The Seddit Subthread of DSR401.

See dsr401.wordpress.com for the main journal.

Soft and Nice: Qualities That Male (and Female) Bullies Can’t Resist

Someone who took a course in “picking up girls” mentioned that he has spoken to a few of the guys who took the course with him years ago. He complained that they are now “hard-edged” and had a “locker-room mentality” that was downright mean-spirited, in his words.

After writing a comment, I realized it wasn’t the typical sympathetic “me too” pat on the back, or feel-good chatter about finding “balance” or “passion”. Note that the “you” referred to below could be any “you” who you know in life, or you in particular. The ideas apply to everyone who has dealt with feeling excluded from a group — which is probably everyone on planet Earth, regardless of gender.

Possibilities:

A. “exclusionary stuff they got from others growing up”

B. “they think that you gotta be TOUGH to do this”

I’ve rarely met anyone who responds well to “emotional vulnerability”, male or female — particularly when there’s nothing to be gained from listening to someone being “vulnerable” at you.

Learn to express yourself in ways that don’t make you seem “angry/haughty”, and also don’t leave you open to the “locker-room meanness” that you’re complaining about.

Honestly, it sounds like you’re whining about how other guys aren’t being nice enough to you. Don’t expect anyone aside from your family (if you’re lucky) to be “nice” to you just because you choose to be “vulnerable” to them.

Who told you that it was anyone’s responsibility to be soft and nice to you?

I’m honestly curious, because that world doesn’t seem to exist aside from in the minds of people who desperately want to feel special. The irony there is that everyone believes they’re special, and that means that very few people have any time left to care about anyone but themselves. Then they get their special feelings hurt and become angry and haughty, and try to “pass it on” to the next person.

Realize that learning how not to see yourself as a soft little victim of those mean locker-room boys isn’t just useful in pick-up (note: women can and will be more cruel to you than men ever could). Learning to communicate using the requisite qualities for the specific situation (softness, toughness, and whatever else in between) is a skill that you will need to navigate _life_ effectively.

This is both your problem and your opportunity. Stop whining and start learning.

P.S. There are times when others may commit acts of emotional abuse against you. Women will often do this as a form of punishment — especially if you’re not projecting the “alpha” qualities that she may believe are necessary in a man (beliefs that often arise as a result of her own arbitrary social conditioning). In fact, much of the so-called “inner game” of seduction is obsessively preoccupied with that “Be Alpha” fantasy.

You may be dealing with relatively new “pickup artist” guys who are still trying to sort out what that means, and how to integrate the appearance of being the “Alpha ape” into their previously “Beta” personalities. If you feel like someone is truly trying to victimize you, either fight back or leave.

There are times when we actually may be victimized; that is, helpless to stop abuses being committed against us in the moment due to lack of skills, being outnumbered, or being psychologically unprepared. No single human being is infinitely or indomitably strong.

I don’t want to trivialize the word “victim” under some blustery idea of “acting like a man”. In the social sphere, however, you’re the only one who will care enough to stand up for yourself — or exit and find a new group or partner. The first step in changing your outcome is to become aware that you have a choice, whether you’re dealing with men whose respect you want to earn or women whom you seek to share a mutual experience of love.

Advertisements

New Cold War: The Modern Female as Sexual Mercenary

In response to the recent New York Times article, A Cold War Fought by Women:

I’ve been writing about this same set of ideas in various blogs for a couple of years.

If you ignore what women say to you, you’ll realize that it’s obvious: women have no shortage of potential sex partners (even ugly, short, older, fat, etc. women); women are consummately skilled in social and sexual manipulation (see women’s magazines and the entirety of female-centric popular culture); and men care far less about women’s fashion/appearance than women do (hence, the makeup, clothing, etc. are actually competitive devices that women use against each other).

From the article:

The old doubts about female competitiveness derived partly from an evolutionary analysis of the reproductive odds in ancient polygynous societies in which some men were left single because dominant males had multiple wives. So men had to compete to have a chance of reproducing, whereas virtually all women were assured of it.

But even in those societies, women were not passive trophies for victorious males. They had their own incentives to compete with one another for more desirable partners and more resources for their children. And now that most people live in monogamous societies, most women face the same odds as men. In fact, they face tougher odds in some places, like the many college campuses with more women than men.

Translation: women have no problem getting sex, and never have. The problem women have is conflict against other women for the best sex partners, also known as sexual competition, which is the basis of this entry (continue reading below).

All the nonsense about women being “victims” of the “lustful and denigrating male gaze” is both a lie (women love sex, too) and a great way to shame men — in much the same way that women shame their female competitors, as mentioned in the article. Women dress in a sexy way in order to get sexual attention from men, to help them “win” the mating game against other women, and to signal their social status (weaker females will be bullied into submission by more socially powerful females).

One way to think of this is to recognize that most heterosexual men really couldn’t care less about what a woman is wearing. The whole “makeup-and-costume” game is purely for show — for women and by women, against other women. Everything else is just a manifestation of what I call “girl game” (slut-shaming, forming strategic friendships and alliances, ostracizing and bullying those who represent a potential status threat, emotionally abusive behavior against anyone who doesn’t conform to social pressure, etc.) — which is then turned against men when the time comes to find a mate. If it works, there’s no need to change it: emotional manipulation is stunningly effective precisely because it defies logic, motivates behavior, and cuts faster, harder and deeper than conscious thought.

The most valuable part of the article is the set of links that will show you more information. Read it and compare the ideas to your existing misconceptions about how women are “weak”, passive “victims”, “damsels in distress” who desperately need your love and approval, or whatever else might be giving you the notion that she is somehow not already gaming you in every moment that you two spend together. The reason that guys benefit from learning game is that the male version is essentially a reverse-engineered version of the exact same tactics that women are already using against men — which I also cover at length in the blog, with particular emphasis on online dating. The truly eye-opening part is that Girl Game is almost completely unconscious for most women. Women do it as a result of their social conditioning from puberty onward, so they often aren’t even aware of what they’re doing (you are also socially conditioned, which is part of what makes it so difficult to see your own mistakes). This is why women pretend to like Nice Guys and lie about being “non-judgmental”, among a catalogue of other falsehoods that I’m sure you’re all too familiar with if you’ve dealt with women for any length of time.

The presence of female-against-female (and against male) competition is everywhere once you learn to see it. And it will completely change your perspective about women in practically every conceivable way, making you less emotionally manipulable, more realistic in your thinking, more pragmatic in your approach, and also less cynical because you no longer have to buy into the “dark side” of the romantic fantasy. Women aren’t bad people, they’re just ordinary, narcissistic, egotistically self-absorbed human beings who have no particular need or desire to be altruistic toward you for any reason at all. Especially in the realm of sex/love in a modern society where social institutions have largely crumbled, women will act like sexual mercenaries far more often than not — which is what drives men to learn seduction (and also is the reason why women — and men who are still trapped in the grips of fake-feminist “woman empowering” Girl Game — try to shame guys for doing so). Read the article and consider its perspective; you might be surprised that it’s actually (un)common sense.

Seduction, Feminism and the Self-Help Industry

In response to the article:

Why Women Lose the Dating Game

This type of woman is essentially the focus of my blog (DSR401).

The effect is even more pronounced in online dating. I call it the “Internet Prince Charming Effect”.

Women online — even deep into their thirties — believe that their perfect Charming Prince is just one click away.

The frightening fact of the matter is that most women have absolutely no idea how their own bodies work. At age 36, the chances of having children with congenital diseases (like Down’s Syndrome, a form of retardation) or developmental disorders (like autism) skyrockets. After age 40, many women think that they’ll just use the technological marvels of in vitro fertilization and magically have a baby — but the odds are less than one in four that she’ll be successful. The Hollywood image of older women having perfect little bundles of joy at any age hides the reality of how many times it doesn’t work, and the financial/physical/emotional hardships involved.

Look up the term “elderly primagravida” and read more for yourself.

This article barely scratches the surface of the real reasons why men don’t want older women. Personally, I would only date a woman older than 36 for fun, or if we were mutually willing to adopt. There’s no point in risking the wellbeing of our (mine+her) child for the sake of her idiotic fantasies of being an older mother at the expense of an unborn life.

“Having it all” was always a bizarre fantasy that made no practical sense. If a woman wants to have children, she will have to take time out from her career. By the time she gets back to work at full strength, all the up-and-coming younger women (and men) will have taken her place. This is already happening, and yet women still seem strangely surprised.

And when you look online, the masses of women over 30 seem to still be completely oblivious and just as egotistically “picky” as they were in their twenties. Honestly, it’s sad because one day they will wake up with either an empty bed or a body that doctors will tell her is no longer fit to have healthy children with any reliability.

I would like to gloat and say that nature punishes the stupid, but it’s not completely women’s fault. Part of the problem is biology, another is mentality, but the other, larger part is society.

The real problem underlying all of this is the changing economic landscape, fueled by the self-help “movement’s” corporate-sponsored mythologizing about the “self-made man”. Well, behind the self-made man was a woman who kept the house, raised the kids, and supported her husband in a lifelong marriage. Now she’s devouring the same facile “literature” about becoming your best, most employable (and agelessly sexy, Alpha Female) self and she wants to be the Wonder Woman Who Has It All.

Instead, both genders end up with nothing. The woman ends up alone in her 30s at a mid-level executive position with no career security and a sagging body that she is too busy (and if she’s honest, never learned how and couldn’t really be bothered to learn) to care for. She’s too busy financially “hedging her bets” (a.k.a. socially acceptable greed) and searching for her True Special Purpose in life while hating the men who no longer want her. The man ends up dating younger women because he doesn’t have any solid prospects, either, and a guy’s attractiveness actually increases, then declines slowly until about age 36.

Coincidence? I think not.

(Plus, despite what women will tell you, there’s almost always at least one very, very good reason why a single, never-married, childless woman in her mid-thirties hasn’t been able to keep a guy.)

Both sides are getting conned by the self-help industry. Underneath all the “you can do it” slogan-slinging, the reality is that the only winners are the corporations that use their workers as disposable units of production (and the marketing gurus who are manipulating the gullible, stealing from the ignorant and engineering society’s consent). And we get articles like this one that make it seem like men are “winning the game” in their 30s, when the reality is that no one wants the game that we’re being forced to play. Now that we’re here, everyone’s scrambling to come out on top — when they’re actually climbing in the wrong direction.

Someone responded with a comment asking for more information about the self-help industry’s “corrupt strategy” (in the sense of a conspiracy theory).

Response:

I don’t see a “corrupt strategy” in the self-help industry. Look at the timeframes for the rise of profits for the self-help industry and the decline of social mobility, for example, and you’ll see that no conspiratorial “strategy” is necessary.

1. Since 1968, the top fifth gained eight percent; the middle class lost seven percent, and the bottom fifth remained at less than four percent of total income in the United States. The U.S. has the highest level of income inequality in the world.

If income were equally divided across households, each quintile (fifth) would account for 20% of total income. The Congressional Budget Office and others have documented that the bottom fifth has long accounted for much less than 20% of total income. The bottom quintile’s share of income has remained little changed for the past few decades at less than 4%, according to Census Bureau data. In contrast, the income shares of the top fifth and the top 5% of households appear to have trended upward. The top fifth’s share of total household income rose from 42.6% in 1968 to 50.2% in 2010; the top 5%’s share, from 16.3% to 21.3%. (Estimates derived from federal income tax data suggest that those at the very top of the income distribution have experienced greater gains.) The middle class, defined as the middle 60%, received a disproportionately smaller share of the total economic pie in 2010 (46.5%) than in 1968 (53.2%).

Two explanations are most often offered for the changes in recent decades in the U.S. distribution of income. They are skill-biased technological change (SBTC) and globalization.

Based on the limited data that are comparable across nations, the U.S. income distribution appears to be among the most uneven of all major industrialized countries and the United States appears to be among the nations experiencing the greatest increases in measures of inequality.

Source: Linda Levine, Specialist in Labor Economics for the Congressional Research Service [PDF]

2. We all know what happened in 2008. Hint: the Great Recession. You can look further back into the historical record for yourself (I would imagine that 1968 would be a useful place to begin).

Americans spent $11 billion in 2008 on self-improvement books, CDs, seminars, coaching and stress-management programs–13.6% more than they did back in 2005, according to Marketdata Enterprises, an independent Tampa-based research firm that tracks everything from adoption agencies to funeral homes. Latest forecast: 6.2% annual growth through 2012.

Source: “What People Are Still Willing To Pay For”, forbes.com

3. If you don’t “improve yourself”, it’s your fault.

Surrounding SHAM (The Self-Help and Actualization Movement) is a bulletproof shield: if your life does not get better, it is your fault–your thoughts were not positive enough. The solution? More of the same self-help–or at least the same message repackaged into new products.

Source: Michael Shermer, “Sham Scam – Scientific American”

(Sound familiar?)

SHAM takes advantage by cleverly marketing the dualism of victimization and empowerment.

Source: Shermer, ibid.

This conversation is veering way off-topic, in any case. I think that any oppressed group would do well to fight for their rights, whether they happen to be women or anyone else.

P.S. Michael Shemer on why fire-walking ala Tony Robbins is also a scam:

I’ve done three fire walks myself, without chanting “cool moss” (as Robbins has his clients do) or thinking positive thoughts. I didn’t get burned. Why? Because charcoal is a poor conductor of heat, particularly through the dead calloused skin on the bottom of your feet and especially if you scoot across the bed of coals as quickly as fire walkers are wont to do.

P.P.S. The Tony Robbins Gang somehow managed to bungle even that, and twenty-one people were burned while walking over hot coals at one of his recent “inspirational” mega-events.

Someone responded with the question “why” in regard to the following quote from my comments above:

The more people buy into the “help yourself because no one else will” ideology, the easier they are to control.

Response:

Because the “self-made man” is a myth and always has been. There are a (very) few people who have been able to rise to the top seemingly “by their bootstraps”, but the vast majority either had early successes that gave them access to resources (mentors, benefactors, etc.) that others didn’t have, or they were supported by family and/or community members who helped them achieve their goals (and nevertheless, luck always plays a major role in any “rags to riches” success story).

For the average person, then, the typical “help yourself” dogma means practically nothing. You might as well “self-help” yourself to a lottery ticket by those odds.

There is an old term called “divide and conquer” which applies in this situation — if individuals are led to believe that no one will help them, you will see more people acting to protect themselves (and their ethnic/social/other “tribe”) against threats that are often imaginary or diversions from the real problem.

Examples of this in history are the imaginary rise of the Angry Irish, Japanese (after World War II), Jewish, African American, and Latino Man (and now Muslims) as an anticipated result of the periods of civil unrest in the United States, and now the imaginary rise of the Vengeful Woman as a result of feminism. The reaction to civil rights (and immigration) was and is often mindlessly violent. The majority of hatred actually derives from economic insecurity over the potential for lost jobs.

Many men, stripped of their traditional roles, similarly act belligerently toward women. Women react with an equally stupid “fake feminist” agenda of hatred toward “loser” men, and now we have a completely meaningless media-driven “gender war” that has no point or purpose aside from selling more self-help books, advertising-driven talk shows and so on.

Another example of “divide and conquer”, as mentioned above, is the changing economic structure. We see people actually going along with the idea of destroying labor unions, agreeing with mandatory overtime, taking work home after hours, being forced to pay for their own healthcare, being offered no maternity leave to care for newborn children, etc. — because they believe that this is “the natural way of things” (also known as social darwinism) rather than a dismantling of the idea of corporate social responsibility. We are now the consumerist servants of a profit-creation scheme (the corporation) that never dies and never has to give back anything to the communities from which it sucks ever-increasing profits.

The more we are told that we can be “self-made”, the more easily we are divided from each other. The more divided, the more we look out for ourselves (personal greed or “hedging our bets”). The more individually greedy we become, the less we see the big picture. The less we see the big picture, the harder we can be made to work for less, the more we work against our collective interests in favor of scrambling for each extra dollar, and the more money can be made at our expense.

And, of course, the more all this happens, the self-help gurus tell us “we can get ahead if we just work smarter/harder, think and act more positively”. The gurus rake in profits as people desperately grasp for any illusion of control or a sense that someone cares for their wellbeing. Selling a “lifestyle make-over” is one of the most cynical games that anyone can play against anyone else, and now it’s becoming a billion-dollar industry of so-called “professional coaches”.

Corporate profits have been exploding whereas real individual wages are actually shrinking. The myth of the transcendent Superman or Superwoman lying dormant inside each of us is a lie that belongs in comic books and movies — not in reality where our ability to survive and thrive depends upon our reliance on each other and society.

Female Pickup Artists, The “Girl Game” Version of Seduction, and Female Bullies

Context: a newbie female pickup artist for some reason posted a “field report” of her experiences to seddit.

Many guys expressed confusion about where women learn seduction-related tactics and techniques. This was my response.

And to all the guys wondering about “female seduction material”, this is a great example of how modern society has brainwashed practically every man into near-complete perceptual blindness.

Guys — look around you. The magazines at the grocery store checkout counter (Cosmo, etc.), romantic comedies, television shows, every billboard on the freeway that features a man and a woman… these are all the cues that a woman needs in order to “have game” when manipulating men into wanting sex (or long-term relationships, marriage and even children). How do you think that women learn how important putting a mask on (layers of makeup) and heels are in everyday life? It’s all part of the game.

A secondary source of women’s social programming is romance novels. What’s the percentage of all books sold in the United States? Almost half are romance novels. Who do you think is buying those books? Those are women’s dirty little secret dreams written down in paperback (and increasingly digital) form. Those dreams are only “dirty” or “secret” because they contradict what a woman will ever tell you to your face, like the unusually high prevalence of non-consensual sex or rape fantasies that the average woman has, and that you’ll find in abundance in romance novels. Not exactly the typical pseudo-feminist line that you’ll hear the typical woman parroting when she’s trying to get you to act like a “gentleman” by paying for her meal on the first date…

The vast majority of what is called modern-day “seduction” or “game” is little more than a reverse-engineered version of what women are already doing to men.

Women give men backhanded compliments to test him and force him to further qualify himself — these are now called “negs”.

Women are “peacocking” constantly — why do you think women hide their looks by wearing layers of make-up? Why does the average woman accentuate their breasts, hips and bums by wearing high heels that destroy their natural posture and deform their feet?

Women try to shame men — the more publicly, the better — for doing anything that resembles the techniques that women have already perfected and are using all the time (you’re automatically a “loser”, “misogynist”, “sociopath”, etc.). They use shame because it works. How do they know that it works? Women know that it works because they’re already using it to create alliances, strengthen bonds, alienate and ostracize _each other_. In PUA lingo, this is an aspect of what’s called “social circle game”.

Women are consummately skilled in emotional manipulation, mostly because they grow up doing it to each other. If you can’t use your fists, you will use your mind. Girls psychologically bully each other more than boys; anyone who has ever watched the games that girls play against each other in high school knows this already. If you haven’t been to high school, just look at the way that anonymous women savage female celebrities online (for being “fat”, “ugly”, “slut”, etc.), where the filters of social conduct are largely absent. It’s a simple conceptual jump (barely a hop, really) to use such tactics against boys and men as we age. A main reason why guys need to learn seduction at all is because women are already using it against us.

This is “girl game”.

If you believe the standard line that she wears makeup, heels and plays emotional games because it “makes her feel good”, you’re proving my point. She’s simply lying, and you’ve been so well-conditioned over the years that it becomes impossible to see beyond the charade. Likewise, any woman who accuses men of playing “games” is also lying — in this case, playing the victim is just another strategy to force guys into the “supplicant/Nice Guy” role if he’s too clueless to see what’s actually happening.

What you also don’t see is the conformity-based mentality that women use on each other to enforce the social norms regarding “how to get a guy”. Women regularly categorize themselves and each other based on what “type” of guy they can attract. Her social status in her peer group depends on it; this is why most of the “game” that guys talk about on /r/seduction works at all. These are all direct or indirect ways of communicating high status to women, regardless of your actual personality.

Women are sexually stereotyping you all the time. How do women learn “girl game”? Fashion, media and their peers are constantly re-indoctrinating them as to how an “Alpha” male looks, speaks, moves and acts. The female “winner” is the one who can wrap that guy around her finger and get him to do whatever she wants.

Women don’t need “game”. Every woman is a player by default.

(Note that it’s not a misogynistic “us guys against those women” perspective. Everyone uses “manipulation” to get what they want. The problem arises when people — women in this case — lie about their motives, or try to pretend that they are passive “victim”/recipients of someone else’s advances. To test this for yourself, ask any woman you know “who actually starts the sexual attraction between a man and a woman?” or “who is the one who accepts or rejects the other?” Practically every woman who answers honestly will tell you that she perceives herself as being in control at all times.)

P.S. How ironic. About an hour after writing this, a female troll (most likely drawn here by this topic) tried to shame me for being on /r/seduction, even though female trolls have absolutely no excuse for being here at all. Click here to read our exchange.

Do The Cuffs and Collars Match? Embarrassment, Rejection and Social Control In Relationships With Women (and Other Men)

A common theme for many people, both male and female, is embarrassment — specifically, embarrassment that a person has felt in the past and anticipates for the future.

Question: Is it a good idea to study pick-up and seduction in order to get past feelings of embarrassment related to women, sex and dating?

Typical embarrassment-related issues include the following:

– the fear of that others will “out” a guy for studying “pick-up” (i.e. social skills applied to sexual relationships with women).
– the expected embarrassment of looking back when you’re old and gray and knowing that you didn’t study these “sexual social skills”.
– the embarrassment of being too young or too old (the measure is relative, not absolute) to study such sexual social skills.

Your entire brain and body may be stuck on the idea that you absolutely shouldn’t approach women, and yet, when you’re in a socially “sanctioned” event like a cocktail party, your problems may drastically diminish or even disappear.

Embrasse Moi?

Angelina Jolie and Jonny Lee Miller.

Embarrassment is a mental habit that, by definition, shows up at inopportune moments. There might have been a time when someone used shame against you as a social control tactic (women try to do this to men all the time, precisely because it works so well against the average guy). If you grew up in a sexually repressive culture or under strict religious rules about “the sins of the flesh”, shame is at work there, too, for various reasons.

There’s also the well-known and often-repeated fact that social rejection physically hurts.

There may have been a time in your life when you didn’t exercise for a long interval due to illness, injury or apathy. Instead, perhaps you sat on the couch (maybe watching entertaining videos about pickup and seduction, even). What happens when you finally get up and start moving? It hurts. You’re physically stiff and weak; everything feels totally wrong. Part of you just wants to go back to sitting on the couch, to enjoy the entertaining sideshow while stuffing your face with natural painkillers like chocolate, sugar and saturated fat.

Learning “sexual social skills” is the same way.

Never Talk to Stranges — Unless You Want to Find New Friends (And Lovers)

Many people have no problem approaching women when they’re “supposed to” (cocktail parties, for example). This shows that for some, social skills themselves aren’t necessarily the problem.

The next step is to realize that the sexual form of social skills are completely healthy and normal. It’s true that other people will often try to leverage social norms like the “never talk to strangers” rule against you. Who is first taught that rule? Children, in grade school or even earlier. Anyone who still believes that they’re supposed to be afraid of strangers is probably living a very small, limited life (this is more common than you might think). By contrast, everyone who has a well-developed lifestyle has at some point had to make new friends — i.e. talk to strangers.

The “don’t talk to strangers” social norm is great for protecting second-graders, but not so useful once you’ve learned to differentiate between potential friend and foe. Women in general are socially skilled (they’ve been competing against each other for status since grade school), so if they try to shame you, often it’s for the sake of control (i.e. power and the quick ego boost of cutting someone else down) rather than genuine fear of a “scary/creepy/etc.” guy.

Men who want to throw scriptures at you — either of the social programming kind (“you’re studying pickup? What a loser!”) or any other kind of rote tactic — are doing the same thing. Recognize that most guys have no reliable skills, techniques or strategies before they start to study pickup or “seduction”. This is why finding a woman is referred to as “getting lucky”.

What does that mean? It means that the average guy is embarrassed, too, but he’s stuck where you used to be. The typical guy doesn’t even know that “sexual social skills” exist, so when he sees it, his first reaction is to curl up on the couch and stuff his face rather than stand up and get moving. Anything beyond his limited range of motion is threatening because he might get “hurt”, just like your muscles will hurt the day after a challenging, safe, relevant and effective (if you stick with it) workout.

Not In This Lifetime: Sexual Social Skills vs. Self-Isolation

At least in terms of online dating, I’ve found that the older a woman gets, the more likely she’s single for a good reason (i.e. personality flaws that make relationships difficult), but given the divorce rate, plenty of young women in their biologically “hot” years (age 18-25) have similar problems.

Learning to effectively screen potential mates can save you massive amounts of time and frustration.

It’s also easy to fall into the habit of projecting yourself into the future, then collapsing your anticipation of future failures into the present moment. This manifests itself as what’s called “anxiety”. Note that learning social skills — sexual and otherwise — becomes even more important, not less, as you age. Social isolation is one of the primary problems of modern, urbanized society. This means that you have the entire rest of your life to either be isolated (loneliness is optional), or improve your range of social motion in all directions, including your strength, endurance, skill and flexibility in dealing with women. Half of all marriages end in divorce and fewer people are getting married at all, so there will be no lack of single women to “game” as you grow older.

It might be useful to take bootcamp run by pickup artists***. Equally useful could be to buy a book for about twenty bucks from your local bookstore that contains exercises for dealing with social anxiety. You might take a look at clarifying your criteria regarding valid opinions from other people: the opinions that you’re willing to listen to may be very different from those that you learn to recognize as social control tactics, or habitual “scriptures” that are otherwise not worth your time.

A Terrifying Shortcut to Finding Social Freedom

Handcuffs dangling between breasts clad in shimmering leather.

There is one shortcut, though. It’s both exciting and probably terrifying to you right now. You undoubtedly already know what I’m about to say, so you can probably guess the shortcut before you even read it.

The shortcut is this: actually expose yourself to embarrassment. Go out, walk up to a woman and do something completely weird. Use a pickup line that really isn’t “you”. Wear mismatched socks. Sing to a woman instead talking to her. Cut your hair in a strange way or wear unusual clothes just to see how people will stereotypically react to you. All of these techniques will show you that “strangers” aren’t looking at you, anyway — they see their own preconceived notions, often conditioned through social programming over the course of their entire lives. The embarrassment that your brain and body feels is a similarly conditioned reflex that is no more “natural” than discriminating against people who have red hair, for example (or any other form of racism or sexism).

Once you fully experience and internalize the “normality” other people’s bizarre knee-jerk reactions, you might notice more of your own. You may even wake up one day and become aware that only a miniscule percentage of the human population are conscious of their habitual behavior patterns at all (regardless of their lip service to the contrary). And once you see that clearly, the future will become your playground. All the adults still living by childish rules like “sex is scary and bad”, “never talk to strangers” or “you’re weird if you purposefully study social skills” will have shown themselves to be the ones trapped in the arrested development of very old, yet stubbornly ignorant children. The avenue by which you choose to arrive at that understanding is up to you, and the opportunities to see it clearly grow with every passing day.

***Update: A critical point was left unmentioned above. More important than taking a bootcamp or buying a book is being ready and willing to dedicate yourself to the continuing process of change over time. Many people can have a “life-changing” experience at a bootcamp, seminar or other “immersion”-related event of some kind — and when they get back to their familiar environment, they slip back into old habits.

The key to change often (but not always) takes place long before any drastic action is taken. The real question to ask yourself before you start is, “am I ready to make as many mistakes, as quickly as possible, and to learn from those mistakes as fully as possible, in order to attain my goal?” In order to do that, you have to define the deeper values that drive your sense of purpose, and connect those values to the goal(s) that you’ve set for yourself. The values come first; if necessary, allow the goals to change. Once you’ve done that, the rest is relatively simple. Self-reliance is less expensive in the long run (and probably in the short run, too) than any bootcamp — and social support is accessible from local groups, online and elsewhere.

Some Go The Hard Way: De-Mystifying the Most Practical Martial Arts for the Bar, the Club and the Street

There was a discussion recently regarding effective martial arts for self-defense in the context of bars, nightclubs, and the street. This entry primarily compares judo and Brazilian Jujitsu (BJJ) in terms of their practical use in such scenarios. This is not intended to be an exhaustive treatment of all possible martial arts, instead favoring the ones that are most popular and therefore likely to have decent teachers at schools near you.

(Note that if you’re a woman reading this entry, sensible shoes that enable you to run and Brazilian Jujitsu for last-ditch rape defense — and/or an actual rape defense tactics class — are probably your best choices. Pepper spray or some other non-lethal deterrent may also be useful to keep with you at all times.)

Simple Definitions

Striking: Punching, kicking, knees or elbows.
Grappling: Anything that does not qualify as striking.

Standup: fighting styles practiced mainly while standing up.
Groundfighting: fighting styles practiced mainly while wrestling on the ground.

You can grapple while standing (as in Judo), or strike while groundfighting (as you sometimes see in BJJ), etc.

Definitely judo is more amenable to fighting in bars than jujtisu (meaning BJJ, however you choose to spell it). A stand-up style is better for dealing with multiple attackers and places where “rolling around with guys” is not a viable or desirable option (at least in martial-arts fantasyland, since no style is “effective” at dealing with more than one person at a time). Unless you’re in the ring or on the beach, expect that the ground is a hazard, that your opponent isn’t alone and that he is carrying at least one weapon (and that he has a friend or two who are probably closer by than you think, and are similarly armed).

Plus, if you find a good judo dojo, you’ll learn enough groundfighting skills to be able to at least get back to your feet and keep fighting, or if you’re smart, run.

Another option is to cross-train if you want to do both. They’re both rough sports, though, so be sure to take it easy, especially at the beginning. As another Redditor said, they can be great for the “sport” aspect of your fitness regimen as long as you take your time to get acclimated.

In any case, social skills are more important than fighting skills unless you want to end up dead, in the hospital or in jail. Being a tough guy in modern society really isn’t a smart idea (nor was it ever, really). As always, living among other humans is a game best played as “survival of the smoothest” rather than trying to be the more intimidating ape. There’s always a bigger guy out there than you, and the smaller guys often rove in packs, carry sharp objects and other weapons along with their bad attitudes. Situational awareness and knowing how to talk your way out of a tight spot will serve you far better than bruising (or more likely, breaking) your knuckles on other people’s skulls.

Japanese Jiu-Jitsu (practiced as Judo) was introduced to the Gracie family in Brazil around 1914 by Esai Maeda, who was also known as Conde Koma. Maeda was a champion of Jiu-Jitsu and a direct student of Kano, at the Kodokan in Japan. He was born in 1878, and became a student of Judo (Kano’s Jiu-Jitsu) in 1897.

In 1914, Maeda was given the opportunity to travel to Brazil as part of a large Japanese immigration colony. In Brazil, in the northern state of Para, he befriended Gastão Gracie, an influential businessman, who helped Maeda get established. To show his gratitude, Maeda offered to teach traditional Japanese Jiu-Jitsu to Gastão’s oldest son, Carlos Gracie. Carlos learned for a few years and eventually passed his knowledge to his brothers.

Emphasizing the use of leverage and timing over strength and speed, Helio (brother of Carlos) modified virtually all of the techniques and, through trial and error, created Gracie/Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.

Read the history of Brazilian Jujitsu for yourself, directly from the Gracie Academy (click here).

There is a lot of BJJ propaganda to sift through (for example, “It wasn’t until the sport art of Judo and the combat art of Jiu-Jitsu were introduced to the Gracie family in Brazil that the real art of Jiu-Jitsu would be brought to life again”), but the paragraphs quoted above are enough to give you the relevant facts.

Regardless, I don’t really care about debating which style is “better”. This is the more important point from my previous reply:

In any case, social skills are more important than fighting skills unless you want to end up dead, in the hospital or in jail. Being a tough guy in modern society really isn’t a smart idea (nor was it ever, really).

Cross-training in any standup style (meaning, “style practiced mainly while standing up” — not exactly rocket science to get the idea) and a groundfighting style (meaning “style practiced mainly while wrestling or fighting on the ground”) is fine. Judo is practiced mainly while standing up, where as BJJ (as a subset and refinement of Judo groundfighting techniques) is practiced mainly on the ground (i.e. “rolling around with guys”, as another Redditor mentioned earlier). In reality, Judo is a blend of both standup and groundfighting, but most Judo schools focus on a specific type of competition — which is mainly based on throwing, tripping and slamming the opponent, and therefore practiced while standing. BJJ competition focuses on the ground-based wrestling aspect almost exclusively. This (combined with BJJ propaganda) is why so many people get confused and believe that BJJ is somehow a completely different art from Judo, when in fact it’s a small part (groundfighting) of the Judo arsenal that was refined by Helio Gracie when Judo migrated to Brazil with Mitsuyo (called “Esai” in the Gracie Academy article) Maeda.

Pick two styles and go from there. Boxing+Judo, Muay Thai+Judo, Judo+BJJ, Kali/Silat+Judo, Western kickboxing+Judo, are all viable choices. Or you can substitute BJJ for Judo if you want. The reality is that none of those styles (except Kali/Silat+Judo/Jujitsu combined) prepare you adequately for multiple attackers or those with weapons, which is the most likely scenario in the bar or on the street — and of them all, rolling around on the ground while tied up with one opponent is probably the worst idea for obvious reasons. But if that’s what you want to do, go for it. I certainly won’t try to stop you, and in the meantime, anything is better than sitting on the couch.

P.S. One of the most intelligent phrases that I’ve heard from knifefighting styles (like Kali or Silat) is this: “in a knife duel between two skilled fighters, one man goes to the hospital, and the other man goes to the morgue”. If you don’t have a weapon of your own (or you are fighting more than one man by yourself), you can guess which outcome to expect. This is common sense. Fighting in the street is not a smart idea, regardless of how “skilled” or “tough” you think you are. Beyond that, the debate is meaningless. Train for sport and for fitness, not the illusion of invincibility.

50 Shades of… what, exactly? Seduction, Mummy-porn, and How to Avoid Becoming a Clichéd Freakshow.

This entry deals with why the phrase “appeal to a woman’s fantasies” doesn’t mean “act like a character from a romance novel”.

Question: should you read romance novels and “reverse engineer” them to become the man of every woman’s dreams?

In theory, I suppose this might sound like a smart idea. Books like “50 Shades of Grey” sold a mind-boggling number of copies. It indulged the purported “dark side of sensuality” with plotlines that entailed something resembling S&M (actually, it’s “SM” — as in “sadomasochism” — but never mind).

So the same way that Mystery reverse-engineered male-female social dynamics, Neil Strauss reverse-engineered Mystery, and Tyler ripped off Mystery, Neil Strauss, Seth Godin and David DeAngelo (not to mention Eckhart Tolle and Tony Robbins) to give birth to RSD, it probably sounds like a perfectly clever move to ape the main character of a romance novel in order to “bang more 10s”.

There’s only one flaw in that logic.

The flaw is this: there actually is a difference between fantasy and reality.

Many women read romance novels precisely for this reason — the same reason that anyone would read a novel. The escapist pleasure of something taboo (as, for many people, the idea of SM tends to be for whatever reason) compels her to seek it.

Offering her a hint of the “taboo” in yourself is fine.

Becoming a fake sadist by reading a watered-down version of that relational dynamic and acting like a complete freakshow in front of women is probably not such a smart idea.

Why not? Three reasons:

1. 50 Shades of Grey Isn’t Even A Real Example of S&M.

The writer’s account of S&M is a perfect example of what’s called “mummy porn”, and as the author said in an interview, “Well, yes, they are my fantasies lived out and ­ ­explored.” If you want a woman like the author, great. “After all, she said, ‘I wrote it for me.'”

Her intended demographic, in case you’re wondering, is an easily-embarrassed “48-year-old mum of two”.

2. After Reading 50 Shades, You Still Won’t Know What Women Really Want.

The problem with blindly following what it _seems_ like women want is this: phenomena such as “50 Shades of Grey” are often “viral” in nature — many women buy such titles because other women are talking about them. The sales numbers make it a popular topic of conversation rather than a real indication of what women actually want.

It’s somewhat like becoming an expert in manufacturing cronuts and serving them for dinner because a woman gushes on about how much she loves them with her coffee or tea. Eventually she’ll get tired of the cronut-overload. She may even start to wonder why you’re using such a weirdly obvious and one-dimensional tactic to lure her into your house week after week.

3. “Reverse-Engineering” A Romance Novel Character Like You’ll Find in ’50 Shades’ Is A Time-Wasting Exercise In Generic Clichés.

Two telling passages about erotic fiction elucidate the point.

From the first quote:

Despite the ‘Mommy Porn’ hype, FSOG contains little that’s genuinely scandalous. It’s a straightforward tale of Girl-with-low-self-esteem meets ridiculously handsome Boy, gets Boy, has lots of sex, angsts.

You might as well put in a set of fake fangs and pretend to be a character from the Twilight novel or movie franchise. Or actually, you might want to take your fangs out first, considering that 50 Shades began life as a piece of amateur Twilight fan fiction.

In other words, “reverse-engineering” a romance novel character like you’ll find in ’50 Shades’ is a time-wasting exercise in generic clichés. At the very least, trade your “50 Shades” for a copy of anything written by Anne Rice. Say, for example, the Sleeping Beauty trilogy.

An Alternative: Don’t Be Scared — Actually Study A Little Real S&M.

From the article cited above, it’s easy to see that the faux-SM antics in 50 Shades of Grey really aren’t worthy of the frantic emulation that many “plain vanilla” people are showering it with. The second quote from the article above reads thusly:

The activities depicted in James’ books represent only a narrow sliver of that spectrum. There are many in the community who object to the BDSM label slapped on FSOG by the mainstream media.

When you compare FSOG to other texts labeled BDSM, it’s easy to see the gap between James’ sparkly slap-and-tickle and the real deal.

One of the great aspects about studying the source material (meaning sexual sadomasochism, not “Twilight”) is that you learn truly useful things along the way. Imagine being able to teach your lover a few things about alternative forms of sexual pleasure. Consider the benefits of learning how to apply “erotic power exchange” to your love life, the real way — that is, in the context of a trusting, consensual relationship that she will love (and love you more for bringing such knowledge into her life).

If she wants to be the sub to your dom, give her what she wants. The fake ‘vanilla’ mummy-porn version of sadomasochism is very much a waste of your — and her — precious time, energy, desire and as one writer puts it, “devotion”.

Plan F: Become An Unrepentant Fake Alpha Male Freakshow

If you want to pretend that you’re a fantastically fake, unapologetically hypermasculine Alpha Male romance-novel character, go ahead. Recognize, though, that the difference between 50 Shades of Grey’s sales numbers and the reality of what women actually want might render your newly-constructed persona to be the kind of clichéd freakshow that women will gladly write to their friends about.

Who knows, you might be the “star” of the next poorly-written (by her own admission, even) schlocky New York Times chart-topper. My guess is that the story would be a highly parodic romantic comedy, intentional or otherwise.

Or, you could try the real “alternative” and learn something useful. Read some authentic literature about S&M. Maybe even be really “edgy” and join your local scene. You might just a find the genuinely sensual woman of your own fantasies along the way. At the very least, you won’t be conning yourself with fanciful delusions from the endless list of mommy-porn bestsellers.

Discussion: “Don’t Judge Me! She Screeched.”

The context for this conversation is online dating. The actual journal entry is here (click here).

You’re saying that if a girl acts nice, she’s actually really egotistical. Never mind that it’s egotistical to believe you should completely dominate your partner. You add later that these girls are secretly ashamed of themselves and fiercely judgmental. Unfortunately, your saying this doesn’t actually make it true, so I’m asking you to provide reasoning.

No. Read the whole section rather than the part that was cherry-picked to make a point.

What I wrote means: if a woman labels herself a Nice Girl, men probably respond by acting like “Nice Guy” doormats. Most women despise Nice Guys, despite claiming that they adore them. Women treat Nice Guys like rented second-hand upholstery (if such a thing were to exist). This is known to any guy who has ever acted “Nice” to a woman he has just met, before he has given her a reason to respect him. If she sees a man as weak, she will generally treat him like trash by acting “egotistically” and generally dominating him. Her “Nice Girl” self-image prevents her from being overt about this, so she will often resort to passive-aggressive tactics (mentioned in the entry and more extensively elsewhere in the journal).

The reasoning is actually in the text. I’m re-phrasing it here because you missed it (or decided not to read it) the first time. If I “added something later” (in the entry), I’ll address it later in the context of where it was “added”, not here, where you grafted it for yourself.

Here is where a non-sexist would list things a person would be upset about, such as being late to work or having their laptop stolen. Yet it’s important to you that you list things a woman would be upset about, which involve being stepped on by men, having emotional overreactions, and an incapacity to think for herself.

No. Read the whole section rather than the part that was cherry-picked to make a point.

These are gender-specific items because I’m specifically writing about women. I wouldn’t like being stepped on by men if I was a woman; I don’t see the “emotional overreactions” that you’re claiming; and it’s true that very few people, male or female, are particularly adept at thinking for themselves (although most people believe that they are skilled thinkers, as I would guess both you and I — and anyone else reading this — also prefers to think about ourselves). Also, if you reverse the genders, a man would (hopefully) be aggravated by the same issues if they happened to him. You actually did overreact to this passage, although your gender probably isn’t the problem, even if you choose to believe that it is.

Again, you’re making a sexist claim and speaking with a false sense of authority.

Explain your opinion. Or don’t. Until then, my answer is simple and “authoritative”: no.

…There are many reasons why someone is a jerk, but if it’s a woman, the only explanation you accept is she’s stuck up about her looks. Also, what do you mean by sexual bully? I have a strong suspicion you’re misusing the term.

If her online dating profile is practically empty save for: text parroted from other women and a gallery of photos celebrating the joys of a pushup bra, several layers of makeup and advantageous camera angles (this briefly describes many, many profiles) — then yes, given the opportunity, she will probably try to bully men into submission, using her looks and presumed “sex appeal” (see “Nice Girl” comments above). I cover this phenomenon in more detail elsewhere in the journal.

My answers are bolded in parentheses here to save space: “You’re again coining your own terms (about what I call ‘fake feminism’), and without explanation (no. read the entire rest of the journal if you want). Why would someone be a fake feminist as opposed to a real one? (I have no idea. Guesses: ignorance; bias due to media-driven stereotypes and misconceptions; and because it suits them since most men don’t know what a real feminist is, either, and will automatically acquiesce to any woman’s definition since she’s a woman and therefore can falsely claim first-hand knowledge.) Is it because you believe feminism is a terrible movement that women are easily brainwashed into accepting? (No. I have no problem with feminism.) You also seem to think women are incredibly shitty people if you think they are driven by an overwhelming desire to ‘shame’ others for not submitting to their every whim. (This would be true, if I thought that of all women… which I obviously don’t.)

Once again, you’re making unsubstantiated claims about women being horrible fucking people.

No. You’re overgeneralizing. Some women will play the “you’re a sociopath” game (often because they are blindly imitating other women who write similarly “horrible” things in their profiles). Other women don’t play that game. I don’t think it’s “horrible”, by the way. Just mildly annoying, unintentionally amusing once you’ve seen it often enough and somewhat sad that so many women blindly imitate each other, using shame as a social control tactic against men.

In your first one-line comment, you implied that you have the “authority” to know what I “should” do (“don’t write articles”). This came after throwing around a gender-based term (“misogyny”) without any justification at all aside from the fact that you are (I guess) a woman. That is a shame tactic of false “authority” (I am woman, hear me roar!) that many women use and that’s why I didn’t let you get away with it. You have no business telling anyone else what they “should” do, regardless. That is the pinnacle of arrogant, self-absorbed behavior, exacerbated by the one-sentence “announcement” format in which you chose to make your comment. Hiding behind the idea that you’re female, and therefore you are right and I am “sexist” is simply wrong.

Thanks for explaining your previous comment; hopefully my answers were at least somewhat useful to the person who is reading them (that means you, whoever you are).

The actual journal entry is here (click here) if you, or anyone else reading this, wants to read (or re-read) it.

The Real RSD: Positive Thinking, Seduction, Insecurity, Power and “Misogyny” in Dating, Sex and Relationships

During a recent discussion of “old school vs. new school” seduction, I offered what another member called a “passionate take-down” of RSD. RSD is the pickup artist company whose figureheads are Owen Cook (“Tyler”) and Jeff Allen (“Jeffy”). Click here to read it.

As a result of that comment, someone asked me to start a conversation about “positivity” in the context of seduction, dating, sex and relationships.

This is that conversation (or at least, the first of them started by me).

Smile or Die: From the Inner Game to The Bigger Game

Many guys approach women, and the art of attracting them, from the perspective of personal and sexual validation. If you are unskilled, you might be derided as a “keyboard jockey” or “frustrated chump”, someone whose “inner game” is reflected in his inability to smoothly escalate his way into a woman’s pants. In the modern-day seduction world, this is often seen as an intrinsic personal failing, as if pickup artists have somehow successfully conflated getting laid with becoming an enlightened human being.

The stereotypical “sexy bad boy”, of course, is the opposite of enlightened, and guys who ascribe to that model get laid like rock stars, or at least they have more than enough sexual choice.

From perhaps the largest perspective that matters in our day-to-day lives, positivity also falls short. The modern versions of our “self-help” and “positive thinking” stem from the corporate enslavement of the common man over the past thirty or forty years. As wages stagnate and human labor becomes increasingly redundant (or dramatically less valuable) in many industries, the common man (and woman) are forced to constantly re-invent themselves in order to eke out a living. In the jargon, the average person is made to compulsorily “re-educate” their skillset, “self-improve” their attitudes to fit the fake always-sunny corporate culture, and “self-help” themselves because no one else will. This creates an unnecessarily dog-eat-dog mentality among people in the work world, and this is naturally reflected in their personal lives where it matters most: survival, reproduction, dating, sex and relationships.

The “real RSD” is that there are real socioeconomic dynamics at work, far beyond the platitudes, sociopathic pickup theories and racist/sexist undertones proponed by the likes of Tyler, Jeffy and many others besides the “RSD boys” (who seem to be the most successful snake-oil peddlers among the ranks of “self-help+seduction-as-a-lifestyle”-shilling charlatans).

For a taste of what this means, see Jeffy’s Great Jezebel Meltdown of 2012-2013. I generally dislke Jezebel as a perfect example of pseudo-intellectual fake feminist chest-thumping, but the facts of women’s experiences with Jeff run almost directly counter to anything that he preaches from the pulpit of his weekly videos and the rest of the RSD gospel. This is a problem that is endemic to the seduction world’s overall sandwiching of “self-help” and “seduction”, as two topics that have no natural (or really, agreeably coercible) relationship to one another.

Perceptual Blindness: The Reality of Scarcity and Falsehood In “Positive” Thinking

What we see, then, is that scarcity is real. Entire industries are being destroyed by technology, offshored or overwhelmed by overqualified and underemployed candidates. More women are entering the workforce as well, often replacing men in traditionally “male” occupations. This puts a strain on the concept of masculinity for many men. In a move that is deadly to both male-female attraction and personal identity, boys who grew up in single-parent households (or ones where the father was absent or working most of the time), men often turn to women and each other for guidance.

Women now have started to repudiate men for this tendency, using shame tactics like “outing” men on blogs and re-framing the term “Nice Guy” to mean “stalker, closet psycho, creep or sociopath”. We now see scores of websites dedicated to women’s seemingly insatiable need to scornfully re-post men’s private messages to them, and endlessly recount dates in gory detail where the guy is almost always cast as some kind of subhuman villain.

Any guy who has spent time on a dating site has seen the massive number of women who gleefully use double-talk to drive home the point. “I’m a positive, glass-half-full, non-judgmental, optimistic person,” she blatantly copies from other women’s profiles. Just a few paragraphs down, her tone does an about-face: “Message me only if you’re not a sociopath, and only if you meet my other criteria”. Her Prince Charming-seeking “criteria” are about as strict and pie-in-the-sky as those of many employers who reject applicant after applicant while officially complaining of a “qualified worker shortage”.

Many men, desperately chasing women, ape women’s “positivity”, putting on the fake smiley “plus face” of a docile service-industry employee while denying that there is any underlying problem at all.

For Whom the Emotional Bell Tolls: The Negative Outcome of Positive Thinking

Just yesterday, the ramifications of “positivity” became starkly clear to me. One member of Reddit published a self-hatred filled post about being unable to “get back in the game”. He touched on numerous self-image related problems that I could summarize here as loneliness, awkwardness, issues surrounding deservingness and fear of being “phony”. This culminated in a vicious internal dialogue that was literally on display in his post.

What were the prescribed answers to his problems? “Have the nuts to laugh at your failures”, one responder wrote (not likely if he thinks that self-hatred is the problem). “Get out of your head”, says another (he already said that this _is_ his problem. This is like telling him, “fix your problem and you’ll be fine”. Unhelpful to say the least.) “Give yourself permission”, “kill your inner voice”, etc., etc., etc. There was even an obligatory reference to Eckhart Tolle, who unsurprisingly is mentioned about a thousand times by Owen Cook (“Tyler”) from RSD. Tolle’s works may be valid, but they’ve also been spun into unrecognzability by the profiteering likes of Tyler and the legion of misled self-help junkies.

All of those suggestions are tied to the idea that you can magically “become positive” and “feel better” in some sort of quixotic quest toward success with women, and by extension, in life. The only useful suggestion was to use the help of a community rather than try to go it alone. The problem is that the so-called “seduction community” is run through with references to feel-good “positive thinking” that clearly fuels an entire industry of guys who keep coming back for more instead of actually solving their problems. When they are successful, they thank “the community”; when they fail, they blame themselves. This is how the “self-help” game itself is structured.

Why don’t the real Bad Boys care about all this self-help happy talk?

Perhaps because, as I mentioned in the “passionate take-down” of RSD (and as you’ve seen in this entry) self-help is mostly a scam perpetuated by those who either want to sell you something — or force you to run faster, jump higher or bow lower in order to make a dollar. One or two operators in the field are genuine, but few people know how to distinguish the Tony Robbins-type trash from genuinely useful advice.

Sex- and Gender-Bullying and the Misappropriation of “Misogyny” By Women

Many women whine that it is “misogynistic” to recognize the fact that women are just as clueless about what they want as men. Many women use sex- and gender-based bully tactics and fake appeals to “feminism” to rationalize shaming men — as equally fake symbols of “the patriarchy conspiracy” to suppress women — into silence. One woman tried to do this to me just yesterday (click here to read our discussion).

As I wrote to the self-hating Reddit member mentioned above, women aren’t the core problem. If you bring women into your life before you’re able to distinguish between an sexually/emotionally manipulative jerk, an Machiavellian “amateur psychoanalyst” (click here for an example of this on Reddit) and a genuinely empathetic, sensually self-aware woman, all the positivity in the world won’t save you from the suffering that you’ve brought upon yourself. This is one of the key problems that seduction and self-help will never fix, because they aren’t even looking in the right direction.

This entry wasn’t intended to give a quick-fix easy answer. It was intended to provoke discussion, or at least independent thought within the reader. What you do with these words is your choice. I hope that you enjoyed, disliked, or at least learned something from it. Thanks for reading and I welcome any thoughtful feedback that you may have.