mr_engineer

@Consept All I'm saying is that biology isn't the absolute truth. Most of this is bro-science. And, I wouldn't take these theories too seriously. Yes, there are trends in that men are attracted to big boobs, big ass, a certain type of figure. Trends. Not absolutely, there are variations and the reality is that you're attracted to the woman who has the body-type of your mother, but culturally, we have defined certain beauty-standards. And redpill is essentially a rationalization of these trends in scientific terms. You change the data, the theory changes. Tomorrow, if there's a new trend of men being into short-haired women, I'm 100% sure there will be some counter-theory to redpill justifying that. It's mostly mental-masturbation and I don't take it seriously. The important part is the part about hypergamy. That's highly controversial. And it raises questions about women's fundamental conscience relative to loyalty and female animal nature. The 'bluepillers' believe that you get a good job, stable income and you get a woman and you get to raise a family. But then, when their women cheat on them or shit goes wrong, they become 'redpilled', where they look for justifications in 'female nature'. Do keep in mind that there is a lot of stuff about sex itself that redpill doesn't account for. For example, there is a section of men who are into cuckoldry. Redpill will look down on them and say 'that's dysfunctional'. Really?! Are you sure?! It's pretty narrow. What you really need, are sources of information coming from conscious women who can keep their personal biases in check, telling men what women want. They tell an entirely different story, trust me. Edit : All this while, we have been assuming that the heteronormativity of this ideology isn't a problem. Which it actually is.

Most women who are genuinely feminine have a relatively low bar for genetics. Yes, you can build your body and stuff, and that matters, but that isn't as much genetics as your own work. For unconscious women, for women who are unconscious of their femininity, yes. I really do think that it is completely down to their social conditioning. Can't be otherwise. And there is no autonomy on that front. Cuz consciousness is a pre-requisite for autonomy. The reality is that most women don't use their brains in the way they choose men. It's totally feeling-based. And their feelings towards someone will be based on their mental-associations, which come from conditioning. What I'm essentially saying is that women who are unconscious of their feminine power are lost in the patriarchy and aren't living in reality about men, which is why they concoct all kinds of stories and rationalizations for why they choose the men they choose. None of which are true. And this, ironically, includes feminists.

What you're saying is true for men. Men's attraction towards women is purely physical. Because, the masculine epistemology is facts-first. Aka, masculine individuals see the world in terms of 'facts'. But, feminine epistemology is feelings-first! This is another mistake that redpill makes in understanding female attraction. What if, this is what women are actually attracted to?! Someone who can meet emotional-needs such as safety and closeness and intimacy?! And, what if it just looks and feels very different to them than it would to a man? And, one final point about this - the reason 'hypergamy' plays out the way it does, is because women associate 'safety' and 'protection' with resources, or power in a male-dominated world. Because women have been conditioned into a masculine, facts-first epistemology in a male-dominated world. The day women start waking up to their own feminine power, which is more energetic and vibrational than physical, they will question the patriarchal conditioning that represses their femininity. And, because religion is a big part of this, questioning religion will improve their relationship to their sexuality and this will make them wake up to their emotional-needs. This will radically change their mating-choices! This is how I see this norm shifting. And, the fact that this system is coming down and the bullshittery of feminism is being exposed, also helps.

Women would look at who they are, what their own emotional-needs are and then, look for men who can meet those specific emotional-needs. This is the root-solution to the problem of hypergamy as we see today, actually. You can liken hypergamy to a 'rat-race' of sorts, where no matter how 'high-status' your man is, it doesn't fill the hole in your soul. That's why you have to monkey-branch. The actual solution is to do inner-work, to come to terms with what you actually need and to change your life-priorities radically. It's just not the norm cuz it's hard. And 'hard' is bad in a capitalistic, consumeristic society, so it's not the norm, it's not the 'trend'. As times get harder, this is what women will turn to.

Grifter. Mostly rhetoric, one chart with a couple of numbers with no explanation for them. Overall, intellectually dishonest.

It's not women pushing men into who they want them to be. It's other men! The more powerful men. They're in charge of the status-hierarchy, so they set the rules. And women are just trying to operate in this situation. Most women are hopelessly conditioned into this way of quantifying people's value, so the peer-pressure factor is also there.

It defines 'hypergamy' in a very one-dimensional, linear way. In terms of financial income or social-status. The reality is that this is because most people are indoctrinated into the patriarchal style of family. This is the role that women have been essentially forced to give men. Now, when women are able to go on their own, women's need for men changes. The roles that individual women give to individual men change! For example, some women may really value a man who's good with technology. Someone else may value a man who is adventurous and can lead the two of them on an adventure. Someone else may value a man who is able to lift stuff. Someone else may value a leader who is able to take the pressure of crises. If women are given more of a say in what the fundamental building-block of society should be, I am 100% sure they won't say 'a single family home'. It will be more community-oriented. And, the need for men in that kind of system radically changes. 'Hypergamy' the way redpill defines it, is not fundamental to human female nature. It's just the norm right now, in an unconscious society. It's the Ockham's razor explanation for female behavior, basically. Works for now, but isn't reliable long-term. It'll change as conditions change.

I'm not suggesting that we 'change mating-strategies'. I'm suggesting that we're fundamentally wrong about how it actually works. Because of the reductionism of redpill. How many women agree with redpill as a philosophy? Probably very few. This should give you a clue that something is wrong with it. And that what we think is 'natural' for humans specifically, isn't actually natural. Especially human females. For example, in a lot of species, the males will be stronger than the females. So, the males will fight over the females. But, humanity has managed to civilize ourselves and construct a system in which women are even getting a certain degree of equality! This would never be possible without a superior human brain. As women get more and more of a say in how they mate, the validity of patriarchal hierarchies to determine who's 'high-value' vs 'low-value' starts breaking down. Women will probably agree with me on this. And this is where redpill breaks down. It's not just that redpill benefits men and hurts women as a mating-strategy. It's that it's so wrong that it hurts men much moreso, actually!

@Consept You're right about lions. The problem is that a lot of human bullshit comes with having a well-developed human brain. Living a harmonious existence with nature isn't an automatic for us, we have to work towards it. Now, we rely on systems to have a relatively stable, orderly existence. And my suggestion is that we would need to set aside our biases to truly prioritize and take care of and troubleshoot our systems. The family-system being a huge candidate for this process.

@something_else I'm talking about redpill as a philosophy and the problems with it. I'm not telling anyone what they should/shouldn't do. That's your call.

People are not just commodities. They are creators. Of the very relationship/system they inhabit.

My entire point here is that commodification is reductionistic. From a systemic perspective, it doesn't hold up. And this is the problem with redpill.

You were warned that it is a biased example.

Both sides are doing it together. Both sides are independent agents with equal rights before the relationship is defined. In the big-picture, both sides must agree. However, when you get into the relationship and shit goes wrong, then the masculine side must take over and improvise on this stuff. The masculine side reserves the right to do that when push comes to shove.

Highly specific to the individuals. But, I can give you an example. The first thing to understand, is that a 'relationship', is a system. And, a system must have a purpose! So, the goal of the relationship must be defined. By the person in charge of the relationship, by the masculine figure. (I don't believe in the equality-stuff, I believe that a hierarchy results in better teamwork to get shit done) And agreed upon by both sides. Then, the roles must be defined. Clearly. For that, there must be a compatibility in values and priorities. The roles must be authentic to the individuals, the individuals must have the prep to take the roles on, and the roles must work well together in relation to one another. For example, if the 'goal' is a certain sexual experience, then the 'roles' will be the specific roles of the roleplay that you want to go for. That's how they work well together in relation to one another, because that masculine/feminine dynamic will work that way. Your egos will have needs. That you will want the relationship to meet. But, in the process of committing to and following through with your commitments to the relationship, you will want your relationship to take a shape and design such that it meets the ego-needs for all parties involved. And, ironically, in order to actually have that work, you will have to set your ego aside when it's time to do your due diligence in your roles, when it's time to do the duties your role asks for!

If you're making it all about the woman, you're enabling her being in her ego. That's not what I'm talking about. I said that both sides must set their egos aside. And you make it about the relationship, or the collective of the two of you, which is a third entity.

When you thanked her for sharing her life with you and explained why it was time for you to go your separate ways, that was a nice way to end it. But then, when you back-track and say you'd like to fix things, she'll see that as a b*tch-move. Especially if this was how she rationalized ending it with you to begin with. So, you doing something like this further reinforces her rationale and she'll have no moral repercussions blocking you.

Your business-model sounds more like a high-end club-membership for people who are sick of the rat-race and who want to advance to Green. In that case, I'd advise you to do some market-research on that front. What is that industry competing on?! And what are the priorities of that marketplace?! My uninformed opinion is that in that marketplace, the competition will be on price. Because who wouldn't want these services if they're affordable?! Everyone would! The issue is that most people can't afford them. And this sets you apart. And the challenges with this work are going to be logistic. So, do it if you are the type of person who is very resourceful logistically and can be one of the best in the marketplace at handling the back-end of this thing. If that's you, go for it!

Very high-end. You'd have to charge thousands of dollars per year for membership, especially for the live bands. Apart from that, I like the idea in which people come to socialize and grow together. However, I also think that you're going to have to give that 'growth' some structure. Cuz if you look at a university-environment, yes, kids want to socialize and grow together. But, without the institution and the professors, all they really do is party in frat-houses. And I don't think the 'wisdom mentors' belong in a gym. Cuz the gym is mostly populated by testosterone-filled guys who are pushing each other to do '5 MORE REPS!!' Unless the gym-owner is Tier-2. Then, you can really design some good systems to execute on these plans! And you should probably not include the 'group training sessions' in a gym. Most silicon valley types will actually frown upon your idea for a very simple reason - it focuses on too many things. A system generally has one purpose and all the parts are aiming towards a common goal. It seems to me that you haven't clearly defined your 'goal' yet. So, I'd suggest that you identify the common thread in all of these things that's really motivating you and choose a simpler idea to make it happen. Let's not ignore the marketing-challenge of marketing something that does too many things. What is the one thing that you're good at that you want to position yourself as?! Which marketplace do you want to position yourself in?! What's the unique value that you have to offer?! In business, profitability is everything. Especially long-term profitability. HTH!!

Quit porn. Avoid it as much as you can. Masturbation without external stimuli is not too detrimental.

The first thing I'd look into is whether their solution is surface-level or root-level. Cuz my biggest personal concern would be their potential relapse. There are really amazing people with dark pasts who solved their problems at the root-level and bettered their lives. So, I definitely wouldn't consider it a deal-breaker as it is.

I won't spell out the implications of this statement from him. I will let you folks read between the lines on this one.

I'll give you an example. Movies condition us to want to go for women who are light-hearted and bubbly in nature. That is our image of 'feminine radiance' that we're conditioned with, so to speak. Now, this is where I was coming from. And, I see this girl who is really serious. My first instinct was to blow her off, because 'she wasn't making me feel good'. But then, I realized that I knew nothing about her personality. She looked pretty decent, I was just making assumptions about her personality without knowing what I'm talking about. So, what I did is that I listened more closely to what she said. And, it turned out that she had some real wisdom! I developed an irresistible crush on her. She turns out to be the exact personality-type that I'm into! So, very strong warning to you to not assume that you know what you want. All that glitters is not gold and in the case of people, often-times, gold does not announce itself to you. You have to discover it.

Do you have an issue with silence? Cuz that's your opportunity to really connect and get to know them. If you don't really know someone, what would your 'chemistry' or 'spark' be based on? My fundamental question to you is - are you clear about what you want? Cuz if you're not, then rejecting someone who would've been a good option will feel like a self-betrayal to you. When it comes to connection, you hold a lot of the power. To connect with someone, is to see them for who they are. You may not like what you see, which is fine. But, when you say you can't connect with someone, you're saying that you can't see them. So, this is something that you can fix on your end. I don't think this is a good reason. 99% sure about that. This will feel unfair to them and this may make you feel guilty.

Did you have good reason to reject them? There's nothing wrong with rejection itself. There is something wrong with not giving people a fair chance though. That's what you could be feeling guilty about.