Chew211

Member
  • Content count

    267
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Chew211

  1. Don't take words like "you're creepy" at face value. If you were actually perceived as creepy she would have noped the flip out of there.
  2. Relationship categories (boyfriend-girlfriend, fuck-buddies, etc), love = exclusivity, the general dynamic of tying oneself down to the other, essentially crippling both parties into some sort of codependency for the sake of security, the necessity of marriage as goal of a sexual relationship (it CAN be a goal, but it doesn't have to implicitly be the case). People model their relationships off of romcoms, Disney movies, or hook-up culture, and follow the respective implicit rules without even being fully aware of them. This is just from the top of my head.
  3. From my experience, women tend to put in a lot of effort after she enters some sort of sexual relationship with you. Also the whole endeavor of overcoming my own limiting beliefs and getting what I want is an empowering reward in and of itself. If you don't like taking the lead, then you're not alone, you are in company with most men (and women).
  4. Not too experienced with asexuality, but romance is a social construct, and I've been more "aromantic" lately. This doesn't mean I don't have love for the other, but the way I structure my sexual relationships isn't based off of cultural tropes.
  5. Accept, yeah. But also work on it. Going to the gym, taking hairloss meds (cuz mpb), skin care routine, etc. Working on my looks helped me accept it, because I'm doing what I can, and that's enough. There are people that aren't as good looking who still have a good life, accepted by those around them, etc. There are ppl that are good looking but still fail at life.
  6. You'll get over the need with time most likely. No one really cares about your past, and so won't hold it against you. However if you bring up the past that means it's an issue at present. Perhaps you're looking for some sort of third party validation for pick up. Which of course, you don't need. You don't need forgiveness. Even if you actually get it, it won't be it. It might feel good for a woman to tell you it's normal, but nothing changes. Also, Saying "if I hadn't struggled we wouldn't be together" is like saying "if I wasn't born, I wouldn't have met you."
  7. This attitude might be your issue.
  8. You'd be worse, because nothing deep down would change. Before, by being a nice people pleaser you're avoiding the tension that you would encounter by being authentic in a given situation. By acting like a douche, you're also avoiding being authentic, and you deep down know it's not gonna work, so it's a self deception mechanism to make it seem like you're changing, but you're really not. You just gotta practice. Don't try to be a certain way, just go for what you want.
  9. Also general trial and error. Gotta get oriented in the real world so that you're not in your head all the time.
  10. This. You don't have to lay your intentions bare, but at the same time don't insinuate something long term. And also, if you feel that she is trying to change your mind, even after you tell her straight up you're not looking for something long term, then you gotta break it off, least you let a relationship rot in your hands.
  11. Do what you do with type 1, and the type 3s will show themselves the door. We could all be better with those type 2s, eh?
  12. Let it play out. More material to analyze.
  13. Affinity. Things like appearance is not something to look for, you can tell whether you're attracted or not in an instant. When you approach/interact, the thing to look for and build is affinity. Sometimes it takes a little digging. Dating is a way of building affinity. Sex is a way of building affinity. Getting married and having children is a way of building affinity. The above ways is how I would build affinity with a woman I'm sexually attracted to. But affinity itself, I try to look for/build in everything/everyone. Sometimes there's no affinity to be found and therefore nothing to build off of, so such things/people, I don't bother with.
  14. For guys, I would say trial and error. For girls, it's separating the wheat from the chaff. Women also have a shorter window of attractiveness than males, so most of them want to find a good dude to take care of them, which is why they invest a lot in the relationship if they are with a guy they like. They don't want the guy to leave. And if the guy is high quality (the type they want), then he could find someone else if he is displeased with the woman. The woman of course can find someone else too, but it gets difficult as they get older. A 40 year old guy (given he's in good shape and hasn't pissed away his life) has it so much better than a 40 year old woman. Even if a woman doesn't want to get married or anything, she would want to continue to attract high value companionship.
  15. Let us know how it goes!
  16. I sure am glad men aren't equally as ridiculous and equally susceptible to marketing/media telling us how we ought to be.
  17. Make your own dating system. I go for Lacanian Psychoanalysis as my theoretical base, and then just approaching as practical action. The issue with dating systems is that they're products meant to be sold. Even the people that get good from them only do so because they've discovered their own way of going about things.
  18. It's "normal". To abstract the idea if jelousy in psychoanalytic terms, you assume the other has your object of desire (whatever it might be, material or otherwise), and has access to an enjoyment that is cut off from you. The other is the subject presumed to enjoy. Now the thing it doesn't matter if the person your jealous of has the object of desire or not, you just assume they do. Getting over jelousy is to realize that no one has the object of desire, because by definition, once you attain it, it no longer is the object of desire. Use your emotions to fuel your growth.
  19. First off, I want to begin by saying this is a long post. It takes more than "typing your thoughts out in a few minutes" in order to challenge a paradigm and present alternatives. Brief Background: I first read the Rational Male and got introduced to Red Pill ideology the beginning of 2017. It was this year when I first dabbled in Game. The Rational Male completely changed my paradigm of relationships. It was a quick shift from my most blue mixed with immature green view of sex/romance/relationships to hard Orange. Early 2018, I went through a MGTOW phase. Late 2018 brief upshift into a stage green, hippie like view. 2019, got my head out of my ass, and started to get laid, but also the majority of the center of gravity moved back down to stage orange, and some of it went up to yellow. 2020, I started studying philosophy, critical theory, etc hardcore, which has given me more sophisticated models for looking at reality. Main Post The Rational Male is a very influential book in The Red Pill, and going through it will give you all the Red Pill fundamentals. The Red Pill community still holds the fundamentals in the book as universal truths, which is why it’s still stuck in 2013. In this post I will attack 3 of Rollo’s positions, from Lacanian (Psychoanalytic) and Dialectical Materialist positions. I will also criticize the Red Pill’s notions of masculinity and provide an alternative psychoanalytic model of looking at masculinity and femininity, and I’ll end it with a general attack on the Red Pill’s meta position. If there’s any questions you have, feel free to ask it in the thread. I will likely take time in answering questions that require a long explanation, so please don't sperg out on me for seemingly "hiding behind the fact that I am without knowledge" Muh Hypergamy This is the central tenet of The Rational Male, and by extension Red Pill Ideology. It is seen to be the cause of literally everything. On the surface the idea seems sound, and one can easily see it reflected in reality. The issue is that it confuses female ”mating strategy” in the present socio-economic circumstances as inherent to females as a part of their nature. Here’s the Red Pill worldview in a nutshell: Female Mating Strategy --> Male Mating Strategy --> Culture Essentially, the Red Pill perspective sees the female mating strategy as this unchangeable kernel which is to be adapted to. This is problematic for two reasons: 1. It’s a built in victimhood complex, because everything was/is/will be about reacting to Hypergamy, 2. It ignores/denies that material reality is what shapes our (rather flexible/adaptable) human nature, and actually thinks that it’s the other way around. We DO in fact change our material circumstances, as it is in our nature to do so, but it’s the material circumstances that’s the initial point. Here’s Reality in a nutshell: Socio-Economic Conditions <-->>> Culture <-->>> Mating Strategy Socio-Economic conditions include technological advancements, the general state of the economy, employment, social antagonisms (wealth disparity), the fact that most people are wage slaves who get their surplus value appropriated, the fact that in recent years more money has gone towards speculative investing than actual production, because it’s more profitable, etc. A few examples of Socio-Economic Conditions being the root cause of Mating Strategy: Boomers had more sex and got married earlier because the economic conditions of the post-war boom allowed them to buy a house and afford children. Most of them weren’t in dating purgatory for most of their early adult life like millennials. During the Bubble-Era in Japan’s late Showa period, people were having sex left-and-right. There was also a lot of cheating going on, but more so by men, because the corporate work culture still took most of their time, and for them it was natural to enjoy the nightlife after work. The bubble popped though, and now the birthrate is low, and a lot of people (men especially), aren’t having sex. Salaries have also dropped since the bubble era, which has made starting families difficult as well. This Vaush video showing male virginity in the U.S. skyrocketed after 2008. The Red Pill doesn’t like to think about Socio-Economic conditions because they’re methodological individualists incapable of seeing the big picture, and unable/unwilling to learn complicated models of reality. What I’ve argued so far might not have disproved Hypergamy itself, but hopefully I’ve at least taken it off the pedestal Red Pill Notions of Masculinity and Femininity The Red Pill bases its theories of masculinity and femininity (which include Hypergamy) on (pseudo) Evolutionary Psychology and Behaviorism. They extrapolate on the idea that the goal of genes is to be passed down and we are mere vessels for doing that. It’s not a bad idea, and Evolutionary Psychology isn’t a BS field by any means, however the Red Pill tries to boil down all human behavior to the goal of passing down one’s genes. Nevermind that they get wrong that it’s on the level of the individual genes where the theory applies, not on the level of individual organisms-- but also, Evolutionary Psychology doesn’t explain things like fetishisms, desires that aren’t correlated with reproductive success, why there’s people that cut off their own genitals, etc. General American Psychology (the predominant Psychological authority in the world today) would dismiss anything that falls out of their framework for “normal people” as abnormal psychology. Psychoanalysis encompasses it all, and takes more things into account. This post isn’t about Psychoanalysis itself, so I’ll just stick to introducing a Freudian/Lacanian model for masculinity and femininity in the next section. The next section is an optional read for those only interested in why the Red Pill is wrong, and are not interested in alternative models. Phallic and Non-Phallic Sexuality When asked to define masculinity, the Red Pill, along with most people in general, would give a list of qualities. Even in Leo’s video How to be Man part 1, he debunks other mainstream definitions, and gives his own list. For example, one of the qualities was “icy”. Femininity is also given a list of qualities, one such quality being submissive. Obviously the issue with this is that it’s too narrow, and that masculinity and femininity have different forms of expressing itself. Psychoanalysis offers a more universal way of looking at masculinity and femininity, through the concept of the Phallus. Disclaimer: in Psychoanalysis, words don’t have fixed definitions. This includes terms like “men” and “women”. You might be a biological male who might have a non-phallic sexuality, in which case, according to the psychological model, you can be considered a “woman”. You might be a biological female, but in the context of your professional life, the psychoanalytic model will treat you as a “man”. You will see why below. Men have a phallic sexuality, and women have a phallic AND non-phallic sexuality. The more phallic you are, the more you care about numbers, size, expansion, etc. Non-phallic sexuality is a mystery-- there’s a connection to the infinite there. Phallic sexuality is easy to understand, and no one understands non-phallic sexuality. The idea that women are only into looks, money, big dicks, etc is assuming that there’s only phallic sexuality at play. The more feminine a woman is, the more non-phallic she is, and therefore the more random factors there are to her sexuality. The issue is that non-phallic sexuality isn’t observable. The more phallic you are, the more masculine you are, and therefore more engaged in metaphorical (and at times literal) dick measuring contests. The phallus is your metaphorical (and at times, your literal) dick. The phallus could be your performance in something, your strength, your skills, your money, your wife, etc. Men want to have the phallus, and women want to be the phallus. The issue is that men don’t have the phallus. Not having the phallus gives us anxiety... the technical term is castration anxiety. This castration anxiety pushes men to compensate for not having the phallus. This compensation is growth. For example, a guy can’t get laid, so he does things like hit the gym, study pick up, etc. Then he goes out into the field, and gets laid. Obviously nowadays, most guys aren’t like the men I described above. Indeed, they are less masculine. Instead of pushing themselves to grow, they cope with jouissance, which is a cycle of frustration and release from the frustration. An easy example of jouissance is porn use. Guy can't get laid, is sexually frustrated, so he consumes porn. The word jouissance comes from the French word meaning orgasm, so with porn use, you have a literal jouissance cycle. Alpha-Beta Dichotomy Some people don’t like these labels, but I’ll use them for the sake of my argument. Alpha and Beta are the two classifications of men. Alpha means you have a strong frame, you're confident, and you get laid. Beta means you're a nice guy chump, you’re at the bottom of the social totem pole, and you don’t get laid/ you're a doormat for your girlfriend/wife. I’m not going to deny that there are indeed these two general categories, but the issue is that these qualities are seen to be essential parts of an individual. It’s as if being Alpha or Beta is a trait IN you, when in fact, it’s not. It’s about where you happen to be in a socio-economic network. The rise of Beta males who can’t get laid isn’t simply because of the culture. The culture doesn’t just decide to change on a whim-- it’s affected by socio-economic conditions. The prevailing conditions for most males in post-Industrial nations are as follows: working at least 8 hours a day, due to technological advancements, more work and therefore more stress is placed on each individual culture, most workplaces and schools now train most people to be obedient wage slaves who need to be told what to do and are overly reliant on an inorganic system to regulate their social relations (think corporate work culture). Most men are Beta males because they must be in order to keep the economy running-- and Capitalism is about infinite expansion on finite mediums, and extracting surplus from workers. An Alpha is someone with surplus. Surplus time, energy, money, muscles, etc. It’s a contextual determination, so let’s say if you’re in a workplace full of nerds, but you workout, in that environment you’ll be more Alpha because you have more (muscles) than everyone around you-- adjusting for everything else, of course. Red Pill ideology is about apeing Alphas. It’s about appearing to have surplus, when in most cases you don’t. In this way the Red Pill sexual strategy is not holistic. The Red Pill is full of Beta Males. Sure, technique matters in Game. But what’s more important than Game is your infrastructure. The less of your productive hours are sapped by your employer, the more you have to build up yourself. Build up yourself, go to a place with a lot of attractive women, minimize the amount of wage labor you have to do, and boom, you’re an Alpha. LMS and Confidence Either it’s all about looks, money, status, or “just be confident, bro”. Here’s what’s wrong with LMS: Money itself doesn’t attract most women. It’s the surplus that comes with it that’s attractive. Women that are after money itself are gold diggers, who are relatively few in number. Status is context dependent, and the whole point of cold approach and Online Game is that it doesn’t matter. Also, society itself is becoming more alienated, so status matters a lot less than it did before. As for Looks, gets your foot in the door, but if you’re taking initiative after moving to a high-volume area, it’ll be impossible NOT to get laid (unless you have other issues). The issue with confidence: If you have enough confidence to take action, then that’s all you need. The Red Pill is overly concerned with appearing confident and making their approach smooth, etc. Confidence doesn’t matter as much as taking the right action is. In fact, you gotta take risks to grow, and when you’re taking risks it’s natural to not feel confident. You just gotta do it anyway. Confidence will grow as a side effect. “Just build up surplus, bro.” Rational Males The Red Pill assumes that it is free from ideology, and has an objective world view. They look down on philosophy as irrelevant BS, and consider themselves free of any psychological biases. Never mind that Rationalism and Empiricism are philosophical positions. If you have read the Rational Male or posts on the Red Pill you can easily find emotions, sentimentality, and ideological leanings. The Red Pill also assumes a position of being outside of the system. The people of the Red Pill take the position of detached observers looking at the “system”, but they don’t realize that them being detached observers is also part of the overall system. That position, along with, and going hand in hand with being methodological individuals, is the reason why they can’t change anything in the world. They think they’re gaming the system when in fact they are behaving exactly how the system wants them to behave. If being red pilled means being free from delusions, the Red Pill is not. Real red pills The following are books I recommend to get a good holistic model, in which mating strategy has a part. Trying to study mating strategy independent of everything else is a problem in and of itself. Lacan for Beginners, Phillip Hill Intro to Lacanian Psychoanalysis Sublime Object of Ideology, Slavoj Zizek Teaches and ties together the ideas of many thinkers Pretty difficult book though, I don’t recommend going at it on your own Might be better reading the other recommended books before touching this one A Companion to Marx’s Capital, David Harvey Reading the first 2 chapters of this book will cover the first 3 chapters of Marx’s Capital, which gives you the fundamentals. A lot of you have your own preconceived notions of Marx. Ignore them and read this. The Accursed Share, Georges Bataille This book is centered on surplus Read the first 2 chapters of David Harvey’s book first. Ideology and State Ideological Apparatuses, Louis Althusser about how and why the system shapes us to be the way we are Can be read on it’s own, imo, but I’d recommend the first two chapters of DAvid Harvey first Critique of Liberal Ideology, Alain de Benoist The author is right-wing, but incorporates left-wing ideas as well Again, get over your distaste of people of this political stripe, and read this
  20. Coral is the Red of Tier 2. There's a good talk on it I listened to a few years back by M.A. Carrano. So far none of the answers here come close.
  21. It's usually not the persistence itself that does the winning over. A woman has a life too, and depending on where she is with her life, she might be receptive to someone pursuing her or not. Most women usually aren't receptive if they have a boyfriend. However some women go on a dating spree after a breakup, and so easy to get with during that time period. Then again, if she's in that state, she might be dtf, but not looking for anything beyond that. Those are just two specific examples. As a guy of course, it's not in your best interest to be persistent with a woman in the long run. You could have met several women that would have given you a more fulfilling experience in the meantime.
  22. Lol, don't hate on @Vzdoh, especially those that complain "women aren't honest about what they want" she's being really honest here. Being at least a 6 is easy. On top of that going to areas where there are more hot women means that it's easier to get with women in general-- supply and demand. That being said, if deep down you think you're not good enough, overcompensating by being cocky is emphasizing your insecurity. You need reference experience. Which is done by actually approaching. You need to legit not care about a woman's opinion of you.
  23. Not cool man, you made her insecure enough to post pics of herself on the forum for guys to rate.
  24. How are guys who are r4-5 at best supposed to behave?
  25. Oh look, I found the answer in your question.