, by both parties! (By 'party' I mean woman)

@Emerald No. Pre-selection means, being interested in men who have women, or who are 'pre-selected'. If he has two women on his arms, ten other women will rationalize the reasons for that and be into that. At least, that's how pick-up theory goes. What do you think?

@Emerald What you're saying goes against the notion of 'preselection' that's popular in the pick-up community. I have not wanted to believe this to be true about women. Because if it is, then it makes me lose respect for them. For the individuals for whom this is true, it signals a lack of ability to think for oneself and being consensus-driven. Is it true?

If someone does bell this cat, though, their name will become immortal in the history-books. As immortal as Abraham Lincoln, who abolished slavery.

@Hardkill Because you need a political leader to lead this movement. And, who will do it? That's the real question. Who will be that sacrificial lamb, going against all of the elites and against the very things securing their positions?! In principle, everyone agrees that this is a problem. In practice, however, no one wants to bell this cat. It requires too much courage.

That is correct. I agree with that. However, the big challenge here is that women often-times aren't straight-forward when it comes to what they want. So, it can get hard to find credible female sources on what women want. But, of course, it can be done. And, I do agree that this fact shouldn't be blamed for their failure to understand what women want. Having said that, I do have sympathy for men stuck in those rabbit-holes for this reason. And, if they screw up their narrative of how things work, I can understand that. It can take years of research to figure out who's credible and who's not. Again, not blaming women for this. Just saying that women are not powerless to changing this situation. This is true. Which is why there is a very dire need for role-models for both men and women. Especially men. I have ideas for changes in the education-system in order to have a better future on this front. I will test them out. Let's see what happens! Alright. Something very fundamental to understand about men is that men are identified with what they do. By themselves and by others. Which is why, men need role-models. The point of this is to teach men to embody masculinity. Only self-actualized men can do this. Women cannot. And, men have genuine love and respect for these role-models. It's not just transactional or fear-based. And, another fundamental thing to understand about men is that men are givers. Or providers. Men have been wired like this because a pregnant woman cannot fend for herself. So, the father has to provide. Now, here's my claim - it is this impulse to give and to be significant that's behind men's drive to chase status. And, it is because of men's identification with what they do and this need for a role-model to look upto, that men accept being lower-status for now, with the hope that they will get status in the future. I agree with your assessment of how the system works. However, the blue-pilled men (for lack of better word) don't see it like this, because they are hyper-identified with their roles. The problem with this system that you're describing is that because humanity has been unconscious, men have had too small of a circle of concern. Which is what led to all of the war and genocide and oppression in history. It expanded as humanity developed more and more. But, I do not agree with your solution to this situation. Because, it would not be fair to purely demonize the men up above. They run the system and they can do this because they have competence. Young, ambitious men recognize that they have a lot to learn from them. Now, the system may suck, and they may have huge shadows. So, here's the solution - learn from the best right now, get better at what you do, then create a new system and outcompete them. If women could recognize this and align themselves with the right causes, that would be helpful. It would definitely be helpful for women, because they will have a place in the new system. And their femininity will be respected. 100%.

How do they liberate themselves from the victim's narrative? Men need to be given a practical alternative. 'Equality' is good in theory but in practice, someone has to be in charge. Who is it going to be? It's fine to say that the single-family home is not the 'end-all-be-all'. I agree. Having said that, how would you rather have society be structured? What should the building-block of society be, if not the single-family home? And the first step of this solution, on your part, is to recognize the kernel of truth in the old-school prescriptions. If you dismiss them as 'false', you will never get anywhere with them. Do keep in mind that men were not, in fact, subjugated into their masculine expression, unlike women. Men chose it. And for a reason. I think it would be interesting for you to figure out that reason. In good faith. So, do you mean, doing solo-approaching out of authentic desire instead of approaching to impress their friends or as a part of a group of boys? Because in the group one, I notice a lot of misinterpretation of the social reality that's biased by the bro-culture. But, when you're on your own, you see what's what.

I'm getting mental-masturbation vibes from this thread. If this is the problem, what's the solution? Are you trying to figure that out or is this more pointless male-bashing?

Yeah, when you fire your photons at her, she'll release electrons. That's what Einstein thinks.

@Jannes Yes, it is worth a shot. May the photons be with you!

In fact, if you ask women who are the most aware of men's problems, they will say that 'men should have mentoring and 'rites of passage' that have nothing to do with women'. Because they consider a man 'ready for relationship' only after he has 'grown up'.

Maybe you can make a case for stigmas. (Although, they do foment a culture of conditional love, which I'm not a big fan of) But, double-standards are a sign of low integrity, morally. And, these specific double-standards have been designed to appeal to the male ego first and foremost. The point of having a 'high-value man' be the guy who gets laid the most, is to justify having as much sex as they want. And, the point of having a 'high-value woman' be the virgins, is to be 100% sure that she's not carrying another man's child. I'm not arguing for 'equality' here. In the other thread, I went to great lengths to argue for acknowledging the differences. My issue here is that when we define 'high-value man' and 'high-value woman' based on sexual history and we have these specific standards, the agendas of both sides go at odds with each other. This is a problem, because in order to make a relationship work, both sides have to set aside their egos and focus on the relationship first, which is a system. And this system must be designed to meet the needs of all parties involved in a sustainable way. No hard feelings here either. ?

@Roy If I were a woman reading what you wrote, I would not be happy seeing you think that 'getting laid is a rite of passage'. It would make me feel objectified. It's a conquest-mindset and women are the trophy in your 'rite of passage'. Most women want this stigma of male virginity gone. Because they are aware that it is responsible for guys' bitterness and resentfulness for not having gotten laid early. Especially when there is such a huge double-standard of men with a higher body-count seen as 'higher-value' and women with a higher body-count seen as 'lower-value'. This is also responsible for the female stigma of 'sluttiness' and it causes the average guy a lot of problems in getting laid, because women don't want to look like sluts in front of their friends. This value-metric/status-metric is not sustainable precisely because it puts the agendas of both sides at odds with each other. I would argue that having a past of casual sex is detrimental to your ability to have a long-term relationship even if you're a guy. Because it brings about negative patterns in your ways of getting laid, that may or may not apply in long-term relationship. A lot of PUAs are simply using casual sex as an escape from attachment-style problems. They're avoidant and they just want sex, so they learn some game first and then hop from one woman to the next. Is this sustainable in relationship, if they do fall in love one day?! Nope. And, the first step to recognizing this is to take away the stigma of male virginity.