Don't tell me that this insane approach actually works on girls

[Raze]

34 minutes ago, aurum said:

My guess is you want to believe that because you think women shouldn't be attracted to the men they are.

But maybe you're the one that is wrong. Maybe they should be attracted to exactly who they are attracted to.

It’s not about right or wrong, it’s about what’s sustainable and what they themselves say they want. In that regard, yes some traits they go for are wrong. And really the idea that this wouldn’t be the case is illogical if you understand how attraction actually works and where it comes from.

34 minutes ago, aurum said:

The standards they set are mostly very reasonable.

The standards are often contradictory with each other and what they themselves go for, which is exactly the point I am making, so no they aren’t.

34 minutes ago, aurum said:

That's not the debate.

Of course women's empowerment has affected dating.

Overall, it has been a net-positive.

So on one hand you acknowledge the system has issues, but one of the biggest relevant factors is irrelevant? Things like a PUA industry, radical movements like incel, FDS, etc. are all signs of the system failing. Also a high rate of things like infidelity, divorce, single parenthood, singledom, and low rates of marriage and fertility, are signs the market inputs are failing. 

Edited June 3 by Raze

[Leo Gura]

33 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

When I do this to Scandinavian women, they just run away 

You should try it on Saudi women.

Works every time.

[Ajay0]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It is an interesting observation that the less dignified the society (more rapists around) the more women must be "decent" (cover up).

To a large extent it has to do with the culture that emphasizes chastity or brahmacharya. 

Indian martial arts, yoga and spiritual practices , eastern medical systems, put a lot of emphasis on brahmacharya, and consequently women who bare a lot are frowned upon. The eastern perspective is that sexual energy , if properly channeled to higher states releases auspicious energies.

In earlier times of extreme prosperity centuries back in India, there was a focus on left-handed tantra which saw sex as a tool for spiritual growth and inner bliss with the proper tantric methods. This is why you can see some ancient temples in India with sculptures of sexual positions and naked people.

It was not mindless hedonism and sexual activity, because the unregulated sexual discharge reduces significantly the prana/chi in the system, resulting in misery and irritability later on . 

[aurum]

2 hours ago, Raze said:

It’s not about right or wrong, it’s about what’s sustainable and what they themselves say they want. In that regard, yes some traits they go for are wrong. And really the idea that this wouldn’t be the case is illogical if you understand how attraction actually works and where it comes from.

What traits?

2 hours ago, Raze said:

The standards are often contradictory with each other and what they themselves go for, which is exactly the point I am making, so no they aren’t

What standards?

2 hours ago, Raze said:

So on one hand you acknowledge the system has issues, but one of the biggest relevant factors is irrelevant? Things like a PUA industry, radical movements like incel, FDS, etc. are all signs of the system failing. Also a high rate of things like infidelity, divorce, single parenthood, singledom, and low rates of marriage and fertility, are signs the market inputs are failing. 

Nothing is failing. Society is adjusting and we will get through this. 

It's not women's empowerment is irrelevant, it's that fallout from feminism is not about women doing whatever they can to sabotage men's dating prospects. I'm taking issue with how you exaggerate and frame the situation as excessively confrontational. It exacerbates a victim mentality around dating and the gender wars, beyond just being bad sense-making.

Also, women's empowerment has significantly improved your ability as a man to have casual sex because it brought us sexual liberation. Don't forget what it was really like pre-feminism. People couldn't even masturbate without it being a crime against God.

Edited June 3 by aurum

[Princess Arabia]

@aurumYou're making some really good points here. 

[Raze]

12 hours ago, aurum said:

What traits?

Studies find women are more attracted to men higher in dark triad traits, disagreeableness, and you can find plenty of women themselves on attachment issue videos discussing how they are drawn to toxic men for starters. On average they want a man who earns as much or more than them, which becomes an issue when they are also in the workforce and outcompeting many men.

Another is preselection and wanting men who are smooth or great in bed, these are all signals he has been with many women. Even something as simple as confidence, how do you get more confident? By doing something a lot. A guy who has approached 1000 women will approach more confidently than a guy who did it once, but does that mean he would actually be a better prospect? You can also have delusional confidence such as being high in narcissism.

 It makes sense biologically when we lived in tribal collective societies which is what we evolved for, but if you want loyal and caring partners long term in modern society being drawn to massive players isn’t an asset. 

12 hours ago, aurum said:

What standards?

Women make it socially taboo to approach them. The wider culture they push is constantly demonizing men for approaching women. I can give plenty of examples if you don’t believe me. You may deny this, but that’s because you have influence from the pickup industry possibly through Leo, but that itself is a underground subculture because women push against most mainstream truly effective dating advice for men. It’s now taboo to approach women in their day to day lives, or at places like work that used to be commonplace, at least that is the messages men who listen to the social conditioning get. You even get mixed messages from women saying they want to get to ‘know a guy as friends first, but then bemoaning how their male friends eventfully pursue them romantically. 

You yourself brought up looking for signals. This is also told to men, but it’s nonsense. Studies find men are bad at reading signals and usually assume things that aren’t signals are, and when they aren’t it messes with their head and they become paranoid about misreading them. At the same time most women don’t give signals, in fact they will purposefully scowl and look away, but if you do cold approach you’d know how often you can approach anyway and it goes great.  
This is yet another duality that causes problems. A man who doesn’t want to offend or bother women will fixate on looking for signals, he now has a massive disadvantage to the guy who doesn’t care and approaches all without looking for a signal. Whereas he limits his prospects massively and will spend time overthinking before going for it damaging his approach, the other guy may get rejected more but he will get more results. And again, women themselves will say they don’t signal or give signals that are so small there is no objective way of knowing it’s a signal. 

At the same time, they demand men chase and aggressively pursue them, even discussing how they purposefully make themselves unapproachable.  

I saw a New York post Article about how the PUA Todd v was teaching students at some park and women walking there kept getting approached, and the article called them creeps and perverts and celebrated some random musician who tried to embarrass them. Then a couple years later the post had a new article from a woman talking about how men should be approaching women. 

This discourages men higher in empathy or with less experience, and gives a massive advantage to players. A study was done where they measured men for narcisissm then had them approach women, and found that the higher the narcissism the more likely the approach would succeed. I’ve seen PUA instructors discuss how if they got a sociopathic student they’d usually do much better. It isn’t normal for a guy to brush off hundreds of rejections feeling nothing and walk up to complete strangers being confident. If they do they either have some psychological issue that stops the social conditioning from penetrating, or they’re a PUA with tons of practice, either way that isn’t an indicator of them being a better long term partner, but it is what is encouraged. Then these traits will have other side effects, and you’ll see the women complaining men are jerks and used her, see the situationship discourse, and now she is just embittered towards men as a group.

Women when they say their standards usually basically ask for men to be simps. They’ll say they just want kindness and he should pay for dates and buy gifts. There is even a new phenemeon of “if he wanted to he would” which is basically covert contracts about wanting the guy to support them in ways he wouldn’t even realize. The average guy without access to underground advice will believe this and get destroyed, it’s very common for a guy who pursues women this way to be put on a multiple date track before she gets at all sexual with him because she sees him as a long term prospect, meanwhile she sleeps with a player type right away, and often this bonds with him and she ends up dropping the long term prospect. This results in the bitterness you see from “nice guys” or redpillers. But guess what, rather than acknowledge this they just double down. 

I’ll attach some more examples of the kinds of confusion guys will face.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 3 by Raze

[Raze]

8 hours ago, aurum said:

 

Also, women's empowerment has significantly improved your ability as a man to have casual sex because it brought us sexual liberation. Don't forget what it was really like pre-feminism. People couldn't even masturbate without it being a crime against God.

Casual dating success can be an advantage for an individual, but it is detrimental for the wider society.

Every enduring civilization valued chastity and long term relationships.

It’s pretty obvious why. We see now a disproportionate amount of young males single than women, because when dating is casual one high smv man can occupy the attention of many women. This will make the women bitter because his options makes him cherish them less, and make the other men even worse with women as without abundance or experience they become even less confident, awkward, and desperate. This makes it even harder for them, and women will dislike them even more in comparison to the men they dated before. Historical analysis finds large amounts of single men results in societal instability. We aren’t seeing that now because they’re occupied by vices, but we are seeing a massive drain of potential, there are more working age men in the USA not working or looking for work than there were unemplyed during the Great Depression.

Aside from obvious issues like STDS and out of wedlocke births, studies find men and women with higher partner counts are more likely to divorce and be less satisfied in relationships. Before you say correlation not causation, other studies controlled for relevant factors and still found this trend.

 

Edited June 3 by Raze

[aurum]

1 hour ago, Princess Arabia said:

@aurumYou're making some really good points here. 

Thanks, I appreciate that

[Princess Arabia]

@RazeYoure not going to find women talking on camera and making a big deal about being attracted to "non-toxic" men. The only reason it's being talked about is because of its essence. How much "non-drama" situations do you see getting exposed. They do exist, you know. No one cares, everyone loves drama. Drama sells. So when you see these things on social media maybe they are the exceptions and not the norm or rule.

Edited June 3 by Princess Arabia

[Tenebroso]

@Raze Your spot on but any scrutiny of women's role in the current dating dynamic will be met with hostility.

[Schizophonia]

I never saw anybody who suffered a shitstorm for having politely approached a girl....

[something_else]

2 hours ago, Raze said:

Aside from obvious issues like STDS and out of wedlocke births, studies find men and women with higher partner counts are more likely to divorce and be less satisfied in relationships

You made good points in this comment. However on this point in particular, the studies I've seen are never particularly convincing. IIRC there is a massive jump in divorce rate between 0 and 1 premarital partners and a minor but not especially significant jump between 1 premarital partner and 10+

The issue is that a majority of people with 0 premarital partners are heavily religious and would be prevented or discouraged from getting divorced even if it was the right decision.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

5 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

@aurumYou're making some really good points here. 

I know, he's shredding this one isn't he? 

@aurum reppin 💪 

I haven't added anything as he's got it covered. 

Just sitting in the corner nodding 🫡

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

I never saw anybody who suffered a shitstorm for having politely approached a girl....

I got clawed by a girl's drunk friend once. Made me bleed from my neck.

But that's the cost of getting laid.

In a sense, girls behavior is designed to screen out weak men with zero self-confidence and zero leadership ability.

A girl is supposed to tell you No, and as a man you're not supposed to care. That's a test of leadership. A leader leads even when people naysay him.

Imagine if some girl told me that Actualized.org is stupid and I should quit. Would I care? No. Why? Because I know what is right and I have confidence in myself. But if I was weak I might take her seriously and actually quit.

That's what it means to be a man. As a man a girl is supposed to tell you stupid things and you're supposed to not let it take you off your course.

A real man doesn't need permission to approach a girl he likes. Men who are too weak to approach weed themselves out of the gene pool.

Edited June 3 by Leo Gura

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 hours ago, Tenebroso said:

@Raze Your spot on but any scrutiny of women's role in the current dating dynamic will be met with hostility.

Not hostile, more confused. This is an enlightenment and spirituality forum. Consciousness is meant to be RAISED, but there is this large aspect that is holding you back. You won't reach enlightenment with these beliefs.

Others here are trying to help you break through it. 

[Raze]

1 hour ago, something_else said:

You made good points in this comment. However on this point in particular, the studies I've seen are never particularly convincing. IIRC there is a massive jump in divorce rate between 0 and 1 premarital partners and a minor but not especially significant jump between 1 premarital partner and 10+

The issue is that a majority of people with 0 premarital partners are heavily religious and would be prevented or discouraged from getting divorced even if it was the right decision.

These are studies that controlled for such factors and still found a trend:

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-25811-011

"Both structural equation and group comparison analyses demonstrated that sexual restraint was associated with better relationship outcomes, even when controlling for education, the number of sexual partners, religiosity, and relationship length."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pere.12009

"The research objective was to test whether the number of sexual partners was associated with sexual quality, communication, relationship satisfaction, and relationship stability, while controlling for relationship length, education, race, income, age, and religiosity, using the two competing theories of sexual compatibility and sexual restraint. The results, with a sample of 2,654 married individuals, indicated that the number of sexual partners was associated with lower levels of sexual quality, communication, and relationship stability, providing support for the sexual restraint theory."

[Raze]

2 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

I never saw anybody who suffered a shitstorm for having politely approached a girl....

Yes and I never have. I know it isn’t common. It’s probably more common if you lack social skills.

But it’s also not common for women to be attacked by a random male, yet women fear it because they see examples of it.

Also the issue I was pointing out was the wider trend of societal etiquette. If a woman records a guy approaching her secretly and uploads it, you can bet people will bash him especially if he does so poorly. When guys see this social standard, many of them will not approach. But now it gives an advantage to those who ignore social standards. But is that a good thing for women? 

And that’s just one example, there are other areas with similar issues. 
 

Cold approach itself is unnatural and essentially is a social cheat code, you don’t see things like the PUA industry popping up in other countries where their dating markets aren’t as broken because the demand for such help isn’t enough for businesses to form. 

Edited June 3 by Raze

[koops]

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I got clawed by a girl's drunk friend once. Made me bleed from my neck.

But that's the cost of getting laid.

LOL

[Schizophonia]

15 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I got clawed by a girl's drunk friend once. Made me bleed from my neck.

But that's the cost of getting laid.

 

Yes but you flirt with drunk people in las vegas clubs 😂

I meant it never happens or almost in a "normal" context (bars, school, group of friends...)

[Raze]

1 minute ago, Schizophonia said:

Yes but you flirt with drunk people in las vegas clubs 😂

I meant it never happens or almost in a "normal" context (bars, school, group of friends...)

In bars you have to deal with higher competition and people putting their walls up. A woman who tells guys to F off in a bar can be sweet and polite outside of it because of the environment.

Environments like school and friends where you have a reputation are in some ways harder to manage because if you mess up your repetition is at risk.