Jordan Peterson on Incels and Female Hypergamy

[CreamCat]

@aurum You make me interested in PUA although I'm becoming okay with just being without anything fancy in my life.

In the past, I was kind of reluctant to try it because the results I can realistically get with short stature, average face, and very little money would not be great.

It turns out that not having been in relationships with women was good for my dwindling finance.

Edited July 11, 2018 by CreamCat

[CreamCat]

@Emerald I don't think women are supposed to think of themselves as sex objects. That sounds like masturbation. Would it help to think of men as sex objects instead?

Note that men view themselves as success objects because access to sex for men boils down to wealth and resourcefulness. Women are drawn to men who already have resources or are resourceful.

It seems that you're worried about your diminishing sexual market value. Sexual market value matters only in social contexts. It seems to me that it boils down to who's the coolest girl in your town. If you surrendered your social life, you would be more internally grounded. Note that surrendering your social life doesn't mean abandoning your family and living in monastery.

Fashion and physical attractiveness are one facet of social competition among women. Another facet is how desirable your husband is to other women. Material success is how men participate in social competition.

I know it's difficult to let go of social competition because it is stimulating. It was easier for me to let go of social competition because I have lived in social isolation for many years.

It was difficult to let go of material success for me. Letting go of material success felt like death. But, surrender was aided by social isolation.

Edited July 11, 2018 by CreamCat

[CreamCat]

@Emerald 

Quote

I really don't think you quite understand what I'm saying.

...

It's about deep conditionings that I've yet to be able to drop, despite years of inner work, because I have needs that conflict with dropping it.

You are vague about your needs. That's why I don't understand it. If you don't want to talk about it, don't.

Quote

But no, it's not even possible for me to derive pleasure by looking at men as sexual objects. Men are only attractive to me as fully formed human beings with autonomy and personalities.

I read in a book that women are drawn to success and winners of competitions.

Wealth and power indicate success in the past. Resourcefulness predicts success in the future. For example, humor predicts social success, so women like men who are witty with humors. I was able to pass a job interview with my wits in the past.

Perhaps, that's why I was harsh on myself for not having been successful with my career. Career failure felt like death to me.

Quote

But my question is, when do I finally transcend this illusion of being an object and feel fully human and valid? And if I do transcend that illusion, will I still feel like I'm allowed to have sexual desires? 

Perhaps, your body is an object. It is a truth. My body is an object, too.

Humans are basically biological machines and physical objects genetically designed to be used for purposes. History proves that men were used as death objects in wars. Men take orders and die in wars, mines, etc, ... Women as sex objects. Men as success objects. Men can also be used as sex objects by some women who wish to do so. I saw some women who wanted to use male olympic athletes as their sex objects. They were fun creatures to watch.

But, you are not your body. You are not a human being although you are affected by your biology and your culture.

You have to adjust your expectations realistically. It's going to take a lot more emotional labor than you expected. Also, be open-minded about spirituality. Perhaps, spirituality itself is just as much an ideology as money ideology.

I kind of accepted the fact that I'm pretty much worthless to me and others. Accepting insignificance of your own existence can be a good starting point. When you accept your own worthlessness, you are free. Self acceptance is to accept your worthlessness.

Edited July 11, 2018 by CreamCat

[now is forever]

2 hours ago, CreamCat said:

I don't think women are supposed to think of themselves as sex objects. That sounds like masturbation. Would it help to think of men as sex objects instead?

Note that men view themselves as success objects because access to sex for men boils down to wealth and resourcefulness. Women are drawn to men who already have resources or are resourceful.

It seems that you're worried about your diminishing sexual market value. Sexual market value matters only in social contexts. It seems to me that it boils down to who's the coolest girl in your town. If you surrendered your social life, you would be more internally grounded. Note that surrendering your social life doesn't mean abandoning your life and living in monastery.

Fashion and physical attractiveness are one facet of social competition among women. Another facet is how desirable your husband is to other women. Material success is how men participate in social competition.

I know it's difficult to let go of social competition because it is stimulating. It was easier for me to let go of social competition because I have lived in social isolation for many years.

It was difficult to let go of material success for me. Letting go of material success felt like death. But, surrender was aided by social isolation.

very good questions - something to unwire there.

women are supposed to not think about themselves as sex objects - the supposed is the problem sometimes, in a western society we live in this bubble of autonomie, where we sometimes forget how women are treated outside, or even in other parts of society. woman trafficking is just one part of it, and in some areas on the world women can‘t go on the streets alone without fear. and with new tools like tinder even young girls participate in it, without even realizing it.

if we try to ignore that we are naive if we try to talk about it we are manlike emancipated.

this contradiction still plays a role in modern societies. 

because it happens every day, as long as women sexuality really is a capital.

even marriage was something like that and in some countries still is. it is money support and law protection, and ideology protection.

that‘s why law and money should be separated - also in sense of the family. we can even go further and separate spirituality and law and money.

in the end we need to protect the idea of love and family somehow - if it is a love of caring. and we have to protect the caring part especially. if it is a male or a female or both or a community. that would be the synthesis.

so to go back to the political discussion - of the first video, maybe it’s getting more understandable now.

while one is talking about liberal free sex, the other is talking about protection of those who have to be protected. 

 

 

if it would help to see men as an object - well sometimes we treat men as objects too. we only buy what we like and only wear what we like - of course we go for luxourious ones. means we go for the ones we like.

 

Edited July 11, 2018 by now is forever

[Leo Gura]

@aurum Don't get me started on the delusions that pervade PUA culture. I know them all too well.

You can do all the spiritual work you want, but the fact remains that PUA is an escape from the real inner work. When you get to real spiritual work PUA will fly out the window as delusional nonsense.

I am not going to argue with you about it. You can figure it out on your own. All the points I made are still valid, despite your rebuttals.

With all that said, I don't object to talking to girls in clubs to improve your game. What I object to is the toxic anti-woman ideology that comes with it.

PUA is like Islam. Good in theory but often ugly in practice.

I know most of the RSD instructors. They are very immature and dysfunctional. With that said, yes, they still help lots of guys. They helped me. But you also gotta move on.

The sad irony is, all these mens rights movements are way more ugly and toxic than feminism. Which is precisely why all this hatred of feminism exists. It's just compensation for one's own inadequacies.

[CreamCat]

40 minutes ago, now is forever said:

in a western society we live in this bubble of autonomie, where we sometimes forget how women are treated outside, or even in other parts of society. woman trafficking is just one part of it, and in some areas on the world women can‘t go on the streets alone without fear. and with new tools like tinder even young girls participate in it, without even realizing it.

I think you are looking at only half the problem. Women and men are both objects to be used. Why would society let men roam freely when they can be used as valuable resources? If I was a Red person, I would probably screw everyone over, regardless of their genders.

Where it's dangerous for women to go out, it's dangerous for men to go out, too because the area is infested by gangsters. Gangsters are dangerous to both men and women. Gangsters themselves are resources to be used for the benefits of gang leaders. Red is the culture of resource extraction and paperclip maximization. In their view points, humans are just resources to be turned into paperclips.

Fortunately, in regions where modern policing evolved, Red is suppressed.

Edited July 11, 2018 by CreamCat

[now is forever]

@CreamCat yes you are right - i represent more the female side, naturally, don’t want to offend.

i know there are a lot of good guys out there - and i know what you are talking about. there where some incidents where couples where involved together, too. but male most of the time don’t get raped. i am talking about sexual capital while life is another thing.

what i just wanted to do is breaking it down to the point where it would be good to separate spirituality and law and money - in the sense of politics.

partly we can do that in our private life but it will always be either a cave or a cage for someone.

 

and in the end we totally forgot about the neutrals - the children are also encaged in that, they should be the ones protected mostly. by law and money and spirituality. and sometimes from it. so they can be healthy yins and healthy yangs or oneness.

Edited July 11, 2018 by now is forever

[SFRL]

 

What's going on in this Forum is something that Historians call "The Balance of power"

On this forum you basically got 3 factions:

 

Alpha/Red-Pill/PUA = Dicks

Beta-Males/Blue-Pill = Pussys 

Feminists = Assholes

 

I have seen this happen plenty of times. When the Dicks on this forum stop posting for a while then the Assholes move in and start telling the Pussys what to do. And the Pussys think they like that. 

Then shortly after all that is left are Beta Males starting threads whining and wallowing in self-pitty. And this place turns into Beta-Bitch Ville. 

Then again the Dicks need to be realed in a bit sometimes otherwise they go on a feeding frenzy. 

And the Assholes....well sometimes they need a Dick to loosen up a little. 

We all need each other ?

If there is no balance of power then there will be war and this will not be a very fertile place. 

 

Edited July 11, 2018 by SFRL

[CreamCat]

@SFRL Leo is pretty alpha, though. I'm neither a dick, a pussy, nor an asshole. Your model doesn't seem to fit this forum too well.

[DoubleYou]

People claiming to be "alpha" while their entire well-being is determined by having to sleep with / having a relationship with the opposite sex always seemed funny to me. 

[MM1988]

To clear up the discussion from all these subjective opinions here are some handy infographics from a scientific perspective.

 

 

 

 

[SFRL]

1 hour ago, CreamCat said:

@SFRL Leo is pretty alpha, though. I'm neither a dick, a pussy, nor an asshole. Your model doesn't seem to fit this forum too well.

I think it's about 9/10 perfect 

[intrastellar]

13 hours ago, Emerald said:

But that's only because they feel powerless, and they want to blame someone for that powerlessness. The best advice I can give to them is to get away from the computer and interact with real people in life. It's the isolation behind a computer screen that takes the humanity out of all interactions. If Tinder is the only dating experience that someone's had, it's really distorting natural dynamics. And it's easy to confabulate the worst narratives around women's attraction because it doesn't work similarly to men's attraction. 

1 hour ago, brovakhiin said:

Really important point here, this is red pill in a nutshell. Moving from a 'me vs them' frame to a 'we're all humans in this together frame' alone would change your life, OP.

That's not only redpill in a nutshell, but the dynamic of the other side as well. Both the female and the male perspective here are basically saying: "look at us, we suffer and they don't." And when then examples are presented for how the other side suffers too the reaction is: "yeah they might suffer a bit here and there but WE suffer way more!". Thats me/us vs them - on both sides. Both sides assume that the grass on the other side is greener.

There's value in the female perspective for men as is in the male perspective for women. But not to use it to argue against the other side to validate your own suffering but to understand that we're all in this together! We all suffer. Life is suffering. 

When you understand that the other suffers too and is not that perfect, ideal, privileged... person that you assumed he/she was, it opens you up to see that we can help each other. Then this whole interaction becomes about giving instead of taking from the other.

Looking at it this way makes you way less needy which I guess makes you as a side effect more attractive .

 

[Elisabeth]

27 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

All I can say is if Jordan Peterson is the gold standard, I should have no problem in the Personal Development field as a future contributor myself.  I mean, this is the level of what people find good in personal development teachers?  Get outta here!  Really?  

 

Go learn to speak in a captivating way like Jordan Petterson, telling a handful of stories every three minutes and making stuff relevant to your audience while showing genuine care. (And also, be a uni professor.) You'll get the following no matter how flawed your teaching. Until that, stop bragging. 

He's a great speaker, that's what he is. And he's got a firm grasp on a few things. It's hard to distinguish bullshit from truth in a charismatic speaker. 

[kingroboto]

Lol... ok sir, go start your personal development empire. 

 

[intrastellar]

31 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

All I can say is if Jordan Peterson is the gold standard, I should have no problem in the Personal Development field as a future contributor myself.  I mean, this is the level of what people find good in personal development teachers?  Get outta here!  Really?  There is a real lack of smart personal development teachers in our culture.  You either got teachers who are acting outside of their actual attainment, or teachers who are in La La Land.  Both are no good.  What makes Jordan Peterson’s success possible at all is lack of better personal development teachers.  Sure, if Michael Jordan didn’t exist, any schmo playing basketball at home would probably feel pretty good, right.  But that dude knows he ain’t squat compared to Michael Jordan when it comes down to his game.  Personal Development as a field is still so infantile in Western Culture that people who shouldn’t be listened to so much are taking up all the oxygen in the room.  Time will correct this.  Personal Development is only just starting to blossom in the West.  In our lifetime we will see the full bloom of it.  And these clingers-on will be chopped off by the Collective Ego which will eventually notice better alternatives out there.  Right now we’re in kind of a Wild West period in Personal Development.

Who said that Jordan Peterson is the gold standard?  Is there even a gold standard for personal development? For me personal development was always in the spirit of this quote my Bruce Lee:

Quote

Absorb what is useful, discard what is useless and add what is specifically your own

Peterson has lot's of things that are useful and also lot's of things to discard. What is what depends on where in your "journey" you are.

[CreamCat]

34 minutes ago, intrastellar said:

Both the female and the male perspective here are basically saying: "look at us, we suffer and they don't." And when then examples are presented for how the other side suffers too the reaction is: "yeah they might suffer a bit here and there but WE suffer way more!". Thats me/us vs them - on both sides. Both sides assume that the grass on the other side is greener.

When you understand that the other suffers too and is not that perfect, ideal, privileged... person that you assumed he/she was, it opens you up to see that we can help each other. Then this whole interaction becomes about giving instead of taking from the other.

@intrastellar I think I agree. Unless you have directly experienced or observed the other side, you can't say for sure that grass is greener on the other side. You can only approximate loosely.

I think it's an egoic bias that people are not aware of.

I often see people speak in the lines of 'My group is better', 'My country is better', 'My culture is better', 'My gender is better', 'My group suffers more than yours did', etc, ... Have you actually experienced the other group, or the other culture? In the past, I automatically assumed USA was better than my country. I was wrong. Grass is not greener on the other side. Perhaps, my country is better than north korea because north korea is visibly terrible.

This is a bias I see a lot. To me, it seems like an artificial boundary. Can you pinpoint the boundary between your kitchen and your living room? You can't. People take artificial boundaries too seriously.

Dividing an issue between genders often feels as artificial as gerrymandering. You can divide a district however you like to benefit your ego. You divide a district by geography, race, gender, etc, ... to benefit your ego the most. If you want to access truth, you should stop gerrymandering.

I am going to show you an example of racial gerrymandering. People are taught that white people enslaved black people. That's true and false. It's only half the truth. Black people enslaved more black people than white people did. It was Black people who sold black slaves to white people. Black people had a lot of white slaves, too. When black people hear this, they say `it's ok for black people to enslave other black people`.

It seems each social group doesn't want to admit that their own group members are just as bad as outsiders.

Edited July 11, 2018 by CreamCat

[Paulus Amadeus]

@aurum Maybe this metafor is usefull for pick up:

Imagine a really fat dude. For him the best thing he could possibly do is go to the gym and clean up his diet. So he does this and the first couple of years this is enormously helpfull and he grows a lot. Both from the outside and from the inside he becomes a fitter and better person. Now after some years our friend is pretty buffed and he has built his new self-worth around being able to be muscular. He puts his body through thougher and thougher work outs. It's no longer about getting fit and healthy and growing internally. It's now about ego and what other people think of him.

This dude should definitely dial back going to the gym. This is the best thing for him to do for his growth.

 

So I'm sure you already got it but replace 'gym' with 'club' and fat with 'not getting laid' etc.

 

Pick up can be a great source of growth at the beginning, but can really stunt your growth after some time.

Tyler should probably stop doing pick up asap. I mean this dude is a 37 year old millionair worried about his instagram stories and sleeping with strippers. That doesn't sound highly conscious to me. I feel like he was more spiritually minded a couple of years ago than he is now. Don't get me wrong, I still think he is pretty awesome. Just that if he let go of trying to get laid all the time he could be way more awesome. 

Let me know what you think. 

[Viking]

I see any meeting with girls as manipulative, there seems to be no other way around it.

I am indeed always in my man-cave and I never get out, except when going out with friends, which is extremely rare.

If I would go to a bar or a club or any other place where there are people I would go there with the only motivation to meet women, I dont have any other motivations, and that's manipulative. In order to approach a girl I have to come up with some reasons and be manipulative, and not say the real reasons because then she wont be interested, because it seems desperate (and it kind of is, if im going to a bar just to meet women).

so in order to get women I have to be manipulative, which I rarely am and if i am, i catch myself. men who dont care about being manipulative get all the women. also how can i be authentic and manipulative at the same time..

I guess the only options for me to meet women is accidentally, but I never go to social places because i live in a small town, which doesnt have many social places at all, the nearest club is 20km away and i dont have a car and its outside the town. I even searched meetup.com and there are no relevant events for me in the near 50km. Even if I find social events most people there are 30+, while im 20. most events where people my age to to are at least 50km away, at least of which I have access to. also a lot of events cost a lot of money.

I go to university and there are some women, but they're at least 6 years older than me and a lot are married or taken.

but then theres the question where are all the women my age? they gotta be somewhere. mostly in the army since its mandatory here, while im not yet, and if they do go out they go to private parties with friends. my guess is most of them are stuck at home watching tv shows or being on social media.

maybe im hiding something from myself but it seems like legitimately i have no clue about how to go about this.

[SFRL]

@MM1988

https://www.girlschase.com/content/girls-silly-and-cute

You would be better off adopting this mindset. 

Don't hate them man.