[Big Country]

I think anyone that says we should give women less rights than men should go try living in a place where Sharia law exists. You might have a better time, or you might not, I don't know. I think this all boils down to opportunity-cost in the end. A girl goes out and sees hundreds of guys that want to have sex with her and so this creates a highly valued "commodity". As with any commodity, some are more valuable than others, so really, isn't it the males fault for deciding that a specific type is more desirable than another? Women of course do this as well, thus creating the 20-80 split.

A lot of comments here are knee-jerk reactions to being "called out". In other words, they are emotional responses because we feel threatened in some way. We should try to avoid this at all times.

So to boil it down, we enjoy the privilege of having sex with sexually empowered women, but we resent them for the same reason? Something seems off here. A man's role in today's world is markedly different than even 30 years ago. There are both positives and negatives to this. Saying otherwise is foolish.

Also, if you intend to get married and have children, will you raise your daughters to be chaste and your sons to be promiscuous? How do you think that is going to work out? You will have just created the next generation of daddy hating women.

I think to have any effect on altering our future we need to seriously consider just what is at stake. Some of you are under the impression that women are somehow to blame for all of societies ills. Well, I would suggest first taking a look in the mirror. Game has its time and place, but it should never be considered as a cover-all for all things pertaining to women.

[Wadsworth]

(05-26-2014 06:07 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The more game men learn, the more options women have. Mere game is not the answer.

I'll use alpha/beta terminology, even though I'm not particularly fond of it.

Your argument, as far as I can tell, is that as the number of alphas increases, there will be more alphas competing for women. The demand for women will increase which will push the price of pussy even higher.

My argument is simple; the apparent increase in women's value is a function of the devalued beta, nothing more. The supply of pussy and the demand for pussy never changes appreciably; it's value is stable. In a free market it is in fact the value of males that changes in response to changing market conditions.

The value of pussy doesn't really change, it's like a dollar or a gold coin; a stable currency. As measured against the stable value of pussy, beta males are worth very little on today's open market (due largely to a combination of socialism and gynocentric laws). You'd have to sweeten the deal by offering women the world in order to make a sale if you're offering the beta male thing. Alphas, however, are worth considerably more on the open market, and don't require nearly as much enticement to make the sale.

As more men realize this, the incentive to ditch the whole beta male schtick will be great, regardless of what effect this has on society.

Now to the important point. It is the behavior of males, not females, which determines whether a civilization prospers or collapses.

Personally, I'm 100% convinced that any society which provides only incentives for males to fuck women for lulz and provides only disincentivizes to have children, marry, work hard etc. will collapse.

[tomtud]

I lived in the Middle East and the men are sex starved!!!!!!!! Yet nobody goes killing roommates or girls on a campus because they can't get laid. Islamic and political killings, that's another topic.

Now, prostitution is illegal in many cities, yet it's quite available if you go on certain sites. So, that is out of the equation. He was mentally ill, that's it. Changing gun laws or whatever, I don't think it will stop another ill individual from doing this again. They will find other means. His father never talked with him about girls??? Or did he??

Let's examine this globally,,,,,

India and China have their own problems with cultural tendencies (India) and infanticide. Women have acid being thrown on their faces. Rapes and killings and even the stupid honour killings that they call are common in many cultures in that part or the world ( Middle East, SEA ) sorry to deflect the theme here, but it goes to show that the west is going towards that path too. Men doing silly and stupid things because they can't get women.

In the Middle East, MANY men who have limited options join Islamic extremist groups and go to Afghanistan etc to kill others and even blow themselves up. Had the majority of those men had women, a job and a house, they would not even consider going yet read the Quran.

So it's happening all over the world. Misguided men, mentally ill men and desperate men doing stupid things because women aren't "available". How can it be fixed? Promising men 72 virgins ain't gonna work.

[JJ Roberts]

(05-26-2014 04:10 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The only thing that works are traditional sex roles. One woman per man

Wrong wrong wrong.

One woman per man is NOT tradition, it is modern convention and very recent modern convention at that.

Human beings in our modern genetic form are 200,000 years old (beyond that we have to talk about our ancestors like homo habilis etc).

We have had the CONVENTION (note NOT tradition) of the idea of one woman per man only for since the advent of Sex 2.0 which was caused by the invention of the notion of property which is an artificial human invention.

The move from 1.0 to 2.0 was caused by human beings moving from hunter gatherers to being farmers and from nomadic existence to sedentary existence which caused us to claim land as property.

Once we did that we needed to claim women as sexual property so we could be sure we were passing our own 'property' down our own bloodlines.

This lead to the invention of marriage and the entire fucked up Sex 2.0 era that we were all born into.

Bearing in mind that Sex 1.0 represents approx 98% of human history and 2.0 is only the last 10,000 years approx and only represents 2% of human history, to describe the 2% as "tradition" is a joke.

Not suggesting we go back to 1.0 and living in caves. We need to move onto 3.0.

2.0 does not work and is obsolete but please stop describing it as "tradition".

(05-26-2014 04:10 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Any deviation from traditional sex roles means that in the long run, there will be many leftover men without suitable partners.

This equation makes no sense whatsoever unless you assume that sex is a zero sum game in which for a person to get laid, someone has to be taken off the sexual marketplace and made unavailable to everyone else on the planet.

This is not how human sexuality works and its never worked this way.

[Samseau]

(05-26-2014 08:25 PM)Big Country Wrote:  

I think anyone that says we should give women less rights than men should go try living in a place where Sharia law exists.

Sharia law? How about Western Civilization for the first 2000 years? Men had more rights the entire time, and it did pretty well. In fact nothing else did better, and it's the reason you're here.

Amazing how brainwashed people are today. Lack of women's rights = sharia law? What? Since when? What the hell?

Women's right to vote was a fatal mistake. Doesn't matter if you think otherwise, our country is going down the shitter and women's rights aren't coming back.

Quote:

I think to have any effect on altering our future we need to seriously consider just what is at stake. Some of you are under the impression that women are somehow to blame for all of societies ills. Well, I would suggest first taking a look in the mirror. Game has its time and place, but it should never be considered as a cover-all for all things pertaining to women.

No one is blaming women. In fact, if you read between the lines here the focus is entirely on the men.

Only the men matter. Women are herd animals easily controlled with strength. If you control the men then you control the women.

Thus I argue that merely teaching game to men means very little. That doesn't address the root problem, which is the fact we have uneducated, low quality men who have no loyalty to their community. Hence shooting rampages. Hence my conclusion that things must return to traditional sex roles if there is to be peace and stability again.

Tomtud Wrote:

I lived in the Middle East and the men are sex starved!!!!!!!! Yet nobody goes killing roommates or girls on a campus because they can't get laid. Islamic and political killings, that's another topic.

Now, prostitution is illegal in many cities, yet it's quite available if you go on certain sites. So, that is out of the equation. He was mentally ill, that's it. Changing gun laws or whatever, I don't think it will stop another ill individual from doing this again. They will find other means. His father never talked with him about girls??? Or did he??

Let's examine this globally,,,,,

India and China have their own problems with cultural tendencies (India) and infanticide. Women have acid being thrown on their faces. Rapes and killings and even the stupid honour killings that they call are common in many cultures in that part or the world ( Middle East, SEA ) sorry to deflect the theme here, but it goes to show that the west is going towards that path too. Men doing silly and stupid things because they can't get women.

In the Middle East, MANY men who have limited options join Islamic extremist groups and go to Afghanistan etc to kill others and even blow themselves up. Had the majority of those men had women, a job and a house, they would not even consider going yet read the Quran.

So it's happening all over the world. Misguided men, mentally ill men and desperate men doing stupid things because women aren't "available". How can it be fixed? Promising men 72 virgins ain't gonna work.

The Middle East is a perfect example of what happens when powerful men are allowed to monopolize the women. It creates broken sex ratios and lots of disenfranchised men at the bottom.

Historically, Islam had major infighting amongst its many leaders once they were unable to conquer new lands. Without new lands being claimed, there was no more fresh supply of pussy to give to the lower ranks of Muslims. Thus Islamic tribes fought each other over whatever pussy they could get, and the situation was rectified with the advent of mass imports of sex slaves from Africa.

Even then, however, peace within Islamic societies is tenuous at best and it is entirely due to the shortage of sex for their men. This is why Christian socities prospered over the long-run whereas Islamic societies only are successful through the short-run military conquests (they can keep getting enough women to satisfy their polygamous demands).

In today's world, most Islamic societies have had to seriously tone down the amount of polygamy because it was too destructive on the social fabric. Polygamy in Islamic societies is still present but nothing like it once was.

[bacan]

(05-26-2014 06:24 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:21 PM)bacan Wrote:  

I disagree. More guys meeting women's basic threshold of attractiveness will mean the wealth of pussy gets shared a bit more evenly.

Why would the fundamental hypergamous nature of women change just because men become more attractive?

No matter what kind of men exist, women will naturally gravitate to the top 20-30% of men. Improve the men and then the women increase their standards.

Yes, but I'm talking about the scenario where the bottom half of men improves and learns game while the top 20% keep doing what they do -- in the majority of cases just being naturally charming, goodlooking, confident, driven to success/wealth/fame, etc.

Your scenario assumes that the top men are going to be concerned that the bottom 50% of men are improving themselves. I imagine they won't care, won't change their behavior, and may not even notice that instead of having 7 fuck buddies they have 6 and the would-be 7th is now in a happy relationship with a guy who otherwise would have been out of her league.

I am not debating female hypergamy. I am just saying that all women have to make the quantity/quality tradeoff when it comes to men as well. As a woman, you can have top quality but very little quantity -- maybe just one night, maybe just a blowjob in the backstage of a concert or movie set -- or you can have lots of quantity -- a long committed relationship with a decent guy who doesn't have tons of other options.

I think it would be a good thing if the bottom half of men learned game and made themselves decent options for women who currently consider them to be below their minimum threshold of attractiveness. These men would be able to offer commitment and all of the positive aspects of being a beta provider in addition to a smidgen of game that would at least keep their girlfriends satisfied and attracted enough to beat out the alternative of, like I said, being a nobody in some top alpha male's rotation.

[Travesty]

Getting fucked silly by 2 or 3 hot escorts at 15 years old would make every frustrated beta in my opinion forget all that hand holding kissy kissy bullshit and see all their peer girls at school in a entirely new and much dimmer light.

They'd be looking around their school thinking what's the big deal about all these under-developed picture taking attention whores?

Pedestal destroyed.

[Samseau]

(05-26-2014 09:59 PM)JJ Roberts Wrote:  

the advent of Sex 2.0 which was caused by the invention of the notion of property which is an artificial human invention.

The above quoted is your central assumption that seems false on its face.

Property is an artificial human invention? In fact, all mammals have a sense of property, and that's why they fight to protect their territory against others of their species.

Monkeys fight other monkeys for land. Lions fight other lions. Wolves fight other wolves. Birds also mark territory. Property is hardly a human invention and seems entirely biological in origins.

Moreover, males fight each other for females in every single mammal specie. 98% of mammalian species on the planet has hypergamous females and alpha/beta male dichotomy. Thus women are inherently property of the male sex, of which males must compete for, and have competed for over millions of years.

Marx was wrong about the history of property. Darwin > Marx.

Quote:

This is not how human sexuality works and its never worked this way.

Human sexuality comes from evolution and has always worked the same way.

This isn't the forum to deny human nature, which is easily observable in almost all mammals.

[pants]

Samseau, you really don´t think women should be allowed to vote? Can you elaborate on this, or link to some information that supports this point of view.

[Samseau]

(05-26-2014 10:09 PM)bacan Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:24 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:21 PM)bacan Wrote:  

I disagree. More guys meeting women's basic threshold of attractiveness will mean the wealth of pussy gets shared a bit more evenly.

Why would the fundamental hypergamous nature of women change just because men become more attractive?

No matter what kind of men exist, women will naturally gravitate to the top 20-30% of men. Improve the men and then the women increase their standards.

Yes, but I'm talking about the scenario where the bottom half of men improves and learns game while the top 20% keep doing what they do -- in the majority of cases just being naturally charming, goodlooking, confident, driven to success/wealth/fame, etc.

Your scenario assumes that the top men are going to be concerned that the bottom 50% of men are improving themselves. I imagine they won't care, won't change their behavior, and may not even notice that instead of having 7 fuck buddies they have 6 and the would-be 7th is now in a happy relationship with a guy who otherwise would have been out of her league.

I am not debating female hypergamy. I am just saying that all women have to make the quantity/quality tradeoff when it comes to men as well. As a woman, you can have top quality but very little quantity -- maybe just one night, maybe just a blowjob in the backstage of a concert or movie set -- or you can have lots of quantity -- a long committed relationship with a decent guy who doesn't have tons of other options.

I think it would be a good thing if the bottom half of men learned game and made themselves decent options for women who currently consider them to be below their minimum threshold of attractiveness. These men would be able to offer commitment and all of the positive aspects of being a beta provider in addition to a smidgen of game that would at least keep their girlfriends satisfied and attracted enough to beat out the alternative of, like I said, being a nobody in some top alpha male's rotation.

Since the advent of the PUA movement in the 2000's, men are not reporting having more sexual partners. In fact there are more frustrated betas than ever before.

Additionally, the game tactics of the original 2000's looks cheesy as hell to us now, but it worked back then. Today to be successful in game you need a niche beyond mere approaching, as lots of guys have become better at approaching and women have merely increased their bitch shields as a result.

Now men are moving to day game and online game like Tinder, but these markets too will become saturated as the standard for game moves higher and prices out betas.

I personally enjoy my dance floor game because the barriers to entry are high (most men suck ass at dancing) so I do not need to worry about increased competition. But if tons of men became better dancers, would that mean more dancers would get laid? No, it would simply make the dance floor a sausage fest of talented dancers. For example, regard Tuthmosis's description of Salsa in America as it has evolved over the years:

Quote:

That said, I think the salsa market is tapped out--or at least in serious decline--in American cities. So many dudes mined that hard, that it scared away the better talent and seriously skewed the ratios. Guys who didn't know it before will tell you that there are still girls there, but the quality has markedly declined, the bullshit (like bitch shields) has increased, and the sausage factor has grown. New cute girls still get dragged out by their one salsa-dancing friend, but don't last when they get the wave of thirsty dudes with marginal dance skills yanking them onto the dance floor. I see more girls turning down dances and sitting it out in the corner than ever. This is in multiple venues, in multiple cities.

Thus if what you said about more men learning game would lead to increased sex, we would expect to see more men learning salsa lead to increased salsa bangs.

Instead, the opposite happened.

Thus from the collective experience of men on this forum, I must say the empirical evidence rejects the idea that there can be a "middle class" of gamers who use enough game to get a bang here and there.

Nope, the game is zero-sum. It is feast or famine. You are either part of the alpha cabal who can score regular or semi-regular bangs, or you are part of the masturbation crusade.

[NY Digital]

(05-26-2014 10:25 PM)pants Wrote:  

Samseau, you really don´t think women should be allowed to vote? Can you elaborate on this, or link to some information that supports this point of view.

Women act on emotion, not logic.

Do you need any more reason?

[Daddy]

(05-26-2014 09:59 PM)JJ Roberts Wrote:  

One woman per man is NOT tradition, it is modern convention and very recent modern convention at that.

Would you care to expand on that point? Because to me it's the opposite. We were monogamous for most of our history as humans, then just recently moved towards more polygamous societies.

Unlike other ape societies, where the biggest and strongest males terrify and dominate everyone to get all the females leaving the other males sexually starved, our societies worked differently. Humans had weapons, which reduced the physical advantage of big men significantly, because now the big guys could be impaled with a lance from a distance, cut with a knife by surprise, etc. So the big guys were not the leaders anymore. The leaders of the tribes were the ones who were best able to work for the entire team.

This situation reduced the inequalities between men, and most men had access to women. Their mating strategy changed. Unlike other most apes, who shoot their sperm everywhere as much as possible to imprenate as many females as possible, human societies began needing a lot of parental investment from the males. Infants had a very long period to go through before becoming adults and needed a lot more care than other type of apes, which forced men to change their strategy to a more 1 on 1 monogamous couple (with a little cheating on the side) to ensure the survival of their offsprings.

So for most of our history we lived that way, until the invention of agriculture and other technologies that allowed men to accumulate resources. That's when the inequalities resurfaced. Some men were able to elevate themselves above others with their resources, allowing them to dominate, just like big gorillas dominate with their physical strength. We can think of monarchies and aristocracies in that way. Some special members of societies get all the wealth and the best women, while the poor peasants get the left overs. They might have their women, but they are the last picks, and they belong to the king, so if he wants to bust his nuts inside them on Sunday, he just can.

Which is kind of like the situation today, where the leaders of our societies act like aristocrats, working for themselves and not caring about the well being of the team. Top 10% get all the best girls, rest get the older/ damaged ones, and if the famous actor or good player wants to bang average joe's wife while he's away at work, he just can.

[Truth Teller]

Basically, you could fire every single woman in the US tomorrow, and while schools, courts, and a few other places would be forced to close, society would be able to continue.

If you fired every man in the US tomorrow, civilization would grind to a halt.

The West is doomed because of the welfare state. The welfare state is the root of a lot of the problems that exist.

[Big Country]

Yeah, Samseau, I'll have to disagree. As I wasn't alive, nor were you, back when men were the only ones with rights you'll forgive me if I don't think that was an improvement. As a matter of fact, that era of history is filled with so much that we should be ashamed of.

As to women being "herd animals" I'll just leave that alone. Yes they can be controlled in a way, but you are fooling yourself if you think any human can be totally controlled without some serious trauma being inflicted. I'd say women are far more able to control men, I've seen it first hand with a buddy who got trapped and is not even the same person anymore. He was the one who introduced me to game in the first place.

I see nothing wrong with being red pill in regards to getting women, but I do have a problem when you just straight up say the only thing that matters is men. It, as always, takes two to tango.

[Truth Teller]

(05-26-2014 10:37 PM)NY Digital Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 10:25 PM)pants Wrote:  

Samseau, you really don´t think women should be allowed to vote? Can you elaborate on this, or link to some information that supports this point of view.

Women act on emotion, not logic.

Do you need any more reason?

Most people act on emotion and not logic. That's how Obama and the Democrats won the 2012 presidential election. It's not a matter of presenting people with facts. People don't care about facts. People care about things that make them feel good, like supporting gay rights and "smashing the patriarchy."

If it were up to me, the US would follow Hobbes' model. We'd disenfranchise everyone and have an autocrat.

[pants]

(05-26-2014 10:37 PM)NY Digital Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 10:25 PM)pants Wrote:  

Samseau, you really don´t think women should be allowed to vote? Can you elaborate on this, or link to some information that supports this point of view.

Women act on emotion, not logic.

Do you need any more reason?

that´s far out... Lots of humans act on emotions rather than facts.
So if we were to remodel out voting system, I would rather say irrational humans should not be allowed to vote. No need to mix in gender.

And I honestly believe some guys wouldn´t become serial killers if they had access to sex easily, sure it wouldn´t have helped all of them, but if it would stop 30% of mass shooting by any chance, thats a start.

[mikado]

I think game can really accomplish a lot of things , to make the whole population (not only men) better.
But at the end, I don't think it will even the odds.
Some guys might make it to the "alphasphere". Sure.
However , as it was already said here, I think women will just increase their standards.
Compete for the top dogs is in their genes, no amount of "global game" will fix that

[Sp5]

There's a self-limiting feature in free societies that allows corrections due to changes in the mass consciousness. It might be called "fashion" or "trends." It might be expressed politically with tax or marriage laws. Even the loosening of moral laws can be reversed.

Even if the present situation is as bad as you say, rather than limited to the behavior of club sluts in big cities, people will change to react against excesses. There might be a market force pushing women into slutting, as it stimulates consumption of goods and services, but there will probably be money to be made on increased chastity and fidelity, too.

There are a lot of problems coming up, one is the amount of surplus labor in the USA because of automation and outsourcing. There aren't many good jobs for average and below-average people anymore, the days of a $20 per hour wage doing repetitive motion work in a factory are gone.

If there is a sharp divide between elite and underclass in money and sex, will the elite monopolize all of the women, like Houellebecq said? Or will a reaction from the poorer classes force a change? One man/one woman is a kind of sexual socialism.

[LeBeau]

I get that we have a lot of smart guys on here who enjoy psychology, politics, etc. but perhaps in this case we can be humble enough to admit that you can't pin down a tragedy like this on exact causes.

No one knows the biochemical makeup of that kid's brain, what part of his rantings were personal history vs. exaggerated, how his parents truly felt about him, if any girls actually did give him attention, his possible repressed feelings about his race/sexuality, what he would have done with different weapons, etc. ad nauseam.

[soup]

(05-26-2014 10:33 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 10:09 PM)bacan Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:24 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:21 PM)bacan Wrote:  

I disagree. More guys meeting women's basic threshold of attractiveness will mean the wealth of pussy gets shared a bit more evenly.

Why would the fundamental hypergamous nature of women change just because men become more attractive?

No matter what kind of men exist, women will naturally gravitate to the top 20-30% of men. Improve the men and then the women increase their standards.

Yes, but I'm talking about the scenario where the bottom half of men improves and learns game while the top 20% keep doing what they do -- in the majority of cases just being naturally charming, goodlooking, confident, driven to success/wealth/fame, etc.

Your scenario assumes that the top men are going to be concerned that the bottom 50% of men are improving themselves. I imagine they won't care, won't change their behavior, and may not even notice that instead of having 7 fuck buddies they have 6 and the would-be 7th is now in a happy relationship with a guy who otherwise would have been out of her league.

I am not debating female hypergamy. I am just saying that all women have to make the quantity/quality tradeoff when it comes to men as well. As a woman, you can have top quality but very little quantity -- maybe just one night, maybe just a blowjob in the backstage of a concert or movie set -- or you can have lots of quantity -- a long committed relationship with a decent guy who doesn't have tons of other options.

I think it would be a good thing if the bottom half of men learned game and made themselves decent options for women who currently consider them to be below their minimum threshold of attractiveness. These men would be able to offer commitment and all of the positive aspects of being a beta provider in addition to a smidgen of game that would at least keep their girlfriends satisfied and attracted enough to beat out the alternative of, like I said, being a nobody in some top alpha male's rotation.

Since the advent of the PUA movement in the 2000's, men are not reporting having more sexual partners. In fact there are more frustrated betas than ever before.

Additionally, the game tactics of the original 2000's looks cheesy as hell to us now, but it worked back then. Today to be successful in game you need a niche beyond mere approaching, as lots of guys have become better at approaching and women have merely increased their bitch shields as a result.

Now men are moving to day game and online game like Tinder, but these markets too will become saturated as the standard for game moves higher and prices out betas.

I personally enjoy my dance floor game because the barriers to entry are high (most men suck ass at dancing) so I do not need to worry about increased competition. But if tons of men became better dancers, would that mean more dancers would get laid? No, it would simply make the dance floor a sausage fest of talented dancers. For example, regard Tuthmosis's description of Salsa in America as it has evolved over the years:

Quote:

That said, I think the salsa market is tapped out--or at least in serious decline--in American cities. So many dudes mined that hard, that it scared away the better talent and seriously skewed the ratios. Guys who didn't know it before will tell you that there are still girls there, but the quality has markedly declined, the bullshit (like bitch shields) has increased, and the sausage factor has grown. New cute girls still get dragged out by their one salsa-dancing friend, but don't last when they get the wave of thirsty dudes with marginal dance skills yanking them onto the dance floor. I see more girls turning down dances and sitting it out in the corner than ever. This is in multiple venues, in multiple cities.

Thus if what you said about more men learning game would lead to increased sex, we would expect to see more men learning salsa lead to increased salsa bangs.

Instead, the opposite happened.

Thus from the collective experience of men on this forum, I must say the empirical evidence rejects the idea that there can be a "middle class" of gamers who use enough game to get a bang here and there.

Nope, the game is zero-sum. It is feast or famine. You are either part of the alpha cabal who can score regular or semi-regular bangs, or you are part of the masturbation crusade.

I agree that the idea of a middle class of gamers is BS.

It's pretty extreme the amount of work that goes towards getting game together if you are essentially starting from scratch.

I think it's hard to reap any real benefits unless you are doing this kind of stuff almost as a full time hobby.

Especially if you are trying to bang quality chicks.


Side note: Do you guys think it's still ok to use the word "bang" when talking about all this stuff, or is it going to draw more fire (no pun intended here either) from the other side?

[Samseau]

(05-26-2014 10:47 PM)Big Country Wrote:  

Yeah, Samseau, I'll have to disagree. As I wasn't alive, nor were you, back when men were the only ones with rights you'll forgive me if I don't think that was an improvement. As a matter of fact, that era of history is filled with so much that we should be ashamed of.

Quite amusing you contradict yourself so blatantly in just one paragraph.

On one hand, we weren't alive to experience things, yet on the other hand history is filled with so much we should be ashamed of?

Which is it? How can you be ashamed of something you weren't alive to experience?

You aren't aware, but your conditioning and brainwashing from your schooling years is pretty bad. I'm not trying to be condescending, just trying to help you be aware.

However, I'll just come forward and state what is almost self-evident: Things were better, and that's why they progressed to where we are today.

Women's rights are reversing this progress. You may not believe me now, but within the next 40 years you will agree with me as you watch our societies crumble and decay into civil war.

Quote:

As to women being "herd animals" I'll just leave that alone. Yes they can be controlled in a way, but you are fooling yourself if you think any human can be totally controlled without some serious trauma being inflicted. I'd say women are far more able to control men, I've seen it first hand with a buddy who got trapped and is not even the same person anymore. He was the one who introduced me to game in the first place.

When women control men, that is the death knell of a culture. For example Sparta's women eventually became more powerful than the men, and then Sparta was conquered by the Thebans.

As Rome's women got more rights than the men, Rome fell into Civil War and was split into two.

The Byzantine Empire gave more rights to women in 500 AD, and went into nearly 400 years of territorial losses.

The Ottoman Empire was controlled by it's Sultanate of Women and entered non-stop decline for centuries until it's death in WWI.

There are many other similar historical examples, both in the Western World as well as the Oriental one. However, I am not going to spoon-feed you history while you simply criticize that which you do not understand.

If you are actually interested in the truth, go and do your historical research. You will be shocked at how often women ruined societies.

Quote:

I see nothing wrong with being red pill in regards to getting women, but I do have a problem when you just straight up say the only thing that matters is men. It, as always, takes two to tango.

Nope. Men lead the dance, women follow.

[Kingsley Davis]

(05-26-2014 11:13 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 10:47 PM)Big Country Wrote:  

Yeah, Samseau, I'll have to disagree. As I wasn't alive, nor were you, back when men were the only ones with rights you'll forgive me if I don't think that was an improvement. As a matter of fact, that era of history is filled with so much that we should be ashamed of.

Quite amusing you contradict yourself so blatantly in just one paragraph.

On one hand, we weren't alive to experience things, yet on the other hand history is filled with so much we should be ashamed of?

Which is it? How can you be ashamed of something you weren't alive to experience?

You aren't aware, but your conditioning and brainwashing from your schooling years is pretty bad. I'm not trying to be condescending, just trying to help you be aware.

However, I'll just come forward and state what is almost self-evident: Things were better, and that's why they progressed to where we are today.

Women's rights are reversing this progress. You may not believe me now, but within the next 40 years you will agree with me as you watch our societies crumble and decay into civil war.

Quote:

As to women being "herd animals" I'll just leave that alone. Yes they can be controlled in a way, but you are fooling yourself if you think any human can be totally controlled without some serious trauma being inflicted. I'd say women are far more able to control men, I've seen it first hand with a buddy who got trapped and is not even the same person anymore. He was the one who introduced me to game in the first place.

When women control men, that is the death knell of a culture. For example Sparta's women eventually became more powerful than the men, and then Sparta died.

As Rome's women got more rights than the men, Rome fell into Civil War and was split into two.

The Byzantine Empire gave more rights to women in 500 AD, and went into nearly 400 years of territorial losses.

The Ottoman Empire was controlled by it's Sultanate of Women and entered non-stop decline for centuries until it's death in WWI.

There are many other similar historical examples, both in the Western World as well as the Oriental one. However, I am not going to spoon-feed you history while you simply criticize that which you do not understand.

If you are actually interested in the truth, go and do your historical research. You will be shocked at how often women ruined societies.

Quote:

I see nothing wrong with being red pill in regards to getting women, but I do have a problem when you just straight up say the only thing that matters is men. It, as always, takes two to tango.

Nope. Men lead the dance, women follow.

" However, I am not going to spoon-feed you history while you simply criticize that which you do not understand."

[Wadsworth]

(05-26-2014 11:13 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 10:47 PM)Big Country Wrote:  

Yeah, Samseau, I'll have to disagree. As I wasn't alive, nor were you, back when men were the only ones with rights you'll forgive me if I don't think that was an improvement. As a matter of fact, that era of history is filled with so much that we should be ashamed of.

Quite amusing you contradict yourself so blatantly in just one paragraph.

On one hand, we weren't alive to experience things, yet on the other hand history is filled with so much we should be ashamed of?

Which is it? How can you be ashamed of something you weren't alive to experience?

You aren't aware, but your conditioning and brainwashing from your schooling years is pretty bad. I'm not trying to be condescending, just trying to help you be aware.

However, I'll just come forward and state what is almost self-evident: Things were better, and that's why they progressed to where we are today.

Women's rights are reversing this progress. You may not believe me now, but within the next 40 years you will agree with me as you watch our societies crumble and decay into civil war.

What is reversing our progress isn't women's rights; I have nothing against women having equal rights, provided they have equal responsibilities. I agree that modern feminism is destructive, but is modern feminism even addressing any human rights issues? What rights are women lacking exactly? They currently have rights that men lack, while being held exempt from responsibilities men must own.

I think women should be able to do anything they like, provided they own the responsibility for their decisions. Yes, you can screw anyone you like, but if you get pregnant, that's on you, nobody owes you a dime, and nobody should have to pay for your abortion.

This is what true liberalism is because this is what liberty is, and what should be fought for. You don't need the shackles of gender roles to put society back on track, all you need is freedom and responsibility.

[bacan]

Samseau and soup, respond to dismal operator's thoughtful post as well. He conveyed the idea very well.

We are not saying everyone is going to work to the point of having great game but many guys can close the gap between themselves and the top a little bit. Saying there is little benefit to learning game incrementally is just wrong.

Building your game is literally done one approach, one girl at a time. It is not like building half a submarine or power plant. Every single effort has at least a marginal effect that could result in guys being more attractive and cool to women. I'm not saying they are going to be banging girls the same nightbut they will be giving girls a stable and committed relationship alternative to being pumped and dumped by the top players.

[Samseau]

No MA'AM blog has an excellent selection of historical sources talking about how women can really fuck things up:

http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2003/01/wrin...-time.html

Although by no means exhaustive, the above list is quite a find. He still misses stuff like the Sultanate of Women, however.