The Seddit Subthread of DSR401.

See dsr401.wordpress.com for the main journal.

Month: August, 2013

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.

Advertisements

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.