Pick-up is a trap.

[NoSelfSelf]

@mr_engineer Yeah there are alot of them that wanna become... good point that could be only love relationship that i could support because its real love not human love?

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, mr_engineer said:

I quote the concept of 'hook-point' as you explained it in your video. That's how I'm using it. 

Unless you plan to stay a virgin, you will have to reach hook-point with any girl you intend to date and marry.

You are acting as though the girl you marry will be attracted via some alternative way. No. She will get attracted in exactly the same way as a girl who sucks your dick in the club bathroom.

[mr_engineer]

All the problems don't get solved once you agree on what 'love' is. But, this does create the possibility of compatibility in love-languages. And you can check for that when you're dating them. 

If you can have compatible love-languages and you can have sexual-compatibility based on that - now that's sustainable in long-term relationship. That's the alternative. 

[mr_engineer]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Unless you plan to stay a virgin, you will have to reach hook-point with any girl you intent to date and marry.

You are acting as though the girl you marry will be attracted via some alternative way. No. She will get attracted in exactly the same way as a girl who sucks your dick in the club bathroom.

It's hook-point in both cases. And the mechanism of hooking for them is based on their definition of 'love', because they're emotional creatures. And they're looking for 'love'. 

It'll change cuz the definition of 'love' will change. 

You talked about their fantasy of 'taming a player'. Guess where that comes from!! 

[Leo Gura]

@mr_engineer Girls are not attracted to love. They are attracted to SURVIVAL VALUE.

Love comes long after sex.

She's not gonna fall in love with you until you fuck her properly. And she's not gonna let you fuck her unless she sees value in you.

So if you want love, start with offering social value.

[mr_engineer]

@Leo Gura What is the survival-value of 'taming a player'? Wouldn't she be much better off going with a nice-guy, in terms of survival? Cuz he'll be a good provider and stuff. 

[NoSelfSelf]

@mr_engineer Player will always win nice guy cant do nothing about it but being in position to please plead and care for her with no much effect and seeling his own self for her ?..

[Nilsi]

4 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

@Leo Gura What is the survival-value of 'taming a player'? Wouldn't she be much better off going with a nice-guy, in terms of survival? Cuz he'll be a good provider and stuff. 

From a selfish gene/evolutionary biology perspective, the player will inherit his player genes to his offspring, who in turn will pregnate lots of women and inherit their mother's genes to their offspring. So the woman spreads her genes as much as possible, while also having a man that provides for her offspring.

[mr_engineer]

@NoSelfSelf Yeah, and being a player basically turns the tables. Only to discover that this 'love' isn't real! 

Notice how almost every self-conscious player has gone through a time-period of being a nice-guy. And that the naturals are actually the most unconscious ones relative to 'love'. 

1 minute ago, Nilsi said:

From a selfish gene/evolutionary biology perspective, the player will inherit his player genes to his offspring, who in turn will pregnate lots of women and inherit their mother's genes to their offspring. So the woman spreads her genes as much as possible, while also having a man that provides for her offspring.

Sounds like a pyramid-scheme. That 'I have value cuz the previous generation said I have value. And they have value cuz their previous generation had value!' 

Because there is a danger, with the player, that he'll cheat. And his resources will go to some other woman's kids! 

[Nilsi]

2 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

@NoSelfSelf 

Sounds like a pyramid-scheme. That 'I have value cuz the previous generation said I have value. And they have value cuz their previous generation had value!' 

Because there is a danger, with the player, that he'll cheat. And his resources will go to some other woman's kids! 

What a woman wants from an evolutionary perspective is a loyal man and player sons, and the surest way to get player sons, is by having a reformed player as a man.

[mr_engineer]

@Nilsi Then why not go for the nice-guy? 

This was the logic behind the sexual-marketplace regulation before feminism, in fact. This was the logic behind the way religion designed the nuclear family. But, after feminism, this radically changed into what we have today. Which is 'taming the player'. 

Are you sure this isn't a male projection onto what women actually go for? Cuz if you ask women what they want, they say 'we want love'. 

[NoSelfSelf]

@mr_engineer Player doesnt look for love anymore he looks to get most out of relationship potential but he usually brings more value than woman so hes in position to pick and choose woman and then woman start to buy him stuff bringing more and more value just to keep his attention..

True nice guys turning player will usually be concious and because of momentum become way better than naturals..

[Nilsi]

4 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

@Nilsi Then why not go for the nice-guy? 

This was the logic behind the sexual-marketplace regulation before feminism, in fact. This was the logic behind the way religion designed the nuclear family. But, after feminism, this radically changed into what we have today. Which is 'taming the player'. 

Are you sure this isn't a male projection onto what women actually go for? Cuz if you ask women what they want, they say 'we want love'. 

Because then your son's wont get pussy and your genes won't spread.

[mr_engineer]

@Nilsi This is assuming that you're conditioning your daughters to repeat the same 'mistakes' (assuming that this is what women go for), right? What if you teach your daughters to 'not go for the scumbag players'? Which is exactly what parents teach their daughters, by the way. Even today. 

Society generally agrees that too much casual sex is detrimental to it. Even today. My point is, I don't see the 'survival-value' in going for a player. It is something else. 

[Nilsi]

1 minute ago, mr_engineer said:

@Nilsi This is assuming that you're conditioning your daughters to repeat the same 'mistakes' (assuming that this is what women go for), right? What if you teach your daughters to 'not go for the scumbag players'? Which is exactly what parents teach their daughters, by the way. Even today. 

Society generally agrees that too much casual sex is detrimental to it. Even today. My point is, I don't see the 'survival-value' in going for a player. It is something else. 

These dynamics precede society and social norms millions of years. You can look at it from a sociocultural perspective, and the conclusion will be different. I'm just offering one perspective here.

[mr_engineer]

5 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

These dynamics precede society and social norms millions of years. You can look at it from a sociocultural perspective, and the conclusion will be different. I'm just offering one perspective here.

Consider the possibility that social norms have been male-dominated in history. And women haven't had that much of an opportunity to evolve. And if we help them evolve, they could get to a more functional position. 

[Nilsi]

1 minute ago, mr_engineer said:

Consider the possibility that social norms have been male-dominated in history. And women haven't had that much of an opportunity to evolve. And if we help them evolve, they could get to a more functional position. 

You don't understand what I'm talking about. Evolution is way more primordial and fundamental than history. These processes have been there long before humans even existed.

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

1 hour ago, mr_engineer said:

@Leo Gura What is the survival-value of 'taming a player'? Wouldn't she be much better off going with a nice-guy, in terms of survival? Cuz he'll be a good provider and stuff. 

The issue is that most "nice guys" aren't nice out of a conscious decision to be nice, in the same way most violent people aren't violent out of a conscious decision to use violence. They're nice because of fear (fear of conflict, fear of being disliked, etc) and compulsion (conditioning). It's a fake niceness built on people pleasing.

If being nice is just an option for you, then good, but if it's literally THE only option you have because you fear upsetting anyone and getting into a fight then that's not attractive to women, because you won't be able to protect her should the time come to turn into a fucking animal and get your hands dirty. Like if someone breaks into your home, YOU will have to deal with it. Your woman won't do it for you. You'll have to fight and potentially kill the invader. A nice guy would struggle with this because their brain isn't wired to deal with conflict outside of talking, because they've most likely been avoiding conflict their whole lives.

So being nice isn't bad if you CHOOSE to be nice, which isn't the case for most nice guys.

Generating a feeling of safety and security is much more important than niceness depending on the environment you're in.

Edited August 16, 2022 by DefinitelyNotARobot

[mr_engineer]

@DefinitelyNotARobot But, the point of being nice is to generate the feeling of safety and security! 

In fact, if you are a player, the shit-tests will practically force you to turn into a narcissistic asshole. Going for a player is a 100% backfiring strategy for women. 

And, even if you're really good with women, does this necessarily mean you can street-fight off a robber who breaks into your house? Not necessarily. My point being, the player-skills are a poor indicator of how strong a man actually is. 

And, this is no secret to today's women, quite honestly. 

Edited August 16, 2022 by mr_engineer

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

@mr_engineer That's somewhat true. There can be some overlap between strong men and players (Though you don't NEED authentic masculinity to be a player), but it doesn't have to, which is why I say MOST nice guys. Just generally speaking, a player is more likely to be masculin than the people pleasing nice guy. It's also a matter of environment. If you're a nice guy in a place like a ghetto then you'll just get yourself stomped on and potentially killed. Empathy,  as a survival strategy, won't help you in every environment. Being cold and ruthless is what will help you protect your family from criminals, drug addicts, rapists if you live in such a part of the world. Truth is: Most men are STILL told to "man up" and not cry. They're still consitioned into being this way because there is still a need for it. This world can be harsh and ruthless and cold and brutal. Women don't need a guy that will support them emotionally, but a guy that could kill a man in order to protect his family. A man who could do both would be optimal, but is also relatively rare, so a man that can get the job done will still be valued more.

Not saying that any of this is good. It comes with a lot of dysfunctionality (domestic violence, sexual abuse, etc). It is what it is. We will probably eventually outlive these needs as our environment evolves, but we're far from getting there. Most women still feel too insecure to not care about strenght.